This large number of influential israelis in the reagan administration were often referred to as the Kosher Nostra.

Despite their success in duping gerald ford about the imminent threat of a soviet military attack on america, the zionists were not at first able to convince ronald reagan. If they were to dupe him too they would need to fabricate an even grander series of lies, "To persuade the president, the neoconservatives set out to prove that the soviet threat was far greater than anyone, even Team B, had previously shown. They would demonstrate that the majority of terrorism and revolutionary movements around the world were actually part of a secret network co-ordinated by moscow to take over the world. The main proponent of this theory was a leading neoconservative who was the special adviser to the secretary of state. His name was michael ledeen and he had been influenced by a best selling book called ‘The Terror Network’. It alleged that terrorism was not the fragmented phenomenon that it appeared to be. In reality all terrorist groups from the plo to the bader-meinhof group in germany and the provisional ira, all of them were part of a coordinated strategy of terror run by the soviet union. But the CIA completely disagreed. They said this was just another neoconservative fantasy." (Adam Curtis ‘The Power of Nightmares’ BBC2 January 2005). This is presumably the same non-existent network of global terrorists that saddam took over after the collapse of the soviet union. In reality the only global network of terrorists were the zionists manipulating americans into believing that the soviet union was a military threat to america.

This was the cia’s second battle with the zionist neocon liars and fantasists. One has to commiserate with the cia, the reality-based community, that it had to put up with these israeli traitors who were prepared to do anything, whether it meant lying, cheating, or stealing, for the noble purpose of protecting their beloved zionist state in palestine - and the not so noble purpose of using americans as their sacrificial lambs. Finding themselves blocked by the cia, the neocons turned to the new head of the organization, "But the neconservatives had a powerful ally. He was william casey and he was the new head of the cia. Casey was sympathetic to the neoconservative view and when he read the terror network book he was convinced. He called a meeting of the cia’s soviet analysts at their headquarters and told them to produce a report for the president that proved this hidden network existed. But the analysts told him this would be impossible because much of the information in the book came from black propaganda the cia themselves had invented to smear the soviet union. They knew that the terror network didn’t exist because they themselves had made it up." (Adam Curtis ‘The Power of Nightmares’ BBC2 January 2005). It didn’t matter at all to these israeli traitors how many of their lies were exposed as long as they could provide a steady torrent of lies which would be eagerly publicized by the zionist owned media and its zionist lackey journalists. By the time that one lie had been exposed, and the truth disseminated throughout society, two or three other lies had taken its place to maintain people’s support for these zionist policies.

The judaic neocons eventually succeeded in pressuring reagan into accepting their fantasies, "In the end, Casey found a university professor who described himself as a terror expert and he produced a dossier that confirmed that the hidden terror network did in fact exist. Under such intense lobbying, reagan agreed to give the neoconservatives what they wanted and in 1983 he signed a secret document that fundamentally changed american foreign policy. The country would now fight covert wars to push back the hidden soviet threat around the world. It was a triumph for the neoconservatives." (Adam Curtis ‘The Power of Nightmares’ BBC2 January 2005).

The so called ‘Reagan doctrine’ was devised and publicized by the israeli traitors within the reagan administration. Having got the green light, the neocons then began their battle against the soviet union. Firstly, they encouraged the creation of a zionist run human rights lobby to pressure the soviets into giving russian jews the right to emigrate to the zionist state in palestine. Secondly, they persuaded the reagan administration to provide financial and military support for islamic extremists to push the soviet empire out of afghanistan.

Whilst the common phrase for the superpower rivalry between the soviet empire and america was the ‘cold war’, the israeli neocons called it ‘the third world war’ because they had been so instrumental in defeating kissinger’s and nixon’s policy of détente and re-igniting the second phase of the cold war. The phrase ‘the third world war’ is a part of their basic political vocabulary and the basis of their understanding of their rise to power in global politics. Conversely, it can be used to identify israeli neocon supporters.

