Monday, January 30, 2006

Jews Stirring up World War Three: The Zog War Against Iran.

Updated in March 13th 2006.
This work is a follow up to another compilation, ‘The Commentators supporting the proposition that Jewish Zionists Initiated America’s Invasion of Iraq for the Benefit of the Zionist State in Palestine’. It is also a companion to another compilation, ‘Commentators’ views on a Military or Nuclear Attack on Iran’.

The jews-only state in palestine is mobilizing its supporters in america (and in europe) to push the bush administration into yet another proxy zionist war – this time against iran. In america, the political pressure for a war against iran is coming overwhelmingly from one sector of american society: the jewish sayanim network of mossad collaborators, the jews in the jewish dominated american media, the jewish lobby, the jewish-owned congress, and the israelis who have infiltrated the bush administration. The proposed war against iran is the most blatant example of a war concocted, planned, and marketed, by jews around the world solely for the benefit of the jews-only state in palestine. It is not the american oil industry which is leading the charge for such a war, "Except for the Israeli lobby in the US and its grass root Jewish American supporters and allies among the Presidents of the Major Jewish organizations there are no other organized lobbies pressuring for or against this war. The ritualistic denunciations of "Big Oil" whenever there is a Middle East conflict involving the US is in this instance a totally bogus issue, lacking any substance. All the evidence is to the contrary – big oil is opposed to any conflicts, which will upset their first major entry into Middle Eastern oil fields since they were nationalized in the 1970’s." (James Petras ‘Israel's War with Iran’ December 28, 2005). It is not the american military which wants such a war. "Rumsfeld, under tremendous pressure from practically all of the top professional military officials, fears that an Israeli war will further accelerate US military losses. The pro-Israel lobby would like to replace the ultra-militarist Rumsfeld with the ultra-militarist Senator Joseph Lieberman, an unconditional Israel First Zealot." (James Petras ‘Israel's War with Iran’ December 28, 2005). It is not american economists wishing to promote american economic interests around the world. It is the israelis living in america – parasites who have colonized the american political system. Their sole concern is to promote policies which benefit the jews-only state in palestine no matter how damaging this might be to america’s economic and national interests.

The Commentators who believe the Jewish Lobby is Primarily Responsible for Stirring up a War against Iran.
Eric Margolis.
"The growing clamour over Iran's nuclear intentions, with rumblings about air strikes against Iran's reactors in the fall, may prove to be a part of just such a manufactured crisis. Remember, these latest fevered claims about Iran come from the same "reliable intelligence sources" and neo-conservative hawks who insisted Iraq had a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that threatened the U.S., with intimate links to al-Qaida." (Eric Margolis ‘Those who deceived America into attacking Iraq may be at it again’ July 25, 2004).

Martin Sieff.
"The pattern of preparation for this is all too familiar from the buildup to war with Iraq. First, the war drums are sounded by the same old "experts"; then they are amplified by alarmist columnists. Once you see Krauthammer or Ledeen opining, as they have over the past two months, that Iran's nuclear capability poses the gravest possible threat to Civilization as We Know It, and that The World Cannot Afford to Wait and Negotiate, then you can guarantee - conveniently close to the election to panic voters into supporting the president - that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld will pick up the chorus. Ledeen has already written at least two columns on the subject. Krauthammer, prophet of the Iraq war, has made quite clear his determination to unleash a new one. In his July 23 Post column he wrote: "The long awaited revolution [in Iran] is not happening. Which makes the question of preemptive attack all the more urgent ... If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the 'Great Satan' will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or preemptive strike."" (Martin Sieff ‘Today Iraq, Tomorrow Iran’ Aug. 11, 2004).

James Petras.
"Israel’s political and military leadership have repeatedly and openly declared their preparation to militarily attack Iran in the immediate future. Their influential supporters in the US have made Israel’s war policy the number one priority in their efforts to secure Presidential and Congressional backing. The arguments put forth by the Israeli government and echoed by their followers in the US regarding Iran’s nuclear threat are without substance or fact and have aroused opposition and misgivings throughout the world, among European governments, international agencies, among most US military leaders and the public, the world oil industry and even among sectors of the Bush Administration. An Israeli air and commando attack on Iran will have catastrophic military consequences for US forces and severe loss of human life in Iraq, most likely ignite political and military violence against pro-US Arab-Muslim regimes, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, perhaps leading to their overthrow. Without a doubt Israeli war preparations are the greatest immediate threat to world peace and political stability." (James Petras ‘Israel's War with Iran’ December 28, 2005).

William S. Lind.
"In Washington, the same brilliant crowd who said invading Iraq would be a cakewalk is still in power. While a few prominent neocons have left the limelight, others remain highly influential behind the scenes. For them, the question is not whether to attack Iran (and Syria), but when. Their answer will be the same as Israel's." (William S. Lind ‘The Next Act’ February 2, 2006).

Jeffrey Blankfort.
"Why is the neocons/American Jewish establishment the only sector in US society pushing for a confrontation with Iran? And why with Iraq before that?" (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘War within Range? Another Neocon beats the drums for war and says it will happen in 10 weeks’ c.January 7th 2006); "And right at this moment, the only segment of the American society that is pushing the US administration to confront Iran, happens to be the Jewish establishment or the lobby, whose main focus for months – groups like AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, but also other Jewish organizations - has been to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ February 20, 2006); "The neo-cons who are almost exclusively Jewish and the Israel lobby got the US into the war in Iraq. The father of the President, the first George Bush was against it, the oil companies were against it. And despite the fact that the war is going so badly, they did not have to pay a political price because only a few isolated columnists, and but a few from the left, and none representing the anti-war movement in this country, wrote articles about that. So now, the same forces are now pushing for a US confrontation with Iran ..." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ February 20, 2006).

Edward S. Herman.
"The (american jewish) lobby and its representatives in the Bush administration were eager supporters of the attack on Iraq, and they are now fighting energetically for war against Iran- in fact the lobby is the only sector of society calling for a confrontation with Iran and it is already engaged in a major campaign on Bush and Congress to get the United States to take action." (Edward S. Herman ‘Western Approval for Long-Term Israeli Ethnic Cleansing’ Z Magazine March 2006).

Antony Loewenstein.
"Sadly, Israel and many of its supporters are at the forefront of demonising Iran and advocating military action. Not unlike Iraq, Iran is a perceived threat to the Jewish state and must therefore be obliterated. Israeli generals and politicians know Iran is not a serious threat but they never underestimate the political need to create a regional bogeyman to rally an ever-fearful Israeli population." (Antony Loewenstein ‘An Aussie Perspective: Spinning Us to War with Iran’ March 1, 2006).

Justin Raimondo.
"Remember how important the nuclear issue was for getting us into the Iraqi quagmire: this time around, the same crew is pushing the same button." (Justin Raimondo ‘Another War for Israel: The amen corner howls for war with Iran’ March 6, 2006).

Jews in America stirring up a War against Iran.
Jewish attempts to whip america into a war against iran have a long history. There have been a succession of anti-iran propaganda campaigns launched by america’s ruling jewish establishment. There is virtually no opposition to such a war amongst america’s jewish community.

The jews-only state in palestine, the jewish sayanim network of mossad collaborators in america, the jewish dominated media in america, the jewish lobby in america, the jewish-owned politicians in congress, and the israelis in the clinton administration, started their political attack on iran in the early 1990s. In 1991, almost immediately after saddam hussein had been ejected from kuwait, and much of his army decimated, jews in america began highlighting the threats allegedly posed to the jews-only state by its other major adversary.

The jewish lobby in america eventually forced the clinton administration into passing punitive economic measures against iran. "Pushing the US into a confrontation with Iran, via economic sanctions and military attack has been a top priority for Israel and its supporters in the US for more than a decade." (Jewish Times/Jewish Telegraph Agency, Dec. 6, 2005); "In 1995, former President Bill Clinton, in a speech to the World Jewish Congress, announced that he would not permit Conoco to make a petroleum deal with Iran. Clinton betrayed the interests of the American people." (Paul Sheldon Foote ‘James Petras’ "Israel’s War with Iran"’ December 30, 2005).

1996: A Clean Break.
In 1996, two so-called american politicians decided to write a foreign policy paper for a foreign power, the jews-only state – a paper which suggested ways in which that foreign power might increase its independence from the country these politicians were living in and supposed to be serving. Let’s put aside the possibility that this might be treasonous. What is important here is that this paper advocated a jews-only state attack on iran. "In 1996, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, two neo-conservatives later to play an important role in formulation of Bush administration's Pentagon policy in the Middle East, authored a paper for then newly elected Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That advisory paper, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", called on Netanyahu to make a "clean break from the peace process". Perle and Feith also called on Netanyahu to strengthen Israel's defenses against Syria and Iraq, and to go after Iran as the prop of Syria." (F William Engdahl ‘Why Iran's oil bourse can't break the buck’ March 10th 2006).

