The Destructiveness of America’s Alliances
byEric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org
Alliances between nations are military. Without being military, they would be nothing. Trade agreements don’t require any alliances at all. World War I wouldn’t have occurred if there had not been alliances — it was built upon alliances. It was not built on trade agreements. It wasn’t even built on trading-blocs.
In fact, as the WTO (World Trade Organization) has said:
In the two decades prior to World War I, a number of tariff wars broke out, usually provoked by the establishment of a new, more protectionist tariff, or in the course of renegotiation of bilateral treaties.17 After the expiry of a treaty, tariffs were often raised temporarily as a means of improving negotiating leverage. … Despite the widespread increase of protectionist measures before World War I in continental Europe, the United States19, Argentina and other countries, world trade continued to expand rapidly.
It goes on to observe:
Even though the contention that trade and peace dovetail is still very present today,119 it is not uncontested on theoretical and empirical grounds. … Empirical evidence appears to generally support the idea that increasing bilateral trade reduces the risk of bilateral conflicts.122 But studies can be found that support either side of the argument, predicting both a negative and positive relationship between trade and war.”
World War III, too — a nuclear war — could be built upon alliances, which are now even more complex and unpredictable than ever. But that’s not the only danger from America’s alliances. America’s alliances don’t only increase the likelihood of wars, they sap the U.S. economy, and they also reduce democracy in America. Here is how:
Firms producing military goods and services (the makers of aerospace, munitions, etc.), sell mostly to their nation’s government (not to the general public), but also sell to the governments that are military allies of that government; and, so, virtually their entire sales are to governments.
As a consequence, these firms depend enormously upon their own country’s foreign policies, especially its alliances. Such a firm cannot sell to a nation that is being treated by its nation’s press as an ‘enemy’; and, on the other side of the matter, any nation that is treated as an ‘ally’ is virtually a “most favored nation” to become part of the given military firm’s foreign marketing-area. ‘Enemy’ nations are also needed by a military firm, however, in order for the domestic electorate to support increases in their government’s military budget (and this goes along with there being “austerity” for non-‘defense’ spending — and ‘security’ is thus trumpeted as a government’s top obligation to the public that it supposedly ‘serves’, above such areas as health care, education, any services to the poor, and even above infrastructure).
Both ‘allies’, and at least one ‘enemy’, are needed, in order for a nation’s military firms to thrive. But they thrive at the expense of others — and those “others” aren’t merely their economic competitors, but include the entire non-‘defense’ economy. An economy that has no ‘defense’ firms, can thrive, but an economy that has no non-‘defense’ firms (which would be a modern Sparta), will inevitably fail. (Even Spartans couldn’t eat their weapons.)
A military firm’s top domestic concern is to provide domestic employment so that its workers will be able to serve as an active political constituency for increases in military spending. The firm will thus spread their domestic employment (or “jobs”) around their country in order to be able the more effectively to lobby as large a percentage as possible of the nation’s Representatives and Senators (or other parliamentarians), so as to have the maximum influence over the government’s foreign policies (such as to overthrow a foreign government — “regime-change” — or otherwise to increase the demand for military expenditures).
The lobbying investments by military suppliers are consequently a crucial part of their overall expenses. If their own government won’t purchase from these companies, who will? Lobbying is vital for them, and it inevitably is lobbying for wars. The basic sales-message is that, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” That’s the basic message, no matter how it’s worded. For them: fear sells. This is especially the case because virtually no people in the domestic economy crave military weapons; and, so, in a field like this, only fear sells. Panic is terrific, and “the U.S. is still fundamentally operating under the old martial law framework”. None of the post-9/11 “emergency” powers has been cancelled, even 16 years after 9/11. (One panic did that? Really? Is this panic permanent? Why? Is this a democracy?)
