RSS
The historical context of U.S. intervention in Iran dates back to discussions in the 1970s regarding the potential need to destabilize the country. Highlighted by General Wesley Clark's remarks in 2003, Iran is viewed as a critical component in a broader strategy involving the control of several Middle Eastern nations, including Iraq and Syria. The underlying goal appears to be the prevention of any nation from asserting autonomy away from a U.S.-centric economic framework. As the global economic landscape shifts, with countries like China seeking alternatives to the dollar system, U.S. strategies are increasingly focused on maintaining its hegemony by threatening economic chaos in nations that stray from its influence.
The strategic motivations behind the U.S. stance towards Iran are multifaceted, including the desire to interrupt China’s Belt and Road Initiative and to stifle Russian trade routes. The neoconservative ideology frames this struggle as a binary conflict between "democracy"—aligned with U.S. interests—and "autocracy," which embodies nations pursuing self-reliance. As international tensions escalate, the U.S. finds itself in conflict with multiple nations, including Russia and China, with Iran positioned as a pivotal battleground in this geopolitical struggle. The U.S. sees the destabilization of Iran as a means to secure its influence over oil resources and to prevent the emergence of independent governance structures in the region.
The ramifications of these policies have led to substantial criticism of the U.S.'s military spending priorities and its approach to international relations. Calls for alternative international organizations highlight the perceived impotence of the UN and similar bodies in countering U.S. aggression. The recent military actions, including missile strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, appear to be both a show of force and a desperate measure in a strategy increasingly viewed as flawed and self-defeating. As the conflict with Iran intensifies, the U.S. risks alienating itself from the Global Majority, pushing nations towards seeking alternatives to the American-led global order. The ongoing conflict reflects a broader trend of U.S. military engagements, many of which have not yielded the desired results, raising questions about the sustainability of American foreign policy in the face of growing global resistance.
## I. Introduction
- A. Opponents argue the war with Iran does not align with American interests.
- B. The neoconservative logic driving U.S. foreign policy is aggressive and contrary to international law and constitutional principles.
- C. The U.S. aims to maintain control over Middle Eastern oil and prevent autonomy from the U.S.-centered neoliberal order.
## II. Historical Context of U.S. Foreign Policy
- A. The 1970s and the New International Economic Order (NIEO)
1. U.S. strategists viewed NIEO as a threat to American hegemony.
2. Author's experience with military strategy discussions on Iran’s potential fragmentation.
- B. The 2003 perspective of General Wesley Clark
1. Iran identified as a capstone in a series of countries to control.
## III. Current Geopolitical Dynamics
- A. Focus on attempts by BRICS and other nations to de-dollarize trade.
