Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Terrible destruction, thousands of civilians dead, nearly a million displaced. No, not Gaza – Mosul in 2016/17 when the good guys (us and our allies, obviously) expelled ISIS. I wouldn't claim to have been paying much attention at the time – along with everyone else – but I don't recall strident and insistent calls for ceasefires and humanitarian aid convoys. Perhaps that's because the locals were only Iraqis, not 'Palestinians', even though they hadn't voted for ISIS or requested their presence; unlike the population of Gaza. More likely, it's because those causing the destruction weren't Israelis or, more precisely, Jewish.
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
That's the allied bombing of Tokyo on 9th/10th March 1945, when over 1,500 tons of napalm was dropped on the city resulting in 100,000 dead and a million homeless.
Figure 8
Figure 9
That's the allied bombing of Dresden between 13th and 15th February 1945 – 25,000 dead. Which was a drop in the ocean as the euphemistically named Strategic Bombing Campaign against Germany devastated 64 cities and killed up to 900,000 civilians and wounded 1.3 million.(1)
Figure 10
Hiroshima, up to 126,000 dead. When the Allies liberated Normandy in 1944, they killed nearly 20,000 French civilians – collateral damage.(2) Remember Vietnam?
Figure 11
Perhaps 600,000 dead. Iraq? Around the same number. Afghanistan, 400,000. Ukraine (yes, that war is still on, not that you'd know it if you simply consumed a mainstream diet), 9,000 civilians dead, 17,000 wounded, 5 million internally displaced, 6.2 million refugees – at a minimum. But let's just talk about the figures produced by the Gaza Ministry of Health, which is controlled by Hamas and which, just under ten days ago, told us that a hospital had been bombed and that hundreds were dead; which was a blatant lie, one in a long running series.
But, nonetheless, calls for proportionality are suddenly all the rage and, to be fair to those siren voices, the principle is enshrined in international law. It's just that it's almost impossible to define, given the fact that it's inherently a subjective judgement. In the context of Gaza, we could all probably agree that dropped a tactical nuke on the Strip would not be proportionate, but there's plenty of room for disagreement otherwise. And, if it's a choice between being 'proportionate' according to some arbitrary standard decided by others and losing, what should a government do, given that it's primary duty is to keep its citizens safe? The fact that Hamas has an operational headquarters in and under the main hospital in Gaza (and it is a fact that has been common knowledge since 2007),(3) using their fellow citizens as human shields, tends to complicate the equation.
Nonetheless, can anyone make the argument that killing 900,000 German non-combatants was proportionate? Or dropping two atomic bombs on Japan? Supposedly, the latter was undertaken because a land invasion would have cost even more lives, but who gets to make that judgement? Is a million civilian casualties in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan proportionate? It's not that these questions haven't been asked before – it's more that today's vilification of Israel's actions in Gaza isn't remotely proportionate when one considers the big picture. Even the International Criminal Court recognizes the legitimacy of what the IDF is trying to achieve:
“Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.
A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality).”(4)
Which brings me back to a topic I addressed in my last offering, but which could do with an exploration in a little more detail – the widespread nature of anti-Semitism in our societies, not just among the useful idiots on the Left but also, sadly, amongst our own. It seems as though each new crisis thins the ranks a little more. It is apparent that there are those whose critical faculties were rejuvenated by the 'pandemic' response who still haven't gotten around to climate change denialism or seen through all the misdirection and lies that litter their understanding of the Middle East.
It would also be useful to delve a little into how we arrived at this (fraught) juncture, so that we might understand who is who and what each are likely to do, past performance being a reliable indicator of future conduct. But, first, the unhinged, unthinking reactions of both those on the Left and those who we thought we could rely on as they were fellow travelers.
It is, perhaps, no surprise to witness the ruling elites and their media mouthpieces soft soaping Hamas' actions while lambasting Israel's response – they are reflexively against any nationalistic sentiment. Neither should we be caught off guard by the reaction of the young (18-24), a quarter of whom think that the long term solution to the conflict is for Israel to be erased and for the territory to be given to Hamas and co.(5) This is also the age group that pays the least attention to what's actually happening on the ground.
“Younger people were less likely to label Hamas as “terrorists,” more likely to side with Hamas over Israel (48%), less likely to say Israel has a responsibility to protect its citizens by retaliating against Hamas, less likely to say Israel has a responsibility to bring back abducted citizens, more likely to believe there is moral equivalency between Israel and Hamas, and less likely to say Israel is justified in eliminating the Hamas government.”(6)
So, inattentive, uninformed, dogmatic and opinionated – a mirror image of those that taught them. The Left has had academia sown up for decades and they like nothing more than pushing the oppressor/oppressed narrative. so it shouldn't be in any way surprising that today's Generation Z is as vapid as it is. Quite why the Left don't see the Jewish people as historically oppressed is the puzzler; perhaps the Israelis should take a leaf out of the 'Palestinian's' play-book and play the victim card with more alacrity, although I don't think it would make any difference.
The Left has long had a problem with anti-Semitism. Karl Marx, himself a Jew, was no fan of his own tribe:
“What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money… Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew...”(7)
Marx viewed the Jews as emblematic of bourgeois society or, put another way, the enemy of the working class. He was far from alone in his animosity. A Leftist contemporary, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, was even more explicit: “The Jew is the enemy of humankind. They must be sent back to Asia or be exterminated.” Hatred of the Jews, Proudhon added, “should be our first article of political faith.” (8)
The Left is, of course, anxious to paint the Far Right as anti-Semitic, although what constitutes that grouping is much less clear. The Nazi epithet is repeatedly invoked, regardless of the fact that it stands for National Socialism, a totalitarian ideology on the Far Left of the political spectrum. I've said this before, but the Far Right ought to be the preserve of hard core nationalists and died in the wool libertarians, who would rather have as little government as possible. The idea that we can find totalitarianism at both extremes is a logical fallacy.
We are far more likely to see endemic anti-Semitism from those who see the Jews as part of the oppressor class whether generally, by virtue of their wealth or position in society or, particularly, because of the 'Palestinians', and those individuals will be found almost exclusively on the Left. Hence, of the sixteen US lawmakers who declined the opportunity to vote for a House Resolution in support of Israel, fifteen were Democrats and, in the UK, Sir Keir Something (Starmer, the Labour leader) is desperately trying to hold his party together after he backed Israel over Gaza.(9)(10) Biden has seen his job approval rating by Democrats drop 11% in a single month, due to his stated support for Israel.(11)
Again, this should not be surprising. The Left houses the parties who espouse 'the ends justify the means', the parties with no discernible moral compass. The Democrats, by way of an example, are also the party that favored slavery, segregation and Jim Crow and which currently back anti-racism which is itself, racist.
