“Bolton reaffirmed that the United States does not see the security council moving quickly to impose sanctions on Iran, but he pointedly noted that ‘many other governments have begun to include the word sanctions in their discourse on Iran,’ implying they may take action outside the security council.” As was the case with the Iraq invasion, the United Nations is considered irrelevant. “Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?” Bush asked the Security Council in September, 2002, a couple months before his neocon handlers invaded Iraq. Bolton is setting up a re-run.

Recall Condi’s Boy Friday, neocon national security adviser Stephen Hadley, suspected of the vicious outing of Valerie Plame, telling AIPAC last November that the “spread of democracy [i.e., invading various Arab and Muslim countries] will make the Middle East a safer neighborhood for Israel. An American retreat from Iraq, on the other hand, would only strengthen the terrorists who seek the enslavement of Iraq and the eventual destruction of Israel.” In other words, the two thousand plus (and actually closer to 10,000) Americans killed in Iraq were sacrificed to make a “safer neighborhood for Israel.”

Philip Zelikow, executive director of Bush’s nine eleven whitewash commission, said as much. “I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990—it’s the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002. “And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” Zelikow added, admitting that the real reason for invasion and occupation must be hidden from the American people.

“Israel’s long-term survival depends upon the spread of democracy in the Middle East,” Bush declared last December (simply replace the word “democracy” with “submission” and you have a better idea of what Bush was saying). Commenting on Bush’s remark, Bruce Blakeman, billed as a “GOP activist,” told the Forward that Bush (meaning the Straussian neocons) “realized not only that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America, but that Saddam Hussein had designs on attacking Israel. There was a concern that an attack on Israel would turn into a regional war, with Syria and Iran joining in on Iraq’s side,” a comment that is at odds with reality and a load of hooey to boot.

As the late Livia Rokach, daughter of Israel Rokach, Minister of the Interior in the government of Moshe Sharett, second prime minister of Israel, has noted, Israel has not only consistently provoked its Arab neighbors, but also has a long and sordid track record of sabotaging U.S. relations with Arab nations. Rokach, writes Naseer H. Aruri in a forward to Rokach’s book (Israel’s Sacred Terrorism), documents “deliberate Israeli acts of provocation, intended to generate Arab hostility and thus to create pretexts for armed action and territorial expansion.”

“AIPAC has increasingly tilted to the Likud in Israel, and to the political Right in the United States,” notes Juan Cole. “A handful of special interests in the United States virtually dictate congressional policy on some issues. With regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and a few allies have succeeded in imposing complete censorship on both houses of Congress. No senator or representative dares make a speech on the floor of his or her institution critical of Israeli policy, even though the Israeli government often violates international law and UN Security Council resolutions (it would violate more such resolutions, except that the resolutions never got passed because only one NSC member, the U.S., routinely vetoes them on behalf of Tel Aviv.) As the Labor Party in Israel has been eclipsed by the Likud coalition, which includes many proto-fascist groups, this subservience has yoked Washington to foreign politicians who privately favor ethnic cleansing and/or aggressive warfare for the purpose of annexing the territory of neighbors.”

Bush’s neocon handlers no longer care to hide the fact U.S. foreign policy is designed to make a “safer neighborhood for Israel” and this project has so far cost the lives of around 250,000 Iraqis, a few thousand Americans, and billions of U.S dollars (in addition, Israel has received $84.8 billion in grants, loans, and commodities from the fleeced U.S. taxpayer since 1949, or around $23,000 per U.S. citizen, according to research conducted by Richard H. Curtiss).

It appears the Straussian neocons are advertising that the up-coming shock and awe attack on Iran is in the interest of Israel, as Bolton’s speech before AIPAC reveals. Of course, since most Americans don’t pay attention or can’t be bothered with such political signals, considering such little more than irritating minutiae, they will ultimately end up bamboozled once again by the Straussian neocons, determined to squander all of America’s precious resources on invasions and occupations in the name of Israel.