- B. Trump's presidency and efforts to solidify U.S. economic control
1. Trade sanctions against rivals like China and Russia.
2. The objective to maintain U.S. economic dominance through military means.
## IV. U.S. Military Strategy and Objectives
- A. The perceived existential threat posed by China's rise
1. Industrial and trade dominance challenges U.S. markets and dollar hegemony.
2. Framing of the conflict as democracy vs. autocracy.
- B. The underlying motivations for attacking Iran
1. Preempting Iranian efforts to break away from dollar dominance.
2. Potential regime change strategies, including aligning with extremist factions.
## V. Control of Middle Eastern Oil
- A. Oil as the cornerstone of U.S. economic power
1. Historical significance of U.S. oil companies.
2. Dollar diplomacy and OPEC’s investments in U.S. economy.
- B. Iran's strategic location in international trade
1. Key link in China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
2. Blocking Russian access to trade routes via Iran.
## VI. Consequences of U.S. Actions
- A. The impact of U.S. military actions in the region
1. Efforts to mobilize ethnic opposition within Iran.
2. Strategic hopes to restructure Iran and other nations.
- B. The self-defeating nature of U.S. empire-building efforts
1. Driving nations towards alternative alliances.
2. The challenge of maintaining control through threats of chaos.
## VII. Military Spending and Its Effects
- A. The implications of increased military spending under Trump
1. Ineffectiveness of U.S. military defenses against Iranian capabilities.
2. The larger, often hidden military budget and its contributions to national debt.
- B. The complexities of U.S. foreign military aid
1. Funding for military operations through allies.
2. Consequences for U.S. economic stability.
## VIII. The Role of International Organizations
- A. The ineffectiveness of the United Nations
1. U.S. veto power and its implications for global governance.
2. The perception of the UN as irrelevant due to U.S. dominance.
- B. The need for alternative international institutions
1. Breaking away from U.S.-centric organizations.
2. Developing independent frameworks for global cooperation.
## IX. Recent Developments and Outcomes
- A. Trump’s military actions against Iranian nuclear sites
1. The PR aspect of military strikes and their actual effectiveness.
2. Temporary measures rather than a comprehensive strategy.
- B. The consequences for Israel and U.S. foreign policy
1. Israel’s inability to act as a reliable U.S. proxy.
2. The shift in global perceptions against U.S. support for Israel.
## X. Conclusion
- A. The U.S. has struggled to maintain its empire, facing numerous failures since the Korean War.
- B. Ongoing conflicts, including the war in Ukraine, highlight the challenges of U.S. military interventions.
- C. The drive for alternative global alliances is gaining momentum, indicating a shift away from U.S. influence.
Opponents of the war with Iran say that the war is not in American interests, seeing that Iran does not pose any visible threat to the United States.
This appeal to reason misses the neoconservative logic that has guided U.S. foreign policy for more than a half century, and which is now threatening to engulf the Middle East in the most violent war since Korea.
That logic is so aggressive, so repugnant to most people, so much in violation of the basic principles of international law, the United Nations, and the U.S. Constitution, that there is an understandable shyness in the authors of this strategy to spell out what is at stake.
What is at stake is the U.S. attempt to control the Middle East and its oil as a buttress of U.S. economic power, and to prevent other countries from moving to create their own autonomy from the U.S.-centered neoliberal order administered by the IMF, World Bank, and other institutions to reinforce U.S. unipolar power.
The 1970s saw much discussion about creating a New International Economic Order (NIEO). U.S. strategists saw this as a threat, and since my book Super Imperialism ironically was used as something like a textbook by the government, I was invited to comment on how I thought countries would break away from U.S. control.
I was working at the Hudson Institute with Herman Kahn, and in 1974 or 1975, he brought me to sit in on a military strategy discussion of plans being made already at that time to possibly overthrow Iran and break it up into ethnic parts. Herman found the weakest spot to be Baluchistan, on Iran’s border with Pakistan. The Kurds, Tajiks, and Turkic Azeris were others whose ethnicities were to be played off against each other, giving U.S. diplomacy a key potential client dictatorship to reshape both Iranian and Pakistani political orientation if need be.
Three decades later, in 2003, General Wesley Clark pointed to Iran as being the capstone of seven countries that the United States needed to control in order to dominate the Middle East, starting with Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan, culminating in Iran.
The U.S. fight for unipolar control of the world
Most of today’s discussion of the geopolitical dynamics of how the international economy is changing is understandably (and rightly) focusing on the attempt by BRICS and other countries to escape from U.S. control by de-dollarizing their trade and investment.
But the most active dynamic presently reshaping the international economy has been the attempts of Donald Trump’s whirlwind presidency since January to lock other countries into a U.S.-centered economy, by agreeing not to focus their trade and investment on China and other states seeking autonomy from U.S. control. (Trade with Russia is already heavily sanctioned.)
As will be described below, the war in Iran likewise has as an aim blocking trade with China and Russia and countering moves away from the U.S.-centered neoliberal order.
Trump, hoping in his own self-defeating way to rebuild U.S. industry, expected that countries would respond to his threat to create tariff chaos by reaching an agreement with America not to trade with China, and indeed to accept U.S. trade and financial sanctions against it, Russia, Iran, and other countries deemed to be a threat to the unipolar U.S. global order.
Maintaining that order is the U.S. objective in its current fight with Iran, as well as its fights with Russia and China – and Cuba, Venezuela, and other countries seeking to restructure their economic policies to recover their independence.
From the view of U.S. strategists, the rise of China poses an existential danger to U.S. unipolar control, both as a result of China’s industrial and trade dominance outstripping the U.S. economy and threatening its markets and the dollarized global financial system, and by China’s industrial socialism providing a model that other countries might seek to emulate and/or join with to recover the national sovereignty that has been eroded in recent decades.
