- On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli
relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good.Well, it's not good,
but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)."
-
- Intelligence wars rely on mathematical models to anticipate
the response of "the mark" to staged provocations. Reactions
thereby become foreseeable-within an acceptable range of probabilities.
When Israeli mathematician Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize
in economic science, he conceded that "the entire school of thought
that we have developed here in Israel" has turned "Israel into
the leading authority in this field."
-
- With a well-planned provocation, the anticipated response
can even become a weapon in the arsenal of the agent provocateur. In response
to 9-11, how difficult would it be to foresee that the U.S. would deploy
its military to avenge that attack? With fixed intelligence, how difficult
would it be to redirect that response to wage a long-planned war in Iraq
- not for U.S. interests but to advance the agenda for Greater Israel?
-
- The emotionally wrenching component of a provocation
plays a key role in the field of game theory war planning where Israel
is the authority. With the televised murder of 3,000 Americans, a shared
mindset of shock, grief and outrage made it easier for U.S. policy-makers
to believe that a known Evil Doer in Iraq was responsible, regardless of
the facts.
-
- The strategic displacement of facts with induced beliefs,
in turn, requires a period of "preparing the mindset" so that
"the mark" will put their faith in a pre-staged fiction. Those
who induced the March 2003 invasion of Iraq began "laying mental threads"
and creating agenda-advancing mental associations more than a decade earlier.
-
- Notable among those threads was the 1993 publication
in Foreign Affairs of an article by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington.
By the time his analysis appeared in book-length form in 1996 as The Clash
of Civilizations, more than 100 academies and think tanks were prepared
to promote it, pre-staging a "clash consensus"five years
before 9-11.
-
- Also published in 1996 under the guidance of Richard
Perle was A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e., Israel).
A member since 1987 of the U.S. Defense Policy Advisory Board, this self-professed
Zionist became its chairman in 2001. As a key adviser to Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Perle's senior Pentagon post helped lay the
required foundation for removing Saddam Hussein as part of a Greater Israel
strategy, a key theme of A Clean Break released five years before
9-11.
-
- A mass murder, articles, books, think tanks and Pentagon
insiders, however, are not enough to manage the variables in a "probabilistic"
war-planning model. Supportive policy makers are also required to lend
the appearance of legitimacy and credibility to an operation justified
by intelligence fixed around a pre-determined agenda.
-
- That role was eagerly filled by Senators John McCain,
Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian
Zionist from Arizona, when they co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of
1998. Echoing Tel Aviv's agenda in A Clean Break, their bill laid another
mental thread in the public mindset by calling for the removal of Saddam
Husseinthree years before 9-11.
-
- The legislation also appropriated $97 million, largely
to promote that Zionist agenda. Distracted by mid-term Congressional elections
and by impeachment proceedings commenced in reaction to a well-timed presidential
affair involving White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton signed
that agenda into law October 31, 1998 - five years before the U.S.-led
invasion that removed Saddam Hussein.
-
- After 9-11, John McCain and Joe Lieberman became inseparable
travel companions and irrepressible advocates for the invasion of Iraq.
Looking "presidential" aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore
Roosevelt in January 2002, McCain laid another key thread when he waved
an admiral's cap while proclaiming, alongside Lieberman, "On to Baghdad."
-
- By Way of Deception
-
- The chutzpah with which this game theory strategy progressed
in plain sight could be seen in the behavior of Deputy Defense Secretary
Paul Wolfowitz, another Zionist insider. Four days after 9-11, in a principals'
meeting at Camp David, he proposed that the U.S. invade Iraq. At that time,
the intelligence did not yet point to Iraqi involvement and Osama bin Laden
was thought to be hiding in a remote region of Afghanistan.
-
- Frustrated that President George H.W. Bush declined to
remove Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War, Wolfowitz proposed a No-Fly
Zone in northern Iraq. By 2001, the Israeli Mossad had agents at work for
a decade in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. Intelligence reports of Iraqi
ties to Al Qaeda also came from Mosul - reports that later proved to be
false. Mosul again emerged in November 2004 as a center of the insurgency
that destabilized Iraq. That reaction precluded the speedy exit of coalition
forces promised in Congressional testimony by senior war-planner Wolfowitz.
-
- The common source of the fixed intelligence that induced
America to war in Iraq has yet to be acknowledged even though intelligence
experts agree that deception on such a scale required a decade to plan,
staff, pre-stage, orchestrate and, to date, cover up. The two leaders of
the 9-11 Commission report conceded they were stopped by Commission members
from hearing testimony on the motivation for 9-11: the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
-
- The fictions accepted as generally accepted truths included
Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague,
Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories and Iraqi purchases of "yellowcake"
uranium from Niger. Only the last fact was conceded as phony in the relevant
time frame. All the rest were disclosed as false, flawed or fixed only
after the war began. An attempt to cover-up the yellowcake account led
to the federal prosecution of vice-presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby,
another well-placed Zionist insider.
-
- Did game theory-modeled pre-staging also include the
Israeli provocation that led to the Second Intifada? An intifada is an
uprising or, literally, a "shaking off" of an oppressor. The
Second Intifada in Palestine dates from September 2000 when Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon led an armed march to Jerusalem's Temple Mount
one year before 9-11.
-
- After a year of calm-during which Palestinians believed
in the prospects for peace-suicide bombings recommenced after this high-profile
provocation. In response to the uprising, Sharon and Netanyahu observed
that only when Americans "feel our pain" would they understand
the plight of the victimized Israelis. Both Israeli leaders suggested that
shared mindset ("feel our pain") would require in the U.S. a
weighted body count of 4,500 to 5,000 Americans lost to terrorism, the
initial estimate of those who died in the twin towers of New York City's
World Trade Center-one year later.
