Sarkozy Iran Israel FIRE Washington
by Gamal Nkrumah Global Research, November 3, 2007 - Al Ahram Weekly
Sarkozy's bad week
As if his marital challenges were not enough cause for concern, "Sarco the
Sayan" has suddenly emerged as the most infamous accolade of French
President Nicolas Sarkozy. The influential French daily Le Figaro last
week revealed that the French leader once worked for -- and perhaps still
does, it hinted -- Israeli intelligence as a sayan (Hebrew for helper),
one of the thousands of Jewish citizens of countries other than Israel who
cooperate with the katsas (Mossad case-officers).
A letter dispatched to French police officials late last winter -- long
before the presidential election but somehow kept secret -- revealed that
Sarkozy was recruited as an Israeli spy. The French police is currently
investigating documents concerning Sarkozy's alleged espionage activities
on behalf of Mossad, which Le Figaro claims dated as far back as 1983.
According to the author of the message, in 1978, Israeli prime minister
Menachem Begin ordered the infiltration of the French ruling Gaullist
Party, Union pour un Mouvement Populaire. Originally targeted were Patrick
Balkany, Patrick Devedjian and Pierre Lellouche. In 1983, they recruited
the "young and promising" Sarkozy, the "fourth man".
Ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky describes how sayanim function in By Way
Of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer. They are
usually reached through relatives in Israel. An Israeli with a relative in
France, for instance, might be asked to draft a letter saying the person
bearing the letter represents an organisation whose main goal is to help
save Jewish people in the Diaspora. Could the French relative help in any
way? They perform many different roles. A car sayan, for example, running
a rental car agency, could help the Mossad rent a car without having to
complete the usual documentation. An apartment sayan would find
accommodation without raising suspicions, a bank sayan could fund someone
in the middle of the night if needs be, a doctor sayan would treat a
bullet wound without reporting it to the police.
And, a political sayan ? It's rather obvious what this could mean. The
sayanim are a pool of people at the ready who will keep quiet about their
actions out of loyalty to "the cause", a non-risk recruitment system that
draws from the millions of Jewish people outside Israel.
Such talk sends chills down spines, especially Arab and Muslim ones.
Indeed, the revelation did not go unnoticed in Arab capitals or come as
much of a surprise. Paris can be a sunny place for shady people. When it
comes to intelligence gathering on behalf of Israel, a question mark is
immediately raised on the moral calibre of the person in question. But,
how does this scandal influence France's foreign and domestic politics?
It is of symbolic significance that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was
on a state visit to France in the immediate aftermath of Le Figaro 's
exposé -- ostensibly to discuss Iran's nuclear agenda and the Palestinian
question. Proud and prickly France under its supposedly savvy new
president hopes to play a more prominent role in the perplexing world of
Middle Eastern politics. On Monday, Sarkozy flew to Morocco, the ancestral
home of many of France's Jewry, soon after his Mossad connection was made
public. There is no clear evidence that the revelation is to make France
any more unpopular in the Arab world than it already is, especially not in
On the domestic front, however, there are many conflicting considerations.
The Jews of France now display a touch of the vapours, in sharp contrast
to the conceited triumphalism with which they greeted his election: "we
are persuaded that the new president will continue eradicating
anti-Israeli resistance," Sammy Ghozlan, president of the Jewish Community
of Paris pontificated soon after Sarkozy's election. France is home to
500,000 Jews, mostly Sephardic Jews originally from North Africa and
Sarkozy's own maternal grandfather Aron Mallah, hailed from Salonika,
Greece, and is said to have exercised considerable influence on his
grandson. Even though raised as a Roman Catholic, "Sarkozy played a
critical role in moving the French government to do what is necessary to
address the ill winds that threaten the largest Jewish community in
Western Europe," noted David Harris, the executive director of the
American Jewish Committee. Sarkozy, after all, was a political product of
the predominantly Jewish elite neighbourhood of Neuilly-sur-Seine, where
he long served as mayor.