Though commerce in military goods and services is merely a portion of a nation’s overall commerce, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower’s 17 January 1961 Farewell Address (since he had lacked the courage to challenge as the sitting President the increasing control over the U.S. federal government by the owners of that portion of the U.S. economy) warned his successors that “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”
Privatizing this part of a nation’s industry, arms-making (such as the U.S. does), is thus inevitably inviting the owners of those corporations to control the government’s entire foreign policies: those corporations aren’t controlled by the government, so much as they control the government — at least its foreign policies, and those foreign policies will include not just military matters but also diplomatic ones, which includes trade-agreements; and, consequently, the scope of control over the government by the weapons-makers is far larger than is those firms’ mere percentage of the total national economy. In a nation such as the U.S., in which over half of all discretionary governmental spending is military, their control will be (and is) enormous.
A country whose ‘defense’ industry is privatized, is thus a country that is largely controlled by its military-industrial complex, and this is especially the case if the nation devotes a relatively large portion of its GDP to military production, such as the U.S. does. The clients of that military-industrial complex, and of that country, are not merely the private owners of these companies, but are also the foreign governments with which the given country is allied. This is the real reason why the U.S. government is allied with the countries that it is, including many (such as the Sauds, to whom the Trump Administration recently sold $350 billion of U.S.-made weapons) that are dictatorships. The U.S. even creates dictatorships, and these (like the Sauds) are very good for America’s ‘defense’ firms.
For examples, consider the Iran coup in 1953, Guatemala coup in 1954, Chile coup in 1973, Honduras coup in 2009, and Ukraine coup in 2014 — just to mention a few of America’s pro-dictatorship foreign policies in recent decades. The U.S. now turns democracies into dictatorships, far more often than it turns dictatorships into democracies. Military industry exists in order to coerce and kill people; no nation’s public want to be coerced or killed. Military industry isn’t like others; it is entirely based on fear of foreigners. That’s just a fact, even if economic theory (produced mainly by imperial powers) simply ignores this crucial economic fact and its huge implications.
America’s allies — the nations whose governments’ interests the U.S. spends its public’s blood and money to protect — are mainly Saudi Arabia and its GCC, or Gulf Cooperation Council, of fundamentalist-Sunni royal families (countries whose owners take the Sunni-interpreted Quran as their basic Law), but include also the fundamentalist-Jewish state of Israel (whose owners take instead as their basic Law the Torah), and also NATO, which is the secular anti-Russia alliance headed by the U.S. government, and which continues even after the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact military alliance had ended in 1991 and thereby had actually terminated NATO’s founding raison d’être — and yet NATO still doesn’t end, but instead expands to surround and threaten Russia even more. The U.S. government also has Asia-Pacific allies: mainly Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand (ANZUS); and these alliances, too, are Cold War relics, not authentic national-security expenses for the U.S. government in service to the American people — nothing of the sort. It’s purely profit and loss, not serve and protect. Only the military firms’ stockholders are being served, and protected.
All of these alliances are highly profitable for U.S. military contractors, which use the alliances as virtual marketing organizations for American firms’ military wares, selling their weaponry to foreign countries where the U.S. has military bases. The top U.S. ‘defense’ contractors are (in order):
1. Lockheed Martin.
2. Boeing.
3. General Dynamics.
4. Raytheon.
5. Northrop Grumman.
6. McKesson.
7. United Technologies.
8. L-3.
9. Bechtel.
10. BAE.
These are therefore the main companies that control U.S. military policies, and distort U.S. diplomatic policies to comply with those military demands.
They are served in Washington via “the permanent government,” which relies upon “the revolving door” between government and “the private sector,” which includes the think tanks, the lobbying firms, and, of course, everything that’s financed by the military contracting firms (including both scholarships and university chairs, and many other positions).