Figure 12
This is why campus groups at leading US colleges couldn't bring themselves to condemn the Hamas attack. The national leadership of Students for Justice in Palestine said the attack was a “historic win for the Palestinian resistance”.(12) That's what happens when individuals have renounced any concept of right and wrong.
“The New York chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America co-sponsored a pro-Palestinian rally in Times Square... in which speakers joked about "the resistance" killing "hipsters." The Connecticut DSA chapter applauded the “unprecedented anti-colonial struggle.” The Minneapolis and San Francisco chapters endorsed the slogan, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free!” which seems to leave no room for Jews between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. And the national DSA called for protests against U.S. support for “Israel’s apartheid regime.””(13)
The Jewish Diaspora, far more liberal than the typical Israeli voter, has been disappointed to find that, despite their defense of their fellow Leftists when they trash Israel (the usual 'it's not anti-Semitic to criticize the government' canard), it turns out that the criticism in progressive circles was grounded in hatred, after all. Which is not to say that some criticism of the Israeli government has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, such as that directed towards their reprehensible Covid strategy. But, somehow or other, after 7th October, Democratic voters in America are, for the first time, more sympathetic to the 'Palestinians' than the Israelis.
The progressive Left hides its anti-Semitism by being pro-Palestinian, rather than being explicitly anti-Zionist, but the oppressor/oppressed narrative dictates that the Jews are the bad guys, regardless of any facts. The Jews have stolen their wealth from their neighbors; there is no mention of the fact that the average IQ of an Israeli Jew is 95, while the Middle Eastern average is 84. Or that a significant proportion of the population (2.8 million out of 9.8 million) are Ashkenazi Jews, whose average IQ is the highest in the world at 110.(14) It's this group, who number only 10 million worldwide, that has won a third of the world's Nobel Prizes and has provided half the world's chess champions.(15)
None of that matters, because the mind is made up. The resentment is baked in and there will be no rethink. The pathological nature of this condition puts me in mind of the mass formation phenomenon, or elements of it. As I've previously written (Fight Like The Third Monkey On The Ramp To Noah's Ark):
“The advent of the 'pandemic' has revealed that there is a cohort – research suggests that they number around 30% of the total – that is comprised of deeply unpleasant individuals. They are the active colluders, the enablers, the bossy, the neurotic, the cowards and the sociopaths who are devoid of empathy yet shamelessly claim that empathy is, in fact, their guiding principle.
They cannot be reasoned with and no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever persuade them that they are wrong; the fact that they are too stupid to realise that they too will be in the cross hairs soon enough (Utopia isn't being designed for 30%, after all) is cold comfort – they willingly perform the role of useful idiots for now. There is no possibility of compromise with them and, because their neuroses have been prompted, nurtured and exploited by the ruling elite and amplified by the media, it is they who currently hold sway in the public square.”(16)
I believe that, as well as the 'otherness' of the Jewish people, resentment is what fuels most anti-Semitism. It is, after all, nonsensical that attacks on Jewish people in communities all over the world have increased in the past three weeks. It just doesn't make any sense to a rational person and yet that is exactly what's happened. Anti-Semitic incidents in the US have tripled compared to the same period last year and, in the UK, the Metropolitan Police have recorded a 1,353% increase.(17)
Research (even from a Leftist publication like The Conversation) demonstrates that 95% of anti-Semitic incidents in the US between 1990 and 2021 were committed by Far Left or unknown activists.(18) And, given that politics always lies downstream from personality, that statistic shouldn't be a surprise, either. The Far Left is far more integrated into the fabric of society that whatever we may consider the Far Right to be. Ironically, the Left still considers the Ku Klux Klan (and the neo-Nazis) to be a Far Right organisation, even though its origins lie elsewhere:
“At the time of Ulysses S. Grant election to the presidency, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.
The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.”(19)
The progressive mindset, as we have seen all too clearly now, is neurotic and vindictive. That one symptom of the disease would be a hatred of the Jewish people is not in the least surprising. When mixed with the fruits of uncontrolled immigration, you get a crowd of 100,000 protesting the 'Palestinian' cause in London (20) and another in Sydney shouting “Gas the Jews”.(21) The Jews have Israel because, even when it became apparent that Hitler was on the path to a genocide (as it was by 1938), no other country would have them.(22)
The shock, such as it is, is in finding that some of the freedom-loving Resistance are similarly inclined. Generally, one would expect critical thinkers to think critically about every position they hold, but this clearly isn't the case. Israel seems to be a hot button topic like no other. As Professor Norman Fenton (a smart and courageous critic of the 'pandemic' narrative) points out:
“People who I had previously respected were filling their Twitter feeds with the usual lazy narrative of lies about Israel ... The very people who previously said that no corporate news media could be trusted to tell the truth were happy to accept without question every ludicrous claim coming from the Hamas media centre in Gaza and other Arab and anti-Israel news agencies.”(23)
Others seem to have suffered a cerebral short circuit and solely seek out information that confirms their biases while completely ignoring anything that undermines them. The intellectual rigor that is apparent in other arenas is entirely absent when discussing Israel. It's odd, but I suppose there must be hybrid creatures as well as Leftists and sheople and the war is flushing them out like no tomorrow. And also those who believe that the Zionists are the beating heart of the globalist tyranny, when it is readily apparent that the globalist UN hates Israel. That's why, between 2006 and 2016 the UN Human Rights Council issued 68 condemnations of Israel while only 20 were directed at Syria and 6 at Iran.(24) It's also why UN delegates burst into applause when they failed to pass an amendment that formally condemned Hamas for “deliberate cruelty”.(25)
Perhaps the fault lies in conflating the Resistance with right of center politically, although one might presume that to be a safe assumption given that those who are anti-tyranny are unlikely to be found on the Far Left. However, there are clearly some who are leftish (perhaps center left on most issues) in temperament to judge from their rhetoric which frequently features that tiresome, fact-free, arrogant and hectoring tone. That type may think that it is us that have gone astray with the Gaza War, as they view Israel as authoritarian – perhaps they think that it is they who are keeping the faith by rooting for the oppressed.
We have been breaking bread with a range of individuals that we would ordinarily not find common cause with and rejecting the legions of petty tyrants pretending to be conservative – see Sunak and the cluster that is the UK Conservative Party – and so our allies may not be as reliable as we thought. Nonetheless, one of the non-negotiable elements animating the dissidents is the absolute need for credible evidence, rather than a reliance on entrenched positions that simply rely on conviction (a first cousin to prejudice) and, in this, the Hamas apologists have erred.