France's Muslim minority was far from surprised by Le Figaro 's
revelations, even though some may have feigned disappointment. Others have
been more forthright. "France is not run by Frenchmen, but by lackeys of
the Zionist International who control the economy," lamented Radio Islam,
of militant Islamist tendencies. When Sarkozy was France's minister of
interior and clamped down hard on Muslim immigrants, calling mainly Muslim
rioters "scum" in a widely-publicised interview, they retaliated by
calling him "Sarkozy, sale juif [dirty Jew]". Obviously there is no love
lost between the five million-strong French Muslim community, the largest
in Western Europe, and the French president. He has grounds for concern.
He assiduously courts the Israelis. That much is known.
Attacking Iran for Israel?
by Ray McGovern - Global Research, November 1, 2007 - ConsortiumNews.com
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is at her mushroom-cloud hyperbolic
best, and this time Iran is the target.
Her claim last week that ?the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the
single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle
East and around the world? is simply too much of a stretch.
To gauge someone?s reliability, one depends largely on prior experience.
Sadly, Rice?s credibility suffers in comparison with that of the head of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohammed ElBaradei, who
insists there is no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iran.
If this sounds familiar, ElBaradei said the same thing about Iraq before
it was attacked. But three days before the invasion, American nuclear
expert Dick Cheney told NBC?s Tim Russert, ?I think Mr. ElBaradei is,
Here we go again. As in the case of Iraq, U.S. intelligence has been
assiduously looking for evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran;
but, alas, in vain.
Burned by the bogus ?proof? adduced for Iraq?the uranium from Africa, the
aluminum tubes?the administration has shied away from fabricating
Are Bush and Cheney again relying on the Rumsfeld dictum, that ?the
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?? There is a simpler answer.
Cat Out of the Bag
The Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Sallai Meridor, let the cat out of the
bag while speaking at the American Jewish Committee luncheon on Oct. 22.
In remarks paralleling those of Rice, Meridor said Iran is the chief
threat to Israel.
Heavy on the chutzpah, he served gratuitous notice on Washington that
effectively countering Iran?s nuclear ambitions will take a ?united United
States in this matter,? lest the Iranians conclude, ?come January ?09,
they have it their own way.?
Meridor stressed that ?very little time? remained to keep Iran from
obtaining nuclear weapons. How so?
Even were there to be a nuclear program hidden from the IAEA, no serious
observer expects Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon much sooner than five
years from now.
Truth be told, every other year since 1995 U.S. intelligence has been
predicting that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in about five years.
It has become downright embarrassing ? like a broken record, punctuated
only by so-called ?neo-conservatives? like James Woolsey, who last summer
publicly warned that the U.S. may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order
to halt its nuclear weapons program.
Woolsey, self-described ?anchor of the Presbyterian wing of the Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs,? put it this way: ?I?m afraid
that within, well, at worst, a few months; at best, a few years; they [the
Iranians] could have the bomb.?
The day before Meridor?s unintentionally revealing remark, Vice President
Dick Cheney reiterated, ?We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.?
That remark followed closely on President George W. Bush?s apocalyptic
warning of World War III, should Tehran acquire the knowledge to produce a
The Israelis appear convinced they have extracted a promise from Bush and
Cheney that they will help Israel nip Iran?s nuclear program in the bud
before they leave office.
Never mind that there is no evidence that the Iranian nuclear program is
any more weapons-related than the one Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld persuaded
President Gerald Ford to approve in 1976 for Westinghouse and General
Electric to install for the Shah (price tag $6.4 billion).
With 200-300 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, the Israelis enjoy a nuclear
monopoly in the Middle East. They mean to keep that monopoly and are
pressing for the U.S. to obliterate Iran?s fledgling nuclear program.
Anyone aware of Iran?s ability to retaliate realizes this would bring
disaster to the whole region and beyond. But this has not stopped Cheney
and Bush before.
