High Priests Of War


PDF + other format






Here’s what some big names have said about 

Michael Collins Piper’s underground best-seller, 

Final Judgment—The Missing Link in 

the JFK Assassination Conspiracy: 

“As one who has read over 200 books on the JFK assas- 

sination, and engaged in research both as an individual and 

as part of various teams, I can say without fear of contra- 

diction that Piper’s book is now the definitive work on the 

JFK assassination. Final Judgment is the most thorough, 

most honest, most penetrating, most factual, and most ana- 

lytically complete and systematic of all that I have read so 

far. Michael Collins Piper has struck gold. JFK assassina- 

tion research has a new standard bearer. It will never be the 

same again. Final Judgmentis a masterpiece.” 


(Dr. Calhoun retired as deputy division chief of the 

Policy, Plans and Analysis Office of the State Department’s 

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs and formerly served as 

a senior foreign affairs specialist for the U.S. Arms Control 

and Disarmament Agency.) 

“I think you’ve pinned the tail on the donkey. In my estimation, Final Judgment ranks as 

the most important book of the 20th century.” 


(The former executive director of the Allegheny Foundation and author of such books 

as Trade Wars Against America, The Ordeal of Otto Otepka, and Why Reagan Won, Gill was a jour- 

nalist with UPI and the Pittsburgh Press and also wrote for Life, Fortune,TheSaturday Evening 

Post, Reader’s Digestand National Geographic.) 

Here’s what Colonel Donn de Grand Pré has written in his own book, Barbarians Inside 

the Gates, citing Final Judgment, which Grand Pré describes as “brilliant”. . . 

“Several high-level military officers believed that the killing of JFK was in fact a coup d’e- 

tat carried out by elements of the CIA working with the Israeli Mossad. Kennedy was 

attempting to halt the development of nuclear weapons by the Israelis, while simultaneous- 

ly planning to disband the CIA and disengage our military troops from the Indo-China area. 

(Read Final Judgmentby Michael Collins Piper for more details.)” 


(In 1967 Grand Pré was named Director for Ground Weapons Systems in the Pentagon’s 

Office of International Logistics Negotiations, responsible for negotiating sales contracts 

with heads of foreign nations for military weapons systems. On Sept. 30, 1979, The 

Washington Post Magazinewrote of Grand Pré: “If you had been a Middle Eastern ruler in 

the 1970s in search of American weapons systems, you would have called Donn de Grand 

Pré, Pentagon arms peddler.”) 

FINAL JUDGMENT—the one book that, if read by enough people, 

will turn American politics upside down . . .





The Secret History of How America’s 

“Neo-Conservative” Trotskyites Came 

to Power and Orchestrated the War 

Against Iraq as the First Step in 

Their Drive for Global Empire 






At the top left is an image of a statue of the Virgin Mary which an 

Israeli army tank fired upon on March 14, 2002, shattering the nose and 

slicing off the hands. The hated statue stood high above the Roman 

Catholic Holy Family Hospital and Orphanage  in Jerusalem adjacent to 

a Vatican flag. The Israelis fired on the statue at close range. It was not an 

accident. It was an act of hatred. 

And hatred likewise is expressed in the violent image of the hanging 

of Haman,taken from a Jewish religious artifact. One of the first of many 

enemies of the Jewish people, Haman’s assassination by execution is cel- 

ebrated on the holiday of Purim, which—just coincidentally, it is said— 

marked the onslaught of the war against Iraq, a point noted in Jewish 

newspapers that referred to Saddam Hussein as a modern-day Haman. 

At middle-level left is a relief from Rome’s Arch of Titus, recalling 

the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans and the triumphant seizure of the 

Jewish temple’s menorah. 

The fall of Jerusalem—one of the great disasters of Jewish history— 

was another of the endless series of events marking the conflict of the 

Middle East that is still being fought out today. 

At mid-level right is Ariel Sharon, the brutal Israeli caesar whose 

hard-line policies against the Christian and Muslim Palestinian Arabs are 

highly popular among his fellow countrymen and much admired by most 

American Jewish leaders and their allies in the neo-conservative move- 

ment, despite significant grass-roots Jewish opposition notwithstanding. 

Sharon’s goal of achieving “Greater Israel”is part and parcel of the 

neo-conservative agenda and the ultimate in hate and imperialism. 

At the bottom, from left to right, are Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, 

William Kristol and Henry Kissinger, perhaps the most powerful figures 

in the neo-conservative network that orchestrated the tragic U.S. war 

against Iraq. The neo-conservative High Priests of War dream of estab- 

lishing a world empire and intend to use America’s young people as the 

cannon fodder to accomplish their goal. 

That ishate—and we mustfight hate.




The Secret History of How America’s 

“Neo-Conservative”Trotskyites Came to Power 

and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the 

First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire 



Washington, D.C. 


The High Priests of War 

First Printing:February 2004 

Second Printing:May 2004 

Third Printing:August 2004 

Fourth Printing:October 2004 

Published by: American Free Press 

645 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Suite 100 

Washington, D.C. 20003 



Library of Congress Control Number:2004092376 

ISBN Number: 0-9745484-1-3 

©2004 by Michael Collins Piper 

To contact the author: 

Michael Collins Piper 

P.O. Box 15728 

Washington, DC 20003 



Special thanks to John Tiffany for an excellent copy editing job, as 

always. Looking for the best copy editor in the world?It’s John. He’ll 

drive you crazy with his questions and his nit-picking, but he gets the job 

done. (John can be contacted at xuou@yahoo.com) Any errors in this 

book are mine alone. It simply means I ignored John’s sage advice. 

Also thanks to Lamis Andoni for permission to quote from her excel- 

lent exposition regarding the nefarious record of Bernard Lewis. 

Special acknowledgment is due Bill and Kathleen Christison and 

Anis Shivani whose hard-hitting commentary on counterpunch.org added 

a great deal to my efforts. 

The work of John Sugg at atlanta.creativeloafing.com is a “must”for 

anyone interested in the intrigues of the powers-that-be. 

And the importance of the work of Andrew Bacevich,particularly his 

book, American Empire, cannot be overstated. 

Thanks to those and many others who have dared to tackle the most 

masterful intriguers ever to assume such immense power in America. 



“The list of possible Bad Places does not begin with haunted houses and end 

with haunted hotels; there have been horror stories written about haunted railroad 

stations, automobiles, meadows, office buildings. The list is endless, and proba- 

bly all of it goes back to the caveman who had to move out of his hole in the rock 

because he heard what sounded like voices back there in the shadows. Whether 

they were actual voices or the voices of the wind is a question we still ask our- 

selves on dark nights.” 


The High Priests of Waris a non-fiction book that resembles a Gothic horror 

novel, a classic tale of a haunted house and the evil spirits that dwell within, the 

story of a wealthy young king—scion of a famous family—ensconced in a state- 

ly palace and endowed with great powers, yet surrounded, even possessed, by 

malevolent demonic forces manipulating him from “back there in the shadows.” 

But the high priests of war exist in real life. The damage these neo-conserva- 

tive war-mongers are doing to America and the world is immense. 

If these neo-conservatives continue in their reign of ruin,we should not be 

surprised to see the White House end up looking once again as it did after 

being gutted by British torches in 1814:whether the consequence of a popu- 

lar rebellion by angry patriotic Americans or the result of an attack by foreign 

forces determined to stop dead the intrigues of the high priests of war. 

One thing is certain:The time has come. Something has to be done . . .


OCTOBER25, 1923 – MAY2, 2001


To the one and only 


—The fearless journalist who pioneered coverage of the strange 

intrigues of the neo-conservative warmongers long before they 

came to be acknowledged by the major media as front-line players 

on the global stage. 

A valued friend and a memorable figure, a raconteur like no 

other, a bon vivant and a loving husband and proud father,Andrew 

was a mentor with a track record as an international correspondent 

few could match. 

Andrew’s first-on-the-scene reportage exposed the neo-conser- 

vatives as the genuine menace to world peace that they are. 


A United States Senator Speaks Out: 

Why Americans are reallydying in Iraq . . . 

“With 760 dead in Iraq and over 3,000 maimed for life, home folks continue 

to argue why we are in Iraq—and how to get out . . . Even President Bush 

acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11. . . Of course 

there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel’s intelligence, Mossad, knows 

what’s going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know. Israel’s survival 

depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of 

mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no 

threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush’s policy to 

secure Israel.” 

—U.S. Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) 

Writing in The Charleston Post and Courier,May 6, 2004 

(For making these forthright remarks, in a column in which he also specifi- 

cally named several of the “high priests of war” described in this book, Sen. 

Hollings—a longtime friend of the U.S. military—was harshly denounced by the 

Anti-Defamation League and a host of politicians eager to curry favor with the 

Israeli lobby. Yet, just shortly before, a respected Jewish newspaper, Forward, stat- 

ed that Israel had benefited from the Iraq war—“uniquely”it said—and that 

Israeli intelligence had provided information used by the Bush administration to 

justify the invasion of Iraq. See below for what Forwardsaid.) 

Leading Jewish Newspaper Explains: 

Israel “uniquely benefited”from Iraq war . . . 

“On the eve of the war, Israel was a quiet but enthusiastic supporter of 

America’s war plans. Saddam Hussein’s military power, it was universally agreed, 

made him one of the Jewish state’s most dangerous adversaries . . . His overthrow 

was seen as eliminating Israel’s most serious existential threat . . . [and Israel] 

eagerly cooperated . . . sharing information on Iraqi capabilities and intentions 

. . . meant to help the American action . . . . But because Israel uniquely benefit- 

ed from a war that is increasingly controversial in America and around the world, 

fears of speaking out have grown even stronger than they were before the war.” 

—The New York-based Jewish weekly Forward, April 16, 2004

FOREWORD:Authority Without Responsibility . . . 

Although much has recently been written about the intrigues of the 

neo-conservatives who rule the roost in the administration of George W. 

Bush, The High Priests of Waris by far the most comprehensive work on 

the subject available today,particularly in that it explores the neo-conser- 

vative agenda from a highly important historic perspective that has gen- 

erally been ignored in the heat of current debate. 

It can accurately be said that the author, Michael Collins Piper, was 

one of the first journalists on the face of the planet to have recognized the 

neo-conservative infiltration of the upper ranks of the American political 

and intelligence mechanisms and then—as far back as the early 1980s— 

began writing about the phenomenon. 

Piper duly credits our mutual longtime friend and colleague, the late 

Andrew St. George—to whom this book is dedicated—with having pio- 

neered the first significant news reportage on the neo-conservatives, and 

it can rightly be said that St. George is the literary “godfather”of this 

important book. 

Tackling the most important political problem of our age and skill- 

fully analyzing its origins, naming names and describing the agenda and 

the misdeeds of the highly astute and closely inter-connected group which 

is dexterously pulling the strings that manipulate the marionettes on the 

political stage, The High Priests of Waris a landmark work. 

The neoconservatives have accomplished the supreme political feat: 

they have the authority but not the responsibility for the disastrous course 

of American history, immune to their misdeeds and the responsibility 

therefor, thanks to their controlled press. 

Thus,as our country reels from disaster to disaster,the public is either 

told by the press how wonderful it all is or replaceable politicians are 

blamed for it while the neocons only tighten their hold. 

This sordid scenario is unknown to all but a tiny handful of American 

patriots. If a significant number of Americans can be awakened to the 

political reality described by Michael Collins Piper so clearly in this 

book, the exposure alone will put an end to the conspiracy. 



“It’s time to declare war on 

The High Priests of War” 

Although most—but certainly not all—American anti-communists 

were sincere, it is vital to now face the sad and uncomfortable truth: the 

Cold War was largely a fraud. 

While the average American was being told to fear the Soviet Union, 

America’s biggest bankers and industrialists were engaged in extensive 

trade and other lucrative deals with the Communist Party bosses. And the 

U.S. government itself was making vast amounts of defense technology 

and other data available to our purported rival. So yes, the Cold War was 

very much a fraud. 

To finally understand and accept that difficult reality makes it possi- 

ble for us to reassess the globalist madness of the last 50 years and to pre- 

pare for the real battle for survival that lies ahead. 

Until Americans are finally prepared to acknowledge that the anti- 

communist frenzy to which so many devoted their energies was effec- 

tively so misdirected and fruitless, there is no sense in fighting any fur- 

ther. For generations we were fighting perceived “enemies”abroad, but 

the real enemy was here at home—infiltrating and seizing power in the 

upper ranks of the American national security and intelligence apparatus. 

As evidence put forth in this book makes clear, the Soviet threat— 

however great it may have been at one point in time—was,in more recent 

decades, clearly on the downward spiral, its strength diminishing. 

However, the neo-conservative forces, eager to exploit fears of Soviet 

power in order to play out their own parochial agenda,were exaggerating 

both Soviet military might and Soviet intentions. And it must be said, 

quite correctly,that the foundation of the neo-conservative agenda—from 

the beginning—was not just the security, but also the imperial advance- 

ment, of the state of Israel. 

We must abandon the archaic rhetoric of the past and focus on the real 

threat to America—and to the sovereignty of all nations and peoples:the


power-mad imperial forces that are bent on using American resources and 

military might to enforce a global police state under the control of a select 

few: the international elite and their bought-and-paid-for politicians, 

unprincipled bureaucrats,and the media shills who glorify and attempt to 

popularize the agenda of the would-be rulers of a Global Plantation that 

its proponents have stylized as the New World Order. 

Although The Spotlight was quite on the mark when it dared to sug- 

gest, upon the fall of the Soviet empire, that “communism is dead,”there 

were those relentless hold-outs who refused to face it. “Oh no,”cried the 

John Birchers,“communism isn’t really dead. It’s just a ruse. The reds are 

going underground, just waiting for the opportunity to strike.” 

The Birchers and their like-minded throwbacks still believe that Josef 

Stalin is hiding in a Kremlin closet,ready to jump out and say “boo.”Yet, 

ironically, only now are the Birchers coming to recognize that the neo- 

conservatives—whom they promoted for years in the pages of their jour- 

nals such as Review of the Newsand The New American—are hardly con- 

ventional “conservative patriots”in any sense of the term. 

The same crowd that rattled its sabers against “the communist threat” 

has now begun to substitute “the Islamic threat”as the new danger to be 

vanquished. This comes as no surprise. For years, during the Cold War, 

American “conservatives”(especially the Birchers) freely (and falsely) 

declared repeatedly that the Palestine Liberation Organization was part of 

a “Soviet-backed terror network,”the facts notwithstanding. 

And if truth be told, it is no accident that these myths about the PLO 

received their widest propagation in the writings of a pro-Israel neo-con- 

servative ideologue, Claire Sterling, whose now-infamous “study,”The 

Terror Network, became the virtual bible of the Israeli lobby in its cam- 

paign to discredit the Palestinian nationalist cause. 

Now, in the name of “fighting terrorism,”the conservative anti-com- 

munist stalwarts have lent their support to the establishment of a police 

state here at home as a way of “safeguarding liberty.” 

In this regard, note that more than 50 years ago—in the early days of 

the Cold War—that ex-CIA man William F. Buckley, Jr., the soon-to-be 

self-appointed “leader”of the American “conservative”movement,laid it 

on the line. Writing in Commonweal on January 25, 1952 Buckley said


that he was willing to support “Big Government”for “the duration [of the 

Cold War] because—he proclaimed—only “a totalitarian bureaucracy 

within our shores”could assure total victory over the communist menace. 

The anti-communist Cold War is now over, but the anti-Islamic (so- 

called “anti-terrorist”) Hot War is now under way. And here on American 

shores we have a new Department of Homeland Security aiming to run 

roughshod on American liberties all in the guise of protecting those lib- 

erties. Why should we be surprised? 

The “communist threat”never lay within the Communist Party USA 

which, as American Free Presspointed out, was controlled at the highest 

levels by Morris Childs, an asset of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI: a Russian- 

born Zionist, Childs soured on Soviet-style communism when he detect- 

ed the echoes of traditional Russian nationalism under Stalin. No, the 

Communist Party USA, was never a threat, although Hoover—a  long- 

time ally of the Zionist Anti-Defamation League—was manipulating the 

tiny party for the covert agenda of his behind-the-scenes “advisors.” 

Nor did the communist threat lie even within the furthest “liberal” 

reaches of the Democratic Party. It was not the New Deal or the Fair Deal 

or Camelot or the Great Society—or Clintonism—that brought a unique 

updated American-style brand of Bolshevism of the Trotskyite bent to 

America. Instead, it was the “compassionate conservatism”of the man 

seriously being hailed as “the New Ronald Reagan”:George W. Bush. 

It is no coincidence that—just days into the war against Iraq—the 

“official”American organ of the Trotskyites—Partisan Review—closed 

its doors. In truth, the little intellectual journal now had no more reason 

to exist,for its aim of securing power had been accomplished through the 

proverbial “back door.” 

This book presents a brief but detailed overview of the intrigues of the 

neo-conservatives. Much more could be written, but it would perhaps 

belabor the point.  Nonetheless, it seems appropriate to conclude, at this 

juncture, by saying quite simply: 

It’s Time to Declare War on the High Priests of War . . . 




The Secret History of How America’s “Neo-Conservative” 

Trotskyites Came to Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq 

as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire 

The report that follows is based on this foundation: 

THAT the war against Iraq being waged by the American administra- 

tion of President George W. Bush is not only contrary to traditional “con- 

servative”American principles, but contrary to all principles of American 

foreign policy during the last half-century; 

THAT the war against Iraq is being waged for far more broad-rang- 

ing purposes than “regime change”or “eliminating weapons of mass 

destruction”; first and foremost,as part of an overall effort to establish the 

United States as the sole international super-power, capable military and 

economically, to suppress any nations and/or peoples who dare to chal- 

lenge American hegemony; 

THAT the war against Iraq is simply a first step in a long-standing, 

wide-ranging plan to launch an even more aggressive move against the 

entire Arab Middle East in order to “remake the Arab world” to secure 

the survival of—and expand the power of—the state of Israel; 

THAT the war against Iraq is only the initial target of this carefully 

planned scheme and that, ultimately, other Arab and Muslim states are 

slated for outright extinction or some form of occupation or control by 

American military and political forces (in alliance with Israel); 

THAT the war against Iraq and the plan for the subjugation of the 

Arab people is quite simply a modified,modernized adaptation of the his- 

toric Zionist dream of “Greater Israel,”adjusted to meet the demands of


the international oil companies,which are,in turn,fully prepared to share 

the aim of dominating the oil-producing states of the Arab world in part- 

nership with the state of Israel; 

THAT the war against Iraq was deliberately orchestrated by a small 

but powerful network of hard-line “right wing”Zionist elements—the 

self-styled “neo-conservatives”—at the highest levels of the Bush admin- 

istration, skillfully aided and abetted by like-minded persons in public 

policy organizations, think tanks, publications and other institutions, all 

of which are closely interconnected and, in turn, linked to hard-line 

“Likudnik”forces in Israel; 

THAT the war against Iraq and the additional moves by the United 

States against the Arab world that are slated to follow can be traced to 

Zionist political intrigue inside the upper levels of the U.S. intelligence 

community, reaching as far back as the early 1970s, and that many of the 

same players involved in that activity are now guiding Bush administra- 

tion policy today; 

THAT the war against Iraq is an adjunct to the previously-declared 

“war against terrorism”which was, in itself, part of a long-evolving and 

carefully coordinated propaganda campaign founded on the theory that 

terrorism is somehow an “Arab”trait. 

This report will examine all of these aspects, citing a wide variety of 

sources, and will focus largely on given facts that have received wide cir- 

culation in the “mainstream”English-language press in the United States. 

The facts will speak for themselves. At any time this report delves 

into speculation or opinion, such views will be duly noted or otherwise 

clearly apparent. 





“If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish 

community for this war with Iraq,we would not be doing 

this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influen- 

tial enough that they could change the direction of 

where this is going, and I think they should.” 

—U.S. Congressman Jim Moran (Democrat of Virginia) speaking at 

a public forum in his congressional district.

Despite the very public frenzy in the United States that followed these 

remarks by liberal Congressman Jim Moran, even the influential New 

York-based Jewish newspaper, Forward, was forced to admit in its Feb. 

28, 2003 issue that the role of the pro-Israel lobby and its adherents who 

held high-level policy-making positions in the administration of President 

George W. Bush were increasingly becoming a topic of public discussion. 

Congressman Moran had simply summarized the issue in a few short but 

controversial remarks. 

Forwardcited liberal American Jewish columnist Michael Kinsley 

who wrote on Oct. 24, 2002 that Israel’s central role in the American 

debate over possible war with Iraq was “the proverbial elephant in the 

room.”Of that elephant, Kinsley added:“Everybody sees it, no one men- 

tions it.”Forwardstated it flatly:“Kinsley was referring to a debate,once 

only whispered in back rooms but lately splashed in bold characters 

across the mainstream media, over Jewish and Israeli influence in shap-

ing American foreign policy.”2 

The Jewish newspaper noted that now, even “mainstream”American 

publications, ranging from The Washington Post to The Economist and 

even broadcast outlets such as CNN and MSNBC were featuring frank 

and open discussion of the topic. According to Forward’s assessment: 

Many of these articles project an image of President Bush and Prime 

Minister Sharon working in tandem to promote war against Iraq. Several of them 

described an administration packed with conservatives motivated primarily, if 

not solely, by a dedication to defending Israel. 

A few respected voices have even touched openly on the role of American 

Jewish organizations in the equation,suggesting a significant shift to the right on 

Middle East issues and an intense loyalty to Sharon. Still others raise the notion 

of Jewish and Israeli influence only to attack it as anti-Semitism.3 

Yet, as if in confirmation of the basic thrust behind Congressman 

Moran’s comments,even Ari Shavit,writing on April 9,2003 in Ha’aretz

the Israeli newspaper, declared simply: “The war in Iraq was conceived 

by 25 neo-conservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are push- 

ing President Bush to change the course of history.”4 

In fact, as we will demonstrate, the historical record indicates— 

beyond question—that the then-impending war on Iraq was indeed large- 

ly the product of a long-standing—and carefully calculated and orches- 

trated—plan. That this plan aimed to establish an American global hege- 

mony based upon the geopolitical aims of a small, but influential, group 

of policy makers inside the administration of President George W. 

Bush—a group tied intimately, for nearly a quarter of a century, to the 

grand design of a “Greater Israel,”a longtime dream of the Zionist pio- 

neers who founded the state of Israel and whose modern-day hawkish 

“right wing” followers are increasingly influential in all areas of Israeli 

society, particularly in the government realm. 

This select group of Americans—now increasingly well known— 

describe themselves as the “neo-conservatives.”They constitute a virtual 

“War Party”in America. They are unabashedly admiring and supportive 

of the hard-line Likud bloc in Israel led by Ariel Sharon. These neo-con- 

servatives have directed policy decisions inside the Bush administration 

that have essentially placed the United States of America (under President 


George W. Bush) in firm alliance with the Sharon regime in Israel. 

The study we are about to undertake will provide a comprehensive 

overview of the history and development of the neo-conservative net- 

work, naming names and linking their policies to the elements in Israel 

with which they are allied. 

But it is important to recognize that, in many respects, the policies 

that the neo-conservative “War Party”has been advancing are,from a his- 

torical standpoint, much at variance with the traditional American out- 

look. The policies of the “War Party”represent only a miniscule—albeit 

forceful and influential—faction in America. Philip Golub, a journalist 

and lecturer at the University of Paris VIII,has written of the neo-conser- 

vative strategy: 

The neo-conservative right has been attempting, with varying success, to 

establish itself as the dominant ideological force in the United States for more 

than 25 years, especially in the definition of foreign policy. 

Long thwarted by democratic process and public resistance to the national 

security state, it is now on the brink of success, thanks to George Bush’s disput- 

ed electoral victory in 2000, and to 11 September 2001, which transformed an 

accidental president into an American Caesar. President Bush has become the 

neo-conservative vehicle for a policy that is based on unilateralism, permanent 

mobilisation and “preventive war.” 

War and militarisation would have been impossible without 11 September, 

which tipped the institutional balance in favour of the new right. Apart from such 

opportunist motives as seizing the strategic chance to redraw the map of the 

Middle East and the Persian Gulf, this choice reflects much more far-reaching 

imperial ambitions . . . 

This authoritarian project became feasible in the unipolar world after 1991, 

when the US got a monopoly on the use of force in interstate relations. But it was 

conceived in the 1970s, when the extremist coalition now in control was first 


The aim is to unite the nation and secure US strategic supremacy worldwide. 

The instruments are war and permanent mobilization,both requiring the constant 

identification of new enemies and the establishment of a strong national securi- 

ty state, which is independent of society.5 

American author Michael Lind points out that the imperial dream 

outlined by the neo-conservative clique “was opposed by the mainstream 

U.S. foreign policy elite and by a majority of the American people, who 


according to polls opposed U.S. military action in Iraq and elsewhere 

without the support of allies and international institutions like the United 

Nations. The foreign policy of the radical right was enthusiastically sup- 

ported by only two groups in the United States—neo-conservative poli- 

cymakers and intellectuals at the elite level, and Southern Protestant vot- 

ers within the mass voting public.”6 

Despite widespread opposition—both in the United States and across 

the globe—on March 17, 2003,American President George W. Bush for- 

mally announced that a war upon Iraq was imminent. After many long 

months of acrimonious debate, the American president declared that the 

United States—allied with Britain and a handful of countries—would 

effectively “go it alone,”without the support of the world community. 

Some critics would call to attention the fact that March 17 was the 

eve of Purim,the traditional Jewish holiday celebrating the victory by the 

ancient Jewish people over their hated enemy, Haman. However, not all 

Jews—in America or elsewhere—lined up with the “neo-conservative” 

clique, even though, in fact, most of the pivotal neo-conservative leaders 

are indeed Jewish. 


