Montoya Writes...  from the front line

With the passing of Ariel Sharon and the death of Yassar Arafat, the United States grasped a unique opportunity to lead Israel down a very dangerous garden path, based upon the Machiavellian pretext of a "clean break" from the strictures of Oslo and the Camp David accords; clearly the uncertain and faltering state of acceptance of US/Israeli foreign policy domestically and internationally bodes ill for Israel and entire middle east.  Israel is far less secure now than it was prior to the first Intifada, and contrary to popular opinion in left quarters, Israel is not solely to blame. The ongoing anarchy in Iraq and the North Korean and Iranian nuclear issues can only complicate prospects for peace in the Middle East, and the current prospect for regional and world peace is certainly at its most dangerous juncture since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Serious American support for Israel (militarily and economically) escalated with Israel's defeat of Abdul Nasser in 1967, and Israel's military prowess in the 1967 war inspired many Americans.  More importantly, Israel's defeat of Nasser allowed US business interests to thrive in the middle eastern energy/business bazaar, while neutralizing the major Arab powers, the new Arab nationalism, and independent Arab energy ambitions in the region. The Anglo-American oil industry never looked back after the 1967 war, even if major setbacks were experienced under al Bakr in Iraq (when Bakr nationalized the Iraqi oil industry) and with the loss of Iranian oil imports in 1979, when the American-installed Shah fell and the mullahs rebelled. 

The legacy of Israel as a major military power and high-tech outpost in a traditionally volatile and hostile middle eastern political and military battleground, presented enormous resource benefits to the United States. A delicate balance of power was established where the Arabs knew their place - or at least agreed to supply the United States with oil - and (even as a non-producing power) Israel played a key role. As an adjunct to these developments, the United States worked for the removal of Arafat, since both Israel and the USA considered Arafat to be a point of focus for Palestinian Arabs, and an impediment to finally eradicating whatever remained of the Palestinian state. 

Furthermore, 911 provided a springboard for Neo-conservatives: they recognized that the moment must be seized to consolidate power in the middle east, seize resources, and secure the American-Israeli axis as the major world power for the foreseeable future.  To this end the American half of the partnership (with Israel) has agreed to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in the military conquest of Iraq, even at the expense of jeopardizing its own position as a player in the oil-rich third world.

During the first Gulf War, Israel was attacked by a barrage of Saddam Hussein's SCUD missiles, and although the missiles did no damage, Israel's vulnerability was highlighted - and became a major concern for the US-raeli axis, even if American public opinion was only moderately inflamed. Israel itself reacted forcibly to Saddam's 1991 aggression, and by 1994 Israel launched an assassination attempt on Hussein's life - in a plot which backfired badly, killing at least four of the Israeli participants.  But by 1994, sanctions versus Iraq and the UN and IAEA weapons inspections had largely reduced Saddam's military capabilities; by 1996 Saddam was certainly a tiger in name only.

In the war with ally-turned-enemy Saddam we consider Neo-conservative ideology and its importance to former liberals-turned-hawk, most with no experience of warfare or realistic grounding in foreign policy. Their dark "ends-justifies-the-means" vision  can only result in war and terror - and more war and terror - Michael Ledeen promises as much in his book, "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership". The Neo-conservatives allege they are unwilling accomplices of the apocalypse in their predilection for aggressive war and their need to consolidate, claim, and control everything; but neocons can only invoke terror and more terror in their devil's mantra, from which - not the state - but the coup class, will mightily profit. 

For example, let's say an astute investor purchased 1000 shares of Halliburton stock, before Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq in March of 2003.  The astute hawk/investor, believing mightily in America's military prowess (but perhaps only driven by greed) could sell his shares today at nearly four times the price, eg $80,000. The example may seem trivial, and perhaps it is. The current climate of terror has more than a monetary value to the coup class, it must also fit the dark Neo-conservative vision of the future, which finds a world at war. How will a world at war benefit the ruling elite, and how will escalating terror and tension benefit markets?  We see the result in more than record oil company profits, the coup class benefits by consolidation and control, and especially control over populations. For example, while Iraq spins out of control, the coup class can consolidate power in the United States to an extent hitherto unknown (example: Congress, the judiciary, NSA spying) .  Don't just ask an oil executive, ask John Poindexter too.  

The prospect of another 911 attack or an ICBM empowered North Korea or nuclear-armed Iran, are contingencies that US war-gamers in the CIA and Pentagon must countenance every day - at what point did Pentagon wargamers transmogrify fiction to desired reality for the benefit of the coup class? It is not a leap to assume that the breaking catastrophe of US foreign policy is not an accident, but has been engineered by design.  Rather than "eliminating terror" and "fighting a war on terror" the policies of the United States of America are characteristic of "rogue states":

a) Besides a token ally in Britain (another failed state) no major power has aligned itself, nor will align itself, with the United States of America.

b) By jettisoning law and due process, by manufacturing a one-party state, and by repression of dissent in the media, the United States joins the ranks of other rogue states.

c) By removing itself from the strictures of the 4th Geneva Conventions, and by removing itself as a signatory to the International Criminal Court, the United States of America identifies itself as a rogue state.

d) By engaging in a pre-emptive war of aggression, and through rendition, torture, and by violation of significant guidelines issued at Nuremberg, the United States of America is has become complicit in immoral and terrorist acts, and thus identifies itself as a terrorist state.  

Reasonably concluded, if America has become a rogue terrorist state acting unilaterally by design, the USA will find itself marginalized and isolated over time. While America ramps up terror levels by pursuing ill-conceived foreign policies, other sovereign states will attempt to isolate the United States, much as Iran and North Korea have been isolated. Of course particular allies (example: the UK, Israel) will continue to play along as partners, but the partnership will resemble China's partnership with North Korea. The dollar and financial instruments must maintain their value for America's investors, but a major event could fracture that relationship. While 911 had a devastating effect on America's economy, experts have warned that a nuclear strike from another rogue state (like Iran, or North Korea) would certainly finish the USA as the world's hegemonic power.  

It is at this critical juncture that we consider the future, that the logical outcome of US foreign policy is an escalation in terror resulting in global warfare, where the nuclear club expands to include Iran, North Korea, and already includes such unstable states as Pakistan, India, and Israel. There is no other conclusion: the leadership of the United States of America positively invites anarchy and the violent anihilation of all sovereign world governments, because in the end, the coup class will profit from such mass destruction.

When we look at America's failure in all diplomacy, and abject refusal to negotiate with any state (from ally to enemy) and with the examples of Iraq, Israel in Gaza, and North Korea and Iran running in the nuclear wild today, there is no other conclusion: the Neo-conservatives simply wish to profit from the war, death, and destruction that they engender.      

-Charles Rogers Montoya