A few people of exceptional integrity publicly condemn the system, such as Michael J. Glennon, who headlined in the June 2017 Harper’s, “Trump’s tussle with the bureaucratic state”, and he wrote:
Truman’s hope proved misplaced. [Here was Truman’s dashed hope. And here is how much it became dashed.] As one administration followed another, democratic accountability diminished, triggering an enormous transfer of power from elected officials to bureaucrats. Yet it was necessary to maintain the illusion that national security was controlled by our constitutionally established democratic institutions…
Despite Obama’s gestures toward harmony, it became increasingly difficult to believe that the three constitutionally established branches of government actually controlled U.S. security policy. After reports emerged that the NSA had eavesdropped on the cell phone conversations of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, for example, Obama’s national security adviser claimed the president knew nothing about it; some of these programs, Secretary of State John Kerry confessed, were on “automatic pilot.”
The courts, for their part, used ringing rule-of-law rhetoric in high-profile detention cases, but in lower-profile disputes about national security, judges were noticeably less impassioned, often dismissing challenges to unlawful war-making, torture, surveillance, and kidnapping on dubious jurisdictional grounds. And Congress’s role in defining national security became more and more ceremonial.
Glennon had headlined earlier, in the January 2014 Harvard National Security Journal, “National Security and Double Government”, and he wrote there: “The public believes that the constitutionally-established institutions control national security policy, but that view is mistaken. Judicial review is negligible; congressional oversight is dysfunctional; and presidential control is nominal. Absent a more informed and engaged electorate, little possibility exists for restoring accountability.”
But, of course, “a more informed and engaged electorate” requires an honest press; and, for example, America’s most influential newspaper on international relations and on politics, the Washington Post, is owned by Jeff Bezos, the founder and head of Amazon.com, which company supplies the cloud-computing services (Amazon Web Services, or AWS) to the U.S. CIA and Pentagon, and which newspaper (the WP) is rabid against America’s ‘enemies’ such as especially Russia and Iran. The Washington Post is intensely neoconservative, thus boosting the business of AWS. On 23 April 2015, the newspaper reported that:
Amazon is by far the largest provider of cloud infrastructure and services to the federal government, including to the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon. The company declined to say how many U.S. government agencies it serves, but it has 1,500 government clients globally. Amazon also has a government-only cloud for storing sensitive data.”
Only AWS and the U.S. government know what’s in it. AWS is so profitable to Amazon that it accounts for all of Amazon’s net profits — the retail Amazon.com continues, during some quarters, to lose money, but the profits from AWS now dwarf any such ongoing retail losses. Amazon makes its money from the U.S. government, not so much from consumers. AWS has brought stability to Amazon’s profitability; Wall Street places a premium on any firm that has stability of profitability. And the Washington Post is public relations, or propaganda, for wars, to increase Amazon’s profit-source, which is military, much more than it is retail (the business by which America’s consumers know Amazon). Thus, for example, bombs in Syria are balms in Amazon, and in other U.S. ‘defense’ contractors.
America’s recent invasions have all been promoted (or “PR”ed) by ‘humanitarian’ concerns (such as against ‘barrel bombs’ and ‘chemical weapons attacks’, so as to ‘protect’ the people whom American bombs and bullets actually cripple and kill by the thousands or even millions of victims, but the entire network of America’s allies supports these invasions, as if the ‘humanitarian’ ‘explanation’ of an invasion is a reason, and not a mere (and cynical) rationalization, for the invasion. If America didn’t have so many allies, then the death and destruction that America did to Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and other Russia-friendly countries, wouldn’t be happening — it would be too embarrassing for even people such as George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, to do for their financial backers, who bought them their powers and established the system that narrowly constrains what they can do and still ‘succeed’ as the nation’s ‘leader’.
Under Trump’s Presidency, the Public-Enemy-Number-One country is Iran. (Under Obama, it was Russia.) Iran is the country that America’s two main Middle-Eastern allies, the Sauds and the Israelis, want to conquer or even destroy. And, the oil companies of America and of its allies, also want to take back the Iranian Oil Company, about which, wikipedia says that, until the U.S.-coup regime of the Shah ended in 1979, and the company was nationalized:
So: the U.S. government blames Iran for the 9/11 attacks (which were actually perpetrated by the Sauds, ‘our ally’), and U.S. President Trump has stacked his Administration with people who hate Iran (the country that the Sauds hate).