As American Jewish writer Stanley Heller pointed out in the days prior 

to the attack on Iraq:“We owe it to Americans to tell them the whole truth, 

that part of the war drive is being fueled by a wacko militarist clique from 

Israel and its interlocking bands of American Jewish and Christian support- 

ers.”7In addition, Professor Paul Gottfried—an American Jewish academic 

who calls himself a “conservative”but who objects strenuously to the activ- 

ities of the self-styled “neo-conservatives”—added,writing elsewhere: 

No one who is sane is claiming that all Jews are collaborating with [neo-con- 

servative pro-war leaders such as] Richard Perle and [William] Kristol. What is 

being correctly observed is a convergence of interests in which neo-conservatives 

have played a pivotal role. At this point they control almost all [Washington, 

D.C.] “conservative”think tanks,the “conservative”TV channel [pro-Zionist bil- 

lionaire Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News],The Wall Street Journal, The New York 

Post, and several major presses, together with just about every magazine that 

claims to be conservative.8 


Professor Gottfried’s comments thus introduce us to two key names 

that shall appear again and again in these pages: Richard Perle and 

William Kristol. They are perhaps the two most influential of the “War 

Party”neo-conservatives—by virtue of combined position, outreach and 

financial clout. They are the central players who have been responsible, 

in overwhelming part,for shaping the policies of the Bush administration 

that have led to the current conflict in the Middle East involving the 

deployment of American military forces against Iraq and the undeniably 

disastrous occupation which has followed. 

Although we shall learn much more about Perle and Kristol, a brief 

introduction to the two neo-conservative figures is appropriate. 

Often called “the Prince of Darkness,”Richard Perle (who is Jewish) 

has been active in pro-Israel causes in official Washington since the mid- 

1970s when he was then an aide to powerful (now deceased) Sen. Henry 

M. Jackson (D-Washington), a leading congressional supporter of Israel. 

During that period, Perle was investigated on charges of espionage for 

Israel. Later Perle became a lobbyist for Israeli arms interests and even- 

tually was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to a key post in the 

Department of Defense. 

After leaving the Reagan administration, Perle remained active in 

Washington, DC, enmeshed in a wide variety of institutions and organi- 

zations, almost exclusively devoting his energies to advancing Israel’s 

cause, and particularly that of the Likud Party of Ariel Sharon. Of recent 

date, Perle has maintained a special affiliation with the “neo-conserva- 

tive”think tank known as the American Enterprise Institute. 

However, when George W. Bush assumed the presidency, he named 

Perle to head the Defense Policy Board, a little-known but influential 

advisory board. It was from this post that Perle—utilizing his multiple 

contacts with longtime associates named to high posts inside the Bush 

administration itself—began making an active drive to advance the war 

against Iraq. 

Although Perle resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board 

just days after the firing of the opening guns against Iraq—following 

allegations that he had conflicts of interest, stemming from his private 

financial business dealings that intersected with official government poli- 

cies upon which he had an impact and from which he stood to personal-

ly benefit—he remained a member of the board, and certainly its most 

influential, until his formal resignation in March of 2004. 

Considering all that we now know about Perle, it may be no coinci- 

dence that as far back as 1986 it was reported that once, while on a visit 

to Britain, Perle was introduced during a debate with then-Labor Party 

leader Denis Healey as “the person in charge of World War III.”9 Some 

Perle critics later suggested that the gentleman who made the remarks 

may have been empowered with psychic abilities, considering the critical 

role Perle has indeed played in sparking the American war against Iraq. 

William Kristol (also Jewish) is equally influential, although in a dif- 

ferent realm. As the son of an equally influential father, Irving Kristol— 

once described as the “godfather”of the neo-conservative movement— 

the younger Kristol parlayed his father’s connections into a post as chief 

of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle who served under the first President 

Bush. But that was only Kristol’s first step in his rise to vast power. 

After the Bush-Quayle defeat by Bill Clinton in 1992, the younger 

Kristol, through his own aggressive efforts—not to mention increasingly 

favorable promotion of Kristol—by the major media,emerged as perhaps 

the best known voice of the “neo-conservative”philosophy. He became 

actively involved in setting up a well-funded and far-reaching public rela- 

tions and information network,linked to numerous foundations and think 

tanks with which his father had already been associated. 

In addition to accepting an appointment as editor of Rupert 

Murdoch’s weekly national neo-conservative magazine, The Weekly 

Standard, Kristol also founded his own organization, Project for the New 

American Century. 

As we shall see, Kristol’s own operations and activities meshed pre- 

cisely—actually, interlocked—with those of Richard Perle. And as the 

push for war against Iraq became increasingly more bellicose after 

George W. Bush became president—and then, even more so after the 9- 

11 terrorist attacks,which the neo-conservatives repeatedly sought to link 

to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein—Perle and Kristol worked ever more 

closely,merging their own networks of influence to the point that the neo- 

conservative philosophy became the guiding force behind the entire Bush 

foreign policy making apparatus. 

William Kristol—along with another close colleague, Robert 


Kagan—has been the foremost publicist for the neo-conservative imperi- 

al strategy. Their book,released in the year 2000,Present Dangers:Crisis 

and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy, was a com- 

prehensive statement of the neo-conservative point of view, featuring 

essays by Perle—of course—and an assembly of other neo-conservative 

“stars”associated with Kristol and Perle. 

In a review of the book, former British diplomat Jonathan Clark 

commented that: “If the book’s recommendations were implemented all 

at once, the U.S. would risk unilaterally fighting at least a five-front war, 

while simultaneously urging Israel to abandon the peace process in favour 

of a new no-holds-barred confrontation with the Palestinians.”10 

Ironically, as Michael Lind, a foremost critic of the neo-conserva- 

tives, has pointed out: “This turned out to be a prediction of the policies 

that the administration of George W. Bush would adopt in the following 

two years.”11 Lind notes: “The radical Zionist right to which [Perle and 

Kristol] belong is small in number but it has become a significant force in 

Republican policymaking circles.”12 Lind adds that the chief concern of 

many of those in this neo-conservative network is “the power and reputa- 

tion of Israel.”13He points out that they have waged vicious public rela- 

tions campaigns against anyone who stands in their way—even including 

prominent and influential American military leaders who have questioned 

the neo-conservative policies. 


Thus, it is clear that the pro-Israel orientation of the neo-conserva- 

tives has been a primary matter of concern in the formulation (and con- 

duct) of the policies they have sought to implement. 

And this raises the question as to how much influence the state of 

Israel (and its American adherents, particularly in the neo-conservative 

network) did indeed play in sparking the war against Iraq. 

As we have seen, the role of Israel in the Iraq affair was a problemat- 

ic one in terms of protecting Israel (and American Jews) from a possible 

backlash by many Americans who resented the idea that perhaps U.S. pol- 

icy was being predicated on the interests of Israel alone. 

On November 27,2002 The Washington Postreported that a group of

American political consultants who had previously advised Israeli politi- 

cians had been hired by the Israel Project—described as “a group funded 

by American Jewish organizations and individual donors”—to draft a 

memo to American Jewish leaders and Israeli leaders as to the best means 

by which to address the raging controversy over Iraq. The memo advised 

them: “If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful 

with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not want 

Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel 

rather than to protect America.”14However, as Michael Lind reflected in 

his new biography of President Bush, the influence of Israel and the neo- 

conservatives is undeniable: 

Under George W. Bush, the American executive branch and the government 

of Israel were fused in a degree without precedent in American history. . . . 

Bizarre as it seems, thanks to the influence of the Israeli model on neo-conser- 

vatives in the Bush administration, the United States, the leading power in the 

world, began acting as though it were an insecure and besieged international 

pariah state, like Israel under the leadership of the Likud Party.15 

Writing in Timeon Feb. 17, 2003, one of the most prominent of the 

American neo-conservatives in the media, columnist Charles Kraut- 

hammer, announced that the proposed war against Iraq “is not just to dis- 

arm Saddam. It is to reform a whole part of the world . .  . What the U.S. 

needs in the Arab world is not an exit strategy but an entry strategy. Iraq 

is the beckoning door . . .”Krauthammer frankly named the targets of the 

neo-conservative war policy:“Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and beyond.”16 

In truth, published evidence indicates that the government of Israel 

did indeed desire a U.S. assault upon Iraq—as a first step toward addi- 

tional action against other perceived enemies of the state of Israel. On 

February 18, 2003, the Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, reported that Israeli 

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was calling for the United States to move on 

Iran, Libya and Syria after what was presumed to be the successful 

destruction of Iraq by the United States—a view no different than that 

expressed by the aforementioned Krauthammer. 

Sharon said:“These are irresponsible states,which must be disarmed 

of weapons of mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq 


as a model will make that easier to achieve.”The Israeli prime minister 

told a visiting delegation of American congressmen that “the American 

action [against Iraq] is of vital importance.”17 

The Israeli newspaper also reported that in meetings with Sharon and 

other Israeli officials, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton—one of 

the key “neo-conservatives”inside the Bush administration who had been 

promoting war against Iraq—had said, in the Israeli newspaper’s words, 

that Bolton felt that after Iraq had been dealt with “it would be necessary 

thereafter to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea.”18 

In addition,on Feb. 27,2003,The New York Timesfreely reported that 

Israel not only advocated a U.S. war on Iraq but that Israel also believed 

that, ultimately, the war should be expanded to other nations perceived to 

be threats to Israel. The Timesstated: 

Many in Israel are so certain of the rightness of a war on Iraq that officials are 

already thinking past that conflict to urge a continued, assertive American role in 

the Middle East. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told members of the Conference 

of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations last week that after Iraq, 

the United States should generate “political, economic, diplomatic pressure’’on 

Iran. “We have great interest in shaping the Middle East the day after’’a war, he 

said.  Israel regards Iran and Syria as greater threats and is hoping that once 

Saddam Hussein is dispensed with, the dominoes will start to tumble.19 

And while there were American Jews, acting independently of the 

established Jewish community leadership organizations,who opposed the 

war against Iraq, there is no question that elite American Jewish organi- 

zations closely tied to Israeli intelligence and the government of Israel 

were firmly behind the drive for war. Those organizations were acting as 

Jewish organizations, purporting to represent all Jewish Americans when 

in fact they did not. 

After the war erupted, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai 

B’rith—described by critics as a propaganda arm of Israel’s clandestine 

services, the Mossad—issued a statement. It declared: “We express our 

support for the United States Government in its effort to stop Iraqi 

President Saddam Hussein and the danger he poses to the stability and 

safety of the region. The need to stop Saddam Hussein is clear.”20


However, while the Israeli leadership and their neo-conservative 

allies were calling for war, there were many Americans of all races, 

creeds and colors who were standing up and declaring their opposition. 

In the months of debate leading up to the American attack on Iraq, 

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) emerged as perhaps the most outspoken 

and articulate congressional critic of the proposed war. He sounded out 

multiple arguments against the war,ruling it totally unfounded and count- 

er to all traditional American policy: 

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, 

unwarranted, and illegal. . . . 

Unilateral action on the part of the United States,or in partnership with Great 

Britain,would for the first time set our nation on the bloodstained path of aggres- 

sive war, a sacrilege upon the memory of those who fought to defend this coun- 

try. America’s moral authority would be undermined throughout the world. It 

would destabilize the entire Persian Gulf and Middle East region . . . 

Policies of aggression are not worthy of any nation with a democratic tradi- 

tion,let alone a nation of people who love liberty and whose sons and daughters 

sacrifice to maintain that democracy. 

The question is not whether or not America has the military power to destroy 

Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The question is whether we destroy something essential 

in this nation by asserting that America has the right to do so anytime it pleases. 

America cannot and should not be the world’s policeman. America cannot 

and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and 

the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and 

arms dealers . . . 

If the United States proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have 

taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of internation- 

al law,and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold.21 

Quite remarkably, even after the war actually began, Kucinich 

refused to be silent, refusing to be bullied into supporting the war under 

the guise of “supporting the troops”—a popular catchphrase that has his- 

torically been used to convince Americans to support an unpopular war 

after American troops have been formally committed to action. 

Undaunted by accusations of being “unpatriotic,”etc, Kucinich said: 


I support the troops. But, this war is illegal and wrong. I do not support this 

mission. I will not vote to fund this Administration’s war in Iraq. This war is 

killing our troops. This war is killing innocent Iraqi civilians. This war must end 

now. It was unjust when it started two weeks ago, and is still unjust today. The 

U.S. should get out now and try to save the lives of American troops and Iraqi 

citizens. Ending the war now and resuming weapons inspections could salvage 

world opinion of the United States. The greatest threat to the United States at this 

time is terrorism, which this war will breed.22 

Kucinich was not the only American public official to take a daring 

public stand against the war—but he was certainly one of the most forth- 

right and outspoken. 

Just as American troops began their assault on the Arab republic, the 

longest serving member of the U.S. Senate—and the former leader of the 

Senate Democrats—Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia delivered a blis- 

tering address on the Senate floor, declaring the war to be totally at odds 

with traditional American policy. He said, in part: 

Today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months 

with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet 

benevolent peacekeeper. 

We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and 

feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower 

on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We 

assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the 

world has become a much more dangerous place. We flaunt our superpower sta- 

tus with arrogance. 

When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When 

did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and 

doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we aban- 

don diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?23 

Clearly, although the neo-conservatives hardly reflected the thinking 

of many Americans of many political persuasions, they did indeed reflect 

a particular brand of philosophy and one indubitably bound up with the 

hard-line imperial agenda of Israel’s Likud. 

And with that in mind,it is appropriate to begin examining the nature 

of the neo-conservative network that rules the roost in official Washington 

under the administration of George W. Bush.


On December 13, 2002, Counterpunchmagazine, published by mav- 

erick Irish-born American-based journalist Alexander Cockburn,featured 

an article raising the questions of “the Bush administration’s dual loyal- 

ties”and provided a fascinating overview of the neo-conservative net- 

work that ultimately led America to war. The authors were Bill and 

Kathleen Christison, a husband-and-wife team of former veteran U.S. 

Central Intelligence Agency analysts. They cited the Israeli sympathies of 

top neo-conservative policy makers inside the Bush administration,point- 

ing out that—indeed—these neo-conservatives were closely aligned with 

the ideology of the Likud bloc in Israel. Their summary of the “cast of 

characters”among the neo-conservatives is precise and worth noting: 

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz leads the pack. He was a pro- 

tégé of Richard Perle, who heads the prominent Pentagon advisory body, the 

Defense Policy Board. Many of today’s neo-conservatives, including Perle, are 

the intellectual progeny of the late Senator Henry “Scoop”Jackson, a strong 

defense hawk and one of Israel’s most strident congressional supporters in the 


Wolfowitz in turn is the mentor of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, now Vice 

President Cheney’s chief of staff who was first a student of Wolfowitz and later 

a subordinate during the 1980s in both the State and the Defense Departments. 

Another Perle protégé is Douglas Feith, who is currently undersecretary of 

defense for policy, the department’s number-three man, and has worked closely 

with Perle both as a lobbyist for Turkey and in co-authoring strategy papers for 

right-wing Israeli governments. 

Assistant Secretaries Peter Rodman and Dov Zakheim, old hands from the 

Reagan administration when the neo-cons first flourished,fill out the subcabinet 

ranks at Defense. At lower levels, the Israel and the Syria/Lebanon desk officers 

at Defense are imports from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a 

think tank spun off from the pro-Israel lobby organization,AIPAC. 

Neo-conservatives have not made many inroads at the State Department, 

except for John Bolton, an American Enterprise Institute hawk and Israeli pro- 

ponent who is said to have been forced on a reluctant Colin Powell as undersec- 

retary for arms control. Bolton’s special assistant is David Wurmser, who wrote 

and/or co-authored with Perle and Feith at least two strategy papers for Israeli 

Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996. 

Wurmser’s wife,Meyrav Wurmser,is a co-founder of the media-watch web- 


site MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute), which is run by retired 

Israeli military and intelligence officers and specializes in translating and wide- 

ly circulating Arab media and statements by Arab leaders. A recent investigation 

by The Guardianof London found that MEMRI’s translations are skewed by 

being highly selective. Although it inevitably translates and circulates the most 

extreme of Arab statements, it ignores moderate Arab commentary and extrem- 

ist Hebrew statements. 

In the vice president’s office, Cheney has established his own personal 

national security staff, run by aides known to be very pro-Israel. The deputy 

director of the staff, John Hannah, is a former fellow of the Israeli-oriented 

Washington Institute. 

On the National Security Council staff, the newly appointed director of 

Middle East affairs is Elliott Abrams, who came to prominence after pleading 

guilty to withholding information from Congress during the Iran-contra scandal 

(and was pardoned by President Bush the elder) and who has long been a vocal 

proponent of right-wing Israeli positions. Putting him in a key policymaking 

position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is like entrusting the henhouse to a 


Probably the most important organization, in terms of its influence on Bush 

administration policy formulation, is the Jewish Institute for National Security 

Affairs (JINSA). Formed after the 1973 Arab-Israeli war specifically to bring 

Israel’s security concerns to the attention of U.S. policymakers and concentrat- 

ing also on broad defense issues, the extremely hawkish, right-wing JINSA has 

always had a high-powered board able to place its members inside conservative 

U.S. administrations. Cheney,Bolton,and Feith were members until they entered 

the Bush administration. Several lower level JINSA functionaries are now work- 

ing in the Defense Department. 

Wolfowitz himself has been circumspect in public, writing primarily about 

broader strategic issues rather than about Israel specifically or even the Middle 

East, but it is clear that at bottom Israel is a major interest and may be the prin- 

cipal reason for his near obsession with the effort, of which he is the primary 

spearhead, to dump Saddam Hussein, remake the Iraqi government in an 

American image, and then further redraw the Middle East map by accomplish- 

ing the same goals in Syria, Iran, and perhaps other countries. 

But his interest in Israel always crops up. Even profiles that downplay his 

attachment to Israel nonetheless always mention the influence the Holocaust, in 

which several of his family perished, has had on his thinking. One source inside 

the administration has described him frankly as “over-the-top crazy when it 

comes to Israel.”Although this probably accurately describes most of the rest of 

the neo-con coterie, and Wolfowitz is guilty at least by association, he is actual- 

ly more complex and nuanced than this.24

The Christisons pointed out that a New York Times Magazineprofile 

of Wolfowitz by the Times’Bill Keller cites critics who say that “Israel 

exercises a powerful gravitational pull on the man”25and notes that as a 

teenager Wolfowitz lived in Israel during his mathematician father’s sab- 

batical semester there. In addition, his sister is married to an Israeli. 

Keller even somewhat reluctantly acknowledges the accuracy of one char- 

acterization of Wolfowitz as “Israel-centric.”However, the Christisons 

note, “Keller goes through considerable contortions to shun what he calls 

‘the offensive suggestion of dual loyalty’and in the process makes one 

wonder if he is protesting too much.”26 

So the facts about the neo-conservative clique governing Bush admin- 

istration policies are very clear. However, much of the mainstream media 

in America initially hesitated to emphasize the remarkable linkage and 

longtime associations of this clique of like-minded political power bro- 

kers. The independent media in America—such as the Washington-based 

American Free Press, among the foremost—that did dare to mention the 

prominent role of the “neo-cons”were often attacked as “conspiracy the- 

orists”and even as “anti-Semites,”among many similar terms often used 

to confuse the issue and thereby redirect attention away from the intrigues 

of Israel and its American lobby. 


Nonetheless, once the long-planned “neo-conservative”-orchestrated 

war against Iraq was safely under way, a front-page article in the March 

21, 2003 issue of the pro-war Wall Street Journaladmitted the truth. The 

headline in the article was straightforward:“A New Mideast—President’s 

Dream:Changing Not Just Regime but a Region. A Pro-U.S.,Democratic 

Area Is a Goal That Has Israeli and Neo-Conservative Roots.”The article 

began by declaring frankly:“As he sends American troops and planes into 

Iraq, President Bush has in mind more than changing a country. His 

dream is make the entire Middle East a different place, and one safer for 

American interests.”27 

The article proceeded to describe the power of the pro-war neo-con- 

servative network surrounding Richard Perle and his collaborator, 

William Kristol. The article summarized the events leading up to the deci- 


sion by President Bush to wage war against Iraq and the role of the neo- 

conservatives in that process. 

Just three days later, on March 24, 2003, the New York Timespub- 

lished a similar overview, declaring that the doctrine of preemptive war 

advocated by the neo-conservatives had its roots in the early 1990s. 

(However,as we shall see,the overall neo-conservative agenda goes back 

much further than that.) The Timesarticle cited an un-named administra- 

tion official as saying of the Iraq war:This is just the beginning.”28 


To understand the political orientation of the “neo-conservatives”and 

their agenda, it is critical to recognize not only the important role played 

today by the aforementioned William Kristol but also that of his father 

and mother and their associates who are central to the story of the devel- 

opment of the neo-conservative power bloc in America. 

Although today Kristol is perhaps the best known of the neo-conser- 

vative voices in the media, he is much more than that. Not only is the 

chief public relations strategist—some might say “propagandist”—for the 

neo-conservatives, but he is also the scion of a powerful husband-and- 

wife team of American Jewish writers—self-described “ex- 

Trotskyites”—Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb. The senior 

Kristol—along with a handful of other like-minded thinkers—is general- 

ly hailed as the primary founding force behind the neo-conservative 


According to the American Jewish weekly,Forward,the small “most- 

ly Jewish”29 group of “New York Intellectuals”30 operating in the senior 

Kristol’s sphere of influence were “known to insiders as “The 

Family.’”31—a designation that suggests to those schooled in the intrigues 

of the Cold War,perhaps some cryptic,almost cult-like bond,even a clas- 

sic communist “cell.” 

And indeed, there is a Cold War connection to Kristol and “The 

Family,”for—during the period from the 1930s to the 1950s—they were 

disciples of Leon Trotsky,the Bolshevik revolutionary,and arch critics of 

Trotsky’s fierce rival, Josef Stalin, who emerged as leader of the Soviet 

Union after forcing Trotsky into exile. However, as years passed, starting

in the late 1950s and especially in the 1960s, their political philosophy 

began, it is said, to “evolve.”Yet, there are those who would say that the 

ex-Trotskyites are anything but “ex”at all; that,instead,they remain tried 

and true Trotskyites who have adapted their traditional philosophy to 

modern concerns, events, and political realities. 

Michael Lind, author of a new biography of President George W. 

Bush, has noted the origins of this tightly-knit core then surrounding 

Kristol and in years to come and explains their shift in viewpoint: 

Neo-conservatives were not traditional conservative Republicans. Most had 

been liberal or leftist Democrats; some had originally been Marxists. Many were 

Jewish and had broken with the Democratic left because of leftist hostility to 

Israel’s occupation of Arab land after 1967 and the hostility of many Black 

Power militants to both Jewish-Americans and Israel. Ronald Reagan was the 

first Republican president that many neo-conservatives had voted for. 

While the foreign policy of the traditional Republican establishment reflect- 

ed the fear of international disorder of the business elite, neo-conservative strat- 

egy reflected the crusading ideological fervor of former Wilsonian liberals [refer- 

ring to former American President Woodrow Wilson who was a proponent of 

American interventionism abroad] and former Marxist revolutionaries, com- 

bined, in the case of many Jewish neo-conservatives, with an emotional ethnic 

commitment to the well-being of Israel.32 


American Jewish scholar, Benjamin Ginsberg, has described the cen- 

tral role of Israel’s security in the thinking of the neo-conservatives and 

on their political activities during the last quarter of the 20th century: 

Neo-conservative Jewish intellectuals were instrumental during the 1970s and 

1980s in developing justifications for increased defense spending, as well as linking 

American military aid to Israel to the more general American effort to contain the 

Soviet Union. 

Israel was portrayed as an American “strategic asset”that could play an impor- 

tant role in containing Soviet expansion into the Middle East. 

A number of Jewish neo-conservatives became active in [lobbying] for increased 

levels of defense spending and the strengthening of America’s defense capabilities 

against what they asserted was a heightened threat of Soviet expansionism.33 


A similar,although less friendly,assessment of the neo-conservatives 

was put forth in 1986 by famed American novelist Gore Vidal. 

Responding to allegations that he (Vidal) was “anti-Semitic”because of 

his criticism of the unusual degree to which American Jewish “neo-con- 

servatives” were attached to Israel—more so than to America—Vidal 

called the neo-conservatives “empire lovers”and charged that there was 

one reason why these ex-Trotskyites were now so enamored of American 

military power: 

In order to get [United States] Treasury money for Israel (last year $3 bil- 

lion), pro-Israel lobbyists must see to it that America’s “the Russians are com- 

ing”squads are in place so that they can continue to frighten the American peo- 

ple into spending enormous sums for “defense,”which also means the support of 

Israel in its never-ending wars against just about everyone. To make sure that 

nearly a third of the Federal budget goes to the Pentagon and Israel, it is neces- 

sary for the pro-Israel lobbyists to make common cause with our lunatic right.34 

At the time, however, Vidal had no idea how powerful the neo-con- 

servatives would ultimately become. But, Vidal remains an outspoken 

critic of U.S. and Israeli imperialism, and is one of the most highly 

regarded English-language novelists in the world today. 

Whatever their recognition among “intellectual”circles, the “neo- 

conservative”elements were virtual strangers (and still remain so) to the 

broad audience of American citizens. In fact, probably the first time the 

term “neo-conservative” was introduced to a wide-ranging national 

American audience was in the Nov. 7,1977 issue of Newsweek,published 

by the same company that publishes The Washington Postnewspaper. 