The rationale is similar to that revealed by Philip Zelikow, confidant of
Condoleezza Rice, former member of the President?s Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board, and later executive director of the 9/11 Commission. On
Oct. 10, 2002, Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia:
?Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I?ll
tell you what I think the real threat is?it?s the threat to Israel. And
this is the threat that dare not speak its name...the American government
doesn?t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a
The political offensive against Iran coalesced as George W. Bush began his
second term, with Cheney out in front pressing for an attack on its
During a Jan. 20, 2005, interview with MSNBC, just hours before Bush?s
second inauguration, Cheney put Iran ?right at the top of the list of
trouble spots,? and noted that negotiations and UN sanctions might fail to
stop Iran?s nuclear program.
Cheney then added with remarkable nonchalance:
?Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the
destruction of Israel, the Israelis might decide to act first, and let the
rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.?
Does this not sound like the so-called ?Cheney plan? being widely
discussed in the media today? An Israeli air attack; Iranian retaliation;
Washington springing to the defense of its ?ally? Israel?
A big fan of preemption, Cheney has done little to disguise his attraction
to Israel?s penchant to preempt, such as Israel's air strike against the
Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.
Ten years after the Osirak attack, then-Defense Secretary Cheney
reportedly gave Israeli Maj. Gen. David Ivri, commander of the Israeli Air
Force, a satellite photo of the Iraqi nuclear reactor destroyed by
U.S.-built Israeli aircraft. On the photo Cheney penned, ?Thanks for the
outstanding job on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981.?
Nothing is known of Ivri?s response, but it is a safe bet it was along the
lines of ?we could not have done it without U.S. help.?
Indeed, though the U.S. officially condemned the attack (the Reagan
administration was supporting Saddam Hussein?s Iraq at that point), the
intelligence shared by the Pentagon with the Israelis made a major
contribution to the success of the Israeli raid.
With Vice President Cheney calling the shots now, similar help may be
forthcoming prior to any Israeli air attack on Iran.
It is no secret that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon began to
press for an early preemptive strike on Iran in 2003, claiming that Iran
was likely to obtain a nuclear weapon much earlier than what U.S.
Sharon made a habit of bringing his own military adviser to brief Bush
with aerial photos of Iranian nuclear-related installations.
More troubling still, in the fall of 2004, retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft,
who served as national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush and
as Chair of the younger Bush?s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, made
some startling comments to the Financial Times.
A master of discretion with the media, Scowcroft nonetheless saw fit to
make public his conclusion that Sharon had Bush ?mesmerized;? that he had
our president ?wrapped around his little finger.?
Needless to say, Scowcroft was immediately removed from the advisory board.
An Unstable Infatuation
George W. Bush first met Sharon in 1998, when the Texas governor was taken
on a tour of the Middle East by Matthew Brooks, then executive director of
the Republican Jewish Coalition. Sharon was foreign minister and took Bush
on a helicopter tour over the Israeli occupied territories.
An Aug. 3, 2006, McClatchy wire story by Ron Hutcheson quotes Matthew
?If there?s a starting point for George W. Bush?s attachment to Israel,
it?s the day in late 1998, when he stood on a hilltop where Jesus
delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and, with eyes brimming with tears,
read aloud from his favorite hymn, ?Amazing Grace.? He was very emotional.
It was a tear-filled experience. He brought Israel back home with him in
his heart. I think he came away profoundly moved.?
Bush made gratuitous but revealing reference to that trip at the first
meeting of his National Security Council on Jan. 30, 2001.
After announcing he would abandon the decades-long role of ?honest broker?
between Israelis and Palestinians and would tilt pronouncedly toward
Israel, Bush said he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw
At that point he brought up his trip to Israel with the Republican Jewish
Coalition and the flight over Palestinian camps, but there was no sense of
concern for the lot of the Palestinians.
In Ron Suskind?s Price of Loyalty, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O?Neill,
who was at the NSC meeting, quotes Bush: ?Looked real bad down there,? the
president said with a frown. Then Bush said it was time to end America?s
efforts in the region. ?I don?t see much we can do over there at this
point,? he said.