The United States is a fundamentally different country than its Founders had intended. George Washington’s famous Farewell Address asserted that, ”It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world”; and the third President, Thomas Jefferson, said in his equally famous Inaugural Address, that there should be “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations –- entangling alliances with none.” Jefferson’s comment there was also a succinct tip-of-the-hat to yet another major concern that the Founders had regarding treaties (“entangling alliances”) –- that by discriminating in favor of the treaty-partners, they also discriminate against non-partner nations, and so endanger “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations,” which was the Founders’ chief goal in their foreign policies. Today’s America instead seeks wars, and craves friendship with only ‘allies’, but demands “regime change” to ‘enemies’, who thus are especially necessary to the military-industrial complex (the firms that profit from wars), who now rule in the empire’s center.
It’s not personal; it is systemic. As Glennon said, “it was necessary to maintain the illusion that national security was controlled by our constitutionally established democratic institutions.” The only people who stand above the system are the ones whose interests set the system up as it is, and keep it running, “on ‘automatic pilot.’”
Alliances are a crucial part of that system, just as has been the case for every empire in the past. And, it’s something that America’s Founders had tried their best to prevent. Long after the American Revolution, the foxes have retaken the American chicken coop. Only this time, it’s America’s aristocracy (domestic “foxes”), not Britain’s (foreign ones), who are in control. It’s no longer “our constitutionally established democratic institutions,” but our own aristocracy. They determine which other nations’ governments are ‘our’ allies, and which are ‘our’ enemies. They rule the world — or at least they try to, like a slave-master with his whip.
NOTE: The following American publications were offered this article as an exclusive but all turned it down with no reason given: Foreign Policy, The New Yorker, TIME, U.S. News, The New Republic, The Nation, New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic, BusinessWeek, Harper’s. In a nation such as the United States, articles like this are not good for business. One might question that; but, in any case, an article like this is unpublishable in the U.S., except as a freebie from an author — and, even as a freebie, it won’t be published except in a few small online sites (only sites that aren’t controlled by the U.S. aristocracy); it belongs in the category of “American Samizdat”.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, “a more informed and engaged electorate.”
Would the choice of candidates on offer for the presidency or any other public office then become by that very fact that of the electorate?
Or would the range of candidates — as it has ever been in the course of the entire history of the United States — already have been pre-determined for the electorate by a system of selection, of checks and balances, ensuring an establishment-vetted selection of pro-establishment, pro-corporate, pro-capitalist, and pro-imperialist candidates?
Rather, if the electorate in the United States — as in all other so-called Western liberal democracies — were in “fact” informed and engaged, then they would know that voting under the current institutional frameworks is fundamentally a pointless exercise.
Gore Vidal once put it roughly this way: in the United States, there is only one political party, the Property Party, and it has two right wings: the Republican and the Democrat.
Why do we bother trying to keep the fiction alive among ourselves? Are we so indoctrinated with the propaganda about the West being at least “formally democratic” that we can’t see beyond it to the actual truth? Or is it that the truth is just too painful to admit?
America isn’t a democracy and never was. If it ever does become a democracy, it certainly won’t be because Americans will have cast a vote over that particular question, but it may indeed come upon the heels of a public having finally become more informed and engaged.
All of us are trained to present a face of acceptability or indeed a mask over our private thought and intent, and so the presentation of a surface reality’ is of various levels of obfuscation.
Trade can mean a consensual and honest or just exchange, but more often relates to dominance, exploitation and plunder.
Shifting alliances amidst treachery operate as narrative identities to support the current agenda but all power elites tend to operate collectively against their populations.
The use of the ‘economy’ as the primary means of capture might risk revolt if it were the only such means.