By 1979, the first full-length book study of the “neo-conservatives” 

was issued by author Peter Steinfels. Entitled The Neo-Conservatives: 

The Men Who Are Changing America’s Politics, this book described neo- 

conservatism as “a distinct and powerful political outlook [that had] 

recently emerged in the United States.”35 

The author hailed Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol, as “the 

standard bearer of neo-conservatism”36and focused largely on Kristol and 

fellow intellectuals who were shaping the neo-conservative point of view. 

The book painted neo-conservatism as a newly-developing philoso- 

phy and largely focused on its domestic political outlook. Remarkably,

very little of the book was even devoted to the neo-conservative foreign 

policy agenda, despite the fact that the neo-conservatives were, from the 

beginning,heavily focused on foreign policy. However,Steinfels did note 

that the neo-conservatives were, quite naturally, as ex-Trotskyites, hostile 

to the Soviet Union of Josef Stalin and his legacy. 

However, the author did note the fact that there were many rumors 

swirling around Kristol, specifically the allegation that as far back as the 

1950s, Kristol had been receiving subsidies from the American Central 

Intelligence Agency (CIA). 


In fact,as a far more recent volume,The Cultural Cold War:The CIA 

and the World of Arts and Letters, by Frances Stonor Saunders reveals, 

the circles in which Kristol was a key player—surrounding a group 

known as the Congress for Cultural Freedom (which existed from 1950 to 

1967) and the American Committee for Cultural Freedom (which existed 

from 1950 to 1957)—were indeed funded by the CIA. The author exhaus- 

tively investigated the activities of Kristol and his associates and has con- 

firmed that Kristol owed much of his early fame and publicity to support 

from American intelligence.37 

According to a 1986 study by Sidney Blumenthal,a Jewish-American 

reporter for The Washington Post who later became a top advisor to 

President Bill Clinton, Irving Kristol was known as “the Godfather”of 

the neo-conservative movement to whom others went seeking sinecures 

and funding. Kristol “could arrange offers from institutes and foundations 

[so lucrative] that no conservative would refuse.” 

One of Kristol’s protégés,Jude Wanniski—who has since largely bro- 

ken with the “neo-cons”—was quoted as describing Kristol as “the invis- 

ible hand”behind the neo-conservative movement.38 Blumenthal noted 

that Kristol’s power was such that it could be compared to “a circuitry of 

influence that blinks like a Christmas tree when he plugs in.”39 In fact, 

through his magazines, The National Interest and The Public Interest

Kristol has expanded his influence, not only within Republican Party 

ranks but within the public arena as a whole. 


Noting the Trotskyite origins of the “neo-conservatives,” Sidney 

Blumenthal assessed the nature of the “neo-conservative” migration 

into—some might say “invasion of—the  Republican Party, saying:“The 

neo-conservatives are the Trotskyites of Reaganism, and Kristol is a 

Trotskyite transmuted into a man of the right.”40 

All of this having been noted for the record, the fact is that today, 

William Kristol—son of neo-conservative “godfather”Irving Kristol—is 

carrying on the family’s legacy, one that reaches back to the internecine 

philosophical struggles of the Bolshevik era and the Cold War between 

the United States and the Soviet Union that followed. The younger Kristol 

is, beyond any question, in his own right, one of the most powerful opin- 

ion-makers on the face of the planet today. 


Acting as a self-appointed “conservative leader,”Kristol, whom, as 

we have noted, is publisher and editor of billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s 

Weekly Standardmagazine, has consistently called for U.S. intervention 

abroad, particularly as a means to advance the interests of the state of 

Israel—a stand congruent with Murdoch’s own known sympathies for the 

hard-line Likud bloc in Israel. (Murdoch himself is of partial Jewish 

descent, from his mother’s side, although this detail has often gone un- 

mentioned in even “mainstream”accounts citing Murdoch’s infatuation 

with the Zionist cause.) 

Over the years a variety of critics have alleged that Kristol’s sponsor, 

Murdoch, is essentially a long-time media representative—a highly-paid 

“front man”—for the combined forces of the Rothschild, Bronfman and 

Oppenheimer families who, with Murdoch, were referred to by critics as 

far back as the early 1980s as “The Billionaire Gang of Four.” 

This clique of billionaires are tied together not only by a mutual asso- 

ciation in international financial affairs but also by their Jewish heritage 

and a devotion to promoting the interests of the state of Israel. They are 

also widening their control and influence over the American media with 

Murdoch’s operations being perhaps the most public.


In fact, Kristol’s personal tentacles inside all reaches of the Bush 

administration are immense. On March 19, 2002 The Washington Post 

described Kristol’s wide-ranging and intimate ties to key White House 

insiders. Noting that one Joseph Shattan had been hired as a speechwriter 

for the president, the Postadded, pointedly: 

Shattan, who worked for Kristol when he was Vice President Dan Quayle’s 

chief of staff, will join Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully and [Vice President] 

Cheney speechwriter John McConnell, both of whom also worked under Kristol 

on the Quayle staff. Fellow Bush speechwriter Peter Wehner worked for Kristol 

when he was chief of staff to then-Education Secretary William Bennett [himself 

a protégé of Kristol’s father, Irving Kristol], while National Security Council 

speechwriter Matthew Rees worked for Kristol at The Weekly Standard.41 

In effect, many of the very persons writing the official speeches and 

public statements for not only the president and the vice president, but 

also other key foreign policy makers, owed their patronage to Kristol. 

However, the Post noted, Kristol’s influence, went beyond that. Others 

inside the Bush administration also owed their loyalty to Kristol: 

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is a Kristol acolyte from the Quayle 

days while drug control policy chief John Walters worked under Kristol at the 

Education Department. Jay Lefkowitz, the new director of Bush’s Domestic 

Policy Council, was Kristol’s lawyer. Other Kristol pals include National 

Security Council Director Elliott Abrams, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis 

“Scooter”Libby, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of 

State John Bolton and Leon Kass,the head of Bush’s bioethics panel. The tenta- 

cles reach into [Bush’s personal inner circle]:Al Hubbard, a close Bush friend, 

was Kristol’s deputy on the Quayle staff.42 

What makes all of this so particularly remarkable is that Kristol him- 

self backed Bush’s Republican primary opponent, Arizona Sen. John 

McCain,a feverish supporter of Israel,in the 2000 presidential campaign. 

As such, it might be said, Kristol—initially, perhaps, somewhat of an 

“outsider”in Bush circles—very much became an “insider”—and one 

with incredible and un-rivaled influence. 


One of Kristol’s critics noted the massive promotion that Kristol 

received in the American media,commenting as early as 1996 that Kristol 

was, “by quite some distance, the most widely quoted private citizen in 

the media [and, as a consequence] the most important strategist in the 

Republican Party.”43 

What this means, essentially, is that when the major American media 

wanted to promote a particular idea or viewpoint, newspaper reporters 

and broadcast journalists turned to Kristol for his “neo-conservative” 

point of view—often to the exclusion of better-known, more respected, 

and more knowledgeable individuals. Some say that this is no coinci- 

dence, considering what is perceived to be a strong pro-Israel bias on the 

part of the major media. 

With William Kristol acting as an articulate and forceful media func- 

tionary, the “neo-conservative” forces inside the Bush administration 

have had a powerful ally who, in turn, has extremely lucrative 

resources—and international connections of influence—supporting him. 

As such, in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, when the Bush 

administration geared up to respond to the assault on America, Kristol 

and his neo-conservative forces began rallying to broaden the U.S. 

response against the prime suspect, Islamic fundamentalist leader Osama 

bin Laden, into an all-out assault on the Arab and Muslim worlds. 

Initially, Secretary of State Colin Powell seemed to be the one well- 

known figure in the Bush administration who stood in the way of an 

American imperial policy hinging on a war against Iraq. 

Joined by the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff in urging a cautious 

approach to the crisis, Powell was being confronted inside the Bush 

administration by a tightly-knit group of hard-driving warmongers trying 

to run roughshod over the administration’s stated policy and determined 

to subvert it for their own ends. 

While Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was the Israeli 

lobby’s key point man inside the Bush administration pushing for an all- 

out assault on key Arab states such as Iraq and Syria—not to mention the 

Islamic Republic of Iran—his efforts were being ably promoted by the 

efforts of William Kristol and his “neo-conservative”political and propa- 

ganda network.


In its Sept. 24, 2001 issue, the Washington-based American Free 

Pressgave a capsule summary of Kristol’s background, noting that he is 

a member of the secretive Bilderberg group, funded jointly by the 

Rockefeller and Rothschild financial empires. Kristol is also a member of 

the Council on Foreign Relations, which is perhaps “the”elite American 

policy making group—the American affiliate of the Rothschild-funded 

London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs. 

An investigation by the American Free Press uncovered further 

details about the Kristol family’s wide-ranging contacts. With former 

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger serving on their board of directors,the 

Kristols operate a company known as National Affairs,Inc.,which issues 

two publications, The National Interest and The Public Interest

Much of their company’s funding comes from the Lynde and Harry 

Bradley Foundation,with which the younger Kristol was previously asso- 

ciated. In fact, this foundation—as we’ll see further—is known for its 

generous funding of anti-Arab and anti-Islamic propaganda causes. 

While, as noted, Irving Kristol has long been a key player inside the 

influential “neo-conservative” American Enterprise Institute, his son 

William Kristol maintained at least two other primary public relations 

outlets of his own: 

1) Empower America, co-founded by Kristol with two former 

Congressmen, Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) and Vin Weber (R-Minn.), and for- 

mer Education Secretary William Bennett—three non-Jews, incidental- 

ly—all known for their enthusiastic and loudly and often stated devotion 

to the pro-Israel cause; and 

2) Kristol’s more recent venture, the newly-formed Project for the 

New American Century, an unabashedly internationalist pressure group 

calling for the exercise of American military might abroad,particularly in 

pursuit of measures designed to advance the interests of Israel. 

Just one week after the 9-11 terrorist attack on the United States—in 

conjunction with neo-conservative Deputy Defense Secretary Paul 

Wolfowitz’s campaign inside the Bush administration to broaden the war 

against terrorism to include efforts to crush Arab and Islamic states that 

are perceived by Israel to be its enemies—William Kristol issued a call to 


arms signed by a host of foreign policy luminaries, echoing Wolfowitz. 

These luminaries, in turn, used their connections through the academic, 

media and policy-making establishments to pressure the Bush adminis- 

tration for the action Wolfowitz demanded. 


Most influential among Kristol’s collaborators who signed that letter 

is the ubiquitous Richard Perle, the former Reagan era assistant secretary 

of defense for international security policy. In fact, Perle is perhaps the 

singular driving force behind a closely-knit group (including Wolfowitz) 

whose origins in the modern-day national security establishment go back 

to the 1970s when Perle was a top aide to the late Sen. Henry M. Jackson 


Perle and one of his closest collaborators, Stephen J. Bryen, first 

appeared on the Washington scene as highly influential U.S. Senate 

staffers. Perle was a top aide to then-Sen. Jackson, chairman of the piv- 

otal Senate Armed Services Committee. Bryen was a senior aide to then- 

Sen. Clifford Case (R-N.J.), a high-ranking GOP member of the Senate 

Foreign Relations Committee. 

Both Jackson and Case were known as ardent public advocates for 

Israel. But behind the scenes, their two assistants were busy providing 

“special services”to the tiny, yet powerful, Middle East state. 

In 1970, after the National Security Council ordered a wiretap of the 

Israeli Embassy in Washington, Perle was revealed to be passing classi- 

fied information to an officer of the Israeli embassy. Although then-CIA 

Director Stansfield Turner angrily demanded that Jackson fire Perle, 

Jackson refused, lending fuel to the fire of long-standing speculation that 

the Israeli lobby had a “hold”over the veteran lawmaker. 

By 1975 Jewish-American journalist Stephen Isaacs, a writer for The 

Washington Post,was noting in his book,Jews and American Politics,that 

Perle—along with another top Jewish congressional staff member,Morris 

Amitay, who later headed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, 

or AIPAC, a top lobby for Israel—“command[ed] a tiny army of 

Semitophiles on Capitol Hill and direct Jewish power in behalf of Jewish 



But Perle’s influence reached far beyond the halls of Congress. Not 

only was he a key “inside”player on behalf of the Israeli lobby on Capitol 

Hill, but during the mid-1970s he also played a critical part in the selec- 

tion of a formal body—officially known as “Team B”—that functioned as 

a purportedly “independent”advisory council on intelligence estimates 

relating to Soviet aims and capabilities. 

In fact,the members of Team B were bound by their determination to 

make every aspect of U.S. foreign policy geared toward policies that 

would prove beneficial to Israel. 

To understand what is happening in our world today as a consequence 

of the rule of the neo-conservatives in official Washington, it is critical to 

understand the geopolitical events surrounding the history of the group 

known as Team B. 

Although Team B was debated and discussed at the highest levels, it 

was not until the late Andrew St. George, an eminent international corre- 

spondent,formerly associated with Lifemagazine,began writing about its 

history in the pages of a maverick national weekly newspaper The 

Spotlight, that the story of Team B reached a widespread audience. 

Team B emerged in the mid-1970s at which time hawkish factions in 

the Israeli government were lobbying hard in Washington for more arms 

aid and cash infusions through the U.S. foreign aid program. Loyal sup- 

porters of Israel such as Sen. Jackson argued that Israel needed more mil- 

itary might to protect the Middle East against “Soviet aggression”—an 

argument that delighted hard-line anti-communists in both political par- 

ties. Israel was playing the “Soviet card”to the utmost. 

The Israelis were arguing vehemently against détente for they feared 

that cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union could 

result in joint actions by the two super-powers that could prove inimical 

to Israeli interests. 

As such, it was in 1974 that University of Chicago Professor Albert 

Wohlstetter accused the CIA of systematically underestimating Soviet 

missile deployment. Wohlstetter—a widely known architect of U.S. 

nuclear strategy—also happened to be Richard Perle’s longtime intellec- 

tual mentor.45In fact,the relationship was even closer:growing up in Los 


Angeles, Perle was a high school friend of Wohlstetter’s daughter. 

Based largely on Wohlstetter’s opening gun, Perle and other pro- 

Israel activists on Capitol Hill and in official Washington began attacking 

the CIA and demanding additional inquiry into the CIA’s analysis of 

Soviet strength. Perle used the offices of Sen. Jackson—who was angling 

for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 1976, primarily 

financed by American Jewish backers—as the “headquarters” for the 

attack on the CIA. 

However, U.S. intelligence analysts were scoffing at Israel’s alarmist 

cries. Led by senior analysts in the Office of National Estimates, they 

reassured the White House that, at least for the moment, the Soviets had 

neither the intent nor the capability to attack a major target of vital U.S. 

interest, such as the oil-rich Gulf states. 

Nonetheless, Israel’s Washington allies maneuvered in an effort to 

counter-balance the findings of the Office of National Estimates. Under 

political pressure from Senator Jackson and other supporters of Israel, 

President Gerald Ford agreed in mid-1976 (while George Bush was serv- 

ing as CIA director) to institute a so-called “audit”of intelligence data 

provided by the CIA’s own National Intelligence Officers (soon to be 

called the “A-Team”] by a committee of “independent”experts—known 

as the “B-Team.” 

However, the newly-established and ostensibly “independent” 

group—B-Team—headed by Harvard professor Richard Pipes, a 

Russian-born devotee of the Zionist cause, became an outpost of Israeli 


(Years later Pipes’son,Daniel Pipes,would emerge as one of the neo- 

conservative network’s leading anti-Arab and anti-Muslim propagandists, 

operating a well-funded think tank, the Middle East Institute—operating 

closely with Perle. In the summer of 2003, President George W. Bush 

named the younger Pipes to the federally-sponsored U.S. Peace Institute, 

despite the widespread objections of many persons who viewed Pipes to 

be a bigoted hate-monger with a single-minded political agenda.) 

In any case,Richard Perle was largely responsible for the selection of 

the Team B membership. Paul Wolfowitz was among those selected for 

Team B because of Perle’s recommendation. Likewise with veteran diplo- 

mat Paul Nitze, among other prominent members of the team selected.

Anne Hessing Cahn, a later student of the Team B affair, has written 

that “There was an almost incestuous closeness among most of the B 

Team members,”46quoting Perle as saying, that “The Jewish neo-conser- 

vative connection sprang from that period of worries about detente and 

Israel.”47 Robert Bowie, former CIA deputy director for national intelli- 

gence, described the efforts of Team B as “a fight for the soul of the 

Republican party, for getting control of foreign policy within one branch 

of the party.”48 

In the meantime, John Paisley, recently retired from the CIA, was 

appointed by CIA Director Bush to act as the CIA’s liaison between the 

CIA’s own in-house “Team A” and the Israeli-influenced “Team B.” 

Meade Rowington, a former U.S. counterintelligence analyst quoted by 

Andrew St. George in The Spotlight on Feb. 5, 1996 noted: “It soon 

became clear to Paisley that these cosmopolitan intellectuals were simply 

trying to discredit the CIA’s recommendations and replace them with the 

alarmist view of Soviet intentions favored by Israeli estimators.”49 

By early 1978 the B-Team had finished its review of the CIA’s pro- 

cedures and programs and issued a lengthy report that was harshly criti- 

cal of almost every finding U.S. intelligence had made in previous years 

about Soviet military power and its intended uses. 

The Israeli-influenced B-Team report said that the Soviets were 

secretly developing a so-called “first-strike”capability, because Soviet 

strategic doctrine assumed that such a sneak attack would make them the 

winners of a nuclear exchange with the United States. The B-Team dis- 

missed the estimates of analysts who held that Moscow was unlikely to 

start a nuclear conflict unless attacked. In the end, of course, the B-Team 

findings prevailed and the direct consequence was that there was a virtu- 

al revival of the arms race and a massive new infusion of U.S. military and 

other aid to Israel during the 1980s. 

Drawing on what critics charged (and which proved to be) fraudulent 

estimates provided by Israeli intelligence—the foundation of the B- 

Team’s report was the warning that the Soviet Union was fast running out 

of its petroleum supplies. 

As a consequence,the B-Team forecast that beginning in 1980 Soviet 

oil production would suffer critical shortfalls, forcing Moscow to import 

as much as 4.5 million barrels a day for its essential needs. Starved for 


oil—the Israeli disinformation claimed—the Soviets would invade Iran or 

another oil-rich Gulf state even if it meant a nuclear confrontation with 

the United States. 

Although the team’s final report was secret, with access reserved for 

a handful of government leaders,John Paisley reportedly got his hands on 

a copy of the report in the summer of 1978 and set to work writing a 

detailed critique that would destroy this Israeli disinformation. But 

Paisley was murdered before he could ever complete his task. 

According to Richard Clement, who headed the Interagency 

Committee on Counter-Terrorism during the Reagan administration: “The 

Israelis had no compunction about ‘terminating’key American intelligence 

officials who threatened to blow the whistle on them. Those of us familiar 

with the case of Paisley know that he was killed by the Mossad. But no one, 

not even in Congress, wants to stand up and say so publicly.”50 

Solid evidence compiled over the years by a variety of independent 

critical researchers in and out of government—many of them Jewish, by 

the way—indicates that the Zionist intriguers on Team B did indeed exag- 

gerate Soviet imperial designs and military strategy as Paisley and other 

unbiased analysts contended. 


In the end,the behind-the-scenes Team B experiment inside the upper 

ranks of the US intelligence community laid the groundwork for the mod- 

ern-day “neo-conservative”network that ultimately assumed control of 

the Bush administration beginning in 2001. 

Writing in his scholarly (if vaguely-admiring) study of the neo-con- 

servatives—The Rise of Neoconservatism: Intellectuals and Foreign 

Affairs—John Ehrman reports that the rejuvenation of the Cold War-era 

“blue ribbon”group known as the Committee on the Present Danger was 

a direct outgrowth of the Team B process, essentially a public relations 

approach to disseminating the Team B geopolitical outlook.51 

Professor Benjamin Ginsberg notes in his history, The Fatal 

Embrace:Jews & the State, a study of the Jewish role in American polit- 

ical affairs, that veteran diplomat Paul Nitze of “Team B”fame and for- 

mer Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow were among the founders

of the new Committee, along with former Treasury Secretary Charls 

Walker who was then serving as a lobbyist for defense contracting firms 

that helped supply financing for the committee. The committee’s general 

counsel was Max Kampelman,a high-powered Washington figure known 

as a key player in the Israeli lobby. Ginsberg candidly described the 

nature of the organization: 

The Committee on the Present Danger, in effect, was  an alliance between 

cold warriors . . . who believed in the need to contain the Soviet Union . . . the 

defense industry . . . which had an obvious pecuniary interest in heightened lev- 

els of defense spending, and pro-Israel forces who had come to see high levels 

of defense spending and an interventionist U.S. foreign policy as essential to 

Israel’s survival and who hoped to make support for Israel an element of 

America’s effort to contain the Soviet Union. 

Each of these allies had a stake in asserting that Soviet expansion represent- 

ed a “clear and present danger”to the United States. For cold warriors, this was 

political gospel as well as a route through which they hoped to return to power 

in the bureaucracy. For the defense industry, this was the key to high profits. For 

the Israel lobby, opposition to the USSR was a rubric through which to justify 

the expansion of American military and economic assistance to Israel.52 

Ginsberg pointed out that during the 1980 election campaign, the members 

of the committee became active in Ronald Reagan’s presidential election effort 

and thus, the committee “became the vehicle through which the alliance of cold 

warriors, defense contractors, and pro-Israel groups became part of the Reagan 

coalition and gained access to the government.”53 

Ultimately, as noted by American historian, Richard Gid Powers, 

Reagan brought no less than sixty members of the Committee into his 

administration, including its founders, Paul Nitze and Eugene Rostow, 

who were placed in the most critical arms control positions.54 

The New York Times went so far as to assert that the Committee’s 

influence amounted to “a virtual takeover of the nation’s national securi- 

ty apparatus.”55 

At the time the Reagan administration assumed office, many of the 

same personalities involved in the activities of the Committee on the 

Present Danger established yet another “blue ribbon”committee with 

motivations parallel to the operations of the Committee on the Present 


Known as the Committee for a Free World, this new entity, founded 


by Midge Decter, wife of yet another ex-Trotskyite-turned-“neo-conser- 

vative,”Norman Podhoretz, included among its members such individu- 

als as Elliott Abrams, Gertrude Himmelfarb (wife of Irving Kristol and 

mother of William Kristol) and Michael Ledeen, all of whom, today, are 

part of the “Perle-Kristol network.”Notably, one of those who helped 

raise funds for this committee was Donald Rumsfeld, who is now prose- 

cuting the U.S. war against Iraq as Defense Secretary in the George W. 

Bush administration.56 

The bottom line of all of this, as Team B critic Anne Hessing Cahn 

put it, is that “When Ronald Reagan got elected, Team B became, in 

essence,the A Team.”57And the impact of Team B’s false estimates is still 

affecting America into the beginning of the 21st century,not only in terms 

of foreign policy, but in domestic policy as well. Ms. Cahn notes: 

For more than a third of a century, perceptions about U.S. national security 

were colored by the view that the Soviet Union was on the road to military supe- 

riority over the United States. Neither Team B nor the multibillion dollar intelli- 

gence agencies could see that the Soviet Union was dissolving from within. 

For more than a third of a century, assertions of Soviet superiority created 

calls for the United States to “rearm.”In the 1980s, the call was heeded so thor- 

oughly that the United States embarked on a trillion-dollar defense buildup. 

As a result, the country neglected its schools, cities, roads and bridges, and 

health care system. From the world’s greatest creditor nation, the United States 

became the world’s greatest debtor,in order to pay for arms to counter the threat 

of a nation that was collapsing.58 

Certainly, there is no question that the institution of Team B and its 

resulting impact on US policy laid the groundwork for the future drive for 

power that brought the neo-conservatives (who had been groomed by 

Richard Perle through the Team B process) into outright control of poli- 

cy in the George W. Bush administration beginning in 2001. 

And in those heady years of the Reagan era—and the rise of the Team 

B group—what turned out to be a pivotal event that would have immense 

future ramifications was the appointment of none other than Richard 

Perle as assistant secretary of defense for international security policy and 

Perle’s subsequent recruitment as his own deputy his close friend and for- 

mer Capitol Hill crony, Stephen J. Bryen. 

And therein lies a story in and of itself . . .


Although Perle and Bryen achieved immense power as high-level 

political appointees in the Reagan administration, their rise was nearly 

derailed by a scandal that erupted just two years prior to Reagan’s elec- 

tion to the presidency. A complete understanding of this scandal is criti- 

cal to understanding precisely how closely wed to the government of 

Israel that the Perle network truly is. 

Let us begin by noting that in the era of the Team B intrigue (the mid- 

1970s)— Perle left Senator Jackson’s staff and began engaging in the pri- 

vate arms business,setting up many lucrative deals between the Pentagon 

and Soltam, one of Israel’s premier weapons firms. 

Meanwhile, Perle’s Capitol Hill associate, Stephen J. Bryen, was 

under observation by the FBI beginning as early as 1977 when he was 

suspected of using his post as a Senate Foreign Relations Committee 

staffer to obtain classified Pentagon information, particularly related to 

Arab military matters, that the Defense Intelligence Agency suspected 

Bryen was turning over to the Israelis. 

Then, on March 9, 1978, Bryen was overheard in a private conversa- 

tion over breakfast with four Israeli intelligence officials at the coffee 

shop of the Madison Hotel in Washington. It was clear, based on the con- 

tent of his conversation, that he was providing the Israeli officials with 

high-level military information. 