I had never previously studied the conflict in detail, but I hadn't formed the impression that Israel was an apartheid state. Or that the 'Palestinians' were a victimized minority. It didn't have that feel to it; but, then again, I don't believe that I am infected with the politics of resentment, so perhaps my settings don't automatically default to the oppressor/oppressed narrative. There are clearly some who want to cling to at least some of the narratives that they hold dear, even if it means abandoning their newfound skepticism.
As I have previously observed, every time we find ourselves in harmony with Far Left thinking we ought to hear klaxons blaring – they are never right about anything, as emotion, illogicality and vindictiveness are the qualities that inform their positions. Facts are an inconvenience that must be ignored or manipulated; such as the fact that the Israeli genocide of the 'Palestinians' is going so well that the latter's population has grown by more than 20% in the last decade.(26)
The truth is that Jews have been immigrating to Israel from all over Europe, a direct consequence of the vast influx of Muslims in the past 15 years. In 2000, France had 500,000 Jews; that number is now 100,000 less. Denmark's Jewish population has declined by 25% in that same time-frame. In fact, in the last 50 years the Jewish population of Europe has declined by 60%. And there probably isn't a future for Jews in the UK, either, as the Muslim population is set to hit 13 million by 2050.(27) It certainly doesn't seem like the Jews are running the world.
If they didn't feel safe before, how are they feeling now? In the US, 57% of American Muslims believe that the Hamas attack was “somewhat justified”.(28) In Brussels, protesters shouted “Death to the Jews” - nobody stopped them or, heaven forbid, arrested them.(29) The same in Vienna,(30) London,(31) Paris,(32) Berlin (33) and dozens of other European cities. Hatred expressed without shame and without consequences. An atmosphere of violence and blood lust at every 'protest'. Why would any Jew want to live in societies that allow that behavior to go unchecked and, in doing so, effectively embolden it?
A prejudice that is buried due to its malignancy has to mutate if it is to once again be acceptable to polite society and anti-Semitism has done just that, parading as anti-Zionism instead. It's a thin disguise – Zionism is the right of self-determination for the Jewish people. Those that would deny them that would have them do what instead? Scatter into the Diaspora, where they have historically been persecuted and from which they are currently fleeing? Or implement a two state solution with two groups (Fatah and Hamas) that want a one state solution, stretching 'from the river to the sea'? Or commit demographic suicide by plumping for the one state solution and live alongside those that wish to destroy them? Even the Israeli Arabs don't want that. That's what being an anti-Zionist truly is – an anti-Semite by another name, advocating for the extermination of the Jewish people.
And so, in different ways, the anti-Israel lobby makes its voice heard. I'm not sure that, ultimately, the Israeli leadership will be denied the opportunity to kneecap Hamas once and for all. They must know that they can do nothing right in the eyes of much of the progressive media, so there is very little point in making an effort to curry favor. They might as well get on with it. The question then becomes, what are the players in the Middle East and the West going to do about it?
A little background is probably of use, as the region's politics in akin to the classic “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”,(34) replete with shifting alliances, an ongoing battle between secularism and those who would impose Sharia law, leavened with Western realpolitik (when Trump was in charge) and ideology and malevolance (Obama and Biden).
Traditionally, Israel has been the West's reliable ally in the region and proud possessor of its only functional democracy and, given America's status as a superpower, that has been a crucial partnership. However, beyond that constant there is turmoil:
“It’s a snakepit. But the major players always show up in light disguise, wearing false mustaches and Groucho glasses. The most ancient division is Sunnis vs. Shi’ites. Then there are national divisions, with huge natural resources and strategic geography, like the Gulf oil regimes. And then there is the most important difference, between modernist Muslims, who want to live a normal life, and primitive fanatics who want to go back to the desert habits of the 7th century.”(35)
The Sunni/Shia rivalry has been alive and kicking since the death of Muhammad. What became the Sunni faction (90% of the world's Muslims) believed that his successor as caliph should be Abu Bakr, father-in-law and companion, whereas the Shia faction believed that Ali, a senior companion to Muhammad, should get the nod. The Shias have practiced a system whereby hereditary leaders are appointed and the Sunnis invest in political dynasties. Within the region, Sunnis dominate, although the basket case that is Iraq has a Shia majority, Iran is ruled by the ayatollahs and the Shia religion is adhered to by around 90% of the population. Syria, although 74% Sunni, is ruled by an Alawite, a sect that split from the early Shia branch of Islam. Bahrain is also majority Shia.
Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, attempted to dampen the rivalry between the sects in the interests of engineering other revolutions throughout the Muslim world, but to no avail. The Sunni Saudis fell out with Iran, as did Sunni Pakistan (home to the second largest Muslim population) and Sunnis came to view their Shia brethren as heretics, having previously thought them misguided. In truth, the issues that they agreed upon were all negatives – anti-Imperialism, anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism and “the battle against outsiders”.(36) The sectarianism was, however, long-standing and home-grown:
“Shi‘ites profess their unity of purpose with Sunnis, but then declare that a major expression of Sunnism (in this case, Saudi Wahhabism) is a deviation from ecumenical Islam. Sunnis declare their acceptance of Shi‘ites as Muslims, but then declare that a major expression of Shi‘ism (in this case, Iran’s revolutionary activism) constitutes a deviation from ecumenical Islam. In this manner, sectarian prejudice is insinuated.”(37)
The sudden ascendancy of the Shia in Iran also caused ructions throughout the rest of the (mostly Sunni) Muslim world and upset the dynamic between the factions. Naturally, Khomeini calling for the overthrow of what he considered to be unworthy Sunni governments was not well received, especially in Saudi which was top of his list. But the Saudi leadership was popular, possessed deep pockets and resisted effectively. Even so, they were obliged to burnish their religious legitimacy by way of stricter enforcement, which had the effect of distancing them further from the Shia. The US invasion of Iraq and subsequent dismantling of the political infrastructure also set the stage for sectarian strife. But it was the election of Obama that really changed the paradigm.
Two thinks tanks (the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institution), both poster children for the globalist class, wrote long-winded reports which recommended a new approach in the Middle East. Rand's report – Building Moderate Muslim Networks (38) – which continually referenced examples from the Cold War, recommended exactly what it said on the tin, via the medium of NGOs and sought to reverse the flow of Islamist influence from the Middle East to Turkey and Indonesia. There was at least some humility as to the confusion of currents swirling on the Arabian Peninsula and its periphery, although the distinction between the effects of the precepts of Communism and Islam was not well made.