U.S. administrations and a host of U.S. cold warriors have framed the issue as being between “democracy” (defined as countries supporting U.S. policy as client regimes and oligarchies) and “autocracy” (countries seeking national self-reliance and protection from foreign trade and financial dependency).
This framing of the international economy views not only China but any other country seeking national autonomy as an existential threat to U.S. unipolar domination. That attitude explains the U.S./NATO attack on Russia that has resulted in the Ukraine war of attrition, and most recently the U.S./Israeli war against Iran that is threatening to engulf the whole world in U.S.-backed war.
The motivation for the attack on Iran has nothing to do with any attempt by Iran to protect its national sovereignty by developing an atom bomb. The basic problem is that the United States has taken the initiative in trying to preempt Iran and other countries from breaking away from dollar hegemony and U.S. unipolar control.
Here’s how the neocons spell out the U.S. national interest in overthrowing the Iranian government and bringing about a regime change – not necessarily a secular democratic regime change, but perhaps an extension of the ISIS/Al-Qaida Wahhabi terrorists who have taken over Syria.
With Iran broken up and its component parts turned into a set of client oligarchies, U.S. diplomacy can control all Middle Eastern oil. And control of oil has been a cornerstone of U.S. international economic power for a century, thanks to U.S. oil companies operating internationally (not only as domestic U.S. producers of oil and gas) and remitting economic rents extracted from overseas to make a major contribution to the U.S. balance of payments.
Control of Middle Eastern oil also enables the dollar diplomacy that has seen Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries invest their oil revenues into the U.S. economy by accumulating vast holdings of U.S. Treasury securities and private-sector investments.
The United States holds OPEC countries hostage through these investments in the U.S. economy (and in other Western economies), which can be expropriated much as the United States grabbed $300 billion of Russia’s monetary savings in the West in 2022. This largely explains why these countries are afraid to act in support of the Palestinians or Iranians in today’s conflict.
But Iran is not only the capstone to full control of the Near East and its oil and dollar holdings. Iran is a key link for China’s Belt and Road Initiative for a New Silk Road of railway transport to the West.
If the United States can overthrow the Iranian government, this interrupts the long transportation corridor that China already has constructed and hopes to extend further west.
Iran also is a key to blocking Russian trade and development via the Caspian Sea and access to the south, bypassing the Suez Canal. And under U.S. control, an Iranian client regime could threaten Russia from its southern flank.
To the neocons, all this makes Iran a central pivot on which the U.S. national interest is based – if you define that national interest as creating a coercive empire of client states observing dollar hegemony by adhering to the dollarized international financial system.
I think that Trump’s warning to Tehran’s citizens to evacuate their city is just an attempt to stir up domestic panic as a prelude to a U.S. attempt to mobilize ethnic opposition as a means to break up Iran into component parts. It is similar to the U.S. hopes to break up Russia and China into regional ethnicities.
That is the U.S. strategic hope for a new international order that remains under its command.
The irony, of course, is that U.S. attempts to hold onto its fading economic empire continue to be self-defeating.
The objective is to control other nations by threatening economic chaos. But it is this U.S. threat of chaos that is driving other nations to seek alternatives elsewhere. And an objective is not a strategy.
The plan to use Netanyahu as America’s counterpart to Ukraine’s Zelensky, demanding U.S. intervention with his willingness to fight to the last Israeli, much as the U.S./NATO are fighting to the last Ukrainian, is a tactic that is quite obviously at the expense of strategy.
It is a warning to the entire world to find an escape hatch.
Like the U.S. trade and financial sanctions intended to keep other countries dependent on U.S. markets and a dollarized international financial system, the attempt to impose a military empire from Central Europe to the Middle East is politically self-destructive.
It is making the split that already is occurring between the U.S.-centered neoliberal order and the Global Majority irreversible on moral grounds, as well as on the grounds of simple self-preservation and economic self-interest.
Trump’s Republican budget plan and its vast increase in military spending
The ease with which Iranian missiles have been able to penetrate Israel’s much-vaunted Iron Dome defense shows the folly of Trump’s pressure for an enormous trillion-dollar subsidy to the U.S. military-industrial complex for a similar Golden Dome boondoggle here in the United States.
So far, the Iranians have used only their oldest and least effective missiles. The aim is to deplete Israel’s anti-missile defenses so that in a few weeks it will be unable to block a serious Iranian attack.