1997: The Project for the New American Century.
It was not possible to publish ‘A Clean Break’ in america and hope the american government would be persuaded to implement the foreign policies of the jews-only state. So, instead, in 1997, an israeli writer living in america, rewrote the paper from an american perspective in which all the policies that were beneficial to the jews-only state were miraculously transformed, by sheer loquacity, into policies that were beneficial for the united states of america. Although americans might be persuaded to think these policies were policies which boosted american interests they were really policies which served the interests only of the jews-only state and were, in reality, contrary to american interests. The new pamphlet the ‘Project for the New American Century’ proposed the use of american military power to attack iran – supposedly for the benefit of the united states but, in actuality, for the benefit only of the jews-only state. "That strategy (the plans for the attack on Iran) was worked out long ago in documents like the Project for the New American Century .." (Mike Whitney ‘Edging Towards Disaster with Iran’ October 9th 2005). This zionist manifesto, signed by the leading jewish neocons, was an updated version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. "Fukuyama, after all, was the most prominent intellectual who signed the 1997 "Project for the New American Century," the founding manifesto of neoconservatism drawn up by William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, the house journal of the neoconservative movement. The Project for the New American Century aimed to cement for all time America's triumph in the Cold War, by increasing defense spending, challenging regimes that were hostile to U.S. interests and promoting freedom and democracy around the world. Its goal was "an international order friendly to our security, prosperity and values." The war on Iraq, spuriously justified by the supposed threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, was the test run of this theory. It was touted as a panacea for every ill of the Middle East. The road to Jerusalem, the neocons argued, led through Baghdad. And after Iraq, why not Syria, Iran and anyone else who stood in Washington's way?" (Rupert Cornwell ‘What the neocons failed to foresee about Iraq’ March 12, 2006).

President Bush’s Axis of Evil.
Despite the help iran gave to america during the invasion of afghanistan, president bush turned his back on iran, "Shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Bush officials started meeting with Iranian officials. The two countries shared an interest in overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and they took cooperative steps toward that common goal; two decades of mutual hostility began to melt away. Then, in January 2002, President Bush delivered his State of the Union Address - linking Iran with Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil" - and the Iranians instantly ended all talks." (Fred Kaplan ‘Condi's Baffling New Iran Strategy’ Feb. 21, 2006).

Real Jews push Americans to lay down their lives for the Jewish Cause in Tehran.
Even before bush had made any public decision to overthrow saddam’s regime, the jews-only state in palestine, and its jewish allies in america, had mounted a propaganda offensive against the next target on their hit list of enemies. In early 2003, ariel sharon said Iran should be targeted "the day after" the invasion of iraq. "Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen." (Aluf Benn ‘Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria’ February 18th 2003). This theme was quickly taken up by the israelis in the bush administration, "Remember the braggadocio of Bush’s advisers in March 2003 when they joked that taking Baghdad wouldn’t be enough, nor would taking Damascus, because "real men go to Tehran." (Robert Parry ‘Neocon Amorality’ March 3, 2005).

Reuel Gerecht, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle.
"Indeed, immediately after the invasion of Iraq, the neocons, led by ex-CIA spook Reuel Gerecht, Iran-Contra alumnus Michael Ledeen, and war profiteer Richard Perle, were arguing that Iran should be targeted next for a regime change. Inside the administration, Rumsfeld and Feith were advancing those ideas, suggesting that unlike Iraq, the transformation of Iran could take place peacefully through diplomatic pressure." (Leon Hadar ‘Target: Tehran? November 22, 2004). The israeli neocons believed the invasion of iraq would be a cakewalk and that america would soon march into iran.

John Bolton, Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security.
Bolton co-operated with his jewish masters to promote a war against iran. "Bolton, who is undersecretary for arms control and international security, is in Israel for meetings on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials that he had no doubt America would attack Iraq, and that it would be necessary thereafter to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea." (Aluf Benn ‘Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria’ February 18th 2003).

Donald Rumsfeld.
"Speaking to reporters after talks with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Rumsfeld noted that Iran had been on a list of countries that the United States describes as terrorist states for many years. "One of the gravest concerns the world faces is the nexus between a terrorist state that has weapons of mass destruction and terrorist networks," he said. "So it's understandable that nations, not just in this region but throughout the world, are so deeply concerned about what's taking place in Iran."" (World worried about Iran nuclear aims: Rumsfeld’ Aug 12th 2003).

Throughout 2004 there were a series of propaganda campaigns in favour of an american attack on iran. Despite one commentator’s belief that bush might attack iran prior to the presidential election to help him get re-elected, the campaign against iran relented in the run up to the elections.

Rachel Neuwirth.
"Iran is moving rapidly to become a nuclear power. The Iranian mullahs have publicly promised to use nuclear weapons to exterminate Israel even if Israel were to achieve peace with the Palestinians. They also claim that Iran, with 70 million people, could absorb and survive any response from Israel while Israel, with only 5.5 million Jews, is vulnerable to devastating losses if only a few of Iran’s missiles got through." (Rachel Neuwirth ‘Israel May Be Compelled to Pre-empt’ July 31, 2004).

Charles Krauthammer.
"The comments from Bolton and Rice come within weeks of leading neo-conservative pundits and activists in Washington proclaiming that Iran's nuclear program had to be destroyed, even if waging war was the only way to do it. Influential neo-conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote July 23 column in The Washington Post: "The long awaited revolution (in Iran) is not happening. Which (makes) the question of pre-emptive attack all the more urgent. If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of 'the Great Satan' will have both nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or pre-emptive attack." (Martin Sieff ‘Iran's Very Real War Threat’ c.August 2004).

Alan Dershowitz.
"Intelligence reports about Iran's capacity to produce nuclear weapons aimed at Israel are becoming ominous. Unless diplomatic pressure causes the Iranian mullahs to stop the project, Iran may be ready to deliver nuclear bombs against Israeli civilian targets within a few short years. Some Iranian leaders, such as former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, have made it clear that this is precisely what they intend to do. Killing 5 million Jews would be worth losing 15 million Iranians in a retaliatory Israeli strike, according to Rafsanjani's calculations. Israel, with the help of the United States, should try everything short of military action first: diplomacy, threats, bribery, sabotage, targeted killings of individuals essential to the Iranian nuclear program and other covert actions. But if all else fails, Israel, or the United States, must be allowed under international law to take out the Iranian nuclear threat before it is capable of the genocide for which it is being built." (Alan Dershowitz ‘Amend International Law To Allow Preemptive Strike on Iran’ August 20, 2004). According to this paranoid jew iran should already be in possession of nuclear weapons and on the verge of bombing the jews into oblivion.

An Attack on Iran in August.
"As the Bush administration steps up its rhetoric against Iran's nuclear program, the possibility of Israel following through on veiled threats to hit Iranian sites remains a wildcard." (Joshua Mitnick ‘Would Israel strike first at Iran?’ August 18, 2004); "Tension between the United States and Iran, fuelled by a bitter dispute over the aim of the Tehran government's nuclear program, has begun to complicate the massive task of creating a stable Iraq as both countries jockey for influence there." (Paul Koring ‘U.S.-Iran tension adds to Iraq's instability’ August 12, 2004).

An Attack on Iran in September.
"Forget an October Surprise, a much worse one could come in September: full-scale war between the United States and Iran may be far closer than the American public might imagine." (Martin Sieff ‘Iran's Very Real War Threat’ c.Summer 2004).

An Attack on Iran in October.
"According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs." (Wayne Madsen ‘A Bush pre-election strike on Iran 'imminent' October 20, 2004).

Douglas Feith.
"Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith is the neocon Likudnik who was tasked with cooking up the false "intelligence" that President Bush used to deceive the U.S. public into supporting an illegal invasion of Iraq. With the U.S. military now trapped in the Iraqi quagmire, Feith wants the U.S. to attack Iran." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Dangerous Delusions About Iran’ December 14, 2004).

Seymour Hersh.
""This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone," the former high-level intelligence official told me. "Next, we’re going to have the Iranian campaign. We’ve declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah - we’ve got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism."" (Seymour M. Hersh ‘The Coming Wars’ January 17 2005); "On Jan. 17, the New Yorker posted an article by Hersh entitled The Coming Wars (New Yorker, January 24-31, 2005). In it, the well-known investigative journalist claimed that for the Bush administration, "The next strategic target [is] Iran."" (Mark Jensen ‘US Aerial Attack on Iran Planned for June’ February 20th 2005).

The Assassination of Rafiq Hariri.
The jewish campaign for an attack on iran picked up again after the presidential elections but was forced to take a slight detour at the beginning of 2005. The former prime minister of lebanon rafiq hariri was assassinated february 14th 2005 and the israelis in the bush administration immediately blamed syria although there was no evidence to support this accusation. For the next few months the israelis focussed their political propaganda on syria –many seeing an attack on syria as an opportunity for extending the war to iran.

Sunni Iraqi Freedom Fighters saving Iran.
One important factor which forced the campaign against iran onto the back burner was that by 2005 it was obvious that iraqi freedom fighters were fighting the american military to a standstill. "It was, then, the swiftly growing Iraqi resistance that, by preventing the consolidation of an American Iraq, forced an Iranian campaign off the table and back into the shadows where it has remained to this day." (Michael Schwartz ‘The Ironies of Conquest: The Bush administration's Iranian Nightmare’ August 10, 2005).

Ritter’s Allegation.
"On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million -- a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism." (Mark Jensen ‘US Aerial Attack on Iran Planned for June’ February 20th 2005).