The Brookings offering – Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran (39) – set itself the task of resolving the Islamist problem in a country that saw the United States as one of its principal enemies, by reason of ideology; not an undertaking that ever had any chance of success, certainly not in the short to medium term. The problematic behaviors identified were support for terror groups, efforts to overturn the regional status quo and the pursuit of nuclear weapons capability.
However, there is some realism in its assessment of the failure of previous approaches which favored a combination of financial sanctions and UN Resolutions. These had kept Iran in its lane, for the most part; somewhat isolated and weak, but unrepentant. It took the complete Horlicks that the US made courtesy of Bush Junior to change the dynamic. Regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq – Iran's two greatest regional rivals – combined with a consequent drop in confidence amongst America's allies proved to be a pick-me-up and Iran started to become more assertive.
Obama favored (or, rather, claimed to favor) direct dialogue with Tehran and harsher sanctions if the carrot of normalization was rejected. Brookings believed there to be perhaps four major options available, instead, but counselled that some combination would likely be necessary. Military options, regime change and containment were the three possibilities that were supposedly rejected by the administration; instead, Obama adopted a watered down version of his diplomatic approach which focused on engagement – the junking of sanctions, accommodation and reassurance. Plus a convoluted, Machiavellian, unacknowledged attempt at regime change which attempted to leverage chaos elsewhere.
I know not whether the report was written in good faith or whether its primary purpose was to provide some top cover for Obama. Neither do I know whether he genuinely believed that engagement was the least bad choice or whether his true target was Israel, but appeasing the ayatollahs while requiring little to nothing in return was clearly not going to be successful – any student of human nature would have seen disaster as the most likely outcome. As the report observes:
“The Islamic Republic is brutal, oppressive, repressive, intolerant, paranoid and prone to widespread human rights abuse....Engagement makes no effort to change its behaviour soon....if it does so at all....similarly, Engagement has no mechanism by which to try to prevent Iran from supporting violent extremist groups, subverting Arab-Israeli peace efforts or generally destabilising the region.”(40)
The hope was that an Iran that no longer felt threatened by the US or the rest of the international community would somehow choose to mend its ways, when it is readily apparent that by effectively running up the white flag, the US would be empowering the theocratic regime, not weakening it. The Supreme Leader is highly unlikely to abandon his faith and his regional ambitions simply because the West is now being nice to him, especially as his belief system does not allow him to entertain the thought that his ways need any mending. And going easy on Israel's mortal foe was a betrayal of a key ally.
Iran continued as before, safe in the knowledge that it could do so while simultaneously engaging with the West and negotiating a treaty with regard to its nuclear programme, which was finally adopted in October 2015. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was nothing of the sort. Iran agreed to certain restrictions and reductions (having refused to state how much uranium they already had), but the caveats were bulky; 24/7 inspection was limited to certain designated areas and military sites were not to be within the purview of the agreement. No graduated penalties existed for lesser offences and no effective enforcement regime was put in place. In short, the treaty wasn't worth the paper it was written on.(41)
But it was a boon to the ayatollahs:
“...the U.S. suspended sanctions on the sale of oil and trade, and other financial sanctions, which had crippled Iran’s economy. In return, Iran agreed to scale back its nuclear program (it did not).... Iran also got relief from E.U. and U.N. sanctions and was granted access to frozen assets. The JCPOA infused Iran with cash. By lifting oil and financial sanctions on Iran, billions of dollars’ worth of Iranian assets, mostly revenues from oil sales, were unfrozen. Its central bank gained control over more than $120 billion in foreign exchange reserves.”(42)
All the rewards were front loaded. To demonstrate their gratitude, the Iranians sent the head of the Revolutionary Guard to Moscow to discuss the purchase of surface to air missiles.(43) Obama claimed that the deal would safeguard Israel, because that's what giving money to her enemy inevitably does. This is what Obama's Iran policy achieved in his first two terms – now, in his third term, we see a continuation of the policy of appeasement and consequent undermining of Israel. After Trump's four year stint (and the re-imposition of brutal sanctions), the Tehran regime was on its uppers – it had $8 billion in the bank and an economy that was struggling to stay afloat. Funding terrorist groups was a luxury it could not afford.
Biden changed all that; Iran now has $80 billion on deposit and is free to foment regional unrest by financing the likes of Hezbollah and others.(44)(45) It's even prepared to fund Sunni extremists under the principle that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' – Hamas is believed to be in receipt of $100 million a year,(46) plus weaponry and training.(47) (Iran is far from alone in its sponsorship of terrorists – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE all financially support Sunni terrorist groups worldwide).(48)
Obama's other signature accomplishment in the region was to instigate the co-called Arab Spring. Yes, I know it was a series of spontaneous revolutions effected by ardent pro-democracy protesters, who wanted to overthrow Arab autocracies. That's the narrative that we are supposed to abide by – that, over the course of three months, the populations of twelve separate Arab countries (all with their own particular set of different grievances, no doubt) rose up independently.
Just like what happened in Serbia in 2000, Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004 and 2014) and Kyrgyzstan (2005) when, in each case, pro-Russian governments were overthrown by disaffected, pro-Western young people financed by the CIA, State Department and those ubiquitous NGOs that claim to be all-in on democracy and 'open societies'.(49) And which nearly happened in Venezuela (2002), Belarus (2020), Kazakhstan (2022) and Israel (2023).
There can be no doubt about US involvement in most of the above:
“A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington....The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department.”(50)
A US funded Serbian outfit called CANVAS also acts as a cut-out, coordinating protest movements throughout the world.(51) It's fist symbol crops up in numerous different locations; in the following images Serbia, Egypt and Bahrain.
CANVAS was candid about its operations, claiming that after their efforts in Serbia they trained the activists who were the tip of the spear in Georgia's Rose Revolution and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. They then turned their attention to Egypt and Tunisia.(52) Soros (inevitably) was also lurking in the background, funding an NGO that was drafting Egypt's new constitution.(53)
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
These were not last-minute contrivances – the Egyptian April 6th Movement was collaborating with the US State Department as far back as 2008, the Muslim Brotherhood from at least 2007.(54) This is the same Muslim Brotherhood which has close links with the likes of Hamas and Al Qaeda, the latter supposedly the primary target of the 'War on Terror'. But they were Sunni terrorists and the US (pre-Obama) had it in for the Shia in Iran and Syria, particularly, so in an era of completely amoral foreign policy, it was now OK to partner with an organisation that – a mere six years earlier – had purportedly perpetrated 9/11.