Firstly, the israeli neocons believed the dismantling of the soviet union would go a long way to combating both anti-semitism in the soviet union and around the world. "The Soviet Union, which already in the early 1960s had begun to support the Palestinian cause militarily, supported the Arabs in 1967 even as Soviet Jews openly demonstrated for Israel. The Soviet government as a socialist body officially committed to anti-imperialism and anti-nationalism was forced to clamp down on them as well as other dissidents providing the context for agitation among diasporic Jews in the US against Soviet emigration policy." (Lila Rajiva ‘An Ideological Tower of Babel’ http://www.counterpunch.org/rajiva01152005.html January 15 / 16, 2005). "By the 1970s, the neocons were taking an aggressive stance against the Soviet Union, which they saw as a bastion of anti-Semitism and opposition to Israel." (Kevin MacDonald ‘Thinking About Neoconservatism’ http://VDare.com/ September 18, 2003). As far as the neocons were concerned, the soviet union supported anti-semitism and anti-zionism and was encouraging other countries around the world to adopt the same line.

Secondly, the dismantling of the soviet union would give millions of russian jews the right to leave the country and emigrate to the zionist state in palestine. The israeli neocons in the reagan administration and in zionist think tanks produced a constant stream of propaganda about russians’ right to emigrate. These think tanks rarely referred explicitly to the rights of jews but predominantly, in order to win wider popular support, to the general concept of human rights. "Despite being couched in terms of human rights, this American pressure (on russia) had not much to do with the oppression of other dissident ethnic groups for a refusenik was by definition a Soviet Jew who had been refused the right to emigrate." (Lila Rajiva ‘An Ideological Tower of Babel’ http://www.counterpunch.org/rajiva01152005.html January 15 / 16, 2005). The irony of the neocons’ position, and what exposed their facile belief in human rights and in democracy, was that after the soviet union had been forced to allow russian jews to emigrate most of those who left went to the united states rather than the zionist state in palestine. As a consequence, the israeli neocons in the united states introduced a law limiting the numbers of russian jews allowed to settle in the country ­ thereby forcing hundreds of thousands to emigrate to the zionist state in palestine ­ where they helped the zionist state to annexe even more palestinian land. If it hadn’t been for this massive influx of over a million russian jews, the zionist state would never have been able to carry out such a wide-scale annexation of palestinian land. Israel shamir has provided some background to these events which is all too reminiscent of the public relations exercise that had transformed the jewish disaster of the second world war into a holocaust and a racist regime in palestine into a modern secular, democracy, "In 1991, when Russia’s future was exceedingly opaque, Israel received a lot of young blood from there. Israel-supporters in the US media carried out a two-pronged campaign: they warned of forthcoming pogroms, and they promoted the idea of a beautiful, easy life for immigrants in the US. Whole issues of Newsweek and Time concentrated on the neo-Nazi Pamyat group and rampant anti-Semitism. At that time, I was reporting for the Haaretz from Moscow, and interviewed Pamyat leaders for it. I found this sinister organisation to number about as many members as the Flat Earth Society. Still, a nice Russian Jewish film-maker and his wife came to our countryside house to arrange for protection in case of a pogrom. I tried to calm them down, but I could not fight the mighty media machine alone. Ten years later, I met a Russian Jewish lady writer in Jerusalem who told me that she had initiated the rumour of pogroms. "You Israelis should erect a monument to me," she said. "Certainly", said I, "Any particular reason?" "I brought you a million Russians: I announced on Moscow Echo Radio that there will be a pogrom." I hadn’t the heart to disabuse her: her announcements would have had no effect if Israel’s American friends hadn’t amplified them. Anyway, the frightened and seduced Russians rushed for visas to the American embassy, and at that moment Israel requested the US stop granting them visas. The US gates were closed, and this mass of people on the move was forced to go to Israel." (Israel Shamir ‘Russians in the Holy Land’ c.December 2004).

Thirdly, and most importantly, because russia posed an overwhelming nuclear threat to the survival of the zionist state in palestine, the neocons were fixated on bringing about the break up not merely of the soviet union but of russia itself in order to end the nuclear threat it posed to the zionist state.

The neocons’ defeat of the soviet empire was their first great international victory and gave their rise to world domination a huge political boost.

