AS the Islamist-in-Chief awaits with bated breath to sign off on “peace in our time” – duly backed up by a recent Iranian defector, a top aide to Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani – it must be understood, in relation to Obama Inc. and Iran, the “negotiations” have been little more than theatrical spectacles. Window dressing. Don’t ever forget this.
NOT only that, but guess who is one of his chief adviser’s via said “negotiations”? A highly connected mouthpiece for the Iranian regime! Say what? As is said, the fix is in!
Secretary of State John Kerry exposed a secret that journalists and academics have been agonizing over for the past six weeks: the fact that his daughter has married an Iranian-American who has extensive family ties to Iran.
“I am proud of the Iranian-Americans in my own family, and grateful for how they have enriched my life,” Kerry said in the official statement.
Interesting. Nothing to see there…
‘Inshallah‘ means – If Allah wills it.
BUT if anything lends itself to said dire outcome, well, this site’s (Nov. 2013) commentary should be considered a centerpiece: “Valerie Jarrett, Iran’s Deal Maker: Her Main Mission As Obama’s Consigliere.”
NOT only that, since this site’s inception, mega alarm bells (seek, and you shall find) rang, and all indicators pointed towards this moment in time. But let’s use the following one (Dec. 2013) as an exemplar, in so far as one of the world’s most authoritative experts on nuclear doctrine, Professor Louis Rene Beres, gave this investigative journalist a special shout out (among many) to said effect, and this one was especially high on his register: “Iran, A (De Facto) Nuclear State: Israel’s Former AMAN Chief Concurs With Former CIA Head.” Them’s fighting words.
FAST forward 15 months to the here and now, and DEBKAfile Intelligence sets the record straight: “U. S. Surrender On Break Out Time To A Bomb Leads To Breakthrough On Nuclear Deal.”
FOLKS, who’s still shocked…shocked. After all, how many alarms bells had to be rung here and there?
STILL, let’s dare not overlook the historical parallels to the run up to Hitler’s genocidal swathe, if any sense of history still counts among non-blinded and rational thinkers.
PAY (historical) heed to the (un)learned lessons:
Francisco Gil-White – March 26, 2015 – http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/obama-iran-eng.htm
( Times of Israel )
“Israel must vanish from the page of time!”
–Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the Iranian Islamist State (1979)
“Israel must be wiped off the map!”
–Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former president of Iran (2005)
“Israel… has no cure but to be annihilated.”
–Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran (2014)
“Peace for Our Time,” announced a proud Neville Chamberlain after placing the Czechoslovaks in Hitler’s foaming bite, one he relaxed only to spit threats of European war and anti-Jewish genocide. “Peace in our time” promised Barack Obama in his inaugural speech of 2013. History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Obama prepares already the signature that will normalize the nuclear program of terrorist Ali Khamenei, ‘Supreme Leader’ (official title) of Iran, and would-be emulator of Hitler’s crime against the Jews.
Santayana was right: lest we understand history we are doomed to repeat it. So let us interrogate this history and find the rhymes to grasp our moment: How could Chamberlain vault over public opinion to commit his diplomatic barbarities? Historians have answered this already.
In The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960) William Shirer remarked that the Times of London, “This great journal, one of the chief glories of English journalism, …play[ed]… a dubious role in the disastrous British appeasement of Hitler.” How so? By raising the Führer’s prestige every time he interrupted his violent tantrums to communicate his commitment to ‘peace,’ promised always in return for some license (to reoccupy the Rhineland, rearm Germany, absorb Austria, consume Czechoslovakia…). This media barrage gave Chamberlain cover when he repeated each time—another time—that Hitler could be ‘appeased.’
It wasn’t just the Times.
Neville Chamberlain’s Conservative Party created, in the late 1920s, “ ‘a little intelligence service of our own’ ” that jerked the conservative press around with a clandestine bridle every bit as short as that employed in the totalitarian states. It was led by Sir Joseph Ball, Chamberlain’s most intimate friend, as documented in research published by R.B. Cockett in The Historical Journal. Ball began extending his control over the rest of the British press when the Great Depression called forth the so-called ‘national’ government, in truth conservative to the hilt..