This is not a one-off; prior to ISIS declaring war on the US in Syria in 2016, the US was prepared to tolerate the rise of the terror group and, as long as they were fighting Assad – and furthering Obama's policy of regime change – they even provided weapons and (in all probability) attacked a Syrian Army convoy to prevent an attack, as admitted by US Secretary of State, John Kerry.(55) That's how screwed up US policy was in the Middle East. That's why Assad asked Russia for help, which proved to be the decisive turning point in the Syrian War.
The man who keeps popping up in relation to the Arab Spring is the late John McCain, a Republican who was not part of Obama's administration. He chaired a meeting in Cairo on February 4th 2011, during which the final preparations for the Libyan and Syrian 'popular uprisings' were discussed.(56) The Libyan effort didn't generate much heat until outside elements made their presence felt:
“...members of the Islamic Fighting Group in Libya ,coming from Egypt and coordinated by unidentified, hooded individuals, simultaneously attacked four military bases in four different cities. After three days of fighting and atrocities, the rebels launched the uprising of Cyrenaica against Tripolitania; a terrorist attack that the western press falsely presented as a "democratic revolution" against "the regime" of Muammar el-Qaddafi.”(57)
February 22nd found McCain in Lebanon, arranging for arms transfers to Syria. Two years later, in May 2013, he was in Syria meeting the “armed opposition”, with whom he was photographed. In the first picture, the man in the doorway is Mohammad Nour, a spokesperson for the al-Nusra Front (Al Qaeda in Syria). In the second, he is talking with Abu Du'a (first on the left), better known to the world as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the founder and first caliph of ISIS and, at that point, on the most wanted terrorism list of the US for the past 18 months (bottom left).(58)
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
“In no country in the world, regardless of their political system, would one accept that the opposition leader be in direct contact, and publicly friendly, with a very dangerous wanted terrorist.”(59)
The Free Syrian Army, al-Nusra and ISIS were all populated by the same individuals who continually changed flag as circumstances dictated, which Obama and McCain must have been fully aware of. But McCain was something of a specialist in color revolutions having been involved in the failed attempt in Venezuela,(60) a favorable outing in Haiti,(61) another failure in Kenya (62) and the successful Maidan revolution in Ukraine.
But, we shouldn't get the impression that Obama and McCain were duping their respective parties with these 'secret' activities. Congress was fully aware that the US was arming these 'moderate' rebels, because they approved the funding – in secret, naturally.(63) And in contravention of two UN Resolutions to which the US was already signed up.(64) So the US, allegedly the leader of the global war on terror, passed a 2014 law that financed the two organisations (under Al Qaeda) most responsible for it – the al-Nusra Front and ISIS - and the press almost completely ignored the contradiction.
Active US support for terrorism was hardly new. The CIA, with presidential backing, funneled $2 billion in weapons and materiel to the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 1980s and encouraged Islamic groups from around the world to come to the country and fight the Russians. Extra funding paid for their training by Pakistan. Thus, the US also played a foundational role in the creation of both Al Qaeda – which grew out of the Arab Legion of recruits - and the Taliban.(65) And they had Stinger missiles and other modern weaponry.
In Libya, in 2011, American short-sightedness was again to the fore. In their unrelenting desire to rid themselves of Gaddafi, they get in bed with more jihadi terrorists. North Eastern Libya was home to possibly the greatest concentration of jihadis (per capita) on the globe. This was evidenced by the fact that nearly a fifth of all foreign fighters entering Iraq from Syria so that they might kill Americans come from Libya. They were also the most ardent suicide bombers. Al Qaeda was, once again, the umbrella organisation that they operated under and they became the de facto 'rebel opposition' and the recipient of American modern weaponry via the good offices of the Saudis and the Egyptians,(66) once again in direct violation of a UN Resolution (no. 1973).(67)
Figure 19
The level of stupidity involved in arming rabidly anti-American jihadis (some of whom had killed American troops in Iraq) for short term gain is difficult to credit, especially when the 'rebellion' wasn't organic or morally justified. But the temptation – both in Libya and Syria – was too great, for one simple reason;
“The basic belief structure of Al Qaeda is that all existing Arab and Moslem governments are illegitimate and should be destroyed, because they do not represent the caliphate which Al Qaeda asserts is described by the Koran. This means that the Al Qaeda ideology offers a ready and easy way for the Anglo-American secret intelligence agencies to attack and destabilize existing Arab and Muslim governments as part of the ceaseless need of imperialism and colonialism to loot and attack the developing nations.”(68)
Evidently, what happens further down the line, when those same weapons are once again pointed at American soldiers, is of no concern to the globalist ruling class. In 2013, Al Qaeda killers in north west Pakistan were trying to kill Americans (and vice versa) while the US was playing footsie with its Libyan chapter. The amoral morass is striking and surely impossible to justify if one's sole criteria is the national interest – which it should be, but clearly isn't.
The Libyan uprising also followed a familiar trajectory, with a litany of lies being disseminated in an effort to promote outrage and a Day of Rage. Gaddafi's military was said to be strafing unarmed protesters, kidnapping injured patients from hospitals and massacring the faithful in mosques, despite the complete absence of evidence of same. The Libyan opposition openly worked out of Washington DC. It wasn't subtle, but as long as the mainstream media ran interference, the schemers could brazen it out.(69) And Libya was also a prime target – the regime had been content to refuse globalist blandishments and had largely managed to keep control of its own economic destiny.
The rebel forces did not perform as hoped. Within three weeks, government forces had recaptured several coastal cities and were closing in on Benghazi, the seat of the rebellion. Anticipating a swift defeat for its proxies, the US forced through UN Resolution 1973 (by leveraging the rumors of war crimes), authorizing the use of force against Gaddafi, thus formally joining an alliance with Al Qaeda – difficult to believe, but nonetheless true. A NATO bombing campaign ensued and government forces fought a rearguard action until October, when Gaddafi was captured and killed by the rebels.
NATO's remit had been to provide protection for civilians, not enforce regime change; a distinction that was lost as soon as battle was joined, when it swiftly became apparent that regime change was the plan all along. Once that was accomplished, an ersatz democracy was implemented, but to nobody's surprise, Islamist jihadis and democratic elections go together like oil and water. The General National Congress (GNC), the legislative authority elected in the 2012 election and based in western Libya, was allowed to assume power by the former rebels (who constituted a sizeable contingent), but failed in its primary task of introducing a new constitution.