Too big to fail or to jail – means that institutional corruption is so entangled in the ‘economy’ that pharming poverty, sickness and war upon a mind-captured compliance is simply accepted as the lesser evil.
I am not as versed in history as Eric Zuesse but have reason to believe that financial control is part of the intent of war – and imposed sanctions can be part of inducing an enemy to ‘start’ a war.
Where Caesar rules, most give due tax or tribute when revolt is futile. But such compliance or conformity would not exist without the iron fist that lies beneath. When ‘US interests’ operate a globalism that has no real regard for the land or the people of the USA – it seems to me that the host is no longer itself – but run by trans-national (I considered using the term trans-human) power cartels who maintain the illusion of nations and political process as a diversionary front while what lies behind is kept hidden as the active deceit by which powerlessness is maintained in the general population.
Trump seems to be a ‘face’ under which rules are brazenly flouted and the old ‘order’ of compliant ‘alliances’ thrown into disarray. As if Trump calls the shots! Everything is a psyop. However, the nature of deceit is to bait by reaction and as with hacking exploits, the widespread propagation of such devices becomes the awakening to their ploy. There is also the nature of teaching by demonstration; such that any example sets an actual model for others to follow – albeit in their own format.
Regardless what forms it takes, the underlying psyop works the split mind of a sense of personal power set over and against hidden fears and guilts, hidden for the most part in ‘scapegoats’. We may find we give more to Caesar than we realized – and that in doing so, we take it from the truly worthy and lose our worth thereby. So to wake up to a true sense of worth is to extend it where it is due – and in truth it is beneath the lie and the fear that defends or aligns with the lie against pain of loss as if it was one’s power and protection in a hateful and fearful existence.
Reblogged this on Worldtruth.
Sound analysis and reasoning for the most part. The military-industrial complex (plus the media, including Hollywood, and the servile and complicit political class) is certainly a major “public enemy”, but there are other layers which are just as, perhaps even more, important.
For example, Zuesse doesn’t mention the part those complexes (and others, such as the education and broader entertainment industries) play in the drive to create the “New World Order”, which is about more than feeding the coffers of the arms manufacturers and energy suppliers, and which involves even more secretive and malevolent organisations and groups.
Virtually all of what Zuesse writes will already be known to regular Off-G readers. What I – and perhaps others – miss is any hint as to how the virtual monopoly of power can be broken, or at least seriously challenged.
I would also take issue with his assertion that the Sauds “perpetrated 9/11”, for which I know of no serious evidence. That they were complicit in some way – perhaps by financing some part of the operation – I find plausible. But they (i.e. their agents) did not carry out the destruction of the WTC or the faked attack on the Pentagon, nor organise the highly sophisticated virtual reality production of the non-existent ‘hijacked planes’. It should hardly need saying that Osama bin Laden had nothing at all to do with it. That the Sauds conspired with Israel (and its American supporters), whose fingerprints are all over the event, is certainly possible, as is the likelihood that they used their foreknowledge of the event to make large amounts of money.
The article is understandably US-centric. Europeans would benefit from a similar analysis of how our own governments and weapons industries interact. France, Germany, the UK, Spain and Italy are all in the Top Eight global arms exporters. Arms exports from the UK increased by 26% between 2011 and 2016 (and are no doubt continuing to increase). 22 of the 28 EU countries are in NATO. Four countries – Britain, Poland, Greece and Estonia already spend at least 2% of their national budget on arms and there is strong pressure on the other countries to match this.
It’s clear that we (I mean the whole of Europe) need a much stronger and more effective “campaign against the arms trade”. That will necessarily include a much greater public awareness of the way that governments create the fear and xenophobia necessary to justify the arms trade, especially by their increasing use of false flag attacks.
Paul Carline.