Richard Perle.
""If Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon, I think we will have no choice but to take decisive action," said ex-Pentagon advisor Richard Perle as he drew loud cheers from the AIPAC loyalists. New York Senator Hillary Clinton, before she introduced Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the crowd, said that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable". Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House also chimed in, saying, "The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran."" (Joshua Frank ‘Bombing Iran: The Facts Don't Matter’ June 2, 2005); "Richard Perle, a key architect of the U.S.-led war against Iraq, said on Saturday the West should not make the mistake of waiting too long to use military force if Iran comes close to getting an atomic weapon. "If you want to try to wait until the very last minute, you'd better be very confident of your intelligence because if you're not, you won't know when the last minute is," Perle told Reuters on the sidelines of an annual security conference in Munich. "And so, ironically, one of the lessons of the inadequate intelligence of Iraq is you'd better be careful how long you choose to wait."" (Richard Perle quoted in Reuters ‘Iraq errors show West must act fast on Iran-Perle’ February 4th 2006

Jewish-owned Politicians: Dick Cheney.
Cheney is a jewish-owned politician, an israeli collaborator, a shabbat goy, whose power base in the united states congress, organized by tom delay, had been financed by bribes provided by super-zionist jack abramoff. "Other reports are that the vice president, we might say the "spiritual leader" of the US hawks, Cheney, has been covertly aiding the Benjamin Netanyahu candidacy as new head of the right-wing Likud. Netanyahu is also directly tied to the indicted US Republican money-launderer, Jack Abramoff, during the time Netanyahu was Sharon's finance minister." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ Jan 31, 2006).

In january 2005 cheney gave the jews-only state the go-ahead to attack iran, "One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," (Dick Cheney quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005. Michel Chossudovsky ‘Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran’ May 1, 2005); "In a January 2005 interview with MSNBC’s Imus in the Morning, Vice President Dick Cheney warned that Iran has a "fairly robust nuclear program," charging that the Islamic republic’s prime "objective is the destruction of Israel." He then appeared to be giving a green light to Israel (with an estimated 200 nuclear heads) to take on Iran, whose nuclear ambitions, according to the IAEA itself, are yet to raise serious suspicions. "If, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant capabilities, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," Cheney exclaimed, in response to Imus’s thoughtless inquiry: "Why don’t we make Israel do it?"" (Ramzy Baroud ‘Israel’s Nuclear Puzzle Resolved: But To What End?’ August 13, 2005).

Even more ominously, although an american/jews-only state attack on iran has been publicly discussed for many years, cheney was the first to float the idea, in july 2005, that the united states might have to resort to the use of nuclear weapons, "Philip Giraldi's report in the American Conservative last July that Vice President Cheney has asked the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to draw up concrete, short term contingency plans for an attack on Iran, to involve "a large-scale air assault employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." This would occur in the aftermath of a terror attack on the U.S. which, whatever its origins, would be politically used to justify an attack on Iran, just as the al-Qaeda attack was used to justify the attack on Iraq. Cheney has also declared matter-of-factly that if the U.S. doesn't attack Iran, Israel might do so." (Gary Leupp ‘Goss Builds the Case for Turkey-Based Attacks: Targeting Iran and Syria’ December 30, 2005);

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
"Predictably the biggest Jewish organization in the US, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations immediately echoed the Israeli state line. Malcolm Hoenlan, President of the Conference, lambasted Washington for a "failure of leadership on Iran" and "contracting the issue to Europe" (Forward, December 9, 2005). He went on to attack the Bush Administration for not following Israel's demands by delaying referral of Iran to the UN Security Council for sanction." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ December 24/25, 2005).

"The Jewish weekly newspaper, Forward, has reported a number of Israeli attacks on the Bush Administration for not acting more aggressively on behalf of Israel's policy. According to the Forward, "Jerusalem is increasingly concerned that the Bush Administration is not doing enough to block Teheran from acquiring nuclear weapons" (December 9, 2005)." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ December 24/25, 2005).

"AIPAC is credited for pushing Congress and the administration towards a number of legislative initiatives hostile to Iran and for placing Tehran's nuclear programme at the top of the international agenda." (Emad Mekay ‘Groundhog day in Washington’ January 19 – 25th 2006). "The role of AIPAC, the Conference and other pro-Israeli organizations as transmission belts for Israel's war plans was evident in their November 28, 2005 condemnation of the Bush Administration agreement to give Russia a chance to negotiate a plan under which Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium for non-military purposes under international supervision. AIPAC's rejection of negotiations and demands for an immediate confrontation were based on the specious argument that it would "facilitate Iran's quest for nuclear weapons" - an argument which flies in the face of all known intelligence data (including Israel's) which says Iran is at least 3 to 10 years away from even approaching nuclear weaponry. AIPAC's unconditional and uncritical transmission of Israeli demands and criticism is usually clothed in the rhetoric of US interests or security in order to manipulate US policy. AIPAC chastised the Bush regime for endangering US security. By relying on negotiations, AIPAC accused the Bush Administration of "giving Iran yet another chance to manipulate (sic) the international community" and "pose a severe danger to the United States" (Forward, Dec. 9, 2005)." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ December 24/25, 2005).

This year’s campaign against iran seems more ominous than its predecessors partly because it has started very early on in the outlandish political paranoia season and partly because the jews succeeded in pushing the americans and the europeans through the international diplomatic channels clearing the way for the military option.

Leon Hadar.
Hadar is supposedly anti-war and yet here he provides a justification for a military attack on iran – albeit not a full scale invasion, "Doing nothing about Iran would not only demolish what remains of the U.S.-led nuclear arms-control regime, it would also turn the balance of power in Iraq and the Persian Gulf against the United States and create incentives for the Saudis and others to make deals with Tehran. Short of trying to open direct diplomatic channels with Iran (very unlikely), the United States will probably try to increase the diplomatic and military pressure on Iran in the coming months, demonstrating that the Pax Americana project in the Middle East is becoming more expensive. That the central banks of China and other Asian economies are paying for it is probably the most intriguing element in this evolving story." (Leon Hadar ‘US Headed for Confrontation With Iran - But probably not all-out war’ January 4, 2006).

Daniel Pipes.
Pipes is director of the middle east forum. He helped to set up campus watch to encourage jews living in america to spy on american academics. In the 1970s, his father was the author of ‘Plan B’ which fabricated evidence that the soviet union posed an overwhelming military threat to the united states when no such threat existed, "The most dangerous leaders in modern history are those (like Hitler) equipped with a totalitarian ideology and a mystical belief in their own mission. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fulfills both these criteria, as revealed by his U.N. comments. That combined with his expected nuclear arsenal make him an adversary who must be stopped, and urgently." (Daniel Pipes ‘Iran's Messianic Menace’ January 10, 2006). This loony paranoid jew believes that osama bin laden was hitler, yasser arafat was hitler, and now mahmoud ahmadinejad is hitler. It would be safer to say that pipes sees hitler everywhere under every non-jewish bed.

Haim Saban and Martin Indyk.
"Kenneth M Pollack, director of research at the Saban Centre on Middle East Policy told a Congressional hearing in September that the US should study the possibility of waging a targeted air campaign aimed at Iran's nuclear facilities as a last resort. The Saban Centre is funded by a grant from Haim Saban, an Egyptian-born Israeli American billionaire who made his money in the entertainment business. Martin Indyk, a staunchly pro-Israel former US diplomat who once served as US ambassador to Israel, directs it." (Emad Mekay ‘Groundhog day in Washington’ January 19 – 25th 2006).

William Kristol.
"More indicative of all is how William Kristol, editor of the neo-conservative publication The Weekly Standard, entitled in his column: "And now Iran."" (Emad Mekay ‘Groundhog day in Washington’ January 19 – 25th 2006).

Kenneth R. Timmerman and Carl Limbacher.
"World renowned investigative reporter and terror expert Kenneth R. Timmerman, author of the bestselling book "Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran," and Carl Limbacher, reporter for, reveal that the US and Israel will destroy Iran's nuclear facilities in less than 10 weeks from now." (‘Military Attack against Iran Now Imminent’ On A7radio January 20th 2006).

American Jewish Committee.
.. "the most powerful Israeli lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In an unprecedented action in November, the group publicly criticized the Bush administration for failing to act more aggressively against Iran. The influential American Jewish Committee also announced its own international campaign to impose a global and diplomatic and economic embargo against Iran until it halts its nuclear program." (Jim Lobe ‘The Iranian neo-cons love to hate’ Jan 26, 2006).

Reuel Marc Gerecht.
Gerect works for the american enterprise institute, one of the most important zionist think tanks, "Eventually, assuming the State Department's European strategy falls apart because the Europeans will not play, we will have to make up our minds whether nukes in the hands of Khamenei, Rafsanjani, and Ahmadinejad are "intolerable" or not. If so, then we will have to prepare to bomb." (Reuel Marc Gerecht ‘How to Head Off the Imam Bomb’ The Weekly Standard,pubID.23721/pub_detail.asp January 23, 2006).