Iran already demonstrated its ability to evade Israel’s air defenses a few months ago, just as during Trump’s previous presidency it showed how easily it could hit U.S. military bases.
The U.S. military budget actually is much larger than is reported in the proposed bill before Congress to approve Trump’s trillion-dollar subsidy.
Congress funds its military-industrial complex (MIC) in two ways: The obvious way is by arms purchases paid for by Congress directly. Less acknowledged is MIC spending routed via U.S. foreign military aid to its allies – Ukraine, Israel, Europe, South Korea, Japan, and other Asian countries – to buy U.S. arms.
This explains why the military burden is what normally accounts for the entire U.S. budget deficit and hence the rise in government debt (much of it self-financed via the Federal Reserve since 2008, to be sure).
The need for alternative international organizations
Unsurprisingly, the international community has been unable to prevent the U.S./Israeli war against Iran.
The United Nations Security Council is blocked by the United States’ veto, and that of Britain and France, from taking measures against acts of aggression by the United States and its allies.
The United Nations is now seen to have become toothless and irrelevant as a world organization able to enforce international law. (Its situation is much as Stalin remarked regarding Vatican opposition, “How many troops does the Pope have?”)
Just as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund are instruments of U.S. foreign policy and control, so too are many other international organizations which are dominated by the United States and its allies, including (relevantly for today’s crisis in West Asia) the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that Iran has accused of having provided Israel targeting information for its attack on Iranian nuclear scientists and sites.
Breaking free of the U.S. unipolar order requires a full spectrum set of alternative international organizations independent of the United States, NATO, and other client allies.
Trump’s attack on Iran
The sound and fury of Trump’s missile attack on Iran’s most famous nuclear sites on June 21 turned out not to be the capstone of America’s conquest of the Middle East. But it did more than signify nothing.
Trump must have listened to the military’s warnings that all game plans for conflict with Iran at this time showed the United States losing badly.
His Trumpian solution was to brag on his social media account that he had won a great victory in stopping Iran’s march toward making an atom bomb.
Iran for its part evidently was glad to cooperate with the public relations charade. The U.S. missiles seem to have landed on mutually agreed-upon sites that Iran had vacated for just such a diplomatic stand-down.
Trump always announces any act as a great victory, and in a way it was, over the hopes and goading of his most ardent neoconservative advisors. The United States has deferred its hopes for conquest at this time.
The fight is now to be limited to Iran and Israel. And Israel already has offered to stop hostilities if Iran does. Iran gave hope for an armistice once it has exacted due retaliation for Israeli assassinations and terrorist acts against civilians.
Israel is the big loser, and its ability to serve as America’s proxy has been crippled. The devastation from Iranian rockets has left a reported one-third of Tel Aviv and much of Haifa in ruins.
Israel has lost not only its key military and national security structures, but will lose much of its skilled population as it emigrates, taking its industry with it.
By intervening on Israel’s side by supporting its genocide, the United States has turned most of the UN’s Global Majority against it.
Washington’s ill-thought backing of the reckless Netanyahu has catalyzed the drive by other countries to speed their way out of the U.S. diplomatic, economic, and military orbit.
So America’s Oil War against Iran can now be added to the long list of wars that the United States has lost since the Korean and Vietnam wars, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest of its adventures leading up to its imminent loss in Ukraine. Its victories have been against Grenada and German industry – its own imperial “backyard,” so to speak.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Good article. I’m wondering how correct it might be ? Where are the downed fighter jets, the verified damage assessments, the other countries militaries ? This may only be round 4 or 5, and it could go extra innings. Who’s taking bets that this is just a time out… ? If it’s theater, or some kind of conspiracy, it sure does look expensive. If it’s the real deal, which is what it seems to me, they are going to need more …. Money, money money, money, … Money. Prey$ be the prophets. Hold on, hold on tightly, and don’t let go of the progre$$ . The next planet, or plane of existence, will be better, I’m sure. It’s written, now, here on TUR. Stay tuned, we’ll be right back, with more stuff. Low, low, sale prices. Peace for profit$. What else is there? Buy more explosive$. Good deal$ …
Great article, as usual. Thanks.