Reagan’s arming of iraq was, however, bitterly opposed by zionists who feared that after the war, saddam would use his new found military power to challenge the zionist state in palestine. But there was little they could do during the 1980s to stop reagan’s support for saddam. All that the zionist state could do was to defy american foreign policies and provide iran with weapons to prevent iraq from achieving military dominance in the region. "Meanwhile, (whilst the allies were arming iraq) Israel secretly supplied Iran with $5 billion US in American arms and spare parts while publicly denouncing Iran for terrorism." (Eric Margolis Toronto Sun ‘West Has Bloodied Hands’ December 19, 2004). It was only after the israeli neocons’ success in bringing about the collapse of the soviet empire that the israeli neocons achieved a much greater degree of dominance over american foreign policies in the middle east. They persuaded america to end its reliance on arab/moslem leaders and place a greater reliance on the zionist state, "In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. Middle Eastern policy, although sympathetic to Israel, was not identical to that of Israel."(Stephen J Sniegoski 'The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel' www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm c.February 2003).

With all the time that republican neocons had on their hands during the 1990s it is not surprising that they returned to the only issue which mattered to them: formulating policies for the zionist state in palestine. This is almost unique in modern politics: the political leaders of one country devoting their time and effort to formulating policies for a country on the other side of the planet, "CSP was instrumental in developing the arguments against the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Largely ignored or derided at the time, a 1995 CSP memo co-written by Douglas Feith holding that the United States should withdraw from the ABM treaty has essentially become policy, as have other CSP reports opposing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the International Criminal Court. But perhaps the most insightful window on the JINSA/CSP policy worldview comes in the form of a paper Perle and Feith collaborated on in 1996 with six others under the auspices of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Essentially an advice letter to ascendant Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" makes for insightful reading as a kind of US-Israeli neoconservative manifesto." (Jason Vest ' The Men From JINSA and CSP' The Nation http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest 15.8.2002); "In 1996, with Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, Perle wrote "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," for Prime Minister Netanyahu. In it, Perle, Feith, and Wurmser urged Bibi to ditch the Oslo Accords of the assassinated Yitzak Rabin and adopt a new aggressive strategy: Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq." In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel’s enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad. Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish "the principle of preemption," has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States." (Patrick J. Buchanan ' Whose War?' The American Conservative (magazine) http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html 24.3.2003); "If there was a single "smoking gun" that led to accusations against the neo-cons that the attack on Iraq was a war for Israel, it was the revelation that, in 1996, Perle directed a task force that included two other high ranking American-Jewish neo-cons, current Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, senior adviser to John Bolton, Under-Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, that produced a white paper for then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It was entitled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," and the name referred to putting an end to Israel's negotiating with the Palestinians, and the concept of trading land for peace." The paper, which might have been lifted from JINSA's web site, advocated the overthrow by Israel of Saddam Hussein as the beginning of an Israeli policy to redraw the map of the Middle East in Israel's favor, a task that is now, apparently, being carried out by U.S. soldiers in Israel's behalf. This effort, it said, "can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq... Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly. Whoever inherits Iraq dominates the entire Levant strategically," said the paper, which was commissioned by the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), where Wurmser was working at the time. Presumably Israel was to have a say as to who would do the dominating." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html c.2003).

So, in 1992, as under secretary of defense for policy in the clinton administration, wolfowitz had produced a document about america’s foreign policies which seemed to closely resemble the foreign policies of the zionist state. In 1995, another neocon produced recommended another set of american foreign policies which served the interests of the zionist state. Douglas feith wrote a memo demanding america withdraw from the abm treaty in order to challenge russia and thus protect the zionist state in palestine. And in 1996, perle feith and wurmser, wrote "A Clean Break" which outlined new foreign policies for the zionist state which seemed remarkably similar to the policies wolfowitz had advocated four years earlier for the united states. It is truly remarkable how such a patriotic society as america could tolerate within its midst people whose primary political objective is the aggrandizement of another state, the zionist state in palestine, and who believe it is perfectly acceptable for america to pay the price for such aggrandizement.

The republican neocons played a central role in formulating the fantastical allegations about the clintons’ private affairs in order to neutralize his administrations. Although it turned out that none of these allegations were true they had a politically devastating effect in crippling the implementation of clinton’s policies.