Gerect goes on to refer glowingly to america’s destruction of iranian democracy in 1953, "Ideally, what the United States needs is to replicate the economy-crushing sanctions the West threw at Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh after he nationalized British petroleum in Iran in 1951. There are many reasons why Mossadegh fell to a very lamely executed and inexpensive coup in 1953, but among the most important was the effective oil embargo, which helped turn a popular prime minister into an unpopular one in less than a year." (Reuel Marc Gerecht ‘How to Head Off the Imam Bomb’ The Weekly Standard,pubID.23721/pub_detail.asp January 23, 2006).

Jeff Jacoby.
"It is not yet unreasonable to hope that Tehran can be forced to back down by a combination of economic sanctions, political isolation, and diplomatic heat. But if a nonmilitary strategy is to have any chance of success, it must be very clear that military action is Plan B - and that United States is quite prepared to wield that ''big stick" if Iran will not abandon its atomic ambitions. Under no circumstances can such enemies be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons - or to doubt that we will do what we must to make sure that they don't." (Jeff Jacoby ‘Don't go wobbly on Iran’ January 25, 2006). Yet another jew manipulating the american people into supporting a war against iran which the jews-only state cannot fight. But then why should the jews-only state attack iran when the jewish traitors living in america seem confident they can get america to do their dirty business for them even if it involves a colossal financial cost and large numbers of american lives?

Mortimer B. Zuckerman.
Zuckerman owns the NY Post and the Atlantic Monthly and was formerly the chair of the conference of presidents of the major jewish american organizations. "Military action, such as bombing the Iranian plants with cruise missiles and strike aircraft, would be justified in the circumstances. But that is hugely difficult politically, and covert action is very difficult operationally. Still, the risks may have to be taken because the alternative is so awful. There may now be a window of opportunity for effective preventive action, but this window is more likely to be measured in months than years." (Mortimer B. Zuckerman ‘Moscow's Mad Gamble’ January 30th 2006). This paranoid jew who’s trying to stir up world war three believes, "Within a very few years, in all likelihood, Iran will be able to launch nuclear missiles." This view is not merely untrue – it is a total fabrication. But, this is the propaganda being pumped out by the jewish ruling classes in america, britain, and palestine.
"If the Iranians persist in creating a market mechanism to settle world oil transactions in the euro, the United States will attack just to preserve the oil market for the dollar. If Iran does open an oil bourse next month, we should expect the warplanes will soon thereafter begin to fly." (Jerome R. Corsi ‘Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?’ February 3, 2006). Corsi is the author of some highly illuminating works such as co-authoring with John O'Neill the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry." and the sizzler, "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." Ho, ho, ho. But, yet, large numbers of americans believe him!

Kenneth R. Timmerman.
"The massive stroke that cut down Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon late on Wednesday night (Jan. 4) not only throws Israeli politics into turmoil. It also marks the likely starting point of the coming nuclear showdown that will pit the Jewish state and the free world against the Islamic Republic of Iran." (Kenneth R. Timmerman ‘Within Range’ January 5, 2006). So, who is ken timmerman? "Notably, prominent Washington neo-conservative, Kenneth Timmerman, told Israeli radio in mid-January that he expected an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran "within the next 60 days", i.e. just after Israeli elections or just before. Timmerman is close to Richard Perle, the indicted Cheney chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Douglas Feith and Michael Ledeen." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ Jan 31, 2006); "That is Kenneth Timmerman - neocon extraordinaire, member of the fear-mongering imperial project that calls itself the Committee on the Present Danger, and contributor to the neocon rag National Review and its ultra-right counterpart" (Ron Jacobs ‘Iranian ‘"Democracy" and the "Intelligence" Summit’ February 4, 2006).

Robert Joseph.
"Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control, said Tehran had to be dissuaded by "whatever means are necessary" from acquiring nuclear arms, but added the West was "giving every chance for diplomacy to work." Speaking two days after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted to report Tehran to the UN Security Council for its nuclear work, Joseph gave a worrying assessment of Iran's nuclear progress. "I would say that Iran does have the capability to develop nuclear weapons and the delivery means for those weapons," Joseph told a news conference at the Foreign Press Center here. He went a step further than President George W. Bush, who said in a statement hailing the IAEA action Saturday that Iran was "continuing to develop the capability to build nuclear weapons." He sidestepped questions on the use of force yet said, "No options are off the table. We cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, but we are giving every chance for diplomacy to work. What is necessary to stop Iran is a firm indication that the international community ... will take whatever measures are necessary to convince Iran that it is in its interest to forego a nuclear weapons capability."" (Iran has the Ability to develop a Nuclear Weapon: US Official’ February 6th 2006). Joseph was one of the jewish liars, an israeli traitor to america, who thought nothing about deceiving bush and the american public into believing that saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. "Not a high-profile hardliner like Bolton or Feith, Joseph successfully avoided the public limelight-that is until the scandal of the 16 words in Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address about Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons development program. According to president, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The State of the Union Address, which laid out the administration's case for a preemptive invasion of Iraq, used unconfirmed intelligence reports about Iraq's WMD programs. Press reports and congressional testimony by CIA officials later revealed that the CIA had vigorously protested the inclusion of any assertion that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons since their intelligence would not support such a conclusion. Alan Foley, the CIA's top expert on weapons of mass destruction, told Congress that Robert Joseph repeatedly pressed the CIA to back the inclusion in Bush's speech of a statement about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium from Niger. Following these revelations about the inclusion of erroneous and disputed intelligence estimates in this major speech that readied the U.S. public for war against Iraq, Joseph said he did not recall Foley's raising concerns about the credibility of the information to be included in the speech." (Tom Barry ‘Meet John Bolton's Replacement June 15, 2005). Joseph’s reward for lying and pushing america into a war against iraq which has incurred vast economic costs and the loss of thousands of american lives, was promotion, "The top U.S. government official in charge of arms control advocates the offensive use of nuclear weapons and has deep roots in the neoconservative political camp . Moving into John Bolton's old job, Robert G. Joseph is the right-wing's advance man for counterproliferation as the conceptual core of a new U.S. military policy. Within the administration, he leads a band of counterproliferationists who - working closely with such militarist policy institutes as the National Institute for Public Policy and the Center for Security Policy - have placed preemptive attacks and weapons of mass destruction at the center of U.S. national security strategy. Joseph replaced John Bolton at the State Department as the new undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs. Like the controversial Bolton, Joseph has established a reputation for breaking or undermining arms control treaties, rather than supporting or strengthening international arms control. Joseph, too, has long believed that U.S. military strategy should be more offensive than defensive." (Tom Barry ‘Meet John Bolton's Replacement June 15, 2005). Joseph is one of the many israelis who have been drafted into the bush administration to promote the interests of the jews-only state in palestine. "Although not self-identified as a neoconservative, Joseph moves in the same circles as other military strategists such as the CSP's Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. In a Washington Post article (May 2, 2002), "Who's Pulling the Foreign Policy Strings," Dana Milbank wrote: "The vice president sometimes stays neutral but his sympathies undoubtedly are with the Perle crowd. Cheney deputies Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Eric Edelman relay neoconservative views to Rice at the National Security Council. At the NSC, they have a sympathetic audience in Elliott Abrams, Robert Joseph, Wayne Downing, and Zalmay Khalilzad."" (Tom Barry ‘Meet John Bolton's Replacement June 15, 2005).

Wall Street Journal.
"Today, the editorial page is a fount of neoconservative war propaganda. All intelligence has vanished. Consider the "Review & Outlook" of Feb. 3, which declares Iran to be "an intolerable threat." Iran is portrayed as a threat because the country's new president has used threatening rhetoric against Israel. But, of course, Bush and Israel are constantly using threatening rhetoric against Iran. To avoid being regarded as a wimp by his countrymen and by the Muslim world, the new Iranian president has to answer back. It doesn't occur to the editorialists that Iranians might see the nuclear weapons of Israel and the U.S. as intolerable threats." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘How Conservatives Went Crazy’ February 8, 2006).

Max Boot and Nicholas Goldberg.
"Max Boot just wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "In sum, a terrorist-sponsoring state led by an apocalyptic lunatic will soon have the ability to incinerate Tel Aviv or New York," which "leaves only one serious option – air strikes by Israel or the U.S." Niall Ferguson wrote a few days earlier in the same newspaper that a U.S. preemptive strike against Iran today would prevent an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel in 2007, ignoring among other things the reality that it is physically impossible for Iran to produce a nuclear weapon in a year. Nicholas Goldberg, who edits the Times' opinion page, studiously avoids publishing any alternative viewpoints. A similar approach is taken by the rest of the mainstream media in the U.S. and Western Europe. Is it surprising that a few days after these two opinion pieces were published the Los Angeles Times found that 57 percent of the U.S. public backs a military strike on Iran?" (Jorge Hirsch ‘America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss’ February 20, 2006).

Joe Lieberman.
"Nevertheless, Dick Cheney himself last year ordered a study of a plan for an attack on Iran -and leading politicians are beating the war drums, including Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)." (Lee Sustar ‘Target: Iran’ February 25 / 26, 2006).