What was so amazing, however, was that Bryen (an American and a 

U.S. government employee) was heard continually referring to the U.S. 

government as “they”and to use the pronoun “we”when referring to 

his—and the Israeli government’s—position. Little did Bryen know that 

an American of Arabic descent, who had been active in Arab-American 

affairs and lobbying on the Middle East issue, would recognize him 

(Bryen) and actually understand the sensitive nature of the conversation 

that Bryen was conducting with the Israeli officials. 

The Arab-American businessman, one Michael Saba, reported the 

matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In due course, a full-scale 

FBI inquiry into Bryen evolved to the point that the Justice Department 

(which oversees the FBI) assembled a 632-page file on Bryen’s activities. 

The U.S. Attorney handling the investigation,Joel Lisker (an American of 


the Jewish faith) recommended that Bryen be indicted on felony charges 

of having not only been an unregistered foreign agent for Israel but also 

of having committed espionage on behalf of Israel. 

The scandal finally broke (to a limited degree) in the American 

media, with the liberal journal, The Nation, making the allegation that 

Bryen had routinely taken orders from Zvi Rafiah, a counselor at the 

Israeli Embassy. In fact, it was ultimately learned, Rafiah was not just an 

embassy counselor. He was the U.S. station chief for the clandestine serv- 

ices division of Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad. 

Despite all this, Bryen was not indicted. Instead, Bryen was told to 

“quietly” depart from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff, 

which he did. Appropriately, Bryen promptly set up shop in Washington, 

D.C. as a publicist and lobbyist for Israel as the director of a group known 

as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).59 

Ultimately, as we have seen, when Republican Ronald Reagan was 

elected president with firm support from the neo-conservative Jewish 

network, Perle and Bryen moved back into the upper ranks of the U.S. 

government policy making establishment—despite the scandal. 

Perle was named Assistant Secretary of Defense for International 

Security Policy and quickly moved to bring in Bryen as his deputy for 

international economic trade and security policy. However, Perle became 

quite controversial for his own involvement with Israeli defense interests. 

On April 17,1983 The New York Timespublished a major story point- 

ing out that there were ethics questions surrounding Perle’s work for 

Zoltam,the major Israeli defense firm. Precisely at the time Perle entered 

the Defense Department he had accepted a $50,000 fee from Shlomo 

Zabludowitz, the founder of Zoltam, for work that he had done on behalf 

of the firm. Then, nearly a year later, while serving in the Defense 

Department, he urged the Secretary of the U.S. Army to consider doing 

business with Zabludowitz. Questions were raised as to whether this was 

a violation of U.S. laws governing the ethics of public officials, but Perle 

essentially escaped censure. 

Ironically, similar ethics questions were raised about Perle’s private 

business dealings in the days leading up to—and immediately after—the 

launch of the U.S. war against Iraq in March of 2003—some 20 years 

later. However,neither in 2003 (nor as previously) were serious questions

raised about the more inflammatory accusationsinvolving possible espi- 

onage by Perle and his friend and colleague Bryen on behalf of Israel. 

In any event, Perle and Bryen became influential during the Reagan 

administration. In 1984, Business Weekmagazine noted of Perle: “To 

ensure that his views prevail,Perle has built up a powerful backstage net- 

work of allies in Washington.”60By 1986 The Washington Postwas quot- 

ing a senior U.S. State Department official as saying that Perle was “the 

most powerful man in the Pentagon”61—even more powerful than his 

actual superior, then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. 

This, however, did not prevent independent newspapers such as the 

aforementioned Spotlight, whose investigative journalist Andrew St. 

George pioneered coverage of the Bryen affair, from attempting to bring 

the matter to widespread public attention, assisted by the Arab-American 

businessman, Michael Saba, who had first seen and overheard Bryen’s 

leak of classified information to the Israeli agents. 

Nor did it prevent Saba and Arab-American organizations from con- 

tinuing to lobby for a full-force inquiry into both the Bryen affair itself 

and the shadowy circumstances that led to the shelving of the Justice 

Department’s intended prosecution of Bryen. Although Saba published a 

detailed book outlining the activities of Perle and Bryen, entitled The 

Armageddon Network, the Reagan administration (under pressure from 

the Israeli lobby) refused to “come clean”and investigate the Bryen affair 

In fact, the stench surrounding the matter became so putrid that even 

a “mainstream”newspaper such as The Boston Globewas moved to assert 

editorially on Aug. 28,1986:“Stopping espionage,maintaining a balance 

in relationships with Israel and its Arab neighbors, and avoiding even a 

hint of Israeli interference in formulation of US policy are all crucial to 

American interests in the Middle East. The Bryen case, which raised 

doubts on all counts, needs to be cleaned up.”62In recent years, virtually 

the only major publication to even recall the Bryen affair is the 

Washington, DC-based American Free Press



So it was that Perle and Bryen remained influential—and unbridled— 

during their years in the Defense Department under Republican Ronald 

Reagan. Yet, interestingly, during that period, despite their much per- 

ceived hard-line “anti-communism,”Perle and Bryen emerged as perhaps 

the two chief promoters of Israel’s lucrative (but largely little known) 

arms exports to communist China. 

On Jan. 25, 1985, the very pro-Israel Washington Timesreported that 

“Perle,the [Reagan] administration official most responsible for trying to 

deny US weapons technology to [Soviet-bloc] communist countries is 

said to favor the Israel-China arms link. Also said to favor the traffic is 

Stephen Bryen . . .” 

To many American conservatives—traditional anti-communists—this 

was significant,particularly in light of Perle’s reputation as an “anti-com- 

munist.”However, on May 21, 1984, Business Weekmagazine reported 

that a congressional aide had said of Perle:“He’s not a virulent anti-com- 

munist; he is a virulent anti-Soviet.” 

At the time,Perle’s critics found significance in this comment,noting 

that, indeed, many of the “neo-conservatives”were, in fact, ostensibly 

“reformed” Trotskyites and that, perhaps, the “neo-conservative” war 

against the Soviet Union was hardly more than a continuation of an ide- 

ological battle that had begun between Josef Stalin and his chief rival, 

Leon Trotsky, and which continued to rage between their followers, even 

after Stalin and Trotsky were no longer alive. 

It may not be a coincidence that former Republican Vice President 

Nelson Rockefeller once created a stir by actually calling Perle a “com- 

munist.”63As cynics noted, although Rockefeller apologized, the outspo- 

ken and well-informed billionaire may have known something that most 

people did not. 


During the succeeding years, as Perle and Bryen continued to remain 

active in pro-Israel circles in Washington, their power and influence was 

heralded in The Wall Street Journal in an article entitled, “Roles of Ex- 

Pentagon Officials at Jewish Group Show Clout of Cold-Warrior, Pro-

Israel Network.”The article described what the Journalcalled a “tight lit- 

tle circle [that] illustrated an enduring network of Cold War conservatives 

and pro-Israel interests in Washington.”Although the Cold War was over, 

the Journal noted, “their political and governmental ties are a source of 

influence for pro-Israeli forces.”64 

The article related the activities of the group known as the Jewish 

Institute for National Security Affairs (or JINSA), which Perle’s associ- 

ate, Stephen Bryen, founded just prior to serving under Perle in the 

Reagan administration. (During Bryen’s government hiatus, JINSA was 

run by Bryen’s wife Shoshana). Describing JINSA’s influence, the 


With little fanfare, JINSA itself has carved out a niche by both cultivating 

closer U.S.-Israeli military ties and urging U.S. Jews to vote for a strong defense 

at home. Building support in the Pentagon is a high priority. Under a program 

called “Send a General to Israel,” hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax- 

deductible contributions bankroll an annual tour of Israel by retired U.S. gener- 

als and admirals. They exchange views with Israeli officials and tour strategic 

areas like the Golan Heights.”65 

Not by coincidence JINSA today (as noted earlier)is one of the prime 

movers in the “neo-conservative”circles governing policy in the Bush 

administration. Not only Vice President Dick Cheney, but Deputy Under 

Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith were associated—as we have seen— 

with JINSA prior to assuming office. 

And this brings our discussion of the early years of the neo-conser- 

vative movement full circle, up to the events that occurred between Sept. 

11, 2001 and the opening guns of the war against Iraq. 

With his longtime friend Paul Wolfowitz working inside the Bush 

administration, promoting all-out war against Israel’s perceived enemies, 

Perle joined William Kristol in assembling what amounts to a second- 

generation version of “Team B”that is nothing less than a “War Party.” 

In the wake of the 9-11 attacks,Perle and Kristol hammered out a let- 

ter to the president echoing Wolfowitz’call for all-out war against Iraq, 

Iran and Syria, not to mention the Palestinian Hezbollah. To supplement 

their effort, they called upon a bevy of “neo-conservative”operatives— 

along with a handful of “liberals”—to join them in signing the letter. 



Although the list of signers is bipartisan and includes a number of 

persons identified with the “liberal”philosophy, the one thread of consis- 

tency is that, candidly, while most of persons on the list happen to be 

Jewish, those who are not have still been long-standing and enthusiastic 

members of what traditional American conservative Pat Buchanan,a crit- 

ic of the neo-conservatives, called “Israel’s Amen Corner” in official 


All of the signers, likewise, have longstanding and intimate connec- 

tions to the Kristol family network and their allies in the sphere of influ- 

ence surrounding Richard Perle from the old “Team B”days of the 1970s. 

They are indeed the “war party.”What follows is a virtual “who’s who” 

of the imperial war party. 

Gary Bauer.Another longtime satellite of Irving Kristol and his son 

William (with whom he shared an interest in a vacation condominium), 

Bauer has been a strong and unswerving advocate for Israel inside the 

American “Christian Right” movement through his leadership of the 

Family Research Council. 

William J. Bennett. Bennett’s entire career in official Washington 

has come with the patronage of the Kristol family, ranging from his post 

as chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and then as 

secretary of education under President Ronald Reagan and as “drug czar” 

under President George H. W. Bush. Bennett is a co-director of a Kristol- 

sponsored “think tank”known as Empower America,founded in 1991. In 

return for Irving Kristol’s sponsorship, Bennett gave William Kristol his 

first high-level job in government, naming him chief of staff at the U.S. 

Department of Education.   

Eliot Cohen.The director of the Center for Strategic Education at the 

[Paul] Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)—of which 

former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz served as dean, prior 

to his return to the Defense Department—Cohen is the author of a new 

book devoted to the subject of “Israel’s security revolution.” 

Midge Decter. The wife of Council on Foreign Relations figure 

Norman Podhoretz [see below] and a widely-promoted media figure in 

her own right, Decter is the mother of John Podhoretz who has been a

deputy editor of The Weekly Standard, of which William Kristol is editor 

and publisher. 

Thomas Donnelly. The deputy director of William Kristol’s Project 

for the New American Century, and a former executive editor of The 

National Interest, a “neo-conservative” journal founded by Kristol’s 

father, Irving Kristol, Donnelly is a veteran military correspondent who 

was trained at the Johns Hopkins’University’s SAIS,where (as noted pre- 

viously)Paul Wolfowitz served as dean prior to returning to the Defense 


Hillel Fradkin. An outspoken Zionist who is a “resident fellow”at 

the American Enterprise Institute and an adjunct professor of government 

at Georgetown University, Fradkin is the Washington director of the 

Israeli-based Shalem Center which describes itself as a “research institute 

for Jewish and Israeli social thought.”Fradkin has also served as a vice 

president of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a “conservative” 

foundation which has provided millions of dollars in funding to myriad 

pro-Israel (and anti-Arab and anti-Islamic) groups and projects. Of 

course,it is no coincidence that,in earlier years,William Kristol had been 

associated with this foundation and continues to be a major player in 

directing its affairs. 

Frank Gaffney.A major player in the Perle-Kristol sphere, Gaffney 

is the “hawkish”director of the Center for Security Policy—a Washington 

think tank known for what has been described as support for “extreme 

right-wing Israeli causes,”and which includes Richard Perle on its board 

of advisors. Gaffney himself worked alongside Perle on the staff of Sen. 

Henry M. Jackson when Perle was active in establishing “Team B”and 

operating as an asset in place for Israel. Gaffney’s board of directors also 

includes former American-Israel Public Affairs Committee director 

Morris Amitay, as well as former Navy Secretary John Lehman [see 

below]. Gaffney’s CSP receives funding from the Irving I. Moskowitz 

Foundation which has supported real estate takeovers in Israel associated 

with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and from the aforementioned 

Kristol-influenced Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Gaffney spe- 

cializes in training pro-Israel interns for insertion into public policy-mak- 

ing posts in government and providing pro-Israel-oriented propaganda for 

distribution in Republican and “conservative”circles. Gaffney is a wide- 


ly-quoted columnist who writes for the “neo-conservative”Washington 


Reuel Marc Gerecht. A former Middle Eastern specialist in the 

CIA’s directorate of operations (“black ops”) division, Gerecht’s writing 

is featured in Kristol-associated publications such as The Weekly Stan- 

dard. He is protégé of Richard Perle. 

Michael Joyce. Little known to the general public, Joyce, yet anoth- 

er protege of Irving Kristol, is a former school teacher who has risen to 

power through his involvement with a number of well-heeled foundations 

known for sponsoring pro-Israel causes,including the Olin Foundation— 

funded by chemical and munitions interests—which has sponsored anti- 

Islamic propaganda by writer Steven Emerson (a widely-cited “authority” 

on “Islamic terrorism”and the (again, aforementioned) Lynde and Harry 

Bradley Foundation, of which he (Joyce) was the longtime director. The 

Bradley Foundation has been a major font of funding for National Affairs, 

Inc., the Kristol family-associated enterprise that publishes The National 

Interestand The Public Interestmagazines. 

Donald Kagan.A widely-published historian with an interest in the 

history of warfare and an advocate—like William Kristol—of flexing 

American military power worldwide,Kagan is a professor of classics and 

history at Yale University. 

Robert Kagan. The son of Donald Kagan, mentioned above, he is 

director of William Kristol’s Project for the New American Century, a 

senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and 

also a contributing editor of Kristol’s Weekly Standardand writes a regu- 

lar monthly column for the Washington Post where he consistently touts 

a staunch pro-Israel line and advocates U.S. meddling abroad. (Robert 

Kagan’s brother,Frederick Kagan,has also emerged as a leading figure in 

the neo-conservative power network as well.) 

Charles Krauthammer.A well-known television “talking head”and 

nationally-syndicated newspaper columnist, Krauthammer, who was 

trained as a psychiatrist, seems obsessed with devoting all of his waking 

hours writing and talking about the need for the United States to devote 

its energies to the preservation of Israel and the destruction of Israel’s 

enemies. His venom for critics of Israel is perhaps unmatched. 

John Lehman.A former National Security Council (NSC) advisor to

then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Lehman went on to serve as 

Navy Secretary during the Reagan administration and as deputy director 

of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency where he was close- 

ly associated with the intimate pro-Israel circles surrounding Paul 

Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. British journalist Claudia Wright notes that 

before he became Navy Secretary Lehman “was well-known in Israeli 

military circles, sat on the board of a Philadelphia think tank run by 

American supporters of Israel, and operated a highly profitable defense 

consulting company with business ties to the Israeli arms industry.”Along 

with Perle, and other Kristol family cronies previously mentioned, 

Lehman is a member of the board of advisors of the Center for Security 

Policy [See Frank Gaffney, above]. 

Martin Peretz. The stridently pro-Israel publisher of the “liberal” 

New Republic, Peretz declared in the Sept. 24 edition of his magazine 

that, in the wake of the terrorist attacks on 9-11 that “we are all Israelis 

now.” Very much an ally of the neo-conservatives, Peretz  has long been 

recognized as a key figure in a network of top-level publishers and media 

figures allied with one goal in mind:promoting the cause of Israel. 

Norman Podhoretz.A Council on Foreign Relations member and a 

key figure in the influential New York chapter of the American Jewish 

Committee and its “liberal-turned-conservative”Commentarymagazine, 

Podhoretz is another “ex-Trotskyite”who emerged as one of the leaders 

of the pro-Israel neo-conservative crowd in association with Irving 

Kristol. His son, John Podhoretz, was a colleague of William Kristol as 

deputy editor of the Rupert Murdoch-financed Weekly Standard

Stephen J. Solarz. A former longtime member of the House of 

Representatives where he was a major legislative legman for the interests 

of Israel,Solarz is now a high-powered international consultant. While in 

Congress,Solarz played a major role (in league with Paul Wolfowitz,then 

serving in the Reagan administration) in the overthrow of former 

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos when the Asian leader attempted 

to assert his nation’s sovereignty. 

Vin Weber.A former member of the House of Representatives where 

he was an energetic (non-Jewish) supporter of Israel, Weber was a co- 

founder of William Kristol’s Empower America and in the 2000 presi- 

dential campaign was a top advisor to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). While 


in the House, Weber helped sabotage an effort to force a congressional 

investigation of Israel’s terroristic 1967 attack on the U.S.S. Libertywhich 

resulted in the murder of 34 American sailors and the maiming of 172 

others. Weber is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. 

Marshall Wittmann.Although he is Jewish,Wittman was the direc- 

tor of legislative affairs for the pro-Israel Christian Coalition. Wittmann’s 

advocacy of “National Greatness Conservatism”—that is U.S. meddling 

overseas and the flexing of U.S. military might on Israel’s behalf—has 

been promoted in the pages of William Kristol’s Weekly Standard

While this is a representative overview of many of the people in the 

Perle-Kristol network, it is by no means complete. But it does illustrate 

the amazing power and influence that Kristol and his associates—The 

High Priests of War—have assembled. 

Kristol’s magazine, The Weekly Standard, is the officially recognized 

media voice for this combine, to the point that although its actual circu- 

lation is quite small Kristol’s magazine is generally recognized by most 

other major media as certainly one of the most influential publications in 

America—bar none. 


It was not so extraordinary then, that, on March 17, 2003—the day 

before the United States launched the war against Iraq, Kristol was able 

to brag in a signed editorial in The Weekly Standardthat “obviously, we 

are gratified that the Iraq strategy we have long advocated . . . has become 

the policy of the U.S. government.”66 

Just one day later, on March 18, as the war began, The Washington 

Post reminded its readers how influential Kristol was, noting that the 

Post’s columnist, Richard Cohen, had once declared the looming conflict 

to be “Kristol’s War.”The Post wrote of Kristol that with U.S. forces on 

the verge of bombing Baghdad, “this would seem to be Kristol’s 


For the beleaguered people of Iraq and for the American and British 

soldiers who died in pursuit of the neo-conservative war aims—and for 

the American taxpayers, who must pay the bills—it was not their 

moment, however much Kristol and company may have rejoiced.


We have seen how this new form of “conservative imperialism”with 

roots in the ranks of an elite group of “former”Trotskyite leftists—who 

have transformed into Republican “neo-conservatives”—has taken hold 

of the reins of power at the highest ranks of the administration of 

President George W. Bush. This conservative imperialism is the founda- 

tion upon which the current war against Iraq is based and upon which 

future imperial American wars in the Middle East and elsewhere are like- 

wise hinged. 

It is these neo-conservatives who support a modern-day brand of impe- 

rialism—the concept of U.S. interventionism and meddling abroad. The 

ongoing war against Iraq is the culmination of a long-standing drive by the 

neo-conservatives who view the war as the first step in a long-ranging plan 

to not only “remake the Arab world,”but also to establish the United States 

as the sole world power, unquestioned in military and economic might. 

This political philosophy—“neo-conservatism”—has virtually re- 

written, even supplanted, the traditional “conservative” point of view 

exemplified by Republican nationalists such as the late Sen. Robert A. 

Taft, a leading figure in American political affairs during the mid-20th 

century. Taft and others who shared his views did not believe it was the 

duty of America to play “world policeman.”Taft and his like-minded col- 

leagues believed that America’s first duty was to attend to the needs of its 

own people and not meddle in the affairs of other nations. 

The very “liberal”Democratic Party-oriented Washington Post—per- 

haps America’s most powerful daily newspaper—was never fond of the 

conservative “America First”viewpoint of Taft and his political heirs. 

However, in the past decade, as the so-called “neo-conservative”ele- 

ment began to infiltrate and,ultimately,take control of the American con- 

servative movement and the upper ranks of the Republican Party,increas- 

ingly advocating an aggressive internationalist worldview, the Postbegan 

to trumpet the so-called “neo-conservatives.” 

On Aug. 21,2001 the Postfeatured an article entitled,“Empire or Not? 

A quiet debate over U.S. role”which it billed as one in a series of occasional 

articles focusing on “Ideas from the Right.”The article—which was evi- 

dently a good publicity boost for the “neo-cons”— opened by commenting: 


People who label the United States “imperialist”usually mean it as an insult. 

But in recent years a handful of conservative defense intellectuals have begun to 

argue that the United States is indeed acting in an imperialist fashion—and that 

it should embrace the role.68 

The Post said that this is idea of enforcing a new “Pax Americana” 

was part of a “vigorous, expansionistic Reaganite foreign policy”that 

makes the United States,in the Post’s words,“an empire of democracy or 

liberty.”Under this new form of imperialism,the United States is not con- 

quering land or establishing colonies in the style of the old British and 

Roman empires, but instead “has a dominating global presence military, 

economically and culturally.”69 

The Postnoted, as an example, that one of the foremost advocates of 

this new imperialism was Thomas Donnelly, deputy executive director of 

the Project for the New American Century, the Washington think tank 

founded by William Kristol. 


Ironically, during the earlier administration of George H. W. Bush— 

father of the current American president—the hard-line neo-conservative 

forces tried, but failed, to enunciate the very policies of imperial power 

now being pursued by the younger Bush. 

After the first President Bush decided to withdraw from Iraq during 

the first war in the Arabian Gulf, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney 

(now vice president) circulated the draft of a document, prepared under 

the direction of neo-conservative Paul Wolfowitz, which advocated 

American global unilateralism, abandoning traditional American 


Notably, the proposal suggested the United States should consider 

pre-emptive force of the very type ultimately used against Iraq in 2003. 

However, when the document was leaked to the press, the senior 

President Bush, in the words of American author Michael Lind, “quickly 

distanced [himself and his administration] from the radicalism of the 

Cheney-Wolfowitz report.”70 

That Cheney should have been so enamored with the neo-conserva- 

tive position surprised no one. For some years Cheney had been associat-

ed with the Richard Perle-connected lobby for Israel known as the Jewish 

Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), founded by Perle’s long- 

time friend Stephen Bryen who had been investigated for espionage on 

behalf of Israel. (That JINSAlink is ubiquitous. It won’t go away!) 

It was not until the advent of the second Bush administration—under 

George W. Bush—that the neo-conservatives finally won the day and 

their drive for an imperial policy, centered on the proposed assault on 

Iraq, finally achieved success. 

In fact, by the time that the American war against Iraq finally erupt- 

ed in March of 2003,the “quiet”debate over imperialism described by the 

WashingtonPostwas no longer quiet. 

Leading the side of the debate favoring American imperialism was 

William Kristol, along with allies inside the Bush administration such as 

Paul Wolfowitz,now the number two man in the Defense Department,his 

deputy, Douglas Feith, and others, all of whom were actively supported 

by Richard Perle,by this point ensconced as chairman of the Bush admin- 

istration’s Defense Policy Board. 

So it was that once the long-promoted war against Iraq was already 

under way the concept of “American Empire”was very much the subject 

of public discussion in the American elite media and in many intellectual 

journals. As Jeet Heer pointed out in The Boston Globeon March 23, 

2003, just days after the first American assault on Iraq: 

Since the Sept. 11 attacks . . .  many foreign policy pundits,mostly from the 

Republican right but also including some liberal internationalists, have revisited 

the idea of empire. 

“America is the most magnanimous imperial power ever,’’declared Dinesh 

D’Souza in The Christian Science Monitorin 2002. “Afghanistan and other trou- 

bled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once 

provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets,’’argued 

Max Boot in a 2001 article for The Weekly Standardtitled “The Case for 

American Empire.’’ 

In The Wall Street Journal, historian Paul Johnson asserted that the “answer 

to terrorism’’is “colonialism.’’Columnist Mark Steyn, writing in The Chicago 

Sun-Times, has contended that “imperialism is the answer.’’ 

“People are now coming out of the closet on the word ‘empire’,’’ noted 

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer. “The fact is no country has 

been as dominant culturally, economically, technologically and militarily in the 

history of world since the Roman Empire.’’71 


In fact, of all of the above-mentioned writers—D’Souza, Boot, John- 

son, Steyn and Krauthammer—are among the energetic clique of media 

analysts promoting the neo-conservative worldview. 


However, there does remain opposition to the imperial philosophy of 

the “neo-conservative”network. 

Perhaps the foremost nationally-known critic of the neo-conserva- 

tives is columnist Pat Buchanan who raised the banner of American 

nationalism (as opposed to internationalism and imperialism) in his pres- 

idential campaign on the Reform Party ticket in 2000. Buchanan, a life- 

long Republican, went to the Reform Party after realizing that his effort 

to restore traditional nationalism to the Republican Party was going 

nowhere. Buchanan’s book,A Republic,Not an Empire,was a clarion call 

for grass-roots opposition to the drive for a “Pax Americana.” 

As such, after the drive for war against Iraq took hold in official pol- 

icy making circles in the Bush administration, Buchanan offered the 

pages of his newly-established American Conservativemagazine to enun- 

ciate the dangers in the new imperialism being propounded by the “neo- 


One particular exposition appearing in Buchanan’s magazine,written 

by Andrew Bacevich,a retired American army colonel who is a professor 

of international relations at Boston University,is probably among the best 

and most succinct specific analyses of what the new American imperial- 

ism constitutes: 

All but lost amidst the heated talk of regime change in Baghdad, the White 

House in late September [2002] issued the Bush administration’s U.S. National 

Security Strategy

The Bush USNSS offers the most comprehensive statement to date of 

America’s globe-straddling post-Cold War ambitions. In it, the administration 

makes plain both its intention to perpetuate American military supremacy and its 

willingness—almost approaching eagerness—to use force to reshape the inter- 

national order. 