The Economics of Empire angle is valid, and no doubt the case. However it does wholly explain Israel’s actions toward Iran. First, one must consider the well-known Jewish paranoia, now directed at Iran. This Jewish mental mindset (illness?) transcends simple economic calculation.
Second, who is using whom with respect to Iran?
Finally, the idea that Netanyahu will ‘fight to the last Israeli’ is rather fanciful. On the other hand, Bibi is no doubt willing to fight Iran down to the last American, if that is what it takes.
Any monetary system needs injections of under-valued assets/capital to leverage up. Over-valued assets, like all Western countries, are not only useless but an existential danger to a monetary system.
Iran and Venezuela are the perfect examples of under-valued assets. By attempting to have their own independent monetary systems Iran and Venezuela have prevented their assets from being leveraged by the global dollar system. In response, the dollar system has embargoed (i.e. laid siege to) these countries which, from the perspective of the dollar system, greatly reduces the value of Iran’s and Venezuela’s assets. These assets can be further reduced in value, significantly, by bombing these countries into submission.
From the perspective of the dollar system, the current under-valued assets of Iran and Venezuela are worth $trillions which can be leveraged up by some factor between 10 and 100. This means that dollar loans to finance the “development” of Iran and Venezuela can be leveraged to many tens (hundreds?) of $trillions.
Here’s a quick idea of what “tens of $trillions” is… the U.S. federal debt has increased $30T in the last 25 years… that’s roughly $100K per American… which is $400K per American household of four… enough for every American family to buy a fancy new house. And that is only the increased federal debt… the commercial merger/acquisition debt and loss of the 95%’s wealth/equity amount to many more tens of $trillions.
Why is no one talking about this “money system”? Yes, Michael Hudson is close but never gets there… and Alex Krainer is the closest but never drives it home with the numbers/motives. The libertarians NEVER will talk about this… because they are the central pillar supporting the global neoliberal dollar system. The global empire system is starving for under-valued assets… and war is the perfect traditional way of getting super-under-valued assets.
It’s also important to contemplate the huge amount (hundreds of $trillions) of significantly-over-valued assets in the West… and how they are now almost fully owned/controlled by the West’s 5% managerial class… who are now pushing for war… to not only maintain their current asset values… but acquire additional assets… with CNN blasting all day… on their huge-screen TVs… in their huge kitchens… they love the war drums… more… more… while they ask themselves… “should I go to work today… every day I make/produce 100 times the average scum worker… but I only like to work three days a week”.
I can hear the libertarian heads exploding… they’re ready for a batman fight scene… KAPOW… BAP… THUNK… CRUNCH… BANG… if only everyone would listen to them… all this nasty little fighting would never be necessary… just get rid of “government” and all these issues would simply not exist… there would be nothing to worry about… we could all “just be happy”… like they are… tra-la-la-la-la.
Very interesting to learn about the East-West trade corridor. This commodity makes the whole action explainable however, I don’t think you are weighing the jewish involvement correctly. Israel is to begin construction of the Ben Gurion Canal which will circumvent the other waterways for oil transport. This canal, designed in the 1950s, is to go straight through Gaza to the Med…which is why they need all those pesky people and buildings out of the way. The illegal occupiers have also been setting up oil drill rigs around their area perimeter and designed to drill horizontally. This means they will be drilling up under their neighbors and stealing THEIR oil pools. So I believe you are correct that this whole thing has a lot to do with shipping control, but there is one final aspect not mentioned in your paper: Iran does not have a Rothschild-controlled central bank…just like China, North Korea and Venezuela. Let that sink in.
Krainer Complete has done a fairly good job of identifying the bankers’ desperate mania for collateral as a key driver.
He is trustworthy and has a good grasp on all the players.
In my opinion, his expressed conviction that “Israel is completely a British project” is not accurate.
Such inaccuracy tends to skew the analysis.
Zionists did and do have agency, maybe more than the continental Europeans, who are the vassals of zionists/City of London.
Speaking of which: Krainer spoke recently about Germany’s outsized productivity: he ascribed it to the way German banking USED to work, with many regional banks lending for long-term projects that might not yield short-term fruit, but the bank did not pull out. Krainer did not elaborate on how it was that that system was ended in Germany.
hopefully iran will follow through on their threats, to “deal with” the israeli ratfucker grossi.