The GNC nonetheless unilaterally extended its mandate, to the dismay of the chief of the Libyan Army. He ordered the GNC to dissolve, it didn't and he launched an offensive against Islamist groups, who then announced that they would hold elections, after all. They then saw their share of seats reduced to around 30%, were not prepared to accept their relegation, refused to recognize the results and labored on with the GNC as configured prior to the election, in opposition to the properly elected Government of National Accord.
By then, the proxy war was in full swing, with the House of Representatives (HoR), backed by the army, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UAE (and, latterly, France and Russia) facing off against the GNC, backed by Qatar and Turkey. That war was to last until 2020 and failed to resolve the political impasse. The US, having backed the Islamists at the outset, now support the opposition.
“One fight in Libya is over the legacy of the 2011 Arab uprisings. Qatar and Turkey had supported Islamist groups that would emulate the model of political Islam practiced by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said Herchaoui.
The UAE and Saudi Arabia, concerned for their monarchies, had arrayed themselves against those revolutions, advocating a return to the military-style dictatorships the uprisings had dislodged.”(70)
But the fate of Africa's largest oil reserves and mineral deposits is still undecided. The US helped to unleash the whirlwind, but doesn't seem to have reaped the rewards. Unless the whole idea was to impose semi-permanent instability and an outflow of Libyans to the EU.
Syria has also been a qualified defeat for the US. Not only is Assad still hanging on to power, but American funding emboldened ISIS which went rogue and carved out its own 'caliphate' in north western Iraq and eastern Syria, thus necessitating yet another reordering of alliances. Turkey, which supports the Islamist Sunni coalition in Libya (in opposition to the forces favored by the US) was eventually obliged to partner with the latter in Syria to fight against ISIS, another Sunni terror group. Russia, an ally of Assad in Syria and therefore against the US-led coalition that embroiled itself in the war when the ISIS defection weakened rebel efforts, found itself on the same side of the fence when it came to bombing ISIS.
Limited successes lay in taming the beast that it had helped create – ISIS lost the last of its territory in 2019 – and in seizing and controlling (perhaps indefinitely) the eastern third of Syria, the part rich in oil and minerals.(71) This is, naturally, entirely illegal, but that hasn't prevented the Americans from looting Syrian oil and smuggling it out of the country to be sold abroad.(72) The US Army is also building a new base in the north, (bringing the total to a dozen or so) suggesting that it has no intention of upping sticks.(73)
It should be borne in mind that there has never been a declaration of war against Assad and that the US has no justification for being in the region. And that
“...according to Damascus, Syria’s energy sector as a whole was robbed by an astonishing $107 billion between 2011 and 2022 by a toxic mix of US occupation, “coalition” bombing, and theft or looting by terrorist and separatist gangs.”(74)
While the Trump era undid several of Obama's hot messes – the nuclear deal and the destruction of ISIS chief among them – and signaled warm relations with Israel, Biden's installation has resulted in a restoration of the earlier agenda. This time, however, Syria and Libya are both a busted flush and a rerun of the Arab Spring seems unlikely. The carrot and stick approach (engagement combined with regional unrest that might spread to Iran) has given way to an asymmetrical carrot only strategy. Perhaps that's all it ever was, in retrospect, as whenever the Iranian Green Movement has launched a series of protests, the US has failed to take advantage.
There have been several waves; after the characteristically dodgy election in 2009, which extended into 2010, during 2011/12, again in 2017/18, once more in 2019/20 and, of course, the most recent example in 2022/23. Each had eventually called for the overthrow of the government of the Islamic Republic and each has been brutally put down. There is little sign that the traditional color revolution methodology has been utilized and the response of the UN and the US has been muted, in stark contrast to some of hysteria over Israel's response to Hamas in Gaza.
The much vaunted Arab Spring resulted in soft coups in Tunisia and Egypt, the latter producing a Muslim Brotherhood (therefore US friendly) President, who only lasted a year before he, too, was deposed by the army. The new president, the ex-head of that army, seems relatively sensible and moderately independent of rule from Washington, although both Egypt and Tunisia have been in receipt of large loans from the US. In both countries, eventually, radical Islamists are on the back foot, but that outcome has been brought about by the people themselves.
In seven countries, there were either some concessions made or the protests were simply put down (in Bahrain, with the help of the Saudis). Three other countries – the aforementioned Libya and Syria, plus Yemen – were eventually engulfed in years of civil war which, in the case of both Syria and Yemen, are still ongoing. Yemen is yet another Shia-Sunni conflict, with regional powers such as the Saudis and Egypt intervening on the side of the Sunni government (with weapons supplied by the US) and Iran backing the Houthis.(75) Over 377,000 people have died,(76) including 85,000 children from starvation,(77) but the world has looked away.
Tunisia and Egypt were, therefore, somewhat democratized. The rest, not so much. And Iran, not at all. Israel was forced to endure regional turmoil and to face the threat of a re-financed Iran. And all for what? And what does it all tell us about current US policy?
It tells us that the Americans are not all about democracy. Nor are they fighting a War on Terror. Also, that they have cast their lot in with one branch of Islamist terrorists, against the other. Sunni good (with the possible exception of Hamas), Shia bad. At the moment, that is; even though releasing money to the Iranians is bound to enhance regional instability. So, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and Qatar are the notional enemies, although Qatar gets a suspiciously easy ride and the Obama/Biden cabal's actions towards Iran are more instructive than their rhetoric. The Saudis have carte blanche to fund whoever they want to (which has included mortal enemies of the US), their Sunni compadres in Egypt, Bahrain and elsewhere are similarly free to 'go off-road' whenever the fancy takes them.
And Israel? It seems that US policy under the progressives has changed irrevocably. A strong Israel increases stability on the peninsular, but that is not what the administration is engineering. They favor chaos and instability and long running, seemingly intractable conflicts. The Libyan conflicts lasted for nine years (and still aren't fully resolved), the Yemeni War is in its ninth year also and the Syrian War had been ongoing for over twelve years.
The US has never allowed Israel enough slack to properly deal with its enemies (a forever war habit that America has herself embraced) and I'm not sure why that would be any different now. Partly that has been in order to curry favor with other regional powers, to show them that they could rein the Israelis in. It's possible that Hamas is a special case; the fact that it is the Shia states that are their primary funders must infer that the wider Sunni alliance has very little time for them and may, therefore, see their elimination as a boon.