This new strategy places the approaching showdown with Saddam Hussein 

in a far wider context, showing that overthrowing the Iraqi dictator is only the 

next step in a massive project,pursued under the guise of the “war on terror,”but 

aimed ultimately at remaking the world in our image.

Hence, the second major theme of the new U.S. National Security 

Strategy—a candid acknowledgment and endorsement of the progressively 

greater militarization of U.S. foreign policy. 

To state the point bluntly, the Bush administration no longer views force as 

the last resort; rather, it considers military power to be America’s most effective 

instrument of statecraft—the area in which the United States owns the greatest 


Beginning with the premise that “our best defense is a good offense,”the 

USNSS describes how President Bush intends to exploit that advantage to the 


He will do so in two ways. First,he will expand U.S. global power projection 

capabilities. Already spending roughly as much on defense as the entire rest of the 

world combined, the United States will spend still more—much, much more. 

The purpose of this increase is not to respond to any proximate threat. 

Rather, the Bush administration is boosting the Pentagon’s budget with an eye 

toward achieving a margin of such unprecedented and unsurpassed superiority 

that no would-be adversary will even consider mounting a future challenge. The 

United States will thereby secure in perpetuity its status as sole superpower. Old 

concerns about the “clashing wills of powerful states”will disappear; henceforth, 

a single power will call the tune. 

Second, with the USNSS codifying the concept of “anticipatory self- 

defense,”President Bush claims for the United States the prerogative of using 

force preemptively and unilaterally, however its interests may dictate. (That pre- 

rogative belongs exclusively to the United States: the Bush strategy pointedly 

warns other nations not to “use preemption as a pretext for aggression.”) In con- 

trast to his predecessor’s reactive, half-hearted military adventures, Bush will 

employ America’s armed might proactively and on a scale sufficient to achieve 

rapid, decisive results. The prospect of ever greater U.S. military activism— 

against terrorists, against rogue states, against evildoers of whatever stripe— 


Nowhere does the Bush administration’s national security strategy pause to 

consider whether the nation’s means are adequate to the “great mission”to which 

destiny has ostensibly summoned the United States. Asserting that American 

global hegemony is necessarily benign and that Washington can be counted on 

to use the Bush Doctrine of preemption judiciously,nowhere does it contemplate 

the possibility that others might take a contrary view. 

In truth, whatever their party affiliation or ideological disposition, members 

of the so-called foreign policy elite cannot conceive of an alternative to “global 

leadership”—the preferred euphemism for global empire.72 

Although coming from a traditional “conservative”—as opposed to 

the “neo-conservative” viewpoint—Bacevich does not stand alone in 


these concerns. In fact,even liberal American writers have expressed sim- 

ilar fears of the new drive for an American empire. 

Writing in the progressive journal, Mother Jones, author Todd Gitlin 

echoed much of what Bacevich expressed. Gitlin referred likewise to the 

new Bush administration policy document and declared: 

The document is meant not so much to be read as to be brandished. This is inter- 

nationalism imperial-style—as in Rome, when Rome ruled. Its scope is breath-tak- 

ing. There were large parts of the world that Rome couldn’t reach,but the Bush doc- 

trine recognizes no limits. 

It will know when threats are emerging,partly formed,and it will not have to say 

how it knows, or be convincing about what it knows. The doctrine affirms all of the 

comforts and recognizes none of the dangers of empire. 

It ignores the costs of unbounded deployment and war. It acknowledges no dan- 

ger that reckless swashbuckling helps recruit terrorists. It forgets that all empires 

fall—they cost too much, incite too many enemies, they inspire contrary empires. 

The new imperialists think they are different. All empires do.73 

Gitlin concluded (correctly) that the American government is “hell- 

bent on empire and has said so in black and white.”74 


Despite these criticisms, very powerful interests in the American 

political arena were very much pleased by the new imperialism being pur- 

sued by the Bush administration. Exemplifying this support was a notable 

essay by Norman Podhoretz appearing in the Sept. 2002 issue of 

Commentary magazine, the influential neo-conservative journal pub- 

lished by the influential New York chapter of the American Jewish 

Committee, one of the leading Zionist organizations on American soil. 

Podhoretz, as we have seen, was one of the “founding fathers”in the 

establishment of the neo-conservative network that ultimately assumed 

supreme power in the ruling councils inside the Bush administration. An 

early protégé of William Kristol’s father, Irving Kristol, “godfather”of 

the neo-conservatives, Podhoretz remains today a highly regarded senior 

figure in the neo-conservative movement. 

As such, Podhoretz’ assessment of the new policies is of special 

interest, particularly since Podhoretz freely acknowledges that the ulti-

mate aim of the Bush policy, if carried to its utmost, would be the subju- 

gation of the Arab Middle East as we know it today. 

In his essay,Podhoretz asserted,in a somewhat mystical fashion,that 

following the Sept. 11 terrorist tragedy that rocked America, “a kind of 

revelation, blazing with a very different fire of its own, lit up the recess- 

es of Bush’s mind and heart and soul. 

“Which is to say,”added Podhoretz, “that having previously been 

unsure as to why he should have been chosen to become President of the 

United States, George W. Bush now knewthat the God to whom, as a 

born-again Christian,he had earlier committed himself had put him in the 

Oval Office for a purpose. He had put him there to lead a war against the 

evil of terrorism.”75 

Thus, Podhoretz seemed to suggest that Bush was driven toward his 

course of imperialism and war against the Arab world by his Christian 

fundamentalist point of view. (And Podhoretz is probably right!) 

Podhoretz then commented that Bush’s first major address on Sept. 

20, following the terrorist attacks, “may well have been the greatest pres- 

idential speech of our age,”adding pointedly that Bush was actually aban- 

doning even his own father’s point of view. 

“It was here,”said Podhoretz, “that Bush’s conversion from a con- 

ventional ‘realist’in the mold of his father to a democratic ‘idealist’of the 

Reaganite stamp was announced to the world.”76 

Declaring his support for the new Bush agenda, Podhoretz hailed the 

ultimate consequences of this policy as Podhoretz and his fellow neo-con- 

servatives see it: 

The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not con- 

fined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil [that is, Iraq, Iran and 

North Korea]. 

At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as 

well as “friends”of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni 

Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one 

of his henchmen. 

There is no denying that the alternative to these regimes could easily turn out 

to be worse,even (or especially) if it comes into power through democratic elec- 

tions. After all, by every measure we possess, very large numbers of people in 

the Muslim world sympathize with Osama bin Laden and would vote for radical 

Islamic candidates of his stripe if they were given the chance. 


To dismiss this possibility would be the height of naiveté. Nevertheless,there 

is a policy that can head it off,provided that the United States has the will to fight 

World War IV—the war against militant Islam—to a successful conclusion, and 

provided,too,that we then have the stomach to impose a new political culture on 

the defeated parties. 

This is what we did directly and unapologetically in Germany and Japan 

after winning World War II . . . There was a song that became popular in America 

during World War II:“We did it before, and we can do it again.”What I am try- 

ing to say to the skeptics and the defeatists of today is that yes indeed we did it 

before; and yes indeed we can do it again.77 

That these are aggressive and war-like words and presumptions is 

obvious. But the fact is that these words represent a point of view that has 

reached supreme influence at the highest levels of the administration that 

governs the most powerful nation on the face of the planet. 


However, the American military leadership did not agree with the 

neo-conservatives that an invasion of Iraq would either result in a mass 

uprising by the Iraqi people against Saddam (in alliance with U.S. forces) 

or that the rest of the Arab world would sit back with satisfaction. Nor did 

the American military even want to fight the war in the first place. The 

military leaders saw no need for the United States to enter into conflict 

with Iraq, viewing such a war as contrary to American national interests. 

The idea that the American military leadership somehow favored the 

war with Iraq was a myth that was widely being propagated by the neo- 

conservative pro-Israel propaganda network in official Washington with 

the active support of the pro-Israel elements in the American media. 

Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, major media head- 

lines and talking-heads on the broadcast networks in the United States 

repeatedly and relentlessly reported that “the Pentagon”was gearing up 

for a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq—this despite the fact there was no genuine 

evidence of any Iraqi instigation or involvement in the attacks whatsoev- 

er. (And no such evidence has emerged to this day.) 

In any event, in the average American’s perception, the idea that the 

war was being promoted by “the Pentagon”conjured up popular images 

of much-admired,heroic,battle-tested medal-laden generals and admirals 

chomping at the bit to “get Saddam.”

There was just one big problem with the reports in the American 

media. The truth was that the career military men inside the Pentagon did- 

n’t think an invasion of Iraq was feasible or necessary. They saw it as a 

potential disaster for the United States that could ultimately align the 

United States (standing alone with Israel) against the entire Arab and 

Muslim world.    In fact, precisely because of the military’s opposition to 

the war against Iraq, the neo-conservative pro-Israel network at the high- 

est levels of the Bush administration began laying the insidious ground- 

work to oust American military leaders who opposed U.S. involvement in 

a war against Iraq. That little-noticed fact was buried in a lengthy report 

published in The Washington Post on August 1, 2002. According to Post 

writer Thomas E. Ricks: 

At a July 10 meeting of the Defense Policy Board, a Pentagon advisory 

group,one of the subjects discussed was how to overcome the military reluctance 

to plan innovatively for an attack on Iraq. 

“What was discussed was the problem with the services,”said one defense 

expert who participated in the meeting. His conclusion:“You have to have a few 

heads roll, especially in the Army.”78 

It is no coincidence that the Defense Policy Board (DPB) would be 

the point of origin of a plan to make “heads roll”inside the military. 

Although ostensibly “independent,”the DPB was dominated at the time 

(and basically remains so)by Richard Perle who—although he never 

served in the U.S. military—made a fortune in armaments profiteering on 

behalf of Israel’s military-industrial complex and has spent years pro- 

moting U.S. military engagements to defend the interests of Israel. 

Regarding the ongoing conflict between the civilian pro-Israel neo- 

conservatives and the military leadership,the Poststated flatly on July 28, 

2002 that: 

Despite President Bush’s repeated bellicose statements about Iraq, many 

senior U.S. military officials contend that President Saddam Hussein poses no 

immediate threat and that the United States should continue its policy of con- 

tainment rather than invade Iraq to force a change of leadership in Baghdad. 

The military’s support of containment, and its concern about the possible 

negative consequences of attacking Iraq,are shared by senior officials at the State 

Department and the CIA, according to people familiar with interagency discus- 



However, the Post pointed out: “High level civilians in the White 

House and Pentagon vehemently disagree.”Those un-named “high-level” 

civilians were the neo-conservative warhawks such as Perle and his long- 

time associate and closest ally inside the Bush administration, Deputy 

Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and his lieutenant, Douglas Feith. 

The Washington Post also reported that while “active duty members 

of the military have not publicly questioned the direction of Bush’s Iraq 

policy [in] private some are very doubtful about it.”The Postadded: 

Retired officers and experts who stay in touch with the top brass, and are 

free to say what those on active duty cannot, are more outspoken in supporting 

the containment policy and questioning the administration’s apparent determi- 

nation to abandon it.80 

Secretary of State Colin Powell—who served two tours of combat 

duty in Vietnam—was, in fact, initially aligned with the military brass in 

opposition to the Iraq war. Quite notably, General Tommy Franks—who 

ultimately led the American war against Iraq—also opposed the war. 

Even the June 2002 issue of The Washington Monthly—an eminently 

“mainstream”liberal journal—featured a cover story about the “get Iraq” 

group and acknowledged frankly who they are:most of those in question, 

the magazine admitted, are “Jewish, passionately pro-Israel, and pro- 

Likud.”81 The magazine noted that the neo-conservative “hawks” are 

“united by a shared idea:that America should be unafraid to use its mili- 

tary power early and often to advance its interests and values.”82 

However, as Washington Monthlyaffirmed, this sabre-rattling philos- 

ophy “is an idea that infuriates most members of the national security 

establishment at the Pentagon, State, and the CIA, who believe that 

America’s military force should be used rarely and only as a last resort, 

preferably in concert with allies.”83 

Yet, this war-driven and aggressive minority of sabre-rattlers has 

risen to supreme heights of power within official Washington and they are 

now making their influence felt. 

In fact, as the drive for war intensified, the pro-Israel “palace guard” 

led by Paul Wolfowitz and surrounding Defense Secretary Donald 

Rumsfeld was trying to re-make the Pentagon, moving against America’s 

top military officials who objected to fighting unnecessary imperial wars

around the globe that have nothing to do with defending America. 

Although many grassroots Americans believed that the Bush admin- 

istration and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were strongly support- 

ed by America’s military leadership, the truth was quite the opposite. 

While Bush came into office with quite enthusiastic support from 

American military families, the truth is that the active duty military lead- 

ers in the Pentagon were very much dissatisfied with Rumsfeld and his 

neo-conservative associates such as Wolfowitz. 

An eye-opening profile of Rumsfeld, published in The Washington 

Post on Oct. 16, 2002 laid bare at least some of the little-known details 

surrounding the efforts by Rumsfeld and his pro-Israel “palace guard”to 

grab control of the Pentagon. Describing the Pentagon as “thick with ten- 

sion,”the Poststated flat out that: 

Many senior officers on the Joint Staff and in all branches of the military 

describe Rumsfeld as frequently abusive and indecisive, trusting only a tiny cir- 

cle of close advisers, seemingly eager to slap down officers with decades of dis- 

tinguished service. 

The unhappiness is so pervasive that all three service secretaries [Army, 

Navy and Air Force] are said to be deeply frustrated by a lack of autonomy and 

contemplating leaving by the end of the year. 

All three find their actions constrained by Rumsfeld and what is referred to 

as his small “palace guard,”according to Pentagon insiders.84 

While the Postnamed no names, the identity of the “palace guard”is 

no mystery. One defense consultant told the Post that “The depth of dis- 

affection is really quite striking,”adding that, in his view, “Rumsfeld is 

courting a rebellion.”The Post asserted that Rumsfeld and his associates 

had the military’s governing Joint Chiefs of Staff and its 1,200-member 

staff “in the cross hairs.”85 

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were trying to limit the ability of America’s 

top military leaders from reaching out to Congress, government agencies 

and the media, by stripping the Joint Staff of its legislative liaison, legal 

counsel and public affairs offices, which, in the past, according to the 

Post, “have given the military leadership a degree of autonomy by pro- 

viding it direct pipelines to Congress, to other parts of the government 

and to the media.”86 


In fact, what Rumsfeld’s neo-conservative clique was trying to do 

was to isolate the American military leadership from the American pub- 

lic,knowing that if more of the public knew that the military opposed war 

against Iraq, the public—likewise—would most likely share that view, 

conventionally trusting in the military’s judgment. 

In the end, as we now know, the “neo-conservatives”prevailed and 

the military’s warnings were shut out and sidelined, much to the mili- 

tary’s disgust. Events in Iraq have since confirmed the military’s fears. 


What remains the guiding force behind the “neo-conservative”phi- 

losophy that sponsors this dream of American imperialism is perhaps the 

most “controversial”topic in America today—the role of hard-line Israeli 

Likud-style Zionism in shaping the policies of the “neo-conservatives” 

who direct policy in the Bush administration. 

To recognize that the neo-conservative policy makers operating the 

engine of power in Washington are indeed largely Jewish and,in addition, 

wedded to “right wing”Zionism,is crucial to understanding the course of 

world affairs today. 

Author Michael Lind, a harsh critic of neo-conservative principles, 

sums up the “three pillars” of the globalist doctrine being pursued: 

“American unilateralism, pre-emptive war, and the alignment of 

American foreign policy with that of Israel’s right-wing leader Ariel 

Sharon. Each of these elements of George W. Bush’s grand strategy rep- 

resented a dramatic break with previous American foreign policy.”87 

Notably, one American Jewish writer summed up the Zionist dreams 

guiding the Bush policy, particularly vis-à-vis Iraq, for Timemagazine, a 

publication that is controlled by Jewish financial interests revolving 

around the powerful family of Edgar Bronfman, longtime head of the 

World Jewish Congress. In an essay entitled “How Israel is Wrapped Up 

in Iraq,”Timecolumnist Joe Klein wrote with candor: 

A stronger Israel is very much embedded in the rationale for war with Iraq. 

It is a part of the argument that dare not speak its name, a fantasy quietly cher- 

ished by the neo-conservative faction in the Bush Administration and by many 

leaders of the American Jewish community.

The fantasy involves a domino theory. The destruction of Saddam’s Iraq will 

not only remove an enemy of long-standing but will also change the basic power 

equation in the region. It will send a message to Syria and Iran about the perils 

of support for Islamic terrorists. 

It will send a message to the Palestinians too:Democratize and make peace 

on Israeli terms, or forget about a state of your own. In the wackiest scenario, it 

will lead to the collapse of the wobbly Hashemite monarchy in Jordan and the 

establishment of a Palestinian state on that nation’s East Bank. 

No one in the government ever actually says these things publicly (although 

some American Jewish leaders do). Usually, the dream is expressed in the 

mildest possible terms: “I have high hopes that the removal of Saddam will 

strengthen our democratic allies in the region,”Senator Joe Lieberman told me 

last week.88 

That the war against Iraq, and the overall policy guiding it, is found- 

ed in the philosophy of the hard-right Likud elements in Israel and their 

neo-conservative allies in America at the levers of power in the Bush 

administration is now becoming an open topic of discussion. 

At the same time, the neo-conservative warmongers began driving a 

wedge between the United States and its European allies. 


The leading voices of the pro-Israel “neo-conservative”movement in 

the United States began waging (and continue to wage) a relentless and 

unabashed campaign promoting “anti-Europeanism”among Americans. 

Few Americans, however, probably understood the geopolitical forces 

behind this campaign. 

This “anti-Europeanism”came at precisely the time when European 

governments and massive numbers of European citizens were loudly 

rejecting the demand by the U.S.-Israel-Britain axis for war against Iraq 

and raising questions about Israel’s brutal policies toward the 

Palestinians. This caused great dismay for the neo-conservatives. 

The anti-European campaign by the neo-conservatives reached such 

a fever pitch that even the February 13, 2003 issue of The New York 

Review of Books, a leading “liberal”organ known for its sympathies for 

Israel, published a detailed article outlining the neo-conservative attack 

on Israel’s European critics. 


In an article entitled “Anti-Europeanism in America,”author Timothy 

Garton Ash assembled a growing list of neo-conservative writers who 

have aimed their guns at Europe. Leading the list was Richard Perle who 

claimed that Europe has lost its “moral compass.” 

In case anyone might fail to understand the reason why the neo-con- 

servatives have this newfound antipathy toward Europe, Ash’s article 

explained the bottom line: that “The Middle East is both a source and a 

catalyst of what threatens to become a downward spiral of burgeoning 

European anti-Americanism and nascent American anti-Europeanism, 

each reinforcing the other.”89 

In other words, quite simply:Israel and its powerful American lobby 

are at the center—really,the cause—of the conflict,although Ash doesn’t 

quite put it that way. Ash wrote: 

Anti-Semitism in Europe and its alleged connection to European criticism of 

the Sharon government, has been the subject of the most acid anti-European 

commentaries from conservative American columnists and politicians. 

Some of these critics are themselves not just strongly pro-Israel but also 

“natural Likudites,”one liberal Jewish commentator explained . . . 

In a recent article Stanley Hoffman writes that they seem to believe in an 

“identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States.”90 

Almost as if on cue,one of Richard Perle’s and William Kristol’s col- 

laborators in the new “anti-Europeanist”drive, Robert Kagan, vocally 

joined the harsh chorus to promote anti-Europeanism to the reading audi- 

ence of The Washington Post, the influential daily published in the 

nation’s capital. Kagan’s Jan. 31, 2003 opinion column was a veritable 

textbook of the neo-conservative “Hate Europe”crusade. Kagan wrote: 

In London . . . one finds Britain’s finest minds propounding,in sophisticated lan- 

guage and melodious Oxford accents,the conspiracy theories . . . concerning the 

“neo-conservative”(read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy . . . In 

Paris,all the talk is of oil and “imperialism”(and Jews). In Madrid,it’s oil,impe- 

rialism, past American support for Franco (and Jews). 

At a conference I recently attended in Barcelona,an esteemed Spanish intel- 

lectual asked why, if the United States wants to topple vicious dictatorships that 

manufacture weapons of mass destruction, it is not also invading Israel. 

Yes,I know,there are Americans who ask such questions,too . . . But here’s

what Americans need to understand:In Europe,this paranoid,conspiratorial anti- 

Americanism is not a far-left or far-right phenomenon. It’s the mainstream 


So it was that America’s traditional European allies had now allied 

against the United States and the neo-conservative policy dictators who 

were spearheading a drive for a new imperialism. It was a formula that 

many American critics of the neo-conservatives believed would ultimate- 

ly spell disaster, for not only America but the world. 


So although traditional American policy has been thrown out the 

door—to the dismay of many articulate critics of the neo-conservative 

philosophy—there is yet another factor regarding the foundation of the 

neo-conservative point of view that must be considered: the resulting 

impact on the specific aspect of the U.S. “special relationship” with 


Although American governments—ruled by both Democrats and 

Republicans alike—have always been heavily partial to Israel, no secret 

to anyone, the fact is that the ascendance of the neo-conservatives in the 

Bush administration has led to a virtual merger of U.S. foreign policy 

with the point of view of the hard-line “right wing”Likud bloc of Ariel 

Sharon and Israel. 

Writing in The Washington Post on February 9, 2003, Robert G. 

Kaiser laid out the parameters of the Bush administration’s unswerving 

alliance with the “right wing”of Israel.  Kaiser’s article, titled “Bush and 

Sharon Nearly Identical on Mideast Policy,”was a forthright assertion of 

the power of the “neo-conservatives”in directing the administration’s 

approach to Israel and the Arab world. The article said, in part: 

For the first time,a U.S. administration and a Likud government in Israel are 

pursuing nearly identical policies. Earlier U.S. administrations, from Jimmy 

Carter’s through Bill Clinton’s, held Likud and Sharon at arm’s length, distanc- 

ing the United States from Likud’s traditionally tough approach to the 

Palestinians. But today . . . Israel and the United States share a common view on 

terrorism, peace with the Palestinians, war with Iraq and more. 


The Bush administration’s alignment with Sharon delights many of its 

strongest supporters,especially evangelical Christians,and a large part of organ- 

ized American Jewry, according to leaders in both groups, who argue that 

Palestinian terrorism pushed Bush to his new stance. 

“The Likudniks are really in charge now,”said a senior government official, 

using a Yiddish term for supporters of Sharon’s political party. 

Some Middle East hands who disagree with these supporters of Israel refer 

to them as “a cabal,”in the words of one former official. Members of the group 

do not hide their friendships and connections, or their loyalty to strong positions 

in support of Israel and Likud. 

Richard Perle,chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board,led a study 

group that proposed to Binyamin Netanyahu, a Likud prime minister of Israel 

from 1996 to 1999, that he abandon the Oslo peace accords negotiated in 1993 

and reject the basis for them — the idea of trading “land for peace.”Israel should 

insist on Arab recognition of its claim to the biblical land of Israel, the 1996 

report suggested, and should “focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power 

in Iraq.” 

Besides Perle,the study group included David Wurmser,now a special assis- 

tant to Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton,and Douglas J. Feith,now under- 

secretary of defense for policy. Feith has written prolifically on Israeli-Arab 

issues for years, arguing that Israel has as legitimate a claim to the West Bank 

territories seized after the Six Day War as it has to the land that was part of the 

U.N.-mandated Israel created in 1948. 

An internal debate split the administration and invited the lobbying of think 

tanks, Jewish organizations, evangelical Christians and others who take a fierce 

interest in the Middle East . . . 

Over the past dozen years or more, supporters of Sharon’s Likud Party have 

moved into leadership roles in most of the American Jewish organizations that 

provide financial and political support for Israel.92 

Writing shortly thereafter in The Washington Times—the neo-conser- 

vative oriented daily “rival”to the more “liberal”Washington Post—well- 

known journalist Arnaud deBorchgrave echoed Kaiser and elaborated on 

the topic of the new alliance between the Bush and Sharon regimes. In an 

article entitled “A Bush-Sharon Doctrine,”deBorchgrave wrote, in part: 

The strategic objectives of the U.S. and Israel in the Middle East have grad- 

ually merged into a now cohesive Bush-Sharon Doctrine. But this gets lost in the 

deafening cacophony of talking heads playing armchair generals in the coming 

war to change regimes in Baghdad.

Mr. Sharon provided the geopolitical ammo by convincing Mr. Bush that the 

war on Palestinian terrorism was identical to the global war on terror. Next came 

a campaign to convince U.S. public opinion that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin 

Laden were allies in their war against America. An alleged secret meeting in 

Prague in April 2001 between Mohamed Atta — the lead suicide bomber on 

September 11 — and an Iraqi intelligence agent got the ball rolling. Since then 

stories about the Saddam-al Qaeda nexus have become a cottage industry. 

Bin Laden clearly hopes to use a U.S. invasion of a Muslim country to recruit 

thousands more to his cause. But the Saddam-bin Laden nexus was barely Step 

One in the Bush-Sharon Doctrine. The strategic objective is the antithesis of 

Middle Eastern stability. 