-
- The American Valkyrie?
-
- When successful, game theory warfare strengthens the
agent provocateur while leaving the mark discredited and depleted by the
anticipated reaction to a well-timed provocation. By game theory standards,
9-11 was a strategic success because the U.S. was portrayed as irrational
for its reaction - the invasion of Iraq that triggered a deadly insurgency
with devastating consequences both for Iraq and the U.S.
-
- That insurgency, in turn, was an easily modeled reaction
to the invasion of a nation that (a) played no role in the provocation,
and (b) was known to be populated by three long-warring sects where an
unstable peace was maintained by a former U.S. ally who was rebranded an
Evil Doer. As the cost in blood and treasure expanded, the U.S. became
overextended militarily, financially and diplomatically.
-
- As "the mark" (the U.S.) emerged in the foreground,
the agent provocateur faded into the background. But only after catalyzing
dynamics that steadily drained the U.S. of credibility, resources and resolve.
This "probabilistic" victory also ensured widespread cynicism,
insecurity, distrust and disillusionment along with a declining capacity
to defend its interests due to the duplicity of a game theory-savvy enemy
within.
-
- Meanwhile the American public fell under a regime of
oversight, surveillance and intimidation marketed as "homeland"
security. This domestic operation even features rhetorical hints of a WWII
"fatherland" with clear signs of a force alien to the U.S. with
its welcome embrace of open dissent. Is this operation meant to protect
Americans or to shield those responsible for this insider operation from
Americans?
-
- By manipulating the shared mindset, skilled game theory
war-planners can wage battles in plain sight and on multiple fronts with
minimal resources. One proven strategy: Pose as an ally of a well-armed
nation predisposed to deploy its military in response to a mass murder.
In this case, the result destabilized Iraq, creating crises that could
be exploited to strategic advantage by expanding the conflict to Iran,
another key Israeli goal announced in A Clean Break-seven years before
the invasion of Iraq.
-
- Which nation benefitted from the deployment of coalition
forces to the region? Today's mathematically model-able outcome undermined
U.S. national security by overextending its military, discrediting its
leadership, degrading its financial condition and disabling its political
will. In game theory terms, these results were "perfectly predictable"-within
an acceptable range of probabilities.
-
- In the asymmetry that typifies today's unconventional
warfare, those who are few in numbers must wage war by way of deception-non-transparently
and with means that leverage their impact. Which nation-if not Israel-fits
that description?
-
- Treason in Plain Sight?
-
- Game theory war-planners manipulate the shared mental
environment by shaping perceptions and creating impressions that become
consensus opinions. With the aid of well-timed crises, policy-makers fall
in line with a predetermined agenda-not because they are Evil Doers or
"imperialists" but because the shared mindset has been pre-conditioned
to respond not to the facts but to manipulated emotions and consensus beliefs.
Without the murder of 3,000 on 9-11, America's credibility would not now
be damaged and the U.S. economy would be in far better shape.
-
- By steadily displacing facts with what "the mark"
can be induced to believe, the few-within-the-few amplify the impact of
their duplicity. By steady manipulation of the public's mindset, game theory
war-planners can defeat an opponent with vastly superior resources by inducing
those decisions that ensure defeat.
-
- Intelligence wars are waged in plain sight and under
the cover of widely shared beliefs. By manipulating consensus opinion,
such wars can be won from the inside out by inducing a people to freely
choose the very forces that imperil their freedom. Thus in the Information
Age the disproportionate power wielded by those with outsized influence
in media, pop culture, think tanks, academia and politics-domains where
Zionist influence is most rampant.
-
- Induced beliefs act as a force-multiplier to wage intelligence
wars from the shadows. At the operational core of such warfare are those
masterful at anticipating the mark's response to a provocation and incorporating
that response into their arsenal. For those who wage war in this fashion,
facts are only a barrier to overcome. For those nations dependent on facts,
the rule of law and informed consent to protect their freedom, such insider
treachery poses the greatest possible threat to national security.
-
- America is far less safe than before 9-11. Tel Aviv clearly
intends to continue its serial provocations, as evidenced by its ongoing
expansion of the settlements. Israel has shown no sign of a willingness
to negotiate in good faith or to take the steps required to make peace
a possibility. To date, Barack Obama appears unwilling to name senior appointees
who are not either Zionists are strongly pro-Israeli. The greatest threat
to world peace is not terrorists. The greatest threat is the U.S.-Israeli
relationship.
-
- In the same way that a decade of pre-staging was required
to plausibly induce the U.S. to invade Iraq, a similar strategy is now
underway to persuade the U.S. to invade Iran or to support and condone
an attack by Israel. The same duplicity is again at work, including the
high profile branding of the requisite Evil Doer. From its very outset,
the Zionist enterprise focused on hegemony in the Middle East. Its entangled
alliance with the U.S. enabled this enterprise to deploy American might
for that purpose.
-
- Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and
stable nation state intelligence required to take the U.S. to war in the
Middle East while also making it appear that Islam is the problem. If Barack
Obama continues to defer to Tel Aviv, he can rightly be blamed when the
next attack occurs in the U.S. or the European Union featuring the usual
orgy of evidence pointing to a predetermined target. Should another mass
murder occur, that event will be traceable directly to the U.S.-Israeli
relationship and the failure of U.S policy-makers to free America from
this enemy within.
|
