The Neocon-Liberal Left's Geopolitical Agenda
The False Paradigm of Pax Americana,
errr...Pax United Nationsana
by Mark Anderson
March 11, 2003

Once you are able to comprehend the geopolitical agenda of the beltway policy wonks for the Middle East, it should become transparent how incestuous the relationship between the neoconservative left and the liberal left really is. You should also be equipped to forecast exactly what is going to transpire in the Middle East. In fact, we should have been able to accurately forecast this impending war with Iraq as soon as the Bush Presidency was decided.

On January 26, 1998, Bill Bennett, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, et. al., sent a letter(1) to then-President Bill Clinton, demanding that Clinton make regime change in Iraq – by force – his top geopolitical priority. Thank God that demand fell on deaf ears. But, fast forward to the Bush Presidency, now these same neoconservative chickenhawks control foreign policy.

I recommend periodic visits to Foreign Affairs and Project for the New American Century, in order to see exactly what the conspirators are cooking up. With Foreign Affairs, you get a mixed bag of neoconservative leftist and liberal leftist policy wonks, who all espouse identical views. Over at Project for the New American Century, which is chaired by Bill Kristol, you have the neoconservative left. Those two sites will provide you with the working papers of the New World Order.

Project for the New American Century released their blueprint for Pax Americana in September of 2000, in a report entitled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses." We are told on page 14 of the report, "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." This gives us a clearer understanding of why the globalists are sending American kids off to war – i.e., for world empire.

I have noticed how the media has created a fiction of choice by controlling the debate over war with Iraq. With one camp, you hear about the "sin" of "unilateral" action and "going-it-alone." The refrain is that Bush must factor "world opinion" into his decision making, and should not go to war without the blessing of the United Nations. The "other" chorus is, "Attack Iraq!" In essence, we are being given a "choice" between war with UN support, or war without UN support. Real difference, huh?

It became sickeningly apparent to me just how co-opted by the globalists both sides that the media covers really are when I visited Antiwarcommittee.org – an organization from my home state – and saw that they were for a Palestinian state. I do not particularly object to a Palestinian state, but I certainly do not favor imposing one with an interventionist foreign policy. Nor do I object to territories being parceled out exactly as they are now, but I also do not favor intervening on Israel's behalf. This is a dispute that Israelis and Palestinians will have to work out.

Why do I believe that a pro-Palestine, anti-war organization is co-opted by the same forces who want war? Alas! Careful analysis of the establishment's geopolitical strategy will reveal a nexus between war with Iraq, possibly Iran, and a Palestinian state.

In 1947, Great Britain deferred the problem that it had created in Palestine, with the infamous "Balfour Declaration," to the United Nations. The United Nations' response was to partition the land into two separate states – one was meant to be Palestinian Arab, and the other Jewish, with the "internationalization" of Jerusalem. That was the infamous UN Resolution 181 (II) of 1947.

Needless to say, peace did not prevail. After the Jewish state proclaimed its independence as Israel, it embraced a policy of expansionism. Israel possessed 3/4 of the territory of Palestine after the 1948 war was finished. The remaining parts of the territory of Palestine were controlled by Jordan and Egypt.

The war of 1967 was concluded with Israel annexing the remaining parts of the territory of Palestine, i.e., the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the rest of Jerusalem. UN Security Council Resolution 242 denounced this, and called on Israel to withdraw from the territories it annexed in that war.(2)

On April 18, 2002, an alarming article, written by Robert Kagan, appeared in the Washington Post. Below are a few excerpts ( my emphasis in bold text):

When Pulitzer-Prize winning New York Times columnist Tom Friedman talks, people listen. Now one of Friedman's most radical ideas – to put a NATO peacekeeping force on the ground between the Israelis and Palestinians as a key part of an overall peace settlement – is actually starting to pick up steam around the world. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has endorsed the idea of an international force as part of a settlement that would be imposed on Israel and the Palestinians. So has German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. More important, Secretary of State Colin Powell is believed to be mulling such a plan. He has publicly talked about putting American observers on the ground. Even some Israelis have warmed to the idea, provided of course that any force includes American troops.