The destabilization of “despotic regimes”comes next.  In the Arab bowling 

alley,one ball aimed at Saddam is designed to achieve a 10-strike that would dis- 

combobulate authoritarian and/or despotic regimes in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia 

and the other Gulf Emirates and sheikhdoms. 

The roots of the overall strategy can be traced to a paper published in 1996 

by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies,an Israeli think tank. 

The document was titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the 

Realm”and was designed as a political blueprint for the incoming government 

of Benjamin Netanyahu, a superhawk in the Israeli political aviary. 

Israel,according to the 1996 paper,would “shape its strategic environment,” 

beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the restoration of the 

Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad. The Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in a mil- 

itary coup in 1958 when young King Faisal, a cousin of Jordan’s late King 

Hussein, was assassinated. 

The strategic roadmap—which has been followed faithfully thus far by both 

Mr. Netanyahu and his successor Mr. Sharon —called for the abandonment of 

the Oslo accords “under which Israel has no obligations if the PLO does not ful- 

fill its obligations.”Yasser Arafat blundered by obliging Israel. 

“Our claim to the land [of the West Bank] — to which we have clung for 

2,000 years — is legitimate and noble,”the paper continued. “Only the uncondi- 

tional acceptance by Arabs of our rights,especially in their territorial dimension, 

is a solid basis for the future.”93 

And what is notable is that Israel’s “strategic roadmap”referred to by 

deBorchgrave (and also referenced by Kaiser) was not just the product of 

an Israeli institution alone. The authors, as pointed out by Kaiser, were 

Americans—namely Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, John R. Bolton, and 

David Wurmser, all key “neo-conservative”policy makers guiding the 

Bush administration. 



While all of this may have been a “revelation”to readers of The 

Washington Post and The Washington Times—which generally vary only 

by degree in pandering to the policy demands of the Israeli lobby in 

Washington, it was no surprise to the people of Israel. 

Just two (of many) representatives reports in the Israeli press that 

noted comments by Israeli leaders demonstrates that the motivations of 

the “neo-conservative”policy makers were indeed part of a grand design 

very much in sync with Israel’s fanatic Likud bloc: 

. . . ”In the [occupied] territories,the Arab world,and in Israel,Bush’s sup- 

port for Sharon is being credited to the pro-Israel lobby, meaning Jewish money 

and the ‘Christian’right.” 

—Israeli writer Akiva Eldar, Ha’aretz,April 26, 2002 

“Sharon is finding it hard to show any achievements during his 20 months in 

power . . . an American attack on Iraq is seen as the lever which can extricate 

Israel from its economic, security and social quagmire . . . .” 

—Israeli correspondent Aluf Benn, Ha’aretz

November 18, 2002 

Despite all this, the one independent American newspaper that has 

consistently dared to criticize the “neo-conservatives” and the Israeli 

lobby for Israel and to focus on their activities—American Free Press— 

was perhaps less circumspect than the “big name”elite publications such 

as The Washington Post and The Washington Timesin summarizing the 

new alliance of the Bush administration with the Sharon regime. 


Long before the major Washington dailies enunciated the Bush- 

Sharon alliance, American Free Pressstated flatly that the Bush policies 

were part of a plan to establish the Zionist dream of a “Greater Israel.” 

According to the report from American Free Press

In league with the fanatic force of militant imperial Zionism, Big Oil 

was planning an all-out offensive to grab control of the oil riches of the

entire Middle East. The international Anglo-American oil companies 

dream of shedding their partners in the oil rich Arab dynasties that con- 

trol the oil fields. The oil barons want the oil all to themselves. At the 

same time, Zionist fanatics—both Christian and Jewish—dream of dis- 

mantling the Arab states and expanding Israel’s borders to a “Greater 

Israel”reaching “From the Nile to the Euphrates.” 

With such a convergence of interests—based on a deadly mixture of 

ideology,profits and geopolitical power—Zionism and Big Oil had found 

common ground. As such, they were now moving to establish a Middle 

East hegemon over the oil riches of the Arab world. The campaign against 

Iraq was simply the opening gun. 

The fact that the other Arab states of the Middle East had firmly 

declared their opposition to the proposed U.S. assault on Iraq set these 

states up as other enemies to be dispatched. The age-old Zionist aspira- 

tion for a “Greater Israel”is now no more than a cover for the oil con- 

glomerates to seize absolute control of Arab oil,once and for all.  The first 

step was eliminating Saddam Hussein. 

Iraq is just the first domino slated to fall. The other Arab states are 

next in line. Knocking out the ruling Arab regimes will satisfy the 

demands of Israel’s hard-liners, but also set the stage for the oil con- 

glomerates to control Middle East oil. 

It is no accident that the administration of George W. Bush should be 

the engine to achieve this goal. The scion of a family long a part of the 

intrigues of the Anglo-American oil elite, Bush—like his father—has 

been both allied with Israel and, when the circumstances required, stand- 

ing in opposition to the Zionist state. 

American Free Presspointed out that in the book Friends In Deed: 

Inside the U.S.-Israel Alliance, Israeli-based writers Dan Raviv and Yossi 

Melman wrote frankly of Israel’s hostility to the senior Bush during his 

one-term in office—a point of which few Americans are aware, even 

including many stalwart Republican admirers of the Bush family. 

As such, the Israelis have little trust for the family Bush. However, a 

Bush is in the White House in control of America’s military arsenal. Israel 

recognizes American military power is the only thing that can assure 

Israel’s survival in a world increasingly hostile to Israel’s aims. Thus, 


Bush and his allies in Big Oil find an alliance with Israel a necessity. 

Zionist influence in American affairs—particularly in the realm of 

media control—has reached a zenith. In addition, the pro-Israel 

“Christian Right”—dominated by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat 

Robertson, Tim LaHaye, etc—is extremely influential in Republican 

Party ranks, positioning Bush’s GOP base firmly in Israel’s camp. At the 

same time, ironically, Israel’s position has never been so precarious. 

However—fortuitously,for Israel—the events of Sept. 11 brought the 

uneasy alliance between political Zionism and the plutocratic Big Oil 

forces full circle. As former CIA analyst George Friedman—a supporter 

of Israel—put it early on Sept. 11 on his widely cited website,www.strat- 

for.com,just hours after the tragic attacks:“The big winner today,intend- 

ed or not, is the state of Israel.” 

Junior Bush has driven American military forces into the heart of the 

Arab world, to establish a geopolitical consortium in which U.S. military 

might can be used to “tame”the Arabs and grab control of their oil. In so 

doing Bush has the full propaganda might of the Zionist-dominated 

media behind him. 

Open Secretsby the late Israeli scholar and critic of Zionism, Israel 

Shahak, frankly exposes Israel’s foreign policy as a menace to world 

peace. Shahak contends it is a myth that there is any real difference 

between the supposedly “conflicting” policies of Israel’s “opposing” 

Likud and Labor blocs, both of which advocate expansion aiming toward 

consolidating “Eretz Israel”—an imperial state in control of practically 

the entire Middle East. Israel, he asserts, is a militarist state: its policies 

are dictated by fundamentalist religious fanatics who now dominate 

Israel’s military and intelligence elite. 

If American forces destroy Saddam and occupy Iraq, American Free 

Presspredicted,Israel would be a key partner in the consortium,by virtue 

of Israel’s influence in Washington and over the media. Occupation of 

Iraq—even installation of a puppet regime—would be effective expansion 

of Israel’s borders, fulfilling a considerable portion of the dream of 

“Greater Israel.”But at what cost to the American people?


Lest anyone chalk up these comments to “Arab paranoia,” or “anti- 

Israel bigotry,”note that one of Israel’s most consequential advocates in 

official Washington—veteran pro-Israel intelligence community bureau- 

crat Michael Ledeen, a longtime close friend and associate of Richard 

Perle—has put out a propaganda screed titled The War Against the Terror 

Mastersin which he writes of what he calls “creative destruction.” 

Ledeen says that this “creative destruction”is “entirely in keeping 

with American character and the American tradition”—an assertion that 

will surprise many  Americans. Ledeen says that Iraq,Syria,Saudi Arabia 

and—for good measure—the non-Arabic Islamic Republic of Iran— 

should all be targets of “creative destruction”by U.S. military might. 

“Creative destruction,”writes Ledeen, is “our middle name,”—the 

term “our”referring to Americans, whether or not they share his imperi- 

alist views. According to Ledeen: 

We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, 

art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. 

Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, 

which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their 

inability to keep pace.  Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, 

for they do not wish to be undone. 

They cannot feel secure so long as we are there,for our very existence—our 

existence, not our policies—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in 

order to survive,just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.94 

While his rhetoric is stilted and ponderous, what Ledeen is promot- 

ing is the idea that it is not U.S. support for Israel that engenders Arab 

hatred for the United States. Instead, he claims, it is the very existence of 

the United States—the “American way of life”—that inflames Arab pas- 

sions. (What utter lies! What nonsense!) 

Yet, these words are the propaganda line of the Israeli lobby which 

hopes to distract the attention of the American people away from the 

causes of Arab hostility to the United States stemming from unswerving 

U.S. support for Israel. Ledeen goes on to suggest that anyone who 

stands in opposition to all-out war against the Arab world needs to be 


removed from positions of authority. He writes: 

The president has to rid himself of those officials who failed to lead their 

agencies effectively, along with those who lack the political will to wage war 

against the terror masters. 

The top people in the intelligence community need to be replaced,and those 

military leaders who tell the president that it can’t be done, or they just aren’t 

ready, or we need to do something else first, should be replaced as well, along 

with the people in the national security community who insisted that we must 

solve the Arab-Israeli question before the war can resume and the top people in 

agencies like the FAA, the INS, and so forth.95 

In fact,aside from other political considerations,President George W. 

Bush had good personal reason to do the bidding of the hard-line hawks 

in promoting their imperial schemes on behalf of Israel. 

In the Feb. 1992 edition of The Washington Report on Middle East 

Affairs, former Rep. Paul Findley (R-Ill.) revealed that in 1991 former 

Israeli intelligence officer Victor Ostrovsky had blown the whistle on a 

plot by a right-wing faction within Israel’s Mossad to kill then-President 

George H. W. Bush who was perceived as a threat to Israel. 

After Ostrovsky provided the details to another former member of 

Congress,Pete McCloskey (R-Calif.),McCloskey conveyed a warning to 

the U.S. Secret Service.  In his 1994 book, The Other Side of Deception

Ostrovsky revealed the specifics of what he had learned of the plot: the 

Mossad planned to assassinate Bush during an international conference in 


The Mossad had captured three Palestinian “extremists”and leaked 

word to the Spanish police that the terrorists were on their way to Madrid. 

The plan was to kill Bush,release the “assassins”in the midst of the con- 

fusion—and kill the Palestinians on the spot. The crime would be blamed 

on the Palestinians—another Mossad “false flag.” 

So it is that the George W. Bush administration is now fostering and 

nurturing the ancient dream of a Greater Israel. But to achieve that aim, 

the neo-conservative Zionist elements that achieved power in the Bush 

administration began laying the groundwork many years before. An ini- 

tial step in that scheme was the enunciation of a theory known as “rogue 

states rollback.”


A close study of the war-mongering policies of the neo-conservatives 

would not be complete without an examination of the policy of “rogue 

state rollback”—a plan, originating at the highest levels of the Zionist 

lobby in America—that has now seen the first drive toward its fulfillment. 

“Rogue states”is an inflammatory term that has been used by Israel 

and its lobby in America—as well as by those who tout the imperialist 

propaganda line—to describe such largely Islamic countries as Iran, Iraq, 

Libya, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan, and other countries that are perceived 

as threats to Israel. However, in light of current claims that the moderate 

oil-rich regime in Saudi Arabia is somehow “supporting terrorism,”it can 

only be concluded that the neo-conservative war-mongers likewise con- 

sider the Saudi kingdom a “rogue”state as well. 

The war against “rogue states”is all part of the effort to set in place 

a “new world order”in which no nation can retain its national sovereign- 

ty in the face of American military might held in the hands of a war-like 

“Israel-centric” combine of influence at the highest levels of the 

American government and supported by the major media. 

A leading advocate of “rogue states rollback”is Sen. John McCain 

who, during his bid for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination, 

declared that as president,he would launch an all-out effort to destroy the 


What McCain didn’t tell people was that “his”policy was, in fact, 

part of a long-range plan by higher-ups in the international policy-mak- 

ing elite, specifically the hard-line supporters of Israel. 

This plan for “rogue states rollback”—then specifically targeting Iraq 

and Iran—was first enunciated on May 22, 1993 in a then-secret speech 

by a former Israeli government propagandist, Martin Indyk before the 

Washington Institute on Near East Affairs, a private, pro-Israel pressure 

group. At the time, the small, maverick American newspaper, The 

Spotlight, was the only publication to reveal this plan for aggression. 

What made Indyk’s strategic plan for war so explosive was that when 

Indyk outlined the policy, he was serving as President Clinton’s hand- 

picked Middle East policy “expert”on the National Security Council. 

Born in England and raised in Australia, Indyk took up residence in 


Israel but was later given “instant”U.S. citizenship by special proclama- 

tion of President Clinton just hours after Clinton was sworn into office on 

Jan. 20, 1993—one of Clinton’s first official acts. (Later this former 

Israeli propagandist was appointed to serve as U.S. ambassador to Israel, 

his obvious conflict of interest notwithstanding.) 

Within a year, the thrust of Indyk’s plan for war against Iraq and Iran 

was formally promoted by the powerful New York-based Council on 

Foreign Relations. It was also publicly announced,at the same time,as an 

official policy of the Clinton administration (although it had been in the 

making for over a year). 

An Associated Press report, published in the Feb. 28, 1994 issue of 

The Washington Post, announced that W. Anthony Lake, President 

Clinton’s National Security Advisor,had laid out a plan for “dual contain- 

ment”of Iraq and Iran, both of which Lake labeled “outlaw”and “back- 


Lake’s comments as reported were from an article by Lake just pub- 

lished in the March/April 1994 issue of Foreign Affairs, the quarterly 

journal of the Rockefeller-financed Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), 

an American affiliate of the London-based Royal Institute for 

International Affairs, a policy group funded by the European Rothschild 

family, longtime supporters of Israel. 

On Oct, 30, 1993, The Washington Post frankly described the CFR 

as “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United 

States,”saying that  they are “the people who, for more than half a cen- 

tury, have managed our international affairs and our military-industrial 

complex,”96noting that 24 top members of the Clinton administration— 

along with Clinton—were CFR members. 

There was a minor difference in the policy as set forth by Lake:Iraq 

was first targeted for destruction. Iran would come later. 

Lake said the Clinton administration supported Iraqi exiles who 

wanted to overthrow Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Lake said that 

although Iran was what he called “the foremost sponsor of terrorism and 

assassination worldwide,”the Clinton administration saw the possibility 

of better relations with Iran.


In early 1995 the then-newly-elected Republican House Speaker, 

Newt Gingrich, long a vocal advocate for Israel, gave a little-noticed 

speech in Washington before a gathering of military and intelligence offi- 

cers calling for a Middle East policy that was, in his words, “designed to 

force the replacement of the current regime in Iran . . . the only long-range 

solution that makes any sense.” 

That the then-de facto leader of the “opposition”Republican Party 

endorsed this policy was no real surprise since, at that time, Gingrich’s 

wife was being paid $2,500 a month by the Israel Export Development 

Company, an outfit which lured American companies out of the United 

States into a high-tech business park in Israel. 

Mrs. Gingrich was introduced to her employers when she was on a 

tour in Israel sponsored by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee 

(AIPAC), a registered lobby for Israel. 

A former AIPAC official,Arne Christensen, had served as a top poli- 

cy advisor to Gingrich. Prior to his service for the Israeli lobby, 

Christensen had been on the staff of ex-Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), a 

close Gingrich associate—and yet another member of the Council on 

Foreign Relations—who is,as noted previously,also one of the principals 

in William Kristol’s “think tank”known as Empower America. 

Weber later emerged as a top advisor to Sen. John McCain during his 

presidential campaign. And McCain is, yet again, also a CFR member. 

This perhaps helps explain how things came full circle and McCain pro- 

moted the line that the U.S. should take provocative measures against 

“rogue”states. But the Israeli connection is what counts most . . . 


The Washington Post revealed on Feb. 25, 2000 that McCain includ- 

ed among his closest advisors three well-known pro-Israel commentators 

who are voices for what is indubitably the “Jewish Right”—figures in the 

so-called “neo-conservative”network: New York Times pundit William 

Safire, columnist Charles Krauthammer and the ubiquitous William 

Kristol,whose employer,fanatic pro-Israel media baron Rupert Murdoch, 

a satellite of the Rothschild family, endorsed McCain for president 


through the aegis of his daily, The New York Post

McCain himself has declared his allegiance to Israel, above and 

beyond U.S. interests. In a March 14, 1999 speech in New York to the 

National Council of Young Israel, McCain said: 

We choose,as a nation,to intervene militarily abroad in defense of the moral 

values that are at the center of our national conscientiousness even when vital 

national interests are not necessarily at stake. I raise this point because it lies at 

the heart of this nation’s approach to Israel. The survival of Israel is one of this 

country’s most important moral commitments. 

In short, McCain would be willing to commit the United States to a 

war in defense of Israel,even if U.S. “vital interests are not necessarily at 

stake.”His endorsement of assaults upon the “rogue”Islamic states is part 

and parcel of this policy, which hardly places America first. 

McCain has said that he is “driven”by “Wilsonian principles,”—the 

internationalist philosophy that U.S. military might should be used to 

enforce world standards, as dictated by the United States itself. 

In fact, the record shows that McCain has long been part of an elite 

group promoting U.S. military action in defense of Israel. According to 

the Aug. 2, 1996 issue of the London-based Jewish Chronicle, McCain 

was a member of a little-known operation calling itself the Commission 

on America’s National Interest that issued a report rating Israel as a “blue 

chip”interest for the United States worth “spending serious treasure and 

serious blood on,”—a conclusion many Americans might question. 

The report ranked Israel’s survival “on a par with preventing nuclear, 

biological and nuclear attacks on the U.S. as a vital American interest.” 

The Chroniclesummarized the report, quoting the group, with the head- 

line:“Americans ‘should go to war to defend Israel.’” 

Contrast this view with the results of a Sept. 1998 poll by the Pew 

Research Center for the People and the Press (reported in the Dec. 28, 

1998 issue of The Washington Post) which found at the time that only 45 

percent of the American public would support American intervention if 

Arab forces invaded Israel, compared with 74 percent of so-called “opin- 

ion elites”who would favor U.S. ground troops being committed to such 

a conflict. But popular opinion in America apparently does not count. 

The war against “rogue”states and preparations for possible U.S.

military action to defend Israel was continually being hard-pressed in the 

highest circles. It was clearly at the top of the elite’s agenda. 


On November 29, 1998, writing in The Washington Post, former 

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger,a key CFR figure and longtime advo- 

cate for the Zionist cause,had a prominently placed article entitled “Bring 

Saddam Down.”More recently, however, the advocates of Israel began 

expanding their targets. 

In the March 2, 2000 issue of The Washington Post, columnist Jim 

Hoagland wrote that there must be “a broad political and military strate- 

gy for the Persian Gulf . . . built around active U.S. support for represen- 

tative democracy not only in Iraq and Iran but also in the conservative 

Arab monarchies of the region. The two rogue states cannot be isolated as 

the only candidates for change. . . .” 

In other words, now even Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and per- 

haps the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait and others may face the wrath 

of the imperialist “neo-conservative” elite, using the power of the 

American military to achieve their goal. 

Hoagland added that “U.S. policy on Iraq is a subject fit for campaign 

debate [and that] . . . the candidate who can persuasively outline an inte- 

grated political and military strategy to deal with the multiple national 

security challenges of the gulf deserves serious consideration by 

American voters.” 

In the end, although heavy-handed “rogue states rollback”advocate 

John McCain did not achieve the presidency, his Republican primary 

opponent, George W. Bush, did. And it was during the administration of 

the new Republican president that the war against Iraq was launched— 

culmination of a long-standing plan by the clique of “neo-conservatives” 

whose well-financed, closely knit network had been planning just such a 

move for nearly a generation. 



Another key element in the push for an American imperium as advo- 

cated by the neo-conservative power bloc is the “axis of evil”between the 

neo-conservatives (whom, as we have seen, are largely hard-line Jewish 

hawks allied with the Sharon regime in Israel) and the so-called 

“Christian Right”in America—the hard-line dispensationalists. 

Although journalist Jon Lee Anderson smirked in The New Yorkerat 

what he called the “usual claims”by Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq 

Aziz that, in Anderson’s rendition of Aziz’s remarks, “America had been 

hijacked by a small group of Jews and Christians, the oil lobby, and the 

military industrial complex,”97Aziz’s allegations were on the mark. 

While neither all American Jews nor all American Christians were 

allied with the neo-conservatives and the Christian fundamentalists in 

supporting the drive for a Greater Israel, Aziz was correct when he 

referred to a “small group”—influential though it may be. 

The Christian Right, in fact, constitutes only a segment of the 

American Christian fundamentalist movement—although a large one to 

be sure. However, because the Christian Right has emerged as a key 

power base in the electoral ambitions of George W. Bush and the 

Republican Party,its influence on behalf of the neo-conservatives and the 

dream of a Greater Israel is beyond question. 

Bush biographer Michael Lind believes that George W. Bush is per- 

sonally driven toward acceptance of the neo-conservative doctrine pre- 

cisely because of the fact that Bush seems to have abandoned his own 

family’s traditional mainstream Christian religious convictions and adopt- 

ed the same brand of Christian fundamentalism practiced by the hard-line 

Christian Right advocates of Israel. 

Lind writes: “There is little doubt that the bonding between George 

W. Bush and Ariel Sharon was based on conviction, not expedience. Like 

the Christian Zionist base of the Republican Party, George W. Bush was 

a devout Southern fundamentalist.”98


Although Bush has placed many neo-conservatives in powerful for- 

eign policy making positions,we would be remiss in failing to mention his 

appointment of former Missouri Senator John Ashcroft—the member of a 

small but vocal fanatically pro-Israel Christian sect known as “the penta- 

costals”—as U.S. Attorney General. In that post Ashcroft is in charge of 

the entire American federal justice system and oversees the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation (the FBI), the federal law enforcement apparatus. 

Although America’s “liberal”special interest groups loudly protested 

Ashcroft’s appointment, the fact is that while blacks, feminists, abortion 

advocates, homosexuals and others were cowering in fear at the prospect 

of John Ashcroft as attorney general, one particularly influential interest 

group—the pro-Israel lobby—had already given its “okay”to Ashcroft. 

The first public sign of Israel’s love for Ashcroft came when it was 

widely reported in the major media that Abe Foxman,national director of 

the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)—a powerful unit of the Israeli 

lobby—had announced that he expected Ashcroft to be a “just”man. 

Ashcroft supporters loudly touted Foxman’s effective endorsement. 

Meanwhile, those insiders who read The New Republic (TNR), a 

journal known as an influential and strident voice for the Israeli lobby,got 

the hint about Ashcroft’s “acceptability”from a key source. Ashcroft’s 

longtime policy director,Tevi Troy—an Orthodox Jew who once publicly 

referred to non-Jews as “goyim”(a racist term)—wrote an article (pub- 

lished in TNR issue on Jan. 29, 2001) promoting Ashcroft. Troy—now 

the Bush administration liaison to the Jewish community—said Ashcroft 

was “more than tolerant; he’s downright philo-Semitic.”Troy revealed: 

Ashcroft was born to a gentile family in a predominantly Jewish Chicago 

neighborhood. His mother served as a Shabbos goy [i.e. a non-Jew who works 

for Jews on the Jewish sabbath] turning ovens on and off as needed.  Ashcroft’s 

father even took a mezuzah [a Jewish religious symbol] with the family when 

they moved from Chicago to Springfield, Missouri, where he kept it affixed to 

his doorpost until his death, in 1995. Ashcroft, I’d wager, knows more about 

Judaism than half the Jewish members of the Senate.99 

In the meantime, while liberal Jewish Democratic New York Sen. 

Charles Schumer was soothing his “liberal” constituents by publicly 


opposing Ashcroft, Schumer (like other insiders) knew full well that 

Ashcroft  had been his (Schumer’s) partner in introducing congressional 

measures in previous years designed to advance the interests of Israel. 

Among other things,Ashcroft and Schumer together: 

• Co-sponsored a dangerous police-state style so-called “anti-terror- 

ist”measure—strongly promoted by the ADL and the Israeli lobby—that 

grass-roots patriots across America rallied against and largely managed to 

bloc from total passage. This,of course,was well before the 9-11 attacks. 

• Led efforts in Congress to force the transfer of the U.S. Embassy in 

Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; and 

• Co-sponsored a measure to mandate U.S. opposition to any inde- 

pendent declaration of a Palestinian state. 

For his vocal campaign against the Palestinians, the Institute for 

Public Affairs for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of 

America hailed Ashcroft as having “long been on record as a staunch sup- 

porter of the State of Israel and its safety and security.” 


Since assuming the post of attorney general,Ashcroft has indeed been 

a leading voice in favor of the neo-conservative Likud-style policies pur- 

sued by the administration, devotedly protecting Israel’s interests. In the 

meantime, Ashcroft’s neo-conservative allies in the Bush foreign policy 

apparatus have forged a powerful alliance with the Christian Right voting 

bloc. Former CIA analysts Bill and Kathleen Christison have described 

this phenomenon in particularly biting words: 

The dual loyalists in the Bush administration have given added impetus to the 

growth of a messianic strain of Christian fundamentalism that has allied itself with 

Israel in preparation for the so-called End of Days. These crazed fundamentalists see 

Israel’s domination over all of Palestine as a necessary step toward fulfillment of the 

biblical Millennium,consider any Israeli relinquishment of territory in Palestine as a 

sacrilege, and view warfare between Jews and Arabs as a divinely ordained prelude 

to Armageddon. 