The israeli neocons and the zionist state were horrified at the prospect of saddam acquiring kuwait’s oil wealth because they believed he would use this wealth to rebuild his country and his military power thereby posing a threat to zionists’ hegemony over the middle east. The zionist state in palestine had forced richard nixon to intervene in the 1973 war to stop the zionists from using their nuclear weapons against the arab world and twenty years later the zionist state once again threatened the united states that if it did not remove saddam from kuwait then it would attack iraq. The israeli neocons in america supported the demand. Patrick buchanan denounced the role of the israeli neocons but was virtually the only politician around the world who seemed to notice what was going on.

Although the israeli neocons failed to convince bush senior to order the american military to invade iraq, the second manifestation of zionists’ dominance over the american government came after the end of the war when the neocons forced the american and british governments to introduce, through united nations’ resolutions, a highly punitive set of sanctions to, in effect, demilitarize iraq. The military action against iraq never stopped even after the formal end of the war. The allies used saddam’s failure to abide by un resolutions to continue their military attacks on the country even though they refused to do anything similar to force the zionist state to abide by united nations resolutions. The arab world could see clearly that americans spoke with forked tongues. It has been estimated that america and britain were responsible for the deaths of nearly a million iraqis during the decade long sanactions against iraq ­ nearly half of them children. This was an appalling slaughter.

Jeffrey blankfort has reached similar conclusions, "In 1991, the same year as Chomsky's talk, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir asked the first Bush administration for $10 billion in loan guarantees in order, he said, to provide for the resettlement of Russian Jews. Bush Sr. had earlier balked at a request from Congress to appropriate an additional $650 million dollars to compensate Israel for sitting out the Gulf War, but gave in when he realized that his veto would be overridden. But now he told Shamir that Israel could only have the guarantees if it freezes settlement building and promised that no Russian Jews would be resettled in the West Bank. An angry Shamir refused and called on AIPAC to mobilize Congress and the organized American Jewish community in support of the loans guarantees. A letter, drafted by AIPAC was signed by more than 240 members of the House demanding that Bush approve them, and 77 senators signed on to supporting legislation. On September 12, 1991, Jewish lobbyists descended on Washington in such numbers that Bush felt obliged to call a televised press conference in which he complained that "1000 Jewish lobbyists are on Capitol Hill against little old me." It would prove to be his epitaph. Chomsky pointed to Bush's statement, at the time, as proof that the vaunted Israel lobby was nothing more than "a paper tiger. It took scarcely more than a raised eyebrow for the lobby to collapse, "he told readers of Z Magazine. He could not have been further from the truth. The next day, Tom Dine, AIPAC's Executive Director, declared that "September 12, 1991 is a day that will live in infamy. "Similar comments were uttered by Jewish leaders, who accused Bush of provoking anti-Semitism. What was more important, his friends in the mainstream media, like William Safire, George Will, and Charles Krauthammer, not only criticized him; they began to find fault with the economy and how he was running the country. It was all downhill from there. Bush's Jewish vote, which has been estimated at 38% in 1988, dropped down to no more than 12%, with some estimates as low as 8%. Bush's opposition to the loan guarantees was the last straw for the Israel lobby. When he made disparaging comments about Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem in March, 1990, AIPAC had begun the attack (briefly halted during the Gulf War). Dine wrote a critical op-ed in the New York Times and followed that with a vigorous speech to the United Jewish Appeal's Young Leaders Conference. "Brothers and sisters, "he told them as they prepared to go out and lobby Congress on the issue, "remember that Israel's friends in this city reside on Capitol Hill." Months later, the loan guarantees were approved, but by then Bush was dead meat." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions’ http://www.leftcurve.org/LC27WebPages/IsraelLobby.html c.2004).

By january 2002, however, the israeli neocons in the bush administration, the zionist owned media, and zionist owned politicians in congress, had exploited the event to win popular and presidential approval for a war on all terror groups ­ even those groups which were not a threat to america only the zionist state in palestine. Despite the fact that the interests of the zionist state in palestine are quite distinct from the interests of the american state, the zionist neocons were able to transform american foreign policies so that they promoted zionist, rather than american, interests. Zionists in the american media/politics deceived the american public into believing that america’s new foreign policies, designed to help the zionist state, were in america’s best interests ­ even though, as would become apparent when america became bogged down by the war in iraq, such policies did not serve america’s best interests at all. Zionists’ power in america enabled them to lead america (and brutland) into wars against afghanistan and iraq, and to declare the start of what some neocons called the third world war against so-called islamic terrorists - but which other neocons called world war four. That zionists have been able to drive the western world into a war against the moslem world simply in order to boost the dominance of the utterly racist zionist state over the middle east reveals the scale of zionists’ world domination.