For another thing, Americans are going to be a prime target for terrorist attacks. Friedman denies this, arguing that the Palestinian people will view the Americans as saviors – they will be "the midwife of a Palestinian state." But Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad probably won't see it that way. Rallying to the cry of "Remember Beirut!" they'll look for ways to take out another 240 Marines. And they'll have help from Iran, Iraq, al Qaeda and all the other jihadists out there. (3)

Well, remember Bush's State of the Union Address, and his speech from last June, where he called for a Palestinian state?(4) We also have Robert Kagan telling us that Iran, Iraq, and al Qaeda would interfere with any such plan. It is all starting to make sense now! But, wait – it gets worse!

We can understand why the Arab world may not accept the impending United Nations imposed Israeli-Palestinian settlement by looking at what CNN reported in December:

When the necessary reforms are made, Sharon said his government would move to implement Bush's second phase, the "establishment of a Palestinian state with borders yet to be finalized."

"This Palestinian state will be completely demilitarized," Sharon said. "Israel will continue to control all entries and exits to the Palestinian state, will command its airspace and not allow it to form alliances with Israel's enemies."(5)

Sharon's statements may shed light on the geopolitical divide of the UN Security Council member countries. Is the disagreement really over which Israeli-Palestinian plan the UN should impose? My guess is that the UN Security Council is fragmented into two factions. France, Russia and China support something closer to the 1967 UN Resolution 242, i.e., an autonomous Palestine. The UK and US are supporting an Israeli-controlled, pseudo Palestinian state. The question is, will Bush be able to parlay the Sharon plan into a UN sanctioned war? Or, will regime change in Tehran be the pay off to Sharon for his acquiescence in constructing an autonomous Palestinian state? And what will happen if somebody doesn't live up to their end of the bargain?

In Foreign Affairs, Michael Scott Doran defends Bush's Iraq war plans this way (underlined text added for my emphasis):

When toppling Saddam Hussein rose to the top of the Bush administration's foreign policy agenda, a chorus of voices protested that Washington had misdiagnosed the root cause of its Middle Eastern dilemmas. "It's Palestine, stupid!" was the refrain heard not only from European and Arab capitals, but from some quarters in the United States as well. These voices argued that attacking Iraq while the Israelis were reoccupying Palestinian lands would substantiate the claim, already widespread in the Middle East, that the United States had declared war against all Arabs and Muslims. The ensuing backlash would undermine the American position in the region and wreak havoc on American interests. What Washington really needed to do was postpone or abandon a showdown with Saddam and focus instead on achieving a breakthrough in the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

Unqualified U.S. support for Israel, the critics reason, drives a wedge between Washington and the Arabs, most of whom support Palestinian aspirations; for the United States to improve its regional position, it must remove the wedge by tilting somewhat toward the Palestinians. The problem with this argument is that it rests on two hidden and faulty assumptions: about how much Washington would have to change its stance, and about how much goodwill that change would produce.

Doran continues with the following:

Even if the United States were somehow able to broker a stable Palestinian-Israeli settlement that met many Arab aspirations, however, this would not necessarily generate a great deal of goodwill. Those who argue the opposite see Palestine as the primary obstacle blocking an American-Arab rapprochement. They claim, correctly, that Arab political discourse revolves around Palestine and that a great many Arabs hold the United States responsible for Palestinian suffering. But what they overlook is that although Palestine is central to the symbolism of Arab politics, it is actually marginal to its substance.(6)

So, if I am understanding what we are being told here correctly, rather than attempting to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian problem diplomatically, reforming our foreign policy if necessary, we need to conform the entire Arab world into "our" image, albeit militarily, in order to carve out the West Bank and Gaza Strip? The summary for Doran's article makes it explicitly obvious:

Many critics argue that the Bush administration should put off a showdown with Saddam Hussein and focus instead on achieving a breakthrough in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But they fail to understand that although Palestine is central to the symbolism of Arab politics, it is actually marginal to its substance. Now, as in 1991, if a road to a calmer situation in Palestine does in fact exist, it runs through Baghdad.(6)