According to Anthony Adamthwaite’s investigations, published in the Journal of Contemporary History, by 1936 this conservative government had “the BBC… firmly on the leash.” That was not enough. In 1937, with Chamberlain installed as Prime Minister, Goebbels complained about remaining criticisms of Hitler still daring to rear their heads in the dailies. Lord Halifax, foreign minister, “promised to do all he could to secure ‘the cooperation of the British Press’ ” and rushed to solve the problem with the owners of the Daily Herald, the News Chronicle, the Daily Mail, and the Evening Standard. There were “awkward questions” about all this in the House of Commons “[that] were met with denials, evasion and ambiguity.”
One newspaper went to extremes: Truth. Chamberlain confessed in a letter to his sisters that “the paper was ‘secretly controlled by Sir Joseph Ball’ ” (he had purchased it clandestinely). And “Truth,” explains Cockett, “as an expression of the views of Ball and Chamberlain, seems to have differed little in its ideological content from the professed prejudices and beliefs of the Nazi leaders.” In fact, “Truth adopted an overtly antisemitic and racialist tone…, [and] any opponent of appeasement came to be branded as a Jewish/Communist traitor to the true English cause.” Naturally, “Truth also became overtly pro-German and pro-Italian as Chamberlain proceeded in his search for a diplomatic settlement with Hitler and Mussolini.”
And in the United States?
Historian Frederick Marks points out in The Historical Journal that Franklin Delano Roosevelt projected in public positions quite at variance with his backstage dealings, producing a “gap between appearance and reality” that was “very wide indeed.” To British ambassador Ronald Lindsay, Roosevelt confessed that he would be the first to celebrate the success of British and French pressure on Czechoslovakia, but that he would be impeached if the US public came to know his opinion.
What about the press? Hearst all by himself owned half of the US press, and it was by “making overtures to William Randolph Hearst and other like-minded businessmen” that Roosevelt had managed to get the White House. What did Hearst want? This was well known, because “Hearst’s editorials were usually printed in all of his 26 newspapers.”
Consider a few of Hearst’s opinions, compiled by historian Rodney Carlisle in the Journal of Contemporary History: 1) Nazism was a welcome barrier against communism; 2) the United States should not threaten Germany or support the League of Nations; 3) Nazi demands about redrawing Germany’s borders were reasonable and the desire to unify German lands quite just; 4) the reoccupation of the Rhineland was justified; 5) if the Nazis attacked US navy ships, this should be tolerated if they issued a sincere apology (!?); and 6) Chamberlain did well in giving Czechoslovakia over to the Nazis. It was not by accident that Hearst was called “the keystone of American fascism.”
Support for the ‘appeasement’ (is that what it was?) of Hitler was an Anglo-American, and not merely a British phenomenon.
In our time US and British leaders invade Afghanistan and Iraq creating voids that Iran is quick to fill. Now they rush to negotiate with Iran that country’s development of nuclear weapons. In charge is Wendy Sherman, undersecretary of state, author of the deal that allowed North Korea her nuclear bombs and possessor of quite some gall for scolding the South Koreans who insist those bombs are unacceptable.
And to all this, the respected press of our day, what does it say?
On November 2014 the Economist confessed that “Iran is hard to fathom,” and that “journalists who have been able to obtain a precious visa still leave with a sense of uncertainty as few Iranians feel free to speak their mind.” Despite these limitations the British magazine, the most prestigious in the world, the most influential with ‘intelligent’ and ‘educated’ people, stated confidently that “The [Iranian] Revolution is over” and that “the country has unmistakably changed,” flooding its readers with statistics and anecdotes that speak to the supposed liberalism, modernity, and education of the Iranian population.
However, the nuclear agreement will not be signed with the Iranian population but with the tyrants who rule it. In November 2014, when the Economist published said piece, those rulers were energetically financing, as they still do, terrorist groups with a genocidal and antisemitic ideology; prosecutor Alberto Nissman was still around to denounce with his own voice the Argentinian government’s cover up of the Iranian officials responsible for the terrorist attack against the Jewish community of Buenos Aires (85 dead and 300 wounded); and one could still hear echoes of Iranian ‘Supreme Leader’ Ali Khamenei’s July threat of “annihilation” against the Jewish State.