These right-wing Christian extremists have a profound influence on Bush and his 

administration, with the result that the Jewish fundamentalists working for the per- 

petuation of Israel’s domination in Palestine and the Christian fundamentalists work- 

ing for the Millennium strengthen and reinforce each other’s policies in administra- 

tion councils. 

The Armageddon that Christian Zionists seem to be actively promoting and 

that Israeli loyalists inside the administration have tactically allied themselves 

with raises the horrifying but very real prospect of an apocalyptic Christian- 

Islamic war. 

The neo-conservatives seem unconcerned, and Bush’s occasional pro forma 

remonstrations against blaming all Islam for the sins of Islamic extremists do 

nothing to make this prospect less likely. 

These two strains of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed 

into an agenda for a vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East, all fur- 

ther reinforced by the happy coincidence of great oil resources up for grabs and 

a president and vice president heavily invested in oil. 

All of these factors—the dual loyalties of an extensive network of policy- 

makers allied with Israel, the influence of a fanatical wing of Christian funda- 

mentalists, and oil—probably factor in more or less equally to the administra- 

tion’s calculations on the Palestinian-Israeli situation and on war with Iraq. 

But the most critical factor directing U.S. policymaking is the group of 

Israeli loyalists:neither Christian fundamentalist support for Israel nor oil calcu- 

lations would carry the weight in administration councils that they do without the 

pivotal input of those loyalists, who clearly know how to play to the Christian 

fanatics and undoubtedly also know that their own and Israel’s bread is buttered 

by the oil interests of people like Bush and Cheney. 

This is where loyalty to Israel by government officials colors and influences 

U.S. policymaking in ways that are extremely dangerous.100 


One American Jewish historian, Benjamin Ginsberg, writing in his 

study,The Fatal Embrace:Jews and the State,has explored the role of the 

Christian Right’s alliance with the neo-conservatives. He explains: 

Close relations between Israel and Christian fundamentalists began to devel- 

op after the conservative Likud bloc came to power in Israel in 1977, and 

strengthened after Reagan’s presidential victory in the United States in 1980. 

After Reagan took office he received a telegraph signed by Reverend Jerry 

Falwell and other prominent Christian fundamentalist leaders urging him to give 

his full support to Israel which, they said, “from a religious, moral and strategic 

perspective,”represented “our hopes for security and peace in the Middle East.” 

The Begin government awarded Falwell the Zabotinsky Award for service to 

Israel and brought him and other leaders of the Christian right to Israel frequent- 

ly as honored guests. Falwell strongly supported Israeli annexation of the occu- 

pied territories and moving the Israeli capital to Jerusalem. “There is no question 


that Judea and Samaria should be part of Israel,”Falwell declared. Moreover, “I 

believe that the Golan heights should be annexed as an integral part of the state 

of Israel,”he said.101 

Author Michael Lind suggests that Falwell may indeed be “the 

Likud Party’s most important lobbyist in the United States.”102In addi- 

tion, as Jewish-American authors Ken Silverstein and Michael Scherer 

noted, Begin loved Falwell so much that he also presented Falwell with 

a Learjet for his efforts on behalf of Israel.103 


Since Begin’s time, subsequent Likud prime ministers built close 

ties with American evangelicals. According to Silverstein and Scherer: 

Christian conservatives provide Israel—and in particular the hard-line Likud 

Party of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon—with its most important political support 

in the United States. They oppose Israel ceding land to the Palestinians and are 

pressuring the Bush administration to close Palestinian offices in the United 

States. They also have close ties to GOP congressional leaders and to a group of 

high-ranking hawks in the Pentagon—led by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul 

Wolfowitz—that some DC insiders call the “Kosher Nostra.”. . . 

They work to support Israel, ironically, because they believe it will lead to 

the ultimate triumph of Christianity. For them, the ongoing crisis in the Mideast 

has been prophesied in the Bible:After Jews reclaim the Holy Land, nonbeliev- 

ers—including Jews and Muslims—will perish in Armageddon, and Jesus will 

return as the Messiah to lead his followers to Heaven. 

Indeed, thanks to the top-level connections and grassroots activism of evan- 

gelical Christians, U.S. policy in the Middle East has never been so closely 

aligned with Israel as it is under the administration of George W. Bush . . .104 

The Christian evangelicals are particularly hard-hearted against 

Arabs and Muslims. They believe “that Arabs and Muslims can be traced 

back to Ishmael, the unfavored son of Abraham, who was promised by 

God vast land and resources but who would never be satisfied with what 

he had. No matter how much good fortune Arabs receive . . . they will 

never know spiritual peace,”105in the view of these Christian extremists. 

(And it should be noted that this is not the standard view of the typical 

American Christian, as we shall see.) 

Pointing out that one of the hawks within the Bush administration

who has worked closely with the Christian right is Douglas Feith—the 

deputy to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz—Silverstein and 

Scherer cite Feith’s former associate at the Center for Security Policy, 

Frank Gaffney, who asserts:“You are seeing American government poli- 

cy being profoundly influenced by beliefs that are shared by the pushers 

outside [the Christian evangelicals] and the people on the inside [the 

Jewish neo-conservatives].”106 

Noting the enthusiastic reception by Israel’s Likud of the fundamental- 

ists, Michael Lind comments that “The fervent support of Israel by 

Protestant fundamentalists . . . has been manipulated for a quarter of a cen- 

tury by right-wing Israeli politicians and their neo-conservative allies.”107 

Ironically, however, even “liberal”American Jewish groups that do 

support Israel, but which publicly advocate a negotiated settlement with 

the Palestinians, see the danger in this unholy alliance between the 

Christian evangelicals and the Jewish neo-conservatives. 

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, head of the Union of American Hebrew 

Congregations, is quoted as saying that this alliance of evangelicals and 

neo-conservatives sees “any concession as a threat to Israel, and in this 

way they strengthen the hardliners in Israel and the United States.”108 


In the U.S. Congress,there are a number of lawmakers who are close- 

ly aligned with the Christian fundamentalists and their Zionist warhawk 

allies. Notable among them are House Republican Majority Leader Tom 

DeLay of Texas who “agrees with hawkish Israelis that the West Bank 

and Golan Heights are part of Israel rather than occupied territories.”109 

In the Senate, one of the leading pro-Israel Christian “hawks”is Sen. 

Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican. However, perhaps even more 

rhetorically and fanatically extreme than Brownback in terms of support- 

ing the hard-line Likudniks—Christian and Jewish alike—is Sen. James 

Inhofe of Oklahoma, another member of the Republican Party. 

Although on Election Night 2000, NBC’s Tom Brokaw described 

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) as a “foreign policy expert,”Inhofe’s record 

of expertise seems more in the field of religious fanaticism of the 

Christian Zionist fundamentalist persuasion. 

For example,on March 4,2002,Inhofe said in a speech to the Senate 


that God allowed terrorists to attack the United States on Sept. 11, 2001 

to punish America for being too tough on Israel. In a speech condemning 

his fellow Republican, President Bush, who then was perceived to be 

pressing too hard on Israel, Inhofe stated in no uncertain terms: 

One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack 

against the United States of America is that the policy of our government has 

been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a signif- 

icant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them.110 

Although American broadcast media had previously attacked speak- 

ers from the Muslim world who had suggested, in one fashion or anoth- 

er,that the Sept. 11 attack on the United States was the will of Allah,there 

was hardly a mention anywhere of Inhofe’s inflammatory remarks. 

Inhofe was not the only American Christian fundamentalist to make 

such a comment. On Oct. 11, 2002, evangelist Joyce Meyer told the 

Christian Coalition at its national conference that the American people 

deserved the 9-11 attack for failing to stand firmly with God on the side 

of Israel. “If we don’t obey God, God’s protection is lifted,”111 she 

announced. Yet, the major media has ignored such pro-Israel insanity. 

Inhofe has also sought to explain that the native Palestinians have 

never had a historical right to Palestine and that when they were there, 

they contributed little to the region. 

For example, in another Senate speech Inhofe quoted the 18th centu- 

ry French philosopher Voltaire as describing the Palestine of his day as 

being a “hopeless dreary place.”However, what Inhofe, in his bias in 

favor of the Jewish occupiers of Palestine seems to have ignored is what 

Voltaire is also reported to have said on another occasion: “While the 

Arabs are distinguished by courage, hospitality and humanity, the Jews 

are cowardly and lecherous, greedy and miserly.” 

The Oklahoma senator suggested that Palestine was a desolate area 

that no one wanted. “Where was this great Palestinian nation?”asked 

Inhofe. “It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there.” 

While any normal individual with even the most minimal knowledge of 

the history of Palestine knows that Inhofe’s claims are the product of a 

fevered imagination, the sorry fact is that many millions of Americans 

share those provocative and hateful views.


The truth is that the American media (long favorable to Israel) has 

helped advance the cause of the Christian Right and its “dispensational- 

ist” followers who are so wedded to the “neo-conservative” cause in 

America and with its allies in Israel. 

For example, quite notably, Time, the weekly newsmagazine, pub- 

lished by the AOL-Time Warner media mega-monopoly, recently 

emerged as a leading promoter of the “last days”philosophy of dispensa- 

tionalism identified with Christian televangelists who are allied with the 

“neo-conservative”ruling clique inside the Bush administration. 

In a lavishly illustrated July 1, 2002 cover story entitled “The Bible 

& The Apocalypse—Why more Americans are reading and talking about 

the end of the world,”Timeprovided thirteen full pages of publicity for 

“end times” promoters—in particular, “conservative” Christian Right 

evangelist Tim LaHaye, an unlikely hero for a magazine usually identi- 

fied as being a voice of the liberal persuasion. 

Why the super-rich plutocrats who dominate AOL-TimeWarner— 

including billionaire whiskey baron Edgar Bronfman, head of the World 

Jewish Congress—would use their media clout to promote a particular 

brand of Christian theology is a question that many American Christians 

who disagree with “dispensationalist”philosophy began asking. 

The thirteen pages in the Bronfman family-dominated magazine fea- 

tured 13 different brightly illustrated articles or sidebars or explanatory 

material. A great deal of effort was put into promoting LaHaye: 

In the opening paragraph,the lead article trumpeted LaHaye’s newest 

book, The Remnant, as “the biggest book of the summer”and featured a 

prominently-placed photo of the book’s cover. 

Across the top of various pages through the spread were such boxed 

“facts”cited as “36% of those polled who support Israel say they do so 

because they believe in biblical prophecies that Jews must control Israel 

before Christ will come again”or “42% say they support Israel because 

Jews are God’s chosen people.” 

Four full pages in a single article focused specifically on LaHaye. A 

large and attractive two-page spread color photograph of a gesturing 

LaHaye, taken from below, making him appear almost towering, was 


accompanied by the title, in large letters, “Meet the Prophet.”A second- 

ary photograph featured a smiling, casually dressed LaHaye being nuz- 

zled by his attractive wife and collaborator,Beverly,describing them as a 

“power couple”who “share an evangelical zeal.” 

In a side-bar to the LaHaye article, Timeenthusiastically provided 

color photographs of: 

• LaHaye’s Left Behindcomic-style “graphic novels” 

• Lahaye’s Left Behindboard game, 

• The covers of six of LaHaye’s 22 children’s books, 

• LaHaye’s Left BehindCDs (which Timeadvertises to its readers are 

audio versions “with some music”; and 

• A still photo from the movie sequel to LaHaye’s original Left 

Behindfilm extravaganza. Just so nobody missed the premiere, Time 

advised its readers that LaHaye’s new film would be “due in November.” 

Few could be so lucky to get this kind of media attention! And clear- 

ly all of the aforementioned was valuable publicity that LaHaye would 

have otherwise had to spend millions to achieve. But there was more. 

In the main article in the series, Time’s editors spread color photo- 

graphs—with capsule descriptions—of ten of LaHaye’s “Left Behind” 

series of full-length novels across two pages, including yet a second pic- 

ture of LaHaye’s newest novel, The Remnant, which had already been 

promoted and pictured in the first paragraph of the very same article.  

Under each picture and capsule description of each novel, Timegen- 

erously cited the Biblical scripture on which each novel is purportedly 

based and,in large,bold type,bleated “Copies Sold 7,000,000”(or what- 

ever the relevant figure) under the illustration of each of the books. 

Another article asked what was probably the pertinent question about 

LaHaye’s dispensationalist viewpoint (as far as the Bronfman family is 

concerned):“Is it good for the Jews?”The answer, it seems, is “yes.” 

Although Timenoted that some Jewish theologians are upset by the 

fact that LaHaye and the dispensationalists see the “end times”as the 

period when Jews must accept Jesus Christ as the messiah, Timeleft the 

critical final judgment to a leading voice of the pro-Israel lobby. 

According to Time: “Yet when a people feels isolated and under 

attacks, it will take all the friends it can get, retorts Abraham Foxman, 

national director of the Anti-Defamation League.” Time then quoted

Foxman directly: “I don’t think it’s our business to get at the heart and 

soul and metaphysics of people as to why they come to support Israel. 

Some do it for a national-interest point of view, some because of moral 

issues,some because of theological issues. We don’t set standards or con- 

ditions for support.”So the Christian Right is Israel’s right arm. 


On the reverse side, the major media in America has done much to 

condemn Christian religious leaders and factions that raise questions 

about the neo-conservative War Party and its Christian Right adherents. 

For example,Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon—publisher of the 

neo-conservative-oriented Washington Times—aimed his newspaper’s 

fire at the Roman Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II in the Vatican. 

Effectively confirming the charge made in 2002 by a Vatican-endorsed 

newspaper that the major media is hostile to the Catholic Church because 

of its opposition to U.S. aggression against Iraq, Moon’s newspaper fired 

an editorial volley against the church for precisely that reason. 

On January 22, 2003, Moon’s Washington Times complained that 

“recent history suggests that a note of caution is in order when it comes 

to listening to the Catholic Church’s warnings regarding U.S. military 

action against Iraq.”112 

Noting that the Vatican and Catholic leaders in the United States 

“have distinguished themselves in recent months as two of the sharpest 

critics of possible U.S. military strikes against Iraq,the Timespointed out 

that in the lead-up to the Persian Gulf War of 1991 that “the pope issued 

numerous statements questioning the wisdom of going to war.” 

That a self-styled “mainstream”newspaper would venture so far as to 

publish such an editorial might strike some critics as venturing into the 

arena of religious bigotry, inasmuch as those who have otherwise dared 

to suggest that perhaps “Jewish influence”has been a major force pro- 

moting U.S. involvement in a war against Iraq have been accused of 

“stoking the fires of religious hatred.”However, the Moon newspaper 

seems to have no problem with attacking the Catholic Church and its 

leadership when they take a policy position differing from that of 

Reverend Moon and the pro-Israel contingency that dictates the overrid- 


ing “neo-conservative”editorial policy of The Washington Times. 

Moon’s assault on the Vatican came as no surprise to those who were 

aware that in its June 1, 2002 issue, Civilta Cattolica—an influential jour- 

nal sanctioned by the Vatican—had fired a shot at the American media for 

its obsessive coverage of the Catholic Church sex scandals. Civilta 

Cattolicaflatly asserted that—at least in part because the Catholic Church 

refused to support the media-promoted war against Saddam in 1991 that the 

controllers of the American media had nursed a grudge against the church. 

Given that—as the record indicates—the media’s sudden and intense 

interest in the church’s problems did, in fact, explode after Sept. 11, it is 

interesting to note that Civilta Cattolicaalso cited the aftermath of 9-11 

in its dissection of the media’s attacks on the church. 

In fact,Civilta Cattolicasuggested that the Catholic Church’s appeals 

against “vendettas”against the Arab and Muslim world in the wake of 9- 

11 also offended the media, which has been heavily promoting an anti- 

Arab and anti-Muslim agenda, often quoting so-called “experts”on ter- 

rorism and on the Middle East who are—more often than not—advocates 

of Israeli policy and often directly affiliated with Israeli intelligence. 

Now,The Washington Timescame forward almost as if to confirm the 

weight of the Vatican-endorsed newspaper’s charge. 


What is of equal (and related) interest to note is that even as the 

Times—which is quite influential in Republican circles—was attacking 

the Vatican for its stance on the U.S.-Iraq conflict, the same newspaper 

was giving friendly nods to the Democratic presidential aspirations of 

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, hailing him as the kind of statesman Americans 

needed to support precisely because of his determination to draw the 

United States into a war against Iraq. 

In 2001, in a lead editorial on Aug. 13—entitled “A Scoop Jackson 

Democrat”—the Timespraised Lieberman’s front-line role in the ongoing 

effort to spark a U.S. invasion of Iraq. According to the Times

When it comes to understanding the most important foreign policy issues of 

the day—in particular,the need to explain to the American public why President 

Bush is right to forge ahead with plans to overthrow Iraqi ruler Saddam 

Hussein—Mr. Lieberman is providing exactly the right kind of leadership.113

The Times asserted that “It is no exaggeration to say that Mr. 

Lieberman’s longstanding approach to foreign policy issues is much like 

the one taken by the late Sen. Henry ‘Scoop’Jackson of Washington dur- 

ing the Cold War.”114 

The comparison is probably no coincidence considering the fact that 

the real “brains”behind Jackson’s hawkish (and vehemently pro-Israel) 

stance was none other than Richard Perle,now the chief ideologue among 

the “neo-conservative”war hawks who orchestrated the war against Iraq. 

During Jackson’s heyday, Perle was Jackson’s chief behind-the-scenes 

advisor, steering the otherwise “liberal”Jackson into a confrontational 

stance against the then-Soviet Union, primarily because of the fact that 

the Kremlin—at that time—was being accused of being “anti-Zionist.” 

The Times’endorsement of Lieberman recalls the effusive praise that 

Rev. Jerry Falwell—another fanatic supporter of Israel and leading 

Republican—gave Lieberman during the 2000 campaign when Lieber- 

man was Al Gore’s vice presidential running mate. 

Although a bizarre figure, the Times’ publisher—Moon—has long 

been entangled with hard-line “neo-conservative” elements of the 

American lobby for Israel. As a consequence, that Moon’s newspaper 

should promote Lieberman’s call for war (and his candidacy) at the same 

time it was attacking the Vatican for opposing the war is thus no surprise. 


On the positive side, it should be noted that there is a Christian reac- 

tion in America against the “end times”advocates of Israel who are allied 

with the “neo-conservatives.”While there has always been a mainstream 

group of Christian fundamentalists who have loudly and consistently 

questioned the very concept of “dispensationalism,”arguing with the pro- 

Israel advocates over the idea that the modern-day state of Israel consti- 

tutes the Israel of the Bible—a thesis that they reject—this group has been 

largely low-key, fearing the wrath of the American media which is quick 

to charge critics of Israel with “anti-Semitism.” 

However, in the Washington, DC area, for many years, a well-known 

Christian evangelist named Dale Crowley, Jr. has regularly broadcast a 

six-times weekly radio forum (over WFAX-AM 1220) in which he takes 


to task the Israeli lobby, its neo-conservative operatives and the Christian 

Right figures with whom the neo-conservatives are allied. 

Recently Crowley penned an “Open Letter to Jerry Falwell,”pub- 

lished in the national weekly newspaper, American Free Press, which 

harshly condemned Falwell and his fellow-travelers in the Christian Right 

for their support for Israeli aggression against the Palestinian Muslims 

and the Palestinian Christians. 

A devout Christian in the traditional fundamentalist mode, Crowley 

has often faced the wrath of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai 

B’rith for his outspoken voice, but he remains undaunted. 

Yet another Washington, DC area Christian activist, E. Stanley 

Rittenhouse, has likewise energetically posed a challenge to Falwell and 

the pro-Zionist elements. On one occasion Rittenhouse organized a pick- 

et line outside Falwell’s church,hoping to convince Falwell’s followers of 

the dangers blind alliance to Zionism and Israeli imperialism pose both to 

America and to Christian tradition. 

A fascinating book by Rittenhouse, For Fear of the Jews, is a well- 

written exposition on the topic that pulls no punches. 

One of the nation’s best known Christian critics of the evangelical 

alliance with Zionism is Oregon-based Rev. Theodore Winston “Ted” 

Pike who—with his wife Alynn—has produced several remarkable 

videos, including The Other Israel, Why the Mid-East Bleeds, and 

Zionism &Christianity:Unholy Alliance, each of which addresses vari- 

ous aspects of the Middle East crisis and are highly recommended. 

In addition, there is a growing body of other Christians—who are 

operating largely independent of the organized churches—who also reject 

dispensationalism and who openly criticize the leading evangelists such 

as Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye and others. These are the so- 

called “Preterists”who contend (based on solid historical fact) that mod- 

ern-day dispensationalism is hardly traditional Christian teaching at all 

and is largely based on a theory popularized in the early 20th century by 

one Cyrus Scofield. The Preterists charge that Scofield’s dispensational- 

ism was actively promoted and funded by the Rothschild family of 

Europe for the very purpose of advancing the Zionist cause and for fos- 

tering a push for an imperial global order quite similar indeed to the poli- 

cies being pursued by the “neo-conservative” elements in the Bush

administration in alliance with the Christian Right. 

Among the more prominent of the Preterists are such figures as Don 

K. Preston and John Anderson who have been producing a wide array of 

literature and videos challenging the dispensationalist teachings and 

propaganda. Another is Syrian-born Christian scholar Robert Boody,now 

a proud citizen of America, who has been a forthright critic not only of 

the dispensationalists but also of the stridently pro-Israel and anti-Arab 

tendencies of the American government. 

The outreach of the Preterists to many American Christians is suc- 

ceeding to the point that the leaders of the dispensationalist movement— 

such as Tim LaHaye—are energetically working to combat this increas- 

ingly influential message. 

So it is that while the Christian Right and its “Likudnik”allies among 

the neo-conservatives are now in a position of power, there is a growing 

rebellion among the ranks of good American Christians who do not 

believe in war and destruction aimed against the Arab and Muslim world 

on behalf of Zionist imperialism under whatever guise it may mask itself. 


The American media not only promotes the Christian and Jewish 

extremist alliance that supports the “neo-conservative”network, but it 

also lends its considerable clout to efforts by the neo-conservatives to turn 

Americans against the Arab and Muslim world. 

For many years—long before the 9-11 terrorist attacks—the 

American media has broadcast fears of “terrorism” with the message 

clear:Arabs are terrorists, or, at the least, potential terrorists. 

In fact, as the record shows, when the media turns to “experts”for 

information about terrorism, more often than not they’re turning to 

sources with close ties to Israel and its American lobby. 

In 1989, Pantheon Books published a little-noticed volume that pro- 

vides a stark and revealing look at the development and growth of what 

the authors dubbed “the terrorism industry.” 

In The “Terrorism”Industry:The Experts and Institutes That Shape 

Our View of Terror, Professor Edward Herman of the University of 

Pennsylvania and his co-author, Gerry O’Sullivan, have provided a com- 

prehensive and scholarly overview of the way that powerful private spe- 


cial interests (both foreign and domestic) have worked together with gov- 

ernment agencies in the United States and internationally to influence the 

way that the world looks upon the phenomenon of modern-day terrorism. 

Although the authors do not focus exclusively on the role of Israel 

and its American lobby in the “terrorism industry,”it is very clear from 

their carefully documented findings that Israel does indeed constitute a 

major player and has, from the very beginning. 


According to the authors:“Many of the institutes and think tanks that 

are important components of the terrorism industry originated or grew 

rapidly as part of a major corporate offensive in the 1970s.”115 

They point out that one of the key organizers and fund-raisers—a 

powerful public relations voice behind this corporate offensive—was 

Irving Kristol who “succeeded in mobilizing a wide array of wealthy indi- 

viduals, firms and foundations in the overall funding enterprise.”Kristol, 

of course, is the father of William Kristol, the primary publicist for the 

ideology of the “neo-conservative”network. 

Using his clout within the ranks of the elite, it was the senior Kristol 

who was thus one of the prime movers behind a growing number of insti- 

tutions devoting their resources to the study of “terrorism”—at least as 

Kristol and his associates define it. 

So the “war against terrorism”was part and parcel of the neo-conser- 

vative long-range view—well before 9-11. 


In The ‘Terrorism’Industry,Herman and O’Sullivan have pointed out 

the Israeli connections of some of the more notable institutions known for 

their active engagement in analyzing and explaining terrorism: 

• The neo-conservative Heritage Foundation “helps fund and engages 

in joint activities with institutes in Great Britain and Israel.” 

• The Jewish Institute on National Security Affairs (JINSA) “was 

organized and is run by individuals closely tied to the Israeli lobby and 

can be regarded as a virtual agency of the Israeli government.” 

• Georgetown University’s Center for Strategic and International

Studies includes such well known “experts”on terrorism often quoted in 

the media as Michael Ledeen, Walter Laquer and Edward Luttwak who 

“have had very close relationships with Israel and Mossad.” 

• The Institute for Studies in International Terrorism at the State 

University of New York, has “extensive international ties to military police 

and intelligence operations as well as the U.S., European, and Israeli right 

[which] reflect [founder Yonah] Alexander’s own connections.” 


With these institutions and others feeding “facts”about terrorism to 

the public, the media falls down on the job, according to Herman and 

O’Sullivan, by accepting without question the information (or is it “dis- 

information”?) on terrorism that the terrorism industry puts forth: 

“The terrorism industry produces the Western ‘line’on terrorism,and 

selects the appropriately supportive ‘facts,’and the mass media dissemi- 

nate these to the public. The transmission process is smooth, as the mass 

media pass long the manufactured messages without further substantial 

processing, functioning essentially as conduits. 