O?Neill also reported that Colin Powell, the newly minted but nominal
secretary of state, was taken completely by surprise at this nonchalant
jettisoning of longstanding policy.
Powell demurred, warning that this would unleash Sharon and ?the
consequences could be dire, especially for the Palestinians.? But
according to O?Neill, Bush just shrugged, saying, ?Sometimes a show of
strength by one side can really clarify things.? O?Neill says that Powell
It is a safe bet that the vice president was in no way startled.
The only thing that seems to be standing in the way of a preemptive attack
on Iran?s nuclear facilities is foot-dragging by the U.S. military.
It seems likely that the senior military have told the president and
Cheney: This time let us brief you on what to expect on Day 2, on Week 4,
on Month 6?and on the many serious things Iran can do to Israel, and to us
in Iraq and elsewhere.
CENTCOM commander Admiral William Fallon is reliably reported to have
said, ?We are not going to do Iran on my watch.? And in an online Q-and-A,
award-winning Washington Post reporter Dana Priest recently spoke of a
possible ?revolt? if pilots were ordered to fly missions against Iran. She
?This is a little bit of hyperbole, but not much. Just look at what Gen.
[George] Casey, the Army chief, has said...that the tempo of operations in
Iraq would make it very hard for the military to respond to a major crisis
elsewhere. Beside, it's not the ?war? or ?bombing? part that's difficult;
it's the morning after and all the days after that. Haven't we learned
that (again) from Iraq??
How about Congress? Could it act as a brake on Bush and Cheney? Forget it.
If the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its
overflowing coffers supports an attack on Iran, so will most of our
spineless lawmakers. Already, AIPAC has succeeded in preventing
legislation that would have required the president to obtain advance
authorization for an attack on Iran.
And for every Admiral Fallon, there is someone like the inimitable,
retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a close associate of James
Woolsey and other ?neo-cons.?
The air campaign ?will be easy,? says McInerney, a Fox News pundit who was
a rabid advocate of shock and awe over Iraq. ?Ahmadinejad has nothing in
Iran that we can?t penetrate,? he adds, and several hundred bombers,
including stealth bombers, will be enough to do the trick:
?Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2,500 aim points to take out their
nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their
navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and
control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back.?
And the rationale? Since it will be a hard sell to promote the idea,
against all evidence, of an imminent threat that Iran is about to have a
nuclear weapon, the White House PR machine is likely to focus on other
evidence showing that Iran is supporting those ?killing our troops in
The scary thing is that Cheney is more likely to use the McInerneys and
Woolseys than the Fallons and Caseys in showing the president how easily
it can be done.
It is not as though we have not had statesmen wise enough to warn us
against foreign entanglements, and about those who have difficulty
distinguishing between the strategic interests of the United States and
those of other nations, even allies:
?A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of
evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an
imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists,
infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into
participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate
inducement or justification.? - (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796)
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the
ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C. He was a CIA analyst
for 27 years and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
It?s Time to Fire Washington!
by Debbie Lewis -- Global Research, November 2, 2007
When will United States Citizens ever decide enough is enough and fire
Congress is pulling another fast one and no one is paying attention. As if
wanting to control the entire population via the latest proposed
commission, H.R. 1955, otherwise known as the ?Violent Radicalization and
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,? is a slick piece of
legislation. The way it reads, we are heading straight for an
Authoritarian style government (like we are not in one already!).
This new bill is to be added to Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of
2002, another questionable piece of legislation. Where, may one ask, is
representation for ?We the People?? The vote for passage in the House of
Representatives was 404 ayes to 6 nays and 22 representatives not voting.
People on the right or the left think their representation is the best,
but quite frankly, there is clearly little difference. Of the fifteen
sponsors for this bill, eleven of them are Democrats. The bill has now
moved to the Senate for approval, with its two sponsors being Republican.