I like Eric Zuesse, he is very useful but he does have a tendency to stick to what he wants to promote and not furnish his articles with too many other debatable issues. I do’t think he means to support them in any way(I always think of him as the absent minded professor)
I liked the fact that you observed what might be termed as discrepancies “I would also take issue with his assertion that the Sauds “perpetrated 9/11””
With you all the way on that one.
As you point out, the EU needs a good overhaul but most especially the mere existence of what is no more than the military extension of US expansionism agenda, that of NATO, who are already guilty on several occasions now, of war crimes. The same expression of wheels within wheels is as much applicable to the EU Imperialist Cabal, there’s not a lot to tell them apart. A duplication of the main bones of this article could be fleshed out to reveal the same ascension of power by elites unseen but known, to represent Britain, France, Germany and quite a few western, northern and eastern EU nations.
Worthy attempt as always from Eric.
Where you say of my article, that “I do’t think he means to support them in any way(I always think of him as the absent minded professor). I liked the fact that you observed what might be termed as discrepancies ‘I would also take issue with his assertion that the Sauds “perpetrated 9/11’,” how can I be charged with “I do’t think he means to support them” despite my always including (such as I did with that allegation, the Sauds having been behind 9/11) a link to a sound source wherever I state something that many people who have prejudices won’t think to be true? This makes blatant your refusing to examine the evidence whenever you don’t agree with an allegation.
Everything is converging to reveal the running of a psyop – or false matrix of diversionary management of un-healed fear – whether by manufactured derivative events that trigger by association, secretly nurtured conflicts or asserted narrative of identity/reality over the actual symptom/effect/feedback experience.
Dealing with the branches is not dealing with the root.
I see an underlying psyop that what we accept as our mind both ‘is’ and ‘does’. This mind is so pervasive as to operate as ‘real’ or accepted self-evident. It is already a psychic-emotional investment and entanglement operating its particular conditioning – as its personal perception and experience.
The term psychology is a distanciation from the relational reality – as if a separated objective psyche can observe and judge another without their own psychic-emotional involvement. Such is the wishful thinking of science as technologism and such politics as we operate is the same old ‘power struggle’ operating through a wishful science. The power of a wish is everything you give it and “I want it THUS!’ is uncovered beneath every sense of denial and deprivation that always results from giving power to a private assertion at expense of wholeness.
In this way we ‘set ourselves up to fail’ in the a tempt to coerce reality – whether that be our own (true) consciousness, or others or our world. And yet the blindness of self assertion is unaware of its own self-attack in its focus on the outer, the other and the world as the denier of its wish-fulfilment – that is inherently a self-specialness or exceptionalism in search of validation in specific forms and conditions. Self-blindness operates a reversal in Consciousness in which the effect drives the cause such as to condition the cause to believe itself victim or subject to its own embodying thought – and thus compelled to defend against the symptoms of its own unconscious self-denials as if under threat from alien or other power. In aligning under this idea of power it becomes a back-door for an ‘alien will’ to operate as its power and protector – whilst actively defending against the restoration of wholeness and sanity of being.
The other is an unrecognized brother – at the level of cause – for choice remains the power in another as in ourselves by which to recognize and release identity investment in wish for a true willingness in being. The attempt to capture or coerce the minds of others is the way to lose your mind as your Creative Connectedness within a wholeness of being in exchange for a private world in which you rule – as the determiner of ‘reality’.
Any effect of an insanity is a call to realign in wholeness – but if framed in fear and guilt thinking – becomes the call to war in hate justified and truth violated.
The unipolar fantasy is simply a death wish. For Life is Relational extension, recognition and appreciation. An anti-life gives only to get rid of – as if to get ‘more’ from another’s less – and is trained to ‘see’ the errors and evils in the ‘other’ above all else so as to gratify a negative appreciation of self-superiority or aggrandizement and inflation. This can be verified with only a few moment observation of our own thought – instead of running within the bubble reality of such thinking.