The Jewish owned American Media in General.
"The media has assumed its traditional role of fanning the flames for war by providing ample space for the spurious allegations of administration officials, right-wing pundits, and disgruntled Iranian exiles, while carefully omitting the relevant facts in Iran's defense. As always, the New York Times has spearheaded the propaganda war with an article by Richard Bernstein and Steven Weisman which lays out the sketchy case against Iran. In the first paragraph the Bernstein-Weisman combo suggest that Iran has restarted "research that could give it technology to create nuclear weapons."" (Mike Whitney ‘The Bombs of March. Countdown to War with Iran? January 13, 2006).

The same commentators who manipulated america into a war against iraq are now manipulating america into a war against iran, "Besides convincing the public that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, a critical task of the neo-cons was to convince the American public that there was a link between Al Queda and Saddam. Their colleagues among the nation's major syndicated columnists such as Safire, Will, Tom Friedman, Charles Krauthammer, Jeff Jacoby, and Paul Greenberg were all too willing accomplices. By the time, the U.S. launched its invasion, more than half of the public was convinced that Saddam had been behind the attacks." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’ c.2003).

John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN.
"Significantly, the most hawkish of hawks had to be the US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. In a speech, not by accident, at the annual convention of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel US lobby, he said Iran's nuclear program could be "taken out"." (Pepe Escobar ‘The old lovers' nuclear tango’ Mar 8, 2006).

The Jewish-owned Presidency: Bush Professes to fight Proxy Zionist War.
Bush is making it clear that he is pushing america into a war against iran for the sake of the jews-only state – this incidentally will be america’s third proxy zionist war. "What President George W. Bush, Fox News, and the Washington Times were saying about Iraq three years ago they are now saying about Iran. After Saturday's vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report Iran's suspicious nuclear activities to the UN Security Council, the president wasted no time in warning, "The world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons." More recently, in the case of Iran, President Bush has been unabashed in naming Israel as the most probable target of any Iranian nuclear weapons. He has also created a rhetorical lash-up of the U.S. and Israel, referring three times in the past two weeks to Israel as an "ally" of the U.S., as if to condition Americans to the notion that the U.S. is required to join Israel in any confrontation with Iran. For example, on Feb. 1 the president told the press, "Israel is a solid ally of the United States; we will rise to Israel's defense if need be." Asked if he meant the U.S. would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush replied with a startlingly open-ended commitment, "You bet, we'll defend Israel."" (Ray McGovern Juggernaut Gathering Momentum: Next Stop, Iran’ February 8, 2006). F william engdahl raises the pertinent issue as regards america’s national interests as opposed to the interests of the jews-only state in palestine, "It is useful to keep in mind that even were Iran to possess nuclear missiles, the strike range would not reach the territory of the US. Israel would be the closest potential target. A US preemptive nuclear strike to defend Israel would raise the issue of what the military agreements between Tel Aviv and Washington actually encompass, a subject neither the Bush administration nor its predecessors have seen fit to inform the American public about." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ Jan 31, 2006).

Jews in Palestine stirring up a War against Iran.

Ariel Sharon, Leader of the Jews-only State.
"Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen." (Aluf Benn ‘Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria’ February 18th 2003).

General Plans.
"Israel is working on a wide range of measures to undermine Iran's nuclear program, with senior leaders hinting that Israel may take preemptive action if that is deemed necessary. Analysts here suggest that action may include a strike similar to Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor. The Israeli initiative includes political, military, and intelligence wings of government and dovetails with US efforts to contain Iran within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)." (Nicole Gaouette ‘Israel: Iran is now danger No. 1’ November 28, 2003).

Shaul Mofaz, Israeli Minister of Defense.
"On the same US trip, Mr. Mofaz told a pro-Israeli lobby group that a nuclear Iran was "intolerable." "The implicit message of his statements was that if the Iranian nuclear program is not stopped in the next number of months, Israel will have to take action of its own - perhaps even to attack - to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into Iranian hands," analyst Amir Rappaport wrote in the Ma'ariv newspaper." (Nicole Gaouette ‘Israel: Iran is now danger No. 1’ November 28, 2003); "In November, Israeli media reported that Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, on a trip to Washington, told US officials that "under no circumstances would Israel be able to abide by nuclear weapons in Iranian possession."" (Nicole Gaouette ‘Israel: Iran is now danger No. 1’ November 28, 2003).

Uzi Arad, director of the Institute of Policy and Strategy.
"Iran has a clandestine [nuclear] program that is very ambitious," says Uzi Arad, director of the Institute of Policy and Strategy in Herzilya. "That country thinks big and fast and ... poses a threat that is very real. Should it acquire nuclear weapons or even come close, it would completely alter the Middle East. It's a very ominous threat." (Nicole Gaouette ‘Israel: Iran is now danger No. 1’ November 28, 2003).

Meir Dagan, director of Mossad.
"Meir Dagan, director of Israel's external intelligence agency, the Mossad, told a parliamentary committee this month that Iran posed an "existential threat" to Israel, according to the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper. He reportedly assured committee members that Israel could deal with this threat." (Nicole Gaouette ‘Israel: Iran is now danger No. 1’ November 28, 2003).

Martin Van-Creveld.
"The remarks - reminiscent of the vitriolic propaganda campaign against Iraq prior to the Anglo-American invasion of the Arab country last year - coincided with the publication of an article by a leading Israeli military historian Martin Van-Creveld, suggesting that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon might very well order an attack on Iranian nuclear plants. Writing in the Paris-based International Herald Tribune on 21 August, Creveld opined an Israeli or American (or a joint Israeli-American) attack on Iranian nuclear plants might be carried out before the US November elections. "It all depends on Ariel Sharon - an old war-horse who back in 1982 led Israel into a disastrous invasion of Lebanon. One can only hope that this time he will think twice," the military historian said." (Khalid Amayreh ‘Israel to US: Now for Iran’ August 29 2004).

Ira Sharkansky.
"In that light, Israel's most workable approach would be to leave it to the Americans, according to Ira Sharkansky, Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. "I think the safest thing for Israel is to let the Americans do it," he told And Israel, directly and through its powerful lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has been making strenuous efforts to get Washington to "do something" about Iran." (Khalid Amayreh ‘Israel to US: Now for Iran’ August 29 2004).

Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Israeli parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee.
""This is not an Israeli problem. This time it is a world problem," said Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Israeli parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee. "Iran is seeking to become a world power."" (‘Israel can't go it alone against Iran: politicians, analysts’ July 19, 2004).

Caroline Glick.
"On Nov. 20, Caroline Glick, deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, hysterically accused Europe of defending "Iran's ability to attain the wherewithal to destroy the Jewish state." Glick "exposes" France's efforts to prevent the outbreak of wider war in the Middle East as a trick: "France wishes only to box in the U.S. to the point that the Americans will not be able to continue to fight the war against terrorism." The neoconservative Heritage Foundation promptly broadcast Glick's hysterical rants into the Republican noise machine, reviving talk radio calls for nuking France, "America's oldest enemy."" (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Won't Get Fooled Again?’ November 22, 2004).

Arieh Eldad and Yoseph Lapid.
"Last week three members of the Israeli Knesset issued a terse warning that an attack on Iran may be imminent. Arieh Eldad, a member of the right-wing National Union Party said ominously, "Iran will not be deterred by anything but force." Yoseph Lapid, head of the Shinui Party echoed Eldad's sentiments saying, "We feel we are obliged to warn our friends that Israel should not be pushed into a situation where we see no other solution but to act unilaterally." The appearance of three Israeli politicians dispatched to Washington to reiterate the same message can only mean trouble." (Mike Whitney ‘Edging Towards Disaster with Iran’ October 9th 2005).

Silvan Shalom, the Foreign Minister.
"The Israeli government is, not surprisingly, skeptical of the European approach. Silvan Shalom, the Foreign Minister, said in an interview last week in Jerusalem, with another New Yorker journalist, "I don’t like what’s happening. We were encouraged at first when the Europeans got involved. For a long time, they thought it was just Israel’s problem. But then they saw that the [Iranian] missiles themselves were longer range and could reach all of Europe, and they became very concerned. Their attitude has been to use the carrot and the stick - but all we see so far is the carrot." He added, "If they can’t comply, Israel cannot live with Iran having a nuclear bomb."" (Seymour Hersh ‘The Coming Wars’ January 24th 2005); "Iran may be only six months away from acquiring the capability to produce nuclear weapons, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom has claimed. The assessment, which he said was based on Israeli intelligence, differs from US intelligence assessments that Iran could not begin producing nuclear weapons for another decade. "Our experts say they are very close to this (production) stage," Mr Shalom said. "They may need only another six months."" (Abraham Rabinovich ‘Tehran six months off nuclear arms ability: Israel’,5744,16668603%255E2703,00.html September 21, 2005).

Ahron Zoevi Farkash, Israeli Military Intelligence Chief.
"In early December, Ahron Zoevi Farkash, the Israeli military intelligence chief told the Israeli parliament (Knesset) that "if by the end of March, the international community is unable to refer the Iranian issue to the United Nations Security Council, then we can say that the international effort has run its course."" (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ December 24/25, 2005).