The title, alone, is offensive. ?Homegrown Terrorism?? It will come as no
surprise, but the language is also extremely vague. Take the very first
line: ?To prevent homegrown terrorism and for other purposes.? The Senate
version has similar language: ?To establish the National Commission on the
Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, and for
Honestly, ??for other purposes?? We pay these people how much and we get
??for other purposes? in a piece of legislation governing the United
States of America? Can they be more vague? Furthermore, why aren?t more US
citizens outraged at such unclear language?
The definitions for the phrases ?violent radicalization,? ?homegrown
terrorism,? as well as ?ideologically based violence? are almost as
interesting as the terminology ??for other purposes.?
To radicalize means to go through sweeping change, while radicalization
means to go from an active or passive stance to one of a more militaristic
or intense stance. Are they talking about the United States citizens or
the US government? Our government has taken on a vastly more violently
radicalized stance in this War on Terror, but, so far, the citizens are
taking a more peaceful approach, that of public protests. Do they mean to
say that these protests are somehow violently radicalizing? I attended the
rather large End the War rally in Washington DC on September 15, 2007, and
it wasn?t violent at all. In fact, it was inspiring!
What about the oh-so-cleverly coined phrase ?ideologically based
violence?? According to the framers of this piece of legislation, this
string of words is to mean the ?use, planned use or threatened use of
force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or
individual?s political, religious or social belief.? First of all, planned
use? Are they now referring to thought crimes? Secondly, what about the
threats of government to try and force the Real ID card on us, or
vaccines, or the loss of our civil liberties? Would that not fall under
this same category? If so, it appears to me the first casualty of this new
legislation should be?The USA PATRIOT Act!
In light of these definitions, one must wonder if the current Congress
would see our founding father?s actions as homegrown terrorism using
violent radicalization and ideologically based violence to set our country
free from the tyrannical government of England. Better yet, can the
citizens of the United States consider the current administration as using
violent radicalization and ideologically based violence to promote their
agenda around the world or promote an idea, here at home?
This is sounding more and more like the War on Terror is coming home, and
not in a good way! The internet has been sited as an aid in ?facilitating
violent radicalization?.? (Our government hasn?t figured out a way to take
a controlling interest in the internet yet, now have they?) Also,
according to HR 1955, preventing such behavior cannot be readily brought
about by the ?traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement
efforts.? They plan to include state and local efforts, as well as
including the US Postal Service and university-based Centers of
Excellence, these latter being established by the Secretary of Homeland
Security. This Commission sounds like it is being governed by?The USA
If I?m not mistaken, though, I do believe President Bush did say, ??either
you are with us, you are with the terrorists.? In light of the growing
disenchantment of the US citizens with regards to this illegal war, does
that make United States citizens the enemy of the United States government
it elects? Apparently so, hence the need for this commission and
This newly proposed ten member Commission for the prevention of these
so-called violent radicalizations, homegrown terrorists, and ideologically
based violent groups and individuals is going to look toward governments
in other countries that have knowledge and ?significant experience? in
dealing with such behavior, such as the UK, Canada and Australia. We know
that the UK is one of the most surveilled countries on the planet and
Canada was financially worse off than the US, until recently. I guess I
didn?t realize the UK, Canada, and Australia had such problems with their
citizens behaving so badly!
It is past time for us, as good US Citizens, to hold our elected officials
responsible for the shoddy legislation they are enacting, especially since
they are enacting it on our behalf! When will we learn? When will we take
up the fight for our own freedoms? When will we be educated enough to
realize we need to fire our representatives in Washington and find a
better way to preserve our way of life that doesn?t include thousands of
pieces of unnecessary legislation?
Representatives Text of H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
House Vote for HR
of S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalization Radicalization is the
transformation from passiveness or activism to more revolutionary,
militant or extreme postures. Radicalization is often associated with
youth, adversity, alienation, social exclusion, poverty or the perception
of injustice to self or others.
fundamentally: to undergo fundamental change, or introduce sweeping
change in something. Make or become politically radical: to adopt
politically radical views or cause somebody to do this.
to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People
Documentary ?One Nation
http://www.dhs.gov/xres/programs/editorial_0498.shtm Homeland Security
Centers of Excellence