Video Link
of course once a ratfucker always a ratfucker, grossi, just doesn’t quit.
https://www.newsweek.com/iran-uranium-missing-iaea-grossi-2090434
iran now votes to withdraw from iaea as a result of grossi’s complicity in israel’s attack.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/25/iran-passes-bill-to-halt-iaea-cooperation-as-fragile-israel-ceasefire-holds
The Iran vs Israel/U.S war is on hold, Trump has admitted, last time Israel held a ceasefire was to rearm, so they’ll be rearming to recommence the war soon, reason will be that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure wasn’t destroyed.
Iran, if it didn’t need to stop, should of continued until Israel was ashes.
The U.S and Israel are Terminators, they will never stop until their enemies are in ashes or they are, doesn’t the BRICS understand this, to the U.S there is no room on this planet for a second power, these people want it all, no sharing of anything, non-elite can look forward to a boot in their face forever.
LOL, Lucas Gage made the front page of the Tehran Times.
https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/c9/ee/24/c9ee24465134def830e1f904cb2d3506.jfif?width=568
Video Link
to “deal with” the israeli ratfucker grossi.
Only the genocidal mossad agent, Jason Brodsky, or the ignorant people who don’t know PERSIAN spread such a stupid accusation for the genocidal and ASSASSIN jews as propaganda LIE.
I have already commented about Jason Brodsky’ lie at this site:
https://www.unz.com/article/the-presidents-of-russia-and-china-announce-the-cardinal-points-of-the-obvious/
Brodsky is refereeing to Ali Larijani’s children who are living in the US, ripe for assassination
Dr. Ali Larijani, is one of the most gentle person I have ever seen on TV. He referred to the ‘negotiation’ as a trap to attack Iran. by US-Israel. He refereed to the recent Grossi’ interview with Ammanpour & Co. CNN, when Grossi said:
Larijani said: Then, why did Grossi give a negative report the the board of the governors meeting, but NOW he is changing his words, when he clearly said: Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon. So, Larijani said:“After the war we have to reach him to hold him accountable for his false report.
He did not threaten anyone. In fact Brodsky hinted that his children can be a target for assassination..
Now Brodsky, a Mossad informant, is using Larijani’s tweet in PERSIAN deliberately to interpret it as ‘assassination’ of Grossi which is his own jewish GANG’and the CONMAN’s signature not the Iranians.
correction: suspend not withdraw.
This is a different but similar topic, both are part of the incredible fictional world that we live in that the media preaches to us year after year in complete lock step unison and that is upside down compared to the real world.
The fictional world: 9/11 was an unprovoked attach by Muslim terrorists, and as a result of this attach the US has spent years fighting terrorist regimes in the middle east and the fighting continues even to this day.
The real world: the US launched an unprovoked war on Iraq, at Netanyahu’s insistence, and bombed Iraq continuously, almost daily from then until 9/11. There were several major attacks punctuating the daily/weekly bombings to “enforce a no fly zone”, 100s per years. The US destroyed Iraq infrastructure, and 100s of thousands or millions of Iraqis died. Sec. of State M. Albright was asked in an interview if the results we’d obtained were worth the 500,000 children that had died from the bombing, and she replied that it was worth it.
Video Link
So, by any fractionally rational account, the US/Israel had rained terror on Iraq daily for 10+ years, and the Iraqis were totally innocent victims of this terror.
And 9/11, regardless of who perpetrated it, is ostensibly one day of payback for years of death and destruction we wrought on the middle east.
Yet 9/11 is endlessly recalled in the media as an unprovoked and terrible crime inflicted on our democratic, free, and virtuous country by Muslim terrorists.
It should make one gag, but instead it is endlessly trotted out to justify more US/Israeli terror and thousands more deaths inflicted on the Middle East.
The point is we live in an upside down world that is never challenged in academia, the media, or the government. There is nothing subtle or hidden about it, it is upside down, it is repeated endlessly, and it is NEVER challenged. It is perfectly insane.
It would be unbelievable if it were not happening.
We come to the question of why has the United States brought itself to the point of collapse for the benefit of a tiny state in the middle-east?
To understand this you must turn the clock back to well placed operatives that became intellectual “grooming gangs” for the Zionist cause.