The arch israeli neocon, richard perle, has made clear his contempt for the united nations. "Writing in the Guardian of London on March 21, 2003, under the title, "Thank God for the Death of the UN", just as the American invasion of Iraq was getting underway, Richard Perle, member of the Pentagon's Defense Advisory Board, said of Saddam Hussein: ... He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him." This attitude is common amongst the israelis in the bush administration, "Such disdain for international law is very clearly expressed in considerable detail in a 1996 document prepared for the incoming Natanyahu government of Israel of that year entitled, A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm", prepared by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser, James Colbert, and Robert Loenberg in their capacity as members of The Institute for Advanced Strategy and Political Studies' "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000" a Washington/Jerusalem based think tank providing policy analyses for the government of Israel." (William James Martin ‘The Dogma of Richard Perle: Zionism and Legal Skepticism’ Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/martin07012004.html July 1, 2004).

Zionists demanded that america and britain proceed with their 2003 invasion of iraq even after they had failed to win the necessary united nations’ resolution to legitimize the war. When america and britain launched their pre-emptive and illegal war against iraq (after a decade of demanding that iraq comply with united nations’ resolutions!), it seemed as if the zionists had succeeded in severely undermining the authority of the united nations.

The israelis who have taken over the bush junior administration are using the american military to create a new zionist world order. It is not surprising that they are highly antagonistic to the united nations’ efforts to create a new world order through the family of nations. The choice is clear: either the united nations and the world community forces the zionist state to abide by united nations’ resolutions or it is replaced by zionist inspired american policies of pre-emptive wars, international lawlessness, and zionist unilateralism which will bring into being a new zionist world order. The greater the control that zionists have over american presidents, the more these presidents ignore the united nations. The greater the control that zionists have over american presidents, the greater the threat not merely to the legitimacy of the united nations but to its survival. The bush administration has ignored the u.n. more than any previous american administration.

The israeli neocons in the bush administration set up their own state within the american state in order to feed the president with a wide range of lies about saddam’s threat to america which duped him into giving the go-ahead for the invasion of iraq. This zionist state within the american state was called the office for special projects (OSP). "Until recently, a group of Zionists ran their own intelligence service inside the Pentagon. This was known as the Office of Special Plans, and was overseen by Douglas Feith, an under-secretary of defence, extreme Zionist and opponent of any negotiated peace with the Palestinians. It was the Office of Special Plans that supplied Downing Street with much of its scuttlebutt about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; more often than not, the original source was Israel." (John Pilger ‘The Unmentionable Source of Terrorism’ http://antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=2159 March 20, 2004); "It was his (douglas feith’s) office that created shortly after 9/11 the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans (OSP), which re-assessed 12 years of raw intelligence and the Arab press to find evidence of ties between the regime of former Iraq President Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist group. The OSP then ''stovepiped'' that information, unvetted by professional intelligence analysts, straight to Vice President Dick Cheney's office for use by the White House. Similarly, it was Feith's office, along with the Defense Policy Group (DPG), whose members Feith appointed, that served as the point of entry and influence for Iraqi National Congress (INC) chief Ahmed Chalabi and his ''defectors'' who provided phony intelligence about Hussein's vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)." (Jim Lobe ‘Soon to Be Losing Feith?’ antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2614 20.05.2004).

