Iran Nuclear Deal: Betrayal, Deception, and False Alternatives — Again

The New American
by William F. Jasper


“Politics makes strange bedfellows.” That was 19th-century author/editor Charles Dudley Warner’s famous take on the vagaries and queer alliances that typify the so-called art of statecraft. But the odd lineup of forces on the recently concluded Iran nuclear deal takes some explaining beyond the truism embedded in Warner’s observation.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that was announced on July 14 is a deal that was brokered by the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, Iran, the Obama administration — and most importantly of all, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the private “think tank” that has been the principle brain center of the organized world government advocates for the past century. (But commentators inside the controlled opposition corral are not allowed to discuss the CFR’s hand — the “invisible government” — in these matters, of course.)

These architects of the JCPOA and their media allies have succeeded in dividing and befuddling the American public on this important issue with many intentionally planted confusion factors. Thus, we have Democrats and Republicans, “liberals” and “conservatives,” pro-Israel and anti-Israel forces facing off on both sides of the Iran deal line.

Paleoconservatives and libertarians who oppose the perpetual imperial war mode of both the Democrat and Republican parties have jumped onboard the Obama-Kerry-UN “peace plan.” Although they completely distrust (with good reason) the Obama administration and have repeatedly exposed Obama’s lies and heatedly opposed his agenda — think ObamaCare, illegal alien amnesty, TTP-TTIP-TPA, undeclared Middle Eastern wars, abortion and homosexual rights policies, rule by executive fiat, draconian global-warming decrees, etc. — they somehow find a way to believe that the secretly negotiated Iran deal (of which various secret “side agreements” remain classified) is, as the Obamaists declare, a “victory of diplomacy over war.” Even as it turns the U.S. Constitution on its head, doing away (albeit illegally) with the Constitution’s treaty clause, which requires that the president negotiate treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate, and that the Senate approve any treaty by 2/3 supermajority before it can be considered legally binding. Even as it further undermines U.S. sovereignty and further enshrines UN global governance under “international law,” the double bete noires of all “Old Right” paleoconservatives.

But any opposition to the secret Obama-Kerry-UN-EU-CFR deal, say these paleoconservative/libertarian critics, is a capitulation to Bibi Netanyahu, the Israel lobby, and the neoconservatives who have coopted and taken over the Republican Party. Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, Scott McConnell, Justin Raimondo, and many others who regularly offer cogent and important contrarian commentary fall into this camp of latter-day Obamaphiles when it comes to Iran. Raimondo, especially, is over the top in his praise for Obama on this score, writing at “With a single blow, President Obama has neutralized the threat of war with Iran that has been hanging over us for years — and obliterated Israel’s death-grip on our Middle East policy as well as our domestic politics. For that he deserves more than a mere Nobel Prize.” And, in another essay, Raimondo writes: “President Obama did a masterful job in presenting the basic parameters of the deal in his speech: unlike his critics, he sounded like a true statesman, one who is looking to history, and not the next election or the next day’s headlines.”

There are a few problems with this paleo-lib critique, however, not the least of which is that the “Israel lobby” is spread across both sides of this issue. Yes, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, most notably, has been vociferously attacking the deal, as have his (mostly GOP) allies in the U.S. Congress, led by inveterate neocon, Israel-first warmongers in the Senate, such as John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Tom Cotton. The Zionist Organization of America, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and William Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel have also weighed in in opposition. However, there are plenty of American Jewish and Israeli public figures, institutions, and organizations that have come out publicly in favor of the JCPOA to confound the facile claim of Israel lobby sabotage. The Jewish/Israeli supporters of the Obama-Kerry-UN-EU-CFR deal include, for instance, such high-level military/intelligence officials as Efraim Halevy, former head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency; Ami Ayalon, former director of the Shin Bet domestic security service; Amos Yadlin, former chief of military intelligence and now head of Israel’s main defense think tank, the Institute for National Security Studies; Yitzhak Ben-Yisraela, Israel’s former chief of arms technology and currently chair of both the Israel Space Agency and the science ministry’s research and development council; General Israel Ziv, former chief of military operations; Dov Tamari, an architect of Israeli military intelligence.

The pro-JCPOA Obama cheering section also includes J Street, the powerful Jewish lobbying group launched (and funded) by ultra-left activist billionaire George Soros. Soros is not only a longtime CFR member (as is his son, Jonathan Soros), but has also served on the CFR’s board of directors, and his Soros Management Fund is a top funder of the organization, boasting “President’s Circle” status on the CFR’s corporate membership roster.

As we noted in a previous article last week, the most important lobbying for the Iran deal is coming from the CFR brain trust, which includes Obama Cabinet officials who are CFR members, most especially John Kerry (State), Ashton Carter (Defense), Ernest Moniz (Energy), Jacob Lew (Treasury), and Susan Rice (national security advisor).