Daniel Halutz, Israeli Military Chief of Staff.
"On Dec. 5, Israel's military chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, told foreign journalists in Tel Aviv that he believed diplomacy had reached a dead end. "The fact that the Iranians are successful time after time in getting away from international pressure ... encourages them to continue their nuclear project," Gen. Halutz said. "I believe that the political means that are used by the Europeans and the U.S. to convince the Iranians to stop the project will not succeed." When asked by one reporter how far Israel was ready to go to stop Iran's nuclear projects, Halutz quipped, "2000 kilometers." That's the equivalent of 1,250 miles, the distance by air between Israel and Iran's main nuclear and missile sites." (Kenneth R. Timmerman ‘Within Range’ January 5, 2006). See also, "When the Israeli Military Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, was asked how far Israel was ready to go to stop Iran's nuclear energy program, he said "Two thousand kilometers" - the distance of an air assault." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ December 24/25, 2005).

Israeli Military Intelligence Chief, Aharon Zeevi Farkash.
"Aharon Zeevi Farkash, the Israeli military intelligence chief, stepped up the pressure on Iran this month when he warned Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, that "if by the end of March the international community is unable to refer the Iranian issue to the United Nations security council, then we can say the international effort has run its course." (Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Baxter ‘Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran’,,2089-1920074_1,00.html December 11, 2005).

Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party.
.. "the most militaristic of Israel's major politicians - Benjamin Netanyahu - who demanded that Prime Minster Sharon take forceful action against Iran. Otherwise, Netanyahu said in December, "when I form the new Israeli government, we'll do what we did in the past against Saddam's reactor, which gave us 20 years of tranquillity." Netanyahu has repeatedly emphasized that he wants to launch a military strike on Iran. "This is the Israeli government's primary obligation," he said. "If it is not done by the current government, I plan to lead the next government to stop the Iranians."" (Norman Solomon ‘Israel’s Future Leader?’ January 6, 2006). See also, "Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party and candidate for Prime Minister, stated that if Sharon did not act against Iran, "then when I form the new Israeli government (after the March 2006 elections) we'll do what we did in the past against Saddam's reactor." In June 1981 Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ December 24/25, 2005).

It is worth pointing out that it has been stated about netanyahu, "U.S. intelligence sources report that the one Israeli who is considered an extreme threat to U.S. national security is former Prime Minister and current Prime Minister hopeful Binyamin Netanyahu. Not only has Netanyahu visited convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard in his North Carolina prison cell and advocated strenuously for his release but he was once overheard by an ex-CIA agent as saying to a group of his supporters, "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away." Considering the damage the neo-cons and their Israeli facilitators are causing for U.S. national security, Netanyahu may soon have his wish." (Wayne Madsen ‘The Neo-Cons’ Unfettered Access to America’s Secrets’ September 2005).

Ariel Sharon, former Leader of the Jews-only State in Palestine.
In the run up to a jews-only election on march 28th 2006, sharon was forced to respond to netanyahu’s populist calls for an attack on iran, "This all pushed Sharon to rally the country, and stave off this lunge from the right, with a strike against Tehran. "Israel - and not only Israel - cannot accept a nuclear Iran," the Israeli Prime Minister said recently. "We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."" (‘Israel ready to strike Iran’ December 22nd 2005). Ariel sharon, a terrorist, mass murderer, war criminal, and the leader of the jews-only, terrorist state lies in a coma and will never get to see the fulfilment of his plans for his greatest act of terrorism. A jewish nuclear attack on iran would have been his great swan song – his legacy after a lifetime of killing and murdering, and slaughtering. A jewish nuclear attack on iran will be the first announcement of a new global reality – jewish world domination.

Shaul Mofaz, Israeli Minister of Defense.
"On December 9, Israeli Minister of Defense, Shaul Mofaz, affirmed that in view of Teheran's nuclear plans, Tel Aviv should "not count on diplomatic negotiations but prepare other solutions"." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ December 24/25, 2005). A month later, "Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action. "Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said." (Talk of military action in Iran standoff’ January 21st 2006); "And Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz went further, speaking directly to Iran's president: "I address you as someone who leads his country with an ideology of hate, terror, and anti-Semitism. I suggest you look at history and see what happened to others who tried to wipe out the Jewish people. … Israel is not prepared to accept the nuclear arming of Iran, and it must prepare to defend itself, with all that implies." " (Quoted in Patrick J Buchanan ‘Bush's Dilemma: Iran vs. Israel’ January 25, 2006); "Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program. "My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his German counterpart Franz Josef Jung." (Louis Charbonneau ‘Israel will have to Act on Iran if UN Can’t’ March 8th 2006).

The Acting Prime Minister of the Jews-only State in Palestine, Ehud Olmert.
"Meanwhile, Israel also vowed not to let the Iranians develop nuclear weapons. Israeli Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Tuesday that the Jewish state could not reconcile itself to the threat of a nuclear Iran. "Under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israel allow anyone with these kinds of malicious designs against us, to have control of weapons of destruction that can threaten our existence," Olmert told a joint news conference with Israeli President Moshe Katsav. "The state of Israel cannot reconcile itself to a situation in which there is a threat against us, just as, in my view, the nations of Europe and the United States cannot reconcile themselves," he said." (World divided over referring Iran to UNSC’ January 18th 2006); "In Israel, it was Sharon who repeatedly refused the Israeli generals' requests for air strikes; he is now out of the picture. His replacement, Olmert, is weak. The victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections gave Olmert's main opponent, Likud's Netanyahu, a big boost. How could Olmert best show the Israeli electorate he is as tough as Netanyahu? Obviously, by hitting Iran before Israel's elections in late March." (William S. Lind ‘The Next Act’ February 2, 2006).

Popular Jewish Support for the War.
"A strike against Iran would be popular in Israel, where everyone agrees that Iran cannot be allowed to have the kind of nuclear weapons that Israel itself possesses in such bristling abundance." (‘Israel ready to strike Iran’ December 22nd 2005).

Jewish Military Establishment Support for the War.
Virtually the entire jewish military establishment in palestine has now put itself on public record as supporting an attack on iran, "All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’ December 24/25, 2005).

Jews in Britain stirring up a War against Iran.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
"Britain's Foreign Minister Jack Straw, who played such a critical role in disseminating the lies that preceded the Iraq war, has been equally disingenuous regarding Iran." (Mike Whitney ‘The Bombs of March. Countdown to War with Iran? January 13, 2006).

See also, Jack Straw’s Conversion to Extreme Zionism.

Jews in Europe stirring up a War against Iran.
Since the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings, jewish control over american politics has become so blatant that the jews-only state in palestine isn’t bothering to camouflage its power, "And subtly but surely, things are changing still further. Israel is starting to let the mask drop, not from its already public intentions, but from its naked strength. It no longer deigns to conceal its sophisticated nuclear arsenal. It begins to supply the world with almost as much military technology as it consumes. And it no longer sees any need to be discreet about its defiance of the United States' request for moderation: Israel is happy to humiliate the 'stupid Americans' outright. As it plunders, starves and kills, Israel does not lurk in the world's back-alleys. It says, "Look at us. We're taking these people's land, not because we need it, but because we feel like it. We're putting religious nuts all over it because they help cleanse the area of these Arab lice who dare to defy us. We know you don't like it and we don't care, because we don't conform to other people's standards. We set the standards for others." (Michael Neumann ‘What's So Bad About Israel?’ July 6, 2002).

The president of the united states seems to regard himself as a shabbat goy and openly proclaims he will defend the jews-only state in palestine even if it launches an illegal, pre-emptive, attack on iran. "More recently, in the case of Iran, President Bush has been unabashed in naming Israel as the most probable target of any Iranian nuclear weapons. He has also created a rhetorical lash-up of the U.S. and Israel, referring three times in the past two weeks to Israel as an "ally" of the U.S., as if to condition Americans to the notion that the U.S. is required to join Israel in any confrontation with Iran. For example, on Feb. 1 the president told the press, "Israel is a solid ally of the United States; we will rise to Israel's defense if need be." Asked if he meant the U.S. would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush replied with a startlingly open-ended commitment, "You bet, we'll defend Israel."" (Ray McGovern Juggernaut Gathering Momentum: Next Stop, Iran’ February 8, 2006). Similarly the publication of anti-moslem cartoons in european newspapers shows that europe’s jewish elite can no longer be bothered to try and disguise their dominance over european governments and the european media.

The neocons have been the most prominent political force in american politics over the last three decades but their influence has only recently become apparent in europe. Blair has always been a shabbat goy. One of the first points he made when he became leader of the labour party in 1994 was to insist that his party curb its support for palestinian freedom fighters and a Palestinian state. Britain is a self proclaimed property-owning democracy but apparently it cannot find any reason objection to filthy jews stealing Palestinian property and dismantling Palestinian democratic organizations. Please see, ‘The Pro-Zionist Bigotry of New Labour/Labour ’. The danish have a neocon leader who sent a military contingent to support the zionist proxy invasion of iraq, "There is clearly a more sinister reason why the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen refuses to issue a formal apology as demanded by Arab and Muslim governments. The hard-line position taken by Rasmussen, an ally in the "war on terror," has more to do with advancing the "clash of civilizations" than defending free speech in Europe." (Christopher Bollyn ‘European Media Provokes Muslims to Inflame Zionist "Clash of Civilizations’ February 6th 2006). Silvio berlusconi of italy has always been on the right and shown a predilection for bush’s pro-semitic policies.