Israeli generals were often seen waltzing into OSP offices in order to ensure the american military was implementing zionist policies, "Karen Kwiatkowski was an eyewitness in NESA (the Pentagon’s Near East and South Asia office), and Lobe reports: "she recounts one incident in which she helped escort a group of half a dozen Israelis, including several generals, from the first floor reception area to Feith's office. (Douglas J. Feith was undersecretary of defense for policy). "We just followed them, because they knew exactly where they were going and moving fast." When the group arrived, she noted the book which all visitors are required to sign under special regulations that took effect after the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks. "I asked his secretary, 'Do you want these guys to sign in?' She said, 'No, these guys don't have to sign in.'" It occurred to her, she said, that the office may have deliberately not wanted to maintain a record of the meeting.’" (Juan Cole ‘Israeli Spy in Pentagon Linked to AIPAC’ http://www.juancole.com/ August 28, 2004). Julian borger makes the same point, "The Office of Special Projects was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise. "None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms." (Julian Borger ‘The spies who pushed for war’ Guardian July 17, 2003). Surely if the zionist state in palestine was only an american political satellite then it would not be surprising to hear of american generals walking into the offices of the zionists’ defence department in such a way. But to discover this was what zionist generals were doing in america’s defence department suggests an entirely different relationship.

Zionists still do not have total domination over american politics. The zionists within the bush administration do not have the same control over the president or the american people as the zionist state in palestine has over palestinians. For the last few decades, zionists have been taking the leaders of america’s armed forces, american politicians, and religious leaders, on all expenses paid trips to the zionist state in order to indoctrinate them into zionism. These zionized religious leaders have converted tens of millions of christians into dechristianized zionists who give total support to the zionist state in palestine and even insist on the forcible removal of all palestinians from their homeland. America’s zionist dominated media has persuaded a large section of the american public to support the zionist state because of the hoax they have perpetrated about the zionist state as a helpless victim facing the overwhelming power of the arab world. And zionists’ ownership of a major proportion of american industries ensures the silence of millions of non-zionist employees about the injustices being perpetrated by the zionist state in palestine. Perhaps, if american goyims began to rebel against their manipulation by their zionist rulers then the zionists would have to start treating them as they do palestinians. But, it seems that most americans are so ignorant of the world around them that, at least in the near future, zionists are unlikely to have to resort to such tactics.

The great shock of curtis's series is the discovery that the neocons didn’t just appear out of nowhere during the bush administration to push america into the needless invasion of iraq. Most commentators trace neocons’ roots back to their 1996 israeli foreign policy document for benjamin netanyahu. In fact they had been formulating zionist-oriented, american foreign policies since the mid 1970s. What curtis makes obvious is that gerald ford’s neocon propaganda about the soviet union in the mid 1970s, and ronald reagan’s neocon inspired attacks on the soviet union in the 1980s, were almost full dress rehearsals for the neocon inspired attacks on saddam hussein during bush’s first administration. The machiavellian tactics the neoconservatives’ used to force ford and reagan into attacking the soviet empire were almost exactly the same tactics they used two decades later to push bush jnr into attacking iraq. The same lies; the same nightmarish fantasies, the same empty fears, the same political battles with the cia, the reality based community. These revelations make curtis’s work far more politically relevant than the political sideshow produced by that shabbat goy, michael moore.

There are many parallels between the israeli neocons’ tactics to re-animate the cold war against russia and the tactics they used a few decades later to manipulate america into the invasion of iraq. Firstly, in both cases the so-called enemy, whether the soviet union or iraq, were a negligible military threat to america but a threat to the zionist state in palestine. Secondly, in both cases, the only way the israeli neocons could get the american people and politicians to take action against these enemies of the zionist state was to hype up the military threat they posed to america. They did this by producing an endless stream of lies, deceptions, and fabricated stories. Just as the israeli neocons argued that the soviet military possessed a range of highly sophisticated lethal weapons so they said the same about saddam hussein’s wmd. Once americans had been artificially mortified by the (non-existent) threats against them by the soviet empire and iraq it was possible for america to take military action against these countries and thus protect the zionist state in palestine. Thirdly, another way the israeli neocons could get the american people and politicians to take action against the soviet union and iraq was to argue they posed a terrorist threat to america. The israeli neocons denounced russia and then, a couple of decades later, iraq as being the centre of global terrorism. In the 1970s the israeli neocons blamed all acts of terrorism on the soviet union. In the 1990 they blamed all acts of terrorism on iraq. The israelis accused both countries of financing and arming all terrorism around the world.