There is another possibility. Perhaps all of the players in the region are simply pawns in a bigger game. Perhaps ensuring Hamas was funded has set the scene for a wider war and opportunities to degrade our hypothetical rights even more. It certainly seemed that the US was doing its very best to trigger World War III in Ukraine, but that particular kindling has refused to light. Is the potential conflagration in the Middle East the backup plan?
There are some indications that it might be. For starters, Biden has consistently pandered to the progressives on everything from trans rights to climate change and yet now he is ignoring them and their demands for a ceasefire. Is this because he (and Obama) have got Israel's back? I think not. This is an administration that is actively impeding Israel's attempts to protect its citizens. When Hamas was rehearsing the October 7th incursion, it did so in Lebanon, in concert with Hezbollah and Iran.(78)(79) Lebanon's sponsor state, since the war with Israel in 2006, has been the US, which is currently building a $1 billion embassy complex as a mark of its commitment. America underwrites the security sector, providing arms and training to the military. The US also allows Lebanese security forces (and Hezbollah) to use its services to uncover Israeli spy rings and has done for the best part of fifteen years.
A large counter-intelligence operation early in 2022 uncovered multiple Israeli networks, spying on both Hezbollah and Hamas. These were eliminated and training for the attack commenced in mid 2022.(80) That's how duplicitous the Americans are, a point reinforced by the fact that John Kerry (at the time, Obama's Secretary of State) informed the Iranian Foreign Minister that Israel had attacked Iranian interests in Syria at least two hundred times.(81) He then held unauthorized meetings with Iranian officials during the Trump presidency in an attempt to undermine the administration's plans to ditch the nuclear deal.(82)(83) That's how much of a friend to Israel the Democrats are.
Then there is the issue of mass immigration, to the EU, the UK and the US. In 2022, just 8% of illegal immigrants into the EU were women. The rest were military aged men, with the three largest cohorts arriving from Afghanistan (33%), Syria (15%) and Turkey (10%).(84) As we know, huge numbers are also coming from Muslim north Africa too.
Figure 20
The US has no real idea who is crossing the southern border, as the 'got-aways', by definition, got away, but there are significant numbers of Syrians and Pakistanis being apprehended. Thousands of them have enjoyed 'special interest' status.(85) It would clearly be in their own interests to evade Border Patrol if at all possible and it's a racing certainty that many others have. Between January and July 2023, 140 suspects on the terrorist screening list were arrested at the border. This contrasts with just three in the final year of Trump's presidency.(86) And the demographics are the same as in Europe:
“About 90 percent were young adults 18 to 30 years old, about 85 percent male.”(87)
Why would this be? And how do poor people get from the Middle East to the US border with Mexico is the first place, paying for transportation and cartel guidance in the process? The same goes for those that enter the EU, who must also pay off human traffickers. Six thousand turned up on the Italian island of Lampedusa in a single day this September.(88)
We are starting to get a taste for what might be in store. We have already seen huge marches in favor of Hamas and witnessed the unhinged behavior of activists. The Met Police in London have thrown in the towel, redefining 'hate speech' by stating that they couldn't arrest those protesters shouting for jihad because, according to the Met, the word has a number of meanings.(89) As is always the case, but especially so with religious extremists, weakness will simply encourage more of the same.
Just yesterday, and right on cue, the FBI Director warned about terrorist attacks on US soil.(90) Others are of a similar mind.(91)(92) Anyone who has paid any attention to the Middle East and who is aware of the propensity for Islamist suicide bombings and terror attacks could hardly fail to register the possibility that these acts may also be carried out elsewhere. The deliberately porous nature of Western borders and the profile of the migrants who are taking advantage begs a question; as governments are clearly acting in concert and have no interest in stemming the flow of illegal immigration, what is their desired outcome?
By way of a guide, it may be useful to note what their larger plans are, because those are no longer in any doubt. They clearly intend to create a digital world, which will be cashless, denuded of privacy, de-industrialised and (in all probability) 'vaccinated' to the gills. They rejoiced in the lock-downs (reduced CO2 emissions to tackle non-existent climate change) and the control that they enjoyed at that time. The US also has presidential elections in a year's time and the only way the Left can hope to 'win' is by stealing it via mail-in voting.
A domestic terror campaign and a spot of martial law might take care of that for them. They'd also be able to accelerate their digital ID plans and suppress dissent into the bargain. The same is true of Europe (minus the election). And if the extremists prove reluctant to bomb and maim, there's always the option of false flag events, carried out by the security services or their surrogates.
If domestic crackdowns are truly the desired end state, I would expect there to be continued, coordinated protests. The fact that Soros has spent more than $15 million bankrolling many of the groups behind the protests is another reason for believing that there is another agenda in play.(93) Soros and his NGOs are heavily involved in financing color revolutions elsewhere; it would be unsurprising to find him involved in domestic protests too, although these aren't designed to topple Biden's regime, but rather to help provide it with a pretext.
If the US, having executed a multi-year campaign of destabilisation in the Middle East, inserts itself into what might become a multi-front war in the region, riots and terror attacks might become a regular occurrence. The same is also true of Europe which, if anything, is a larger powder keg, as the recent riots in France demonstrated.
“Western culture is in fact being systematically dismantled and mass immigration is a part of that agenda. It’s also true that Islamic ideology is completely incompatible with western beliefs including the concept of individualism. Muslim systems are authoritarian in nature, that is what Sharia Law is.”(94)
At present, I suspect that the deterrent effect represented by US military power is preventing Israel's state enemies from directly confronting her. That and their contempt for Hamas, but their Sunni populations may force them into action at some point. It may also be that the US isn't feared as much any more, after the debacles in Afghanistan and Ukraine. Turkey is probably the wild card – Erdogan's rhetoric has been the most inflammatory.(95)
I've set out a lot of ducks and I'm not sure if they are all in a row or not. But something feels off, especially the circumstances of the protests and the purported riot in Dagestan, where a crowd of hundreds stormed the airport looking for Jews to lynch.(96) There is a connected, co-ordinated feel to events and it may be that the Israelis are being played as much as the rest of us.
After all, the US is cosying up to Israel's enemies in Iran and Lebanon and actively undermining her ally, while also assisting in the ground offensive in Gaza. The American press, meanwhile, are regurgitating Hamas propaganda (including casualty figures which cannot possibly be verified) and magnifying anti-Israeli sentiment. It all seems designed to keep ratcheting up the tension, in the same manner that was attempted in Ukraine.