The french opposed the war against iraq and once ridiculed neocon ideas. "You know things are going badly indeed in Iraq when U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad chooses to use an image – Pandora's box – previously wielded only by that critic of the Iraq War, French President Jacques Chirac. Back in September 2004, Chirac compared American actions in Iraq to the famed box of myth, at a moment when Arab League head Amr Moussa was warning that the "gates of Hell" had been opened in that country (a comment assumed at the time to be but another example of overemotional Arab rhetoric)." (Tom Engelhardt ‘Disintegrating Iraqi Sovereignty’ March 10, 2006). However, after a french minister referred to the jews-only state in palestine as a "shitty little country" ariel sharon retaliated by suggesting that the jews living in france ought to emigrate to palestine. In order to show that france was a country safe for jewish supremacists, the french government went on the offensive against the country’s substantial moslem population provoking riots across the country. Chirac was right but now he’s fallen in line.

For the last couple of years the british, french, and german governments have been attempting to moderate america’s jewish inspired belligerence toward iran over its development of nuclear energy – despite the fact that iran has been acting in accordance with the non-proliferation treaty. The euro-3 let it be known they were opposed referring the matter to the united nations or to a military attack on iran especially since such an attack would have even less legal justification than the invasion of iraq. However, after the election in germany of angela merkul, a slavish devotee to neocon supremacism, the balance of power in europe has shifted significantly towards the neocons.

On january 14th 2006, the iranians decided to rescind their voluntary decision to suspend nuclear research. The euro-3 immediately launched into bellicose attacks on iran as if they were now in agreement with america’s proposed war against iran. "Last August, President George W Bush announced, in regard to Iran's announced plans to resume enrichment regardless of international opinion, that "all options are on the table". That implied in context a nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear sites. That statement led to a sharp acceleration of EU diplomatic efforts, led by Britain, Germany and France, the so-called EU-3, to avoid a war. The three told Washington they were opposed to a military solution. Since then we are told by German magazine Der Spiegel and others the EU view has changed, to appear to come closer to the position of the Bush administration." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ Jan 31, 2006). In effect, the jews-only state in palestine, which a couple of years ago pressured america into adopting its own foreign policies, has now succeeded in forcing europe to follow suit.

At the end of january, the french president jacques chirac stated he would respond to acts of terrorism on french soil with the use of a nuclear bomb. "Chirac for his part is the subject of major controversy since he gave a speech on January 19 in which he overturned the traditional French nuclear doctrine of "no first strike" to say that were a terrorist nation to attack France, he would consider even nuclear retaliation as appropriate." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ Jan 31, 2006). One commentator believes chirac was giving america the go-ahead to use nuclear weapons in a war against iran, "In particular, the widely but wrongly discounted nuclear belligerence of President Jacques Chirac last month implied that France was ready to accept the US use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iran if they saw fit to do so." (Paul Levian ‘Iran and the jaws of a trap’ Feb 3, 2006). In effect he was also doing the same for the jews-only state. However, another commentator disputes this interpretation, "What is clear is that the Chirac government will not stand in the way of a US decision to impose UN sanctions on Iran. Whether that also holds for a US-sanctioned nuclear strike is not clear." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’ Jan 31, 2006).

Iran’s resumption of nuclear research was the catalyst for the neocons’ emergence as the dominant political force in europe, "It is remarkable how quickly an international consensus has emerged for the eventual use of force against Iran. Chirac's indirect reference to the French nuclear capability was a warning to Tehran. Mohamed ElBaradei, whose Nobel Peace Prize last year was awarded to rap the knuckles of the United States, told Newsweek that in the extreme case, force might be required to stop Iran's acquiring a nuclear capability. German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung told the newspaper Bild am Sonntag that the military option could not be abandoned, although diplomatic efforts should be tried first. Bild, Germany's largest-circulation daily, ran Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinejad's picture next to Adolf Hitler's, with the headline, "Will Iran plunge the world into the abyss?" The same Europeans who excoriated the United States for invading Iraq with insufficient proof of the presence of weapons of mass destruction already have signed on to a military campaign against Iran, in advance of Iran's gaining WMD." (Spengler ‘Why the West will attack Iran’ Jan 24, 2006).

The following quotes indicates clearly just how much europe has submitted to global jewish power, "John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for nonproliferation, is advocating that Iran’s lack of co-operation be referred to the UN Security Council for the imposition of sanctions. But it is unlikely that America’s allies in Europe will support such a move or that a confrontational approach would force the Iranians to change their policy." (Leon Hadar ‘Target: Tehran?’ November 22, 2004).

This is the political context of the publication of the anti-islamic cartoons. Most commentators have suggested the origins of the cartoons goes back to october 2004 when flemming rose, the cultural editor of denmark's most widely read morning paper jyllands-posten, interviewed daniel pipes, an extreme jewish racist, and the leading american proponent of the jewish led war against the moslem world, the so-called war of civilizations. Rose wrote a complimentary article about pipes’s views. "Rose traveled to Philadelphia in October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes, the Neo-Con ideologue who says the only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli military victory. Rose then penned a positive article about Pipes, who compares "militant Islam" with fascism and communism." (Christopher Bollyn ‘European Media Provokes Muslims to Inflame Zionist "Clash of Civilizations’ February 6th 2006). James petras has unearthed a more detailed background, "Given Mossad’s long-standing penetration of the Danish intelligence agencies, and their close working relations with the right wing media, it is not surprising that a Ukranian Jew, operating under the name of "Flemming Rose" with close working relations with the Israeli state (and in particular the far right Likud regime) should be the center of the controversy over the cartoons. "Rose’s" ties to the Israeli state antedate his well-know promotional "interview" with Daniel Pipes (2004), the notorious Arab-hating Zionist ideologue. Prior to being placed as a cultural editor of a leading right-wing Danish daily, from 1990 to 1995 "Rose" was a Moscow-based reporter who translated into Danish a self-serving auto-biography by Boris Yeltsin, godchild of the pro-Israeli, post-communist Russian oligarchs, most of whom held dual citizenship and collaborated with the Mossad in laundering illicit billions. Between 1996-1999 "Rose", the journalist, worked the Washington circuit (traveling with Clinton to China) before returning to Moscow 1999-2004 as a reporter for Jyllands-Posten. In 2005 he became its cultural editor, despite few or any knowledge of the field and over the head of other Danish journalists on the staff. In his new position "Rose" found a powerful platform to incite and play on the growing hostility of conservative Danes to immigrants from the Middle East, particularly practicing Moslems. Using the format of an ‘interview’ he published Pipes’ virulent anti-Islamic diatribe, probably to "test the waters" before proceeding to the next stage in the Mossad strategy to polarize a West-East confrontation." (James Petras and Robin Eastman-Abaya ‘The Caricatures in Middle East Politics’ February 19, 2006).

James petras has revealed that four of the twelve cartoons commissioned to ridicule islam and the moslem world, were designed by rose’s own staff, "The oddly named Ukrainian-born editor of the culture page of the Jyllands-Posten commissioned Danish cartoonists to submit a series of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed as they (the Danish cartoonists) might imagine him. However four of the twelve cartoons selected for publication were illustrated by ‘Rose’s’ own staff including the most controversial ‘bomb in the turban’ one. Braving Denmark’s anti-blasphemy laws Mr. Rose published the cartoons on September 30, 2005 and the rest is history…" (James Petras and Robin Eastman-Abaya ‘The Caricatures in Middle East Politics’ February 19, 2006). The cartoons were published in jyllands-posten on september 30th 2005 but failed to provoke anything more than peaceful protests from moslems in denmark. Whether these two jews concocted the idea of publishing anti-islamic hate cartoons is not known. Pipes has denied any involvement.

After the initial failure of the cartoons to elicit much of a response from the moslem world, it seemed as if the cartoons were destined to slip into obscurity. However, after iran resumed nuclear research and europe’s neocon leaders started issuing bellicose statements against iran, europe’s neocon media met to discuss the issue. They decided to jointly publish the cartoons either to help their leaders prepare the european public for a war against iran or to push their political leaders into a commitment to wage a war against iran. At present, there are no details about who came up with the idea for a joint european publication of the cartoons, who initiated the consultations, who was consulted, and which particular people made the decision to publish the cartoons. It is also not known whether any european politicians were consulted about the idea prior to publication. Petras has come up with a possible answer as to who organized the joint publication of the cartoons, "The Islamic-hate cartoons were published in Denmark in September 2005 as Israeli and US Zionists escalated their war propaganda against Iran. The initial response from the Islamic countries however was limited. The story wasn’t picked up in the International Herald Journal until late December 2005. By early January 2006, Mossad "Katsas" (Hebrew for case officers) activated sayanim (volunteer Jewish collaborators outside of Israel) throughout Western and Eastern European media to simultaneously reproduce the cartoons on Feb. 1 and 2, 1006. One such sayanim operation would have been the decision by France-Soir Senior Editor, Arnaud Levy and Editor in Chief Serge Faubert, to publish the cartoons. The paper’s French Egyptian owner almost immediately fired the paper’s Managing Editor, Jacques Lefranc, who, according to an interview with CNN, had initially opposed their publications, without touching Levy and Faubert." (James Petras and Robin Eastman-Abaya ‘The Caricatures in Middle East Politics’ February 19, 2006).