A ‘multi-polar’ world is a step to a richer sense of balance between diversities of human aspirations and fears – that have roots in our true nature and a usurping sense of guilt arising from the loss of the wellspring of our being to a power struggle under threat that is watered and fed by the persistence of the mind made to come between or interject itself into and upon your consciousness. Deceit operates via fears and guilts that are themselves fearful and masked over shame.
Without relational resonance there is no awareness of being. But the first voice in our mind sees an unworthiness it feels called to ‘correct’. Pausing from reaction is the way to receive of a fresh perspective – that undoes the past in the present to thus release our future from a past made in anger;
“I want it THUS!”
This is Eric Zuesse: You say “I know of no serious evidence” that the 9/11 attacks “were actually perpetrated by the Sauds,” but this only shows that you don’t click onto the link when you disagree (as you did there) with a particular assertion, but you instead read merely to ‘confirm’ your prejudices (and to hell with the actual evidence). Because, if you had clicked onto the link, then you would have found plenty of very sound evidence, not only that the Sauds (working with George W. Bush) did arrange it, but that the Sauds even were funding at least some of the 15 Sauds who were among the 19 who actually perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. I grant you, and acknowledge in everything I write about the topic of 9/11, that there are numerous deficiencies and also falsehoods in the two standard accounts (that of the Zelikow-led 9/11 Commission, and that of the Feinstein-led “Joint Inquiry into the Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001”), but the Feinstein-led study (unlike the Zelikow one) is serious, and shouldn’t be 100% dismissed as you seem to do. It has some real and sound evidence. Anyway, if you will click onto that link, then we can discuss the matter, but if you continue only to seek confirmation for your existing prejudices, we’ll continue to have nothing to discuss.
The author is another Zionist dis-informer like Alex Jones working for CIA. He is author of 2001 book, “Why The Holocaust Happened: Its Religious Cause and Scholarly Cover-up”. Zuesse, like Abraham Foxman, blames the Christian Bible’s (NT) teachings for the hate and murder of Jews during WWII. Contrary to that Rabbi Marvin Antelman in 1974 book, To Eliminate The Opiate claimed that the Crypto-Jew followers of Shabbetai Tzvi/Jacob Frank, known as Frankist Jews were responsible for the WW II and the Holocaust.
Zuesse also claims that 9/11 was an “outside job” executed by Saudi Arabia and not Israel.
On July 8, 2017, Zuesse posted a crappy Opinion post at the “Strategic-Culture Foundation journal” over the recent tug of war between Saudi ‘royals’ and Qatari ‘royals’. According to Zuesse, the clash between the two so-called Fundamentalist (sic) Sunni Saudi and Thani families is rooted in Thani ‘royals’ support for anti-Israel Shi’ite Iran and anti-Israel Sunni Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.
“These are the two main families vying for the leadership not only of Arabia, but of international Islam. Until now, both families have been backed by the US aristocracy ((especially the Israeli and Jewish ones, plus the Mercers who funded Trump’s campaign). But that might now be beginning to change – and the US join the Sauds against the Thanis,” Zuesse said to establish his anti-Zionist credibility.
But in the next paragraph, he spouted his anti-Muslim agenda.
“The difference between the Sauds and the Thanis is that whereas the Sauds are committed to destroying Iran and all Shiite Muslims, the Thanis instead aim to bring together Sunnis and Shiites into a broader Islamic control over the world. The Sauds say that Iran is the terrorist threat to the world, and that the Thanis aren’t sufficiently hostile against ‘terrorists’ (i.e., against Shia, such as Iran’s rulers; or against Shia-tolerating Sunnis, such as Qatar’s rulers, and their Muslim Brotherhood),” claims Zuesse.
YES Sir, these anti-Israel Islamists are working their butts to revive the good-old Ottoman Empire under Erdogan who maintains close relations with the US and Israel.
https://rehmat1.com/2017/07/09/eric-zuesse-iran-qatar-muslim-brotherhood-hate-israel/