This White House CFR team is being powerfully aided by a huge array of former ambassadors, national security advisors, and Cabinet officials — most of whom are CFR veterans — who have been engaged in a methodical PR campaign that is, no doubt, orchestrated from the CFR’s Pratt House headquarters in New York City. Their letters, op-eds, and press releases sport well-known names from the globalist establishment, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Madeleine Albright, Thomas Pickering, Nicholas Burns, Paul O’Neill, and Tom Daschle. And these are the voices that are dutifully amplified by the CFR-allied Big Media: New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, Salon, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, et al.

On the other hand, we have the “bomb Iran/perpetual war” neocon hawks led by the likes of CFR stalwarts Senator John McCain, former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, former Reagan White House special assistant Peggy Noonan, former Reagan/Bush speechwriter John Podhoretz, columnist/commentator Charles Krauthammer, former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, former World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, former Clinton CIA chief James Woolsey, and former Reagan/Bush adviser Elliott Abrams. Abrams, now a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the CFR, is also a founder and former director of the CFR/neocon pro-war, high-powered venture known as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Their shrill voices — carried by the Fox/Wall Street Journal/New York Post platforms of media mogul (and CFR member) Rupert Murdoch, along with sycophant Neocon outposts such as the Weekly Standard and National Review — send the message that the only viable U.S. stance vis a vis Iran is war. Yes,yet another war.

These are the only alternatives? The Obama-UN-CFR way or war? Memo to the clueless: This is a controlled Hegelian dialectic in which the Iran deal “thesis” collides with the no-Iran deal “antithesis” to provide a “synthesis.” And that synthesis? Another step toward “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations.”

That is the actual title of an important 1961 State Department study by CFR member Lincoln P. Bloomfield that advised world government under the UN could be brought about by a “series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks.”

In the study’s opening summary, Professor Bloomfield wrote: “A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which ‘world government’ would come about through the etablishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership…. Effective control would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the hands of a supranational organization…. The present UN Charter could theoretically be revised in order to erect such an organization equal to the task envisaged, thereby codifying a radical rearrangement of power in the world.”

Also known in the State Department as “Study Memorandum No. 7,” the subversive Bloomfield/CFR program, which was never planned for public release, candidly confesses to its elite audience that “to avoid endless euphemism and evasive verbiage, the contemplated regime will occasionally be referred to unblushingly as a ‘world government.’” Unblushingly, but still secretly, to the initiated and vetted one-worlders, not to America’s great unwashed, who are told that every step toward world government is a victory for peace and global cooperation.

The Bloomfield/CFR template, as detailed in “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations,” was a key document exposed by this writer in my two books on the United Nations, Global Tyranny … Step by Step: The United Nations and the Emerging New World Order (1992) and The United Nations Exposed  (2001).

As those books explained, the Bloomfield study was not the harebrained ranting of some marginal academic outlier, but, rather, the actual schema for global conquest; it became the operational manual for CFR globalists in our government and has provided the guidance for Democrat and Republican administrations (alternating CFR Team A and Team B). Treason — the planned scuttling of our constitutional form of government by officials sworn to protect it, perpetual war, and the destruction of our liberty and national sovereignty — became official policy.

The Bloomfield plan, which has been employed for decades by the CFR elites, calls for “a crisis, a war, or a brink-of-war situation so grave or commonly menacing that deeply-rooted attitudes and practices are sufficiently shaken.” However, the CFR author of the plan reiterated that a single “crisis” might not be sufficient for the purpose; more likely, he observed, this grand objective would require “a series of unnerving trips to or over the brink.”

Hence, we have been treated to a non-stop barrage of orchestrated “global crises” — financial, environmental, security, etc. — all of which demand, we are told, “global solutions,” under the United Nations. And, thus, we have today not only the engineered Iran crisis, but also the Ukraine crisis (here and here), the Global-warming (aka the Climate) crisis, the global financial crisis, the ISIS crisis (see here and here.)

Obama’s JCPOA Iran deal is not, of course, truly Obama’s Iran deal; he is merely the talking bobblehead of his CFR handlers. The CFR’s globalists and their media thought cartel have moved another chess piece in their quest to finalize their already maturely developed plan of “perpetual war for perpetual peace.” As dismally described by George Orwell in 1984, his dystopian view of Earth in the future, that megalomaniacal scheme features constantly shifting alliances and wars in a world divided into regional superpowers known as Oceania, Eastasia, and Eurasia. The perpetual warfare and crises provide the excuse and the means for effectuating the absolute tyranny of the Total State. We are fast approaching that point at which Orwell’s prophetic fiction becomes fact. And the CFR-brokered Iran deal, far from being a “peace” initiative, is intended to provide another of those “unnerving trips to or over the brink” that will lead more Americans to accept the benevolent manacles of the Orwellian Big Brother Global State.

The New American