One has got to take this seriously. Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani—former president of Iran and father of Iran’s nuclear program—has already made plenty clear what that program is for: “the application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.”
Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, orated eloquently some days ago before the US Congress on the intentions of the ayatollahs and the dangers of signing with them. The Economist replied with firm support for Obama. As did the New York Times.
Thus were we spoken to right before Czechoslovakia was thrown to Hitler. But that wasn’t (not exactly…) a free press. Have things changed? What does recent historical research reveal on the influence of the Western power elite over the media?
Research by Christopher Simpson, professor of communication at American University, documents that US intelligence agencies spent rivers of money to create in the postwar—in a snap—schools and academic departments of ‘communication’ (and related institutes) and staffed them with the researchers who had created the WWII ‘psychological warfare’ programs for the US government. (McCarthyism took care of any dissenters.) This infrastructure “underlies most college- and graduate-level training for print and broadcast journalists, public relations and advertising personnel, and the related craftspeople who might be called the ‘ideological workers’ of contemporary U.S. society.”
(Watch some related videos here.)
These same intelligence agencies were granted explicit permission, in the National Security Act of 1947, to use ‘covert actions’ to corrupt foreign media.
There is more than enough here for whoever sees in the press nothing less than Power’s megaphone. It was Chamberlain who celebrated Chamberlain’s policies; now Obama sells Obama.
History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. We should take heed, because antisemites are dangerous to us all. In World War II more than 54 million non-Jews lost their lives. For Hitler we were ‘subhumans’; for Khamenei, ‘infidels.’ Will the outcome be very different?
(An Islamist wind is blowing through the White House…the People’s House…threatening to destroy the west, if left unchecked!)
IN the same manner in which the geo-political stage was pre-set for World War 2, make no mistake, so too this go around is heading towards World War 3. In fact, whatever doubts one had re his intentions – as to what HUSSEIN Obama has been up to – there should no longer even be a scintilla. For when one factors in the requirements – the geo-political fault lines – for Iranian hegemony (and this is the mullahs and HUSSEIN Obama’s end goal, aside from everything else), it became necessary to alight the entire Mid East (and parts of Africa) to effectuate their plans. None of the fires were happenstance.
BASICALLY, a Sunni-Shia showdown had to take place, and the hyper-muscle of the Islamist-in-Chief was pressed into action to stir the ever-brewing cauldron of inter-Islamic/Arab struggle for regional (then global) hegemony. This was precisely what the so-called “Arab Spring” was about, followed up by the illegal thrust into Libya, Benghazigate. Precursors.
NOW, for the newly initiated it becomes confusing because HUSSEIN Obama is Sunni and in deep sympathy with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood. However, overriding factors are in play, and allowing Iran’s regime to gain nuclear weapons surpasses certain inherent fealty.
REGARDLESS, Valerie Jarrett’s Iranian roots pave his way forward, and she is his absolute right hand…left too. Therefore, rest assured, the west will soon be living under the shadowy threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
MIND you, PM Netanyahu bears partial responsibility for this nightmare, as repeatedly stated at several forums. Most recently, his onus can be found here. Indeed, he has been in power for years, and did little more than order certain counter measures to push back against Iran’s genocidal march, many of which will never (rightfully so) be known.
NEVERTHELESS, when re-elected in 2009, had he brought to bear (knowing full well that HUSSEIN Obama would never stop Iran’s mullahs) Israel’s FORMIDABLE and multi-layered strike forces, that would have been 6 years less time for Iran’s centrifuges to spin, and said determinate action would have cut the wind out of both their sails, Iran’s and the Islamist-in-Chief’s.
INEXORABLY, as a result of all of the above, back in Dec. 2012, the following was written and this investigative journalist had the foresight to query: Where Have PM Netanyahu’s “Red Lines” Gone…HUSSEIN Obama’s (Ostensibly) Too?”