We now know what this war with Iraq is all about. But, could this "road" be longer than Iraq? I'm afraid so. As you saw earlier, Iran was listed by Kagan as a potential interference with carving out the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Ariel Sharon has also been recently demanding that Bush target Iran "the day after" he is done with Iraq. Sharon makes his indictment of Iran by suggesting that they have armed the Lebanese Shia militia, Hezbollah, and the PLO with thousands of short-range missiles, capable of hitting Israeli towns.(7)

In assessing the aftermath of the impending war in Iraq, Kagan says the following (underlined text added for my emphasis):

Now many Europeans are starting to ask a different set of questions: What about the day after the invasion? Does the United States have a workable plan for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq? And, most important of all, does the United States itself plan on sticking around long enough to build a new Iraq that is reasonably stable, peaceful, and democratic? Or will the Americans bug out after a few months or a year, leaving the job of putting Iraq back together to the United Nations or to Europe or, perhaps, to Iran?(8)

Aha! So, that is how war with Iran will be marketed to Americans! And remember that there are still troops deployed in Afghanistan. It is all making sense now. We are going to have Iran surrounded, and we can't – so the globalists will argue – depart Afghanistan or Iraq without a regime change in Tehran. In other words, if Americans wish to avert a lengthy occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, then we better support war against Iran.

I have this very, very sick feeling about what is in store for the future. It seems transparent to me that the crazed neoconservative/liberal left see the road to Palestine as going through other parts of the Middle East – i.e., Iraq and Iran, at least. The war against Iran will be marketed to conservatives as being part of the strategy to exit Afghanistan and Iraq.

Invading Iraq and Iran is just the beginning of the establishment's geopolitical agenda. For some reason, these beltway policy wonks see regime change in Iraq, and it looks like Iran as well, as the impetus to "solve" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I will go on record with this prediction: American kids are on their way to, ultimately, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, to carve out the region, pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 242. This, however, will be preceded by the Empire sending American kids to their death in Iraq and Iran.

We need to spread the message about the real reason Bush wants war. We can also see how successful the media's propaganda has been. The Iraq/Iran war is the carrot for the Zionist "Christian" Republicans. The U.S. taxpayer-financed reconstruction of the West Bank and Gaza Strip Jewish settlements – which were, in large part, financed by the U.S. taxpayer – will be for the UN/Palestinian state supporting, tree-hugging, pseudo-anti-war Marxists. While the rank and file Republicans are supporting the means, the rank and file Democrats will support the ends. The so called division at the UN appears to be nothing more than which Israeli-Palestinian plan should be implemented. This is the false paradigm of the neoconservative/liberal left geopolitical agenda.

The pathology of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be traced back to the "Balfour Declaration," i.e., interventionism. If history teaches us one thing, it is that peace cannot be superimposed by one country on another. The past is irreversible, and involving ourselves in a Middle East makeover will only nurture hostility and lead to more chaos.

I will stick with the timeless, paleolibertarian principle of non-interventionism and neutrality any day. George Washington admonished Americans against these sort of global socialist and interventionist schemes in his farewell address.(9) President "Oliver Cromwell" Bush is no George.

1 Chickenhawk Neoconservatives. Dear Bill Clinton, Please Attack Iraq Letter.

2 Unknown Author. "Question of Palestine." United Nations. Link:

3 Kagan, Robert. "Can NATO Patrol Palestine?" Washington Post 18 April 2002.

4 Unknown Author. "Bush Outlines Middle East Peace Plan." CNN 24 June 2002.

5 Unknown Author. "Sharon Backs Bush Plan for Palestinian State." CNN 4 December 2002.

6 Doran, Michael Scott. "Palestine, Iraq, and American Strategy." Foreign Affairs January/February 2003.

7 Farrell, Stephen, et. al. "Attack Iran the day Iraq War Ends, Demands Israel." London Times 5 November 2002.

8 Kagan, Robert. "Iraq: The Day After." Washington Post 21 July 2002.

9 Washington, George. Farewell Address. 17 September 1796.