Dean Acheson was a very influential statesmen for many U.S administrations and is often quoted as the father of the cold war. Dean mentions one of his greatest influences was Felix Frankfurter who taught at Harvard, Felix was under the influence of Louis Brandeis a noted Zionist, Felix was also an advisor to FDR
So you see Zionist thought was introduced early on and propagated at the very heart of the U.S establishment and over time Zionist thought and concerns became American thought and concerns, it was very subtle and well executed to the point that nobody can remember not having the views and concerns of Zionists because now it is mainstream American ideology.
To overthrow this ideological infiltration will mean a clearing house of all the nodes of dissemination of this caustic genocidal ideology from all places of learning, the next generation must be taught that genocidal hate filled ideologies which lack any morality have no place in any society.
Is this humor?
The neoconservatives are basically Jews.
No, it’s actually a fight for Zionist control of the world. Most people in the US are either too ignorant or stupid to realize their country is being used at their expense by a malicious and hateful tribe.
I cannot prove any of the following, but there is no doubt in my mind about it.
Michael Hudson knows that he’s talking nonsense. He is not stupid. So, why does he do it? There is only one possible explanation: it’s a strategy.
He knows that Israel rules the U.S., and not the other way around. However, if he were to point that out, he’d have to draw attention to the diaspora Jews, and the dual nationals, because there is no way Israel would be able to control the U.S. without the active participation of them. And therein lies the problem: if he points the finger at the Jews, he will be vilified, because the Jews own most megaphones in the U.S..
So, his strategy is to blame the “victim”, i.e., the U.S., who in reality is just the “golem” for Israel. If his strategy works, he thinks he will take down Israel too, because Israel’s power depends on the U.S..
So, he thinks he has developed a perfect plan to fight the Jews without incurring in accusations of antisemitism.
But will it work? I doubt it. If Americans think that the U.S. is really in command, and that being an accessory to genocide and lawless aggression is in its best interests, will the American people feel motivated to oppose the current American foreign policy?
What do you think?
The United States was deliberately steered back into the British Imperial fold. The Rhodes- Milner -Cecil-Palmerston bunch knew the tradeoff was that Washington DC would be the new center of gravity, but it’s geographical unassailability made that more than acceptable. Sentiment about Ol’ Blighty itself -to say nothing of its people- was misplaced.
The American strategy is identical to that of Britain. Relentless subversion. This Atlanticist claque thrives on seeking for fissures -even amongst ostensible allies. The possibility of future rebellion must be guarded against. Therefore flood all NATO countries full of immigrants who have been taught contempt for their hosts. Turn their security apparatus into an instrument of oppression and put into place systems that can upon the issuance of a proclamation be transformed into instrumentality of total control.
It happened sometime in the 1990s. After the collapse of the S.U. Just like Japan’s plaza accords in 1985. My bet it happened some time quietly behind the scenes between 1994 to 1997. Since we all know on a per capita basis the US couldn’t even compete industrially with the Germans or the Japanese back in the 80s.
“Therefore flood all NATO countries full of immigrants who have been taught contempt for their hosts.”
Also infinite cheap labour for worthless fait currencies. More rent slaves, tax slaves, debt slaves, etc. You know “citizens” a.k.a. consoomers.
I couldn’t figure out why the Ukrainians kept on fighting, why not just stop and replace Zelenski?
It made no sense. It’s been clear all along that the EU has been counting on divesting itself of its unwanted immigrants, the same thing the US is doing only we don’t have an empty country next door.
Finally, it dawns on me.
The WSJ had an article with the men pictured in military uniform; guys who kept the farm going thru thick and thin. Who should be at home teaching the grandkids their history. The reason they aren’t is the reason for this war. The EU wants to rid itself of its immigrant load and removing the long term Ukrainians is proving to be the best way. The young people left will not be as resistant to the immigrant newcomers. They will become the new wives and husbands of the Ukrainian young people even tho Russia sees this and is preserving life in the unusual prisoner of war trades. The children kept safe will also be a Ukrainian preserve of family when they are returned.
Now it is obvious that the war duration has only one function, to deplete Ukrainians, those determined farmers and miners and Moms and Dads who have given their lives for their children, specifically the men who have put Ukraine first, will now be the way the EU achieves their goal of swamping the Ukraine with immigrants by conveniently caring enough to die.