The Americans have been prepared to work with anyone to further the globalist agenda; it doesn't matter if it's ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or Iran – they just can't help themselves. I can't believe that they have retained even a vestige of credibility amongst the regional players. However, it seems that events are theirs to shape. If the war widens, then that will have been the US plan all along. Israel will want to eradicate Hamas, but I suspect that whoever is pulling Biden's strings will not favor a decisive outcome and may force Israel to keep the pot simmering.
I would expect there to be continued domestic unrest. Terror campaigns cannot be ruled out; it would be unrealistic to expect regimes to be focused on stopping any such undertakings, as the ensuing chaos will enable them to by further erode rights. I would also expect an exodus of Jews from the West. There are no coincidences in politics, which means that whatever's coming is exactly what is intended.
Citations
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II
(2) https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/battle-of-normandy/normans/losses
(3) https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/10/hospitals-hamas-style.php
(4) https://dailycaller.com/2023/10/28/opinion-dont-lecture-israel-about-proportionality-shoshana-bryen/
(5) https://www.jpost.com/international/article-769962
(6) Ditto
(7) https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/02/06/was-karl-marx-an-anti-semite-and-self-hating-jew/
(8) https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/04/12/randi-weingarten-and-the-antisemitism-that-marx-built/
(10) Ditto
(11) https://news.gallup.com/poll/513305/democrats-ratings-biden-slip-overall-approval.aspx
(12) https://dailysceptic.org/2023/10/25/labour-in-meltdown-over-backing-for-israel/
(13)
(14) https://human-intelligence.org/jews/
(15) Ditto
(16) https://endurancea71.substack.com/p/fight-like-the-third-monkey-on-the
(18) Ditto
(19) https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/grant-kkk/
(22) Ditto
(23) https://expose-news.com/2023/10/26/what-it-feels-like-to-be-jewish-in-a-freedom-movement/
(25) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/10/un-delegates-applaud-after-general-assembly-failed-pass/
(26) https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/state-of-palestine-population/
(27) https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/366907
(28) https://dailycaller.com/2023/10/28/opinion-there-are-monsters-midst-josh-hammer/
(29) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/europe-facing-civil-war
(30) https://www.reuters.com/world/from-river-sea-prompts-vienna-ban-pro-palestinian-protest-2023-10-11/
(32)
(33) https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/10/12/a68e-o12.html
(34) https://usdictionary.com/idioms/a-riddle-wrapped-in-a-mystery-inside-an-enigma/
(35) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/08/does_isis_have_blackop_backers_.html
(36) Nasr, Vali, The Shia Revival, Norton, (2006), p.137
(37) Kramer, Martin (11 October 2010). "Khomeini's Messengers in Mecca". Martin Kramer on the Middle East. Retrieved 13 June 2023.
(38) https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG574.pdf
(39) https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/06_iran_strategy.pdf
(40) Ditto
(41) https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/253406-obamas-shameful-appeasement-of-iran/
(42) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/10/barack_obamas_puppet_appeases_iran.html
(43) https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/253406-obamas-shameful-appeasement-of-iran/
(44) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_Hezbollah
(48) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding
(49) https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/the-cia-role-in-the-arab-spring/
(50) https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/12/2011-year-of-dupe.html
(51) https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection
(52) Report of the Fact Finding Mission on the current crisis in Libya, June 2011.
(53) https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&emc=eta1&
(56) https://www.voltairenet.org/article185085.html
(57) Ditto
(58) Ditto
(59) Ditto
(60) https://www.voltairenet.org/article8686.html
(61) https://www.voltairenet.org/article11918.html
(62) https://www.voltairenet.org/article162096.html
(64) Ditto
(65) https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/pol/wtc/oblnus091401.html
(66) https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704360404576206992835270906
(67) http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/1973
(68) https://www.alainet.org/en/articulo/148565
(69) Ditto
(70) https://en.minbarlibya.org/2019/08/04/libyas-civil-war-and-natural-resources-attract-mix-of-nations/
(71)
https://twitter.com/afshinrattansi/status/1683920359681294336
(72) https://new.thecradle.co/articles/us-troops-smuggle-70-oil-tankers-out-of-syria
(73) https://www.newarab.com/news/global-anti-coalition-building-new-base-northern-syria
(74) https://new.thecradle.co/articles/syria-a-tale-of-plunder-and-resurrection
(75) https://warontherocks.com/2021/08/how-iran-helped-houthis-expand-their-reach/
(76) https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211123-yemen-war-will-have-killed-377-000-by-year-s-end-un
(77) https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/11/21/yemen-children-hunger/2076683002/
(78) https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25
(79) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/13/world/middleeast/hamas-iran-israel-attack.html
(80) https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/america-leaves-israel-eyeless-in-gaza
(82) https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/6/john-kerry-should-be-jailed/
(84) https://slaynews.com/news/eu-illegal-migrants-women-2022-military-age-men/
(86) https://amgreatness.com/2023/07/24/border-encounters-with-flagged-illegal-aliens-increase-ninefold/
(87) https://www.theamericanconservative.com/a-texas-border-tour/
(89) https://dailysceptic.org/2023/10/26/the-self-deception-of-sir-mark-rowley/
(90)
(92)
(93) https://nypost.com/2023/10/28/news/soros-funneled-15-m-plus-to-groups-rallying-for-hamas/
(94) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/wider-war-will-bring-inevitable-attempts-martial-law-america
(96) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/10/we-will-declare-israel-war-criminal-turkish-president/
Figure 1 https://news.sky.com/gallery/the-battle-for-mosul-deeper-into-the-city-10928766
Figure 2 https://checknewsupdated.blogspot.com/2017/11/battle-of-mosul-casualties-updated.html
Figure 3 https://macleans.ca/news/world/iraqi-troops-resume-mosul-fight-after-two-week-lull/
Figure 4 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/opinion/after-the-battle-a-warning-from-mosul.html
Figure 5 https://allthatsinteresting.com/firebombing-of-tokyo#10
Figure 6 Ditto
Figure 7 Ditto
Figure 10 https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2016/08/09/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic-bomb-survivors/
Figure 11 https://www.charismanews.com/world/56409-the-amazing-testimony-of-vietnam-war-s-iconic-napalm-girl
Figure 13 https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/cia-coup-college.html
Figure 14 Ditto
Figure 15 Ditto
Figure 16 https://www.voltairenet.org/article185085.html
Figure 17 Ditto
Figure 18 Ditto
Figure 19 Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, “Al Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighter in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records,” (West Point, NY: Harmony Project, Combating Terrorism Center, Department of Social Sciences, US Military Academy, December 2007). Cited as West Point Study.