The simultaneous publication of the anti-moslem cartoons was a remarkable act of zionist political co-ordination intended to manipulate european public opinion and european politicians. "The dangerous "game" that was started by the Danish editor has now been picked up by at least 7 newspapers across Europe. Supposedly in support of the Danes, papers in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland simultaneously reprinted the cartoons on February 1. The timing suggests that this response was coordinated by a hidden hand. In Paris, for example, Arnaud Levy, editor-in-chief of the financially-strapped France-Soir, chose to print all 12 of the offensive cartoons. Asked if there had been coordination between European editors about the simultaneous publication of the cartoons, Levy said, "Absolutely not."" (Christopher Bollyn ‘European Media Provokes Muslims to Inflame Zionist "Clash of Civilizations’ February 6th 2006); .. "eleven newspapers in seven countries republished the pictures simultaneously. It was a show of hands: behind various newspapers in various countries, beyond companies and corporations, we were allowed to see the Enemy, the Not-So-Hidden Hand, the player on the international scene across all borders." (Israel Shamir ‘Satanic Pictures’ February 12th 2006); "Jewish media control has infiltrated the Western nerve system. While the Jyllands Posten of Flemming Rose is semi-fascist and neo-con, its sister newspaper, belonging to the same owner, Politiken, is liberal and humanist, and also run by a Jew who became an Israeli citizen. Thus, a left- or a right-wing Dane will be fed by the same spoon." (Israel Shamir ‘Satanic Pictures’ February 12th 2006).

The co-ordinated nature of the publication of the cartoons across europe seems to be the first manifestation of the neocons’ hegemony over the european media. There has been nothing like it in recent european history. There have always been those who deny that jews conspire to manipulate public opinion in europe. Those who support the idea of a jewish conspiracy in the media are deemed to be anti-semitic. And yet here was the most blatant example of a jewish conspiracy in which no effort was made to hide its conspiratorial nature.

Rose defended his commissioning, and publication, of the cartoons as an example of free speech. However, it wasn’t long before his endeavour to parade the free speech banner was exposed as a sham. A few years earlier the newspaper had refused to publish cartoons mocking jesus and christianity, "Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today. The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny." (Gwladys Fouché ‘Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons’,,1703500,00.html February 6, 2006).

When first questioned about the cartoons, rose stated he would refuse to publish anti-jewish or anti-judaic cartoons. "The International Herald Tribune, which reported on the offensive cartoons on January 1, noted that even the liberalism of Rose had its limits when it came to criticism of Zionist leaders and their crimes. Rose also has clear ties to the Zionist Neo-Cons behind the "war on terror." Rose told the international paper owned by The New York Times that "he would not publish a cartoon of Israel's Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, since that could be construed as 'racist.'" (Christopher Bollyn ‘European Media Provokes Muslims to Inflame Zionist "Clash of Civilizations’ February 6th 2006). It is doubtful whether sharon has strangled a baby but he was a terrorist who personally murdered palestinians.

In a bid to rescue his disintegrating public reputation rose agreed to publish some anti-holocaust cartoons that had been commissioned by an iranian newspaper. However, the editor of jyllands-posten quickly stepped in and stated he would refuse to publish them and put rose on indefinite leave. "The top editor of the Danish newspaper whose caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad sparked rage throughout the Islamic world said Wednesday the daily would not reprint Holocaust cartoons being solicited by an Iranian newspaper. Editor-in-Chief Carsten Juste said his newspaper Jyllands-Posten "in no circumstances will publish Holocaust cartoons from an Iranian newspaper."" (‘Paper won't run Holocaust cartoons’ Feb. 9, 2006).

If anyone should wonder what sort of person flemming rose is, and what the neocon mentality is like, they ought to appreciate that rose believes any woman who goes to a Friday night disco wearing a short skirt is asking to be raped, Asked if he would have published the cartoons knowing what the reaction would be, Rose said: "That is a hypothetical question. I would say that I do not regret having commissioned those cartoons and I think asking me that question is like asking a rape victim if she regrets wearing a short skirt Friday night at the discotheque." (Christopher Bollyn ‘European Media Provokes Muslims to Inflame Zionist "Clash of Civilizations’ February 6th 2006). Millions of young women going to Friday night discos across europe must wonder what sort of person condones violence against women.

Across europe there are laws which make it a criminal offence to challenge the jewish version of events in europe during the rise of totalitarianism, "In much of Europe, there is a legislated "official truth" about the Holocaust. France passed its so-called Gayssot law, making Holocaust denial a crime, in 1990. Germany and Switzerland soon followed suit. Denying or minimising the Holocaust is now also a crime in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia." (Christopher Caldwell ‘Historical truth speaks for itself’ February 17 2006). There are also hate laws in many european countries which outlaw racism and religious hatred. And yet even though these jewish commissioned cartoons were clearly designed to provoke hatred of muslims, there has been no prosecution of the editors of the european newspapers which reprinted the cartoons. "The government of Denmark is not about to prosecute Jyllands-Posten, nor will the EU – although they could do so, given the existence of "hate speech" legislation signed into law in both cases." (Justin Raimondo ‘Rotten in Denmark: Flemming Rose and the clash of civilizations’ February 8, 2006). Transparently, europe’s anti-racist and anti-religious hate laws (jews are promoting similar laws in america) have been promoted solely to prosecute those who ridicule jews and judaism. "But some Muslims said that such European laws (against religious hatred) were applied depending on who the culprit was, and that a Muslim was more likely to be sanctioned for taking action against Christian dogmas than the other way round. "Last week a Muslim was condemned to eight months in prison by a court in Rome only because he removed a crucifix from his room in a hospital," said Navid Kermani, a German writer of Persian origin. "Such punishment has rarely been discussed in Europe." At the same time, Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci's The Rage and the Pride, which describes Muslims as "rats", is freely sold everywhere in Europe, Kermani said." (Julio Godoy ‘In Europe, anti-cartoon voices rise’ Feb 10, 2006).

In 2000, ariel sharon marched into the al aqsa mosque protected by a couple of thousand heavily armed jewish troops. He wasn’t protesting about any infringement on his freedom of movement. He was acting as a provocateur in the hope of provoking a violent response from palestinians which would bring to an end all peace negotiations with the palestinians and enable the jews-only state in palestine to carry out even more repressive measures against palestinians. But he was also warmongering. He was making a statement of intent that one day jewish racists would demolish the al aqsa mosque and push all palestinians out of their own country. The palestinians responded violently not because they are violent by nature, nor because they were upset that someone had trespassed on sacred moslem land or had insulted their prophet, but because the world’s most renown terrorist, mass murderer, and war criminal, was announcing an act of war against them. In the hail of a million and a half bullets, the heroic palestinians battled against one of the most highly trained, and barbaric, armies in the world.

Five years later, the same warmongering tactic was used by europe’s jewish-owned media. Once again racist jews were announcing their promise of another war against the moslem world in the hope of provoking a violent reaction from moslems which would help to boost popular support in the west for such a war. Anyone who believes the cartoon issue is about freedom of speech is seriously out of touch with current political realities. It is ludicrous to believe that the large numbers of commentators in the western media who see the cartoon issue as a question of free speech, care anything about human rights when they have done nothing to protest about the gross infringements of human rights in palestine. Whilst these highly educated, highly sophisticated, buffoons were trying to turn the publication of the cartoons into a matter of free speech, the people on the streets in the moslem world saw what cartoons were really about – an announcement by the jewish racists controlling the european media of a war against the innocent people of the middle east. The jewish- commissioned cartoons were not merely blasphemous and anti-moslem, they were a declaration of war by europe’s jewish racists against the decent people in the middle east who are revolted by the racism of the jews-only state in palestine. "The publication of the 12 cartoons, and the reaction on both sides, is a classic case of how propaganda of the crudest sort is utilized to mold mass attitudes and whip up entire populations into a state of hysteria. Hate and fear are created out of thin air by the most skillful means, and stereotypes take the place of reality as the world prepares for war. That's what this is all about: the hate propaganda emanating from certain quarters in Europe and the U.S. amounts to preparations for war just as much as the manufacture of arms and the mobilization of armies at the border. We are being psychologically prepared for another world war, and the first shots are being fired from the pages of Jyllands-Posten. I have the sinking feeling that they won't be the last…" (Justin Raimondo ‘Rotten in Denmark: Flemming Rose and the clash of civilizations’ February 8, 2006).

The jewish owned media in europe declared war against the islamic world and they got a war like response from people sick to death of having to suffer because of jewish racism. It would have been better for moslems to have reacted against these racist cartoons not with violence but with peaceful and dignified street demonstrations and a political boycott of danish goods to try and show the danes, and their european allies, that europe’s jewish neocons are a threat to the economic and national interests of denmark and all other european countries. It is to be hoped everyone will help to boycott danish goods. It is important to punish the danes as an example to all those who pledge their allegiance to the cause of jewish racism and jewish supremacism. Hopefully it will make the danes realize their national and economic interests are the opposite of the interests of the jews-only state in palestine and the jewish traitors who seem to have infiltrated danish society and politics. The palestinians are leading the way in resisting jewish racism and jewish world domination. It is up to the rest of the world to join them in their intifada against the evil jewish empire.