“The U.S. mass media have raised no questions about the premises 

and agenda of the terrorism industry and generally fail even to filter out 

or correct literal error.” 

Herman and O’Sullivan cite, as one example, a four-part series on 

“counter-terrorism”that appeared in The New York Timeson December 2, 

3, 4, and 5, 1984. The authors point out that the Timesrelied on Israeli 

officials and experts for about 20% of the information disclosed. The bal- 

ance of those interviewed were largely U.S. officials and other “experts,” 

but the authors did not indicate whether the U.S. officials and experts 

included in the Timesreport had ties to Israel and its American lobby. 


The authors indicate,based upon their findings,that there is good rea- 

son to believe that certain acts of “terrorism” are, in fact, deliberate 

provocations created to advance the agenda of those ostensibly fighting 

terrorism. They write: 


Agents of the state, and those of private groups as well, may not only impli- 

cate terrorists from within terrorist organizations,they may urge them to commit 

terrorist acts to justify prosecution. They themselves may carry out terrorist 

acts—attributed to others—for propaganda purposes. We believe that these 

actions are of great and underestimated importance. 

It is not difficult for agents of intelligence organizations to set off a bomb or 

even to kill individuals, or to encourage or hire others to do these things; then to 

make a phone call claiming responsibility on behalf of a Red network or 

Palestinian organization. This is an easy way of creating a desired moral envi- 

ronment, and there is substantial evidence that states have frequently engaged in 

such practices. 

The Israeli government carried out a number of terrorist bombings of U.S. 

facilities in Cairo in 1955-56,hoping that these would be attributed to Egyptians 

and damage relations between Egypt and the United States. In the United States, 

the FBI has long engaged in agent provocateur actions, urging violence on pen- 

etrated dissident organizations and carrying out direct acts of violence, then 

attributed to the individuals and organizations under attack. 

There is much more to the business of “terrorism”than meets the eye, 

as Herman and O’Sullivan have pointed out. For this reason, Americans 

especially need to be wary of media reports about “terrorism”and to care- 

fully consider precisely who is behind such reports. 


One particular terrorism “expert”often cited by the media is worth 

examining. He is Steven Emerson—reportedly Jewish, although he will 

not acknowledge it, at least publicly—who is frequently featured in the 

media in America. 

Critics have called him a “fanatic Arab and Muslim hater,”which he 

clearly is. One independent journalist, John Sugg, has summarized 

Emerson’s activities, pointing out his Israeli connections: 

A closer look at Emerson’s career suggests his priority is not so much news 

as it is an unrelenting attack against Arabs and Muslims . . . 

Emerson gained prominence in the early 90s. He published books, wrote 

articles, produced a documentary, won awards and was frequently quoted. The 

media, Capitol Hill and scholars paid attention . . . 

As Emerson’s fame mounted, so did criticism. Emerson’s book, The Fall of 

Pan Am 103,was chastised by The Columbia Journalism Review,which noted in

July 1990 that passages “bear a striking resemblance, in both substance and 

style”to reports in The Post-Standardof Syracuse, N.Y. Reporters from the 

Syracuse newspaper told this writer that they cornered Emerson at an 

Investigative Reporters and Editors conference and forced an apology. 

A New York Timesreview (5/19/91) of his 1991 book Terrorismchided that 

it was “marred by factual errors…and by a pervasive anti-Arab and anti- 

Palestinian bias.”His 1994 PBS video,Jihad in America(11/94),was faulted for 

bigotry and misrepresentations—veteran reporter Robert Friedman (The Nation

5/15/95) accused Emerson of “creating mass hysteria against American Arabs.” 

. . . “He’s poison,”says investigative author Seymour Hersh, when asked about 

how Emerson is perceived by fellow journalists . . . 

[Emerson] scored a November 1996 hit in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 

(11/3/96)—owned by right-wing Clinton-basher Richard Mellon Scaife, who 

also partially funded Jihad in America

Considering Scaife’s patronage, it is not surprising that Emerson declared 

that Muslim terrorist sympathizers were hanging out at the White House. 

Emerson had a similar commentary piece printed three months earlier in The 

Wall Street Journal(8/5/96), one of the writer’s few consistent major outlets . . . 

As recognition of Emerson’s liabilities has grown, he has handed his bull- 

horn to less controversial fellow travelers. Retired federal agents Oliver “Buck” 

Revell and Steve Pomerantz, who run a security business, showed up echoing 

Emersonisms in an October 31 Washington Post article warning of conspiracies 

and front organizations .  . . 

Revell also acknowledges another member of the fraternity is Yigal Carmon, 

a right-wing Israeli intelligence commander who endorsed the use of torture 

(Washington Post, 5/4/95), and who has stayed at Emerson’s Washington apart- 

ment on trips to lobby Congress against Middle East peace initiatives (The 

Nation, 5/15/95). 

Says Vince Cannistraro,an ABC consultant and a retired CIA counterterror- 

ism official, of Emerson’s allies, Pomerantz, Revell and Carmon: “They’re 

Israeli-funded. How do I know that? Because they tried to recruit me.”Revell 

denies Cannistraro’s assertion, but refuses to discuss his group’s finances. 

Emerson’s own financing is hazy. He has received funding from Scaife. 

Some Emerson critics suspect Israeli backing. The Jerusalem Post(9/17/94) has 

noted that Emerson has “close ties to Israeli intelligence.” 

“He’s carrying the ball for Likud,”says investigative journalist Robert Parry, 

referring to Israel’s right-wing ruling party. Victor Ostrovsky,who defected from 

Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency and has written books disclosing its secrets, 

calls Emerson “the horn”—because he trumpets Mossad claims.116 



Emerson, however, is not the only widely-touted media darling 

reported to be an “expert”on terrorism and the Arab world. More promi- 

nent than Emerson—and certainly more widely “respected”in the classic 

sense—is aging Princeton University Professor Bernard Lewis. 

Although Lewis is Jewish and although his son is active in AIPAC, 

the lobby for Israel in Washington, these two details are seldom—if 

ever—mentioned by the media which gives Lewis great fanfare and pro- 

motes his books and lectures, including, most particularly, his recent 

book, What Went Wrong, a vicious attack on the history of the Arab and 

Muslim peoples. In fact, Lewis is very much a much-heralded voice— 

however biased—for the neo-conservative movement. 

Delving into what the author describes as “the warped world of 

Bernard Lewis,” Anis Shivani has summarized Lewis’s Arab- and 

Muslim-hating worldview: 

Lewis was the one who originally coined the odious term,“clash of civiliza- 

tions,”in his supercilious Atlantic Monthlyarticle of September 1990, “The 

Roots of Muslim Rage.”This article appeared after the fall of the Berlin Wall and 

preparatory to identifying the new enemy. 

In that article, Lewis rejects all the obvious explanations—failures of 

American policy, for instance—and looks for “something deeper”that “makes 

every problem insoluble,”without identifying what that something deeper could 

be. He dismisses imperialism as an explanation for “rage”and “humiliation,” 

suggesting that anti-imperialism has a [Muslim] religious connotation. 

In books like The Arabs in History(1950),The Emergence of Modern Turkey 

(1961), Semites and Anti-Semites(1986), The Jews of Islam(1984), and Islam 

and the West(1993) Lewis has catalogued what he sees as the incurable patholo- 

gies of the Islamic world in its suspended state of humiliation.117 

Ironically, Shivani points out that despite his reputation as a wide- 

ranging scholar, Lewis’premise is based on quite a limited foundation in 

the first place: 

In his new book, Lewis opens his account of “what went wrong”with the 

beginning of Ottoman military setbacks in the sixteenth and later centuries. 

Lewis’s interpretation of Islam is heavily Ottomancentric, hardly dealing with 

the substance of South Asian, Southeast Asian, Central Asian, Persian or North

African civilization,and yet he extrapolates to the whole world of Islam through 

all of time.118 

Noting Lewis’s profound propensity for dismissing all of the accom- 

plishments and remarkable history of the Arab and Muslim worlds, 

Shivani concludes: 

This is the template according to which Americans are being prepared for a 

final onslaught against those foolish enough to think that there could be an alter- 

native to the American model. 

All previous Muslim attempts to modernize have only increased the power 

of the state to tyrannize; the conclusion is that we should take away their power 

and leave them pauperized.119 

Despite Lewis’obvious bias—or perhaps because of it—Lewis has 

been a key behind-the-scenes player in impacting Bush administration 

policies that led up to the assault on Iraq. On April 5, 2003 The New York 

Timesdescribed Lewis’s inflammatory book, What Went Wrong, as hav- 

ing been a major influence on Bush administration thinking, particularly 

that of Vice President Dick Cheney. 


The Timesalso revealed that even prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks 

Lewis was a key participant in a little-known study—sponsored by 

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz— 

that examined ancient empires, in order “to understand how they main- 

tained their dominance.”120 

Notably, the Timesdid not rush to explain to its American readers 

why officials of their government—a regime faced with many internal 

problems at home ranging from illiteracy, unemployment, declining 

infrastructure, poverty and disease—would be concerned with the histor- 

ical day-to-day machinations of ancient empires. 

However, the fact that Lewis was called in to advise on such a topic 

indicates the direction in which the “neo-conservatives”were heading, 

long before the seemingly convenient 9-11 tragedy that gave them the 

pretext upon which to act. 

Lest there be any doubt that Lewis’s point of view is only one of 

many points of view considered by the Bush administration,note what the 


Bush administration’s chief “neo-conservative” imperialist ideologue, 

Paul Wolfowitz said admiringly of Lewis via satellite during a tribute to 

Lewis held in Israel: 

Bernard Lewis has brilliantly placed the relationships and the issues of the 

Middle East into their larger context, with truly objective, original—and always 

independent—thought. Bernard has taught [us] how to understand the complex 

and important history of the Middle East and use it to guide us where we will go 

next to build a better world for generations.121 

Lamis Andoni, a veteran journalist who has covered the Middle East 

for some 20 years for a wide variety of publications, has provided a par- 

ticularly valuable overview of Lewis’s career as an advocate for the new 

imperialism. Ms. Andoni noted that “Lewis has not only provided histor- 

ical justification for Washington’s ‘war on terror,’but has also emerged as 

chief ideologue for the re-colonization of the Arab world through an 

American invasion of Iraq.”122Ms. Andoni encapsulates Lewis’s dubious 

contribution to international friendship and cooperation: 

Lewis’s work, especially his book What Went Wrong:Western Impact and 

Middle Eastern Response, has been a major source in what is practically a man- 

ifesto for advocates of US military intervention towards “establishing democra- 

cy in the Middle East.”By declaring that the peoples of the Middle East, mean- 

ing Arabs and Iranians, have failed to catch up with modernity and have fallen 

into “a downward spiral of hatred and rage,”Lewis has at once exonerated 

American imperial policies and provided a moral imperative for President 

George W Bush’s “preemptive strikes”and “regime change”doctrines. 

In fact, Lewis, according to published reports and his own statements, has 

been involved in lobbying, shaping and promoting the Bush Administration’s 

most hawkish policies in support of Israel against the Palestinians, and for the 

aggressive use of American military force in the region. 

His influence is not merely a result of his academic stature and prolific writ- 

ings on Islam, rather it is primarily a function of his membership in an alliance 

of neo-conservatives and hard-line Zionists who have come to assume key posts 

in the Bush administration. 

On February 19, [1998], representatives of the alliance, including Lewis, 

[future US Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld [and his future Deputy Defense 

Secretary, Paul] Wolfowitz and others, signed a letter urging President Bill 

Clinton to launch a military offensive,which would have included blanket bomb- 

ings, to destroy the Iraqi regime. 

Lewis provides “a scholarly”cover for a lobby that has been openly advo-

cating the reshaping of the regional map to eliminate “the Arab threat to Israel.” 

Furthermore,Lewis considers Israel and Turkey the only real nation states in the 

region and has been forecasting the demise and the disintegration of Arab states 

since the Gulf War.  Lewis, who worked for British intelligence during World 

War II, not only has considerable nostalgia for bygone days, but has put himself 

solidly in the service of the new American empire, hoping it will pick up where 

the British and the French left off.123 

The average American who sees one such as Bernard Lewis promot- 

ed in the broadcast media has no idea that this “kindly old gentleman”— 

who looks like somebody’s grandfather —is, in fact, one of the prime 

movers behind the most vicious type of racism and religious hatred imag- 

inable, nor will the major media ever reveal that, at least not in America. 


On a far lower level and on assuredly a less widely-publicized scale, 

certain elements have joined the ranks of the “neo-conservative”elite in 

promoting anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred. 

While many Americans of the so-called “extreme right”—not to be 

confused with the “neo-conservative” movement surrounding Richard 

Perle and William Kristol and their allies such as Steven Emerson and 

Bernard Lewis—are strongly anti-Zionist or outright anti-Jewish, there 

are a handful of other so-called “rightist”organizations that share the 

anti-Muslim and anti-Arab fanaticism of the Jewish neo-conservatives. 

For example, there is one rather prominent individual who—while 

often described by the media as a “racist”—has nonetheless actively 

avoided criticizing Israel and who is an outspoken enemy of Arab and 

Muslim immigrants into America. His name is Jared Taylor. 

Editor of a publication known as American Renaissance,Jared Taylor 

is widely believed by many of his critics to be an asset of the CIA. 

Critics note not only that he is a graduate of Yale, a long-time CIA 

recruiting ground, but that he has been active and successful in business 

and finance in the Far East. In addition,a book Taylor wrote—Paved With 

Good Intentions—alleging that black Americans are inferior to whites, 

was praised in Commentary, the neo-conservative voice of the American 

Jewish Committee, edited by Norman Podhoretz who, himself, was con- 


nected to CIA-financed activities as far back as the 1950s. 

So Taylor’s connections to the “neo-conservative”network and the 

New York elite are firm indeed. 

And considering the impact that Taylor has in certain American “right 

wing”circles that are seemingly independent of the “neo-conservative” 

elite—such as a so-called “Council of Conservative Citizens”of which he 

is director—it is clear that Taylor’s voice is being heard and having an 

impact. At one juncture, Taylor’s Council of Conservative Citizens fea- 

tured an item attacking “Dirty Rotten Arabs and Muslims”on its website. 

The record shows Taylor has a long history of attacking Arabs and 

Muslims. As far back as November 1993—nearly a decade ago, long 

before the widespread anti-Muslim tendencies in America, stoked by the 

major broadcast media, particularly in the wake of the 9-11-2001 terror- 

ist attacks, Taylor’s American Renaissancemagazine featured an article 

entitled “The Rise of Islam in America,”which asserted that “Islam lies 

at a dangerous intersection between race and immigration,”and which 


Islam, in its various forms, lies at the intersection of America’s two most 

dogma-laden and self-destructive policies:immigration and race relations. It was 

the purest idiocy to have imported crowds of swarthy fanatics who are prepared 

to kill each other—and us—over obscure conflicts in the Levant. Had no one 

noticed that Middle Easterners fight out their unsettled feuds not only in their 

own countries but in Europe as well? To have imported fanatics who worship the 

same god as the Black Muslims was idiocy on stilts.124 

A Muslim-bashing hate festival sponsored by Taylor in the 

Washington,D.C. area over the Feb. 22,2002 weekend set off alarm bells 

about Taylor’s covert agenda. American Free Press,based in Washington, 

D.C., reported as follows: 

Had you walked into Jared Taylor’s recent American Renaissance confer- 

ence, you might have thought you were at a pro-Israel rally: the anti-Muslim 

rhetoric was that pervasive. Taylor’s self-styled “uptown”approach echoes the 

ongoing Israeli propaganda theme that the Islamic religion is the root cause of 

the Sept. 11 tragedy—not the pro-Israel U.S. Middle East policy. 

One who attended the meeting—young Bill White—described Taylor’s 

meeting at his (White’s) overthrow.com website. While finding the event inter-

esting, White—an outspoken anti-Zionist—says what disturbed him the most 

was “the decided anti-Black and anti-Muslim tilt of the conference.” 

The “entire focus,”said White, “was on Islam and blacks and how bad and 

threatening they are,with nary a word about Jews and their influence in politics. 

All of the speakers either didn’t address the Zionist-Israeli issue, or did so in 

philo-Semitic, flattering, untrue and ridiculous terms.”Every speaker at Taylor’s 

conference except one was anti-black and anti-Muslim, according to White.125 

Perhaps in keeping with his decidedly anti-Muslim stance, Taylor 

previously featured a hard-line pro-Zionist New York-based Rabbi, 

Meyer Schiller, as the keynote speaker at a previous conference. 

The Forwardnewspaper, a prominent American Jewish publication, 

has said that Schiller reports that his influence with Taylor has helped 

bring about positive feelings for the American Jewish cause on Taylor’s 

part, and thereby helped stimulate other Americans who follow Taylor’s 

teachings to think likewise. 

Although—after being widely criticized by many of his associates— 

Taylor has since made some motions to suggest that U.S. policy toward 

Israel and the Arab world may have stimulated the 9-11 terrorist attacks, 

Taylor does not relent in his attacks on Muslim immigrants, effectively 

playing into the hands of the Zionist cause. 

Ironically, although Taylor has spent a great deal of energy in 

Muslim-bashing, his closest friend and long-time political fellow-travel- 

er, one Mark Weber, has assiduously courted the Muslim world while 

posturing as an “anti-Zionist,”causing some persons to wonder just what 

the Taylor-Weber agenda really may be. 

Weber is best known today as one of a small group who—working 

under the direction of a known long-time CIA operative Andrew E. 

Allen—orchestrated the destruction of The Spotlight newspaper, in its 

time the one independent American newspaper that regularly and force- 

fully raised questions about the imbalanced U.S. policy toward Israel and 

the Arab and Muslim worlds. 

Taylor and his ilk are thus part and parcel of a malicious and wide- 

ranging effort to defame the Arab and Muslim peoples, and the truth is 

that their impact is being felt at a critical time when the Zionist lobby 

finds it vital to have its “agents”inside even the smallest—but still mild- 

ly influential—groups in America. 


Individuals such as these use their outreach (however minimal it may 

be) to bend Americans and others in the West in favor of Israel through 

attacks on Arabs and Muslims, and this proves critical to Israel’s imperi- 

al goals, in league with the neo-conservative manipulators now dominat- 

ing American foreign policy. 


Writing in Britain’s New Statesmanon December 12, 2002, journal- 

ist John Pilger described, in disturbing terms, how William Kristol’s 

Project for the New American Century had determined that America 

needed a “new Pearl Harbor”as the pretext for launching a bid for glob- 

al dominance. The theme laid forth by Kristol and his associates was that 

should such a catastrophic event take place, it would give America the 

opportunity to once again build up its military forces. 

On June 3, 1997—three years before George W. Bush assumed the 

presidency and installed the neo-conservatives in power—a host of neo- 

conservatives including Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul 

Wolfowitz signed their names to a “statement of principles”issued by 

Kristol’s organization. 

The statement laid forth a goal of building up American military 

might to ensure that the United States could pursue global hegemony, 

unfettered by any nation or nations that might dare to resist the agenda of 

America’s ruling elite—unquestionably a declaration of imperial aims. 

A subsequent design—dated September 2000—by Kristol’s Project 

for the New American Century,entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: 

Strategies,Forces and Resources for a New Century,”laid forth a plan for 

the United States to take military control of the Gulf region whether 

Saddam Hussein was in power or not. It stated frankly that the American 

need for a presence in the Persian (i.e. Arabian) Gulf transcended the 

question of whether or not Saddam Hussein remained in power. 

In order to fulfill that dream, Kristol and his associates said, the 

United States must be prepared to be able to do battle in multiple places, 

at one time, around the globe. To achieve that ability, they declared, 

America must engage in a major transformation of its military, accompa- 

nied by massive arms buildups. However, they concluded, “The process

of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and 

catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” 

Given that the tragic events of September 11, 2001 provided precise- 

ly the “new Pearl Harbor”that sparked a massive build-up, accompanied 

by the “war on terrorism”that transformed—through neo-conservative 

influence—into an imperial war,first targeting Iraq and thence the rest of 

the Arab and Muslim world, there are many Americans and others who 

question whether the 9-11 attacks were either instigated and/or sponsored 

by the United States and/or the government of Israel,acting either togeth- 

er or alone. Such people are denounced as “conspiracy theorists”and/or 

as “hatemongers”—facts notwithstanding. 

(The special report from American Free Press [AFP]—entitled “Fifty 

Unanswered Questions About 9-11”—contains a wealth of information in 

this regard that has otherwise, quite notably, gone unmentioned in the 

mainstream media in America. The work of AFP’s international corre- 

spondent, Christopher Bollyn, has been frequently cited as among the 

most forthright in challenging the official U.S. government scenario as to 

what happened on that tragic day.) 


Many Americans who suspect such a scenario point out that there is 

evidence that, in past years, American officials seriously pondered the 

possibility of carrying out acts of terrorism on American soil. Most fre- 

quently cited is the book by respected veteran journalist James Bamford, 

Body of Secrets, released in 2001—just prior to the 9-11 attacks. 

In that book Bamford revealed that as early as January of 1961, top 

U.S. policy makers were considering a horrific scheme to launch terrorist 

attacks on American citizens and point the finger of blame at Fidel 

Castro’s communist Cuba. 

Although Bamford’s book received some media play, Bamford’s 

shocking revelations regarding the terror campaign proposed by then- 

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Army General Lyman Lemnitzer, were 

largely suppressed. 

Lemnitzer, reportedly Jewish, later emerged as part of the neo-conser- 

vative Committee on the Present Danger,the public advocacy group for the 


policies put forth by Richard Perle’s Team B experiment which was 

described earlier in these pages. In any case, here’s what Bamford wrote: 

According to documents obtained for Body of Secrets, Lemnitzer and the 

Joint Chiefs proposed secretly to stage an attack on the American naval base at 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba—and then blame the violent action on Castro. 

Convinced that Cuba had launched an unprovoked attack on the United States, 

the unwitting American public would then support the Joint Chiefs’ bloody 

Caribbean war. After all,who would believe Castro’s denials over the word of the 

Pentagon’s top military commanders? The nation’s most senior military leader- 

ship was proposed to launch a war, which would no doubt kill many American 

servicemen, based solely on a fabric of lies. On January 19, just hours before 

[then-President Dwight] Eisenhower left office, Lemnitzer gave his approval to 

the proposal. As events progressed,the plan would become only the tip of a very 

large and secret iceberg.126 

A self-described “imaginative planner,” Lemnitzer kept his initial 

plan in cold storage. However, after the new Kennedy administration’s 

Bay of Pigs fiasco which left Fidel Castro stronger than ever before, 

Lemnitzer reinvigorated his scheme under the name “Operation 

Northwoods.”Bamford reports that: 

The plan,which had the written approval of the chairman and every member 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American 

streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for 

a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington,D.C.,Miami and else- 

where. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would 

be hijacked. Using phony evidence,all of it would be blamed on Castro,thus giv- 

ing Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international 

backing, they needed to launch their war.127 

What makes this so additionally disturbing is that this was not some 

wild scheme by “mad bombers”inside the military. In Bamford’s estima- 

tion,“the idea may actually have originated with President Eisenhower in 

the last days of his administration.”128 

Bamford reports that Eisenhower was determined to invade Cuba and 

that if Castro did not provide an excuse prior to the inauguration of 

newly-elected President John F. Kennedy, Eisenhower suggested that the 

United States “could think of manufacturing something that would be


generally acceptable.”129 

What Eisenhower was suggesting, writes Bamford, was “a bombing, 

an attack,an act of sabotage carried out secretly against the United States 

by the United States. Its purpose would be to justify the launching of a 

war. It was a dangerous suggestion by a desperate president.”130 Lem- 

nitzer, Eisenhower’s protege, was eager to carry out the plan. 

Lemnitzer also had in mind the possibility of terrorism on American 

soil by Americans against Americans—but blamed on Castro. This ter- 

rorist conspiracy against his fellow Americans was also offered up by 

Lemnitzer and his advisors who suggested: 

We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, 

in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be 

pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States . . . . We could sink 

a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated) . . . . We could fos- 

ter attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of 

wounding in instances to be widely publicized.131 

Bombings and, notably, even airplane hijackings, were all suggested. 

Whether Lemnitzer’s proposals ever actually reached President Kennedy 

is unknown, writes Bamford, but it is clear that the president was not 

enamored with the war-mongering general to whom he denied a second 

term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs. 

Yet,following in Lemnitzer’s tradition,like-minded “intellectuals”in 

the defense establishment continued to formulate plans passed on to the 

military leadership that were designed to provoke a war through a staged 

terrorist attack. In the end,however,no such plan ever seems to have gone 

beyond the planning stages, at least as far as Cuba was concerned. 

The question arises as to whether—on September 11, 2001—another 

uch insidious scheme was carried through to its conclusion. Many 

Americans will continue to wonder if that is precisely what happened and 

evidence continues to emerge that suggests that was indeed the case.


As far back as 1975, top imperialist policy makers such as Henry 

Kissinger were viewing a potential Middle East war as the means by 

which an imperial world hegemon could be set in place. 

In fact,the scenario seems to suggest that the whole Arab-Israeli con- 

flict over Palestine was instigated—from the beginning—for the very pur- 

pose of sparking a global war. 

This eye-opening scenario was presented in the stunning final (and 

probably little-read) paragraphs of a now long-forgotten 1975 book, The 

Arabs:Their History, Aims and Challenge to the Industrialized Worldby 

American pro-Zionist writer, Thomas Kiernan. 

Although Kiernan did not name the top policy maker who outlined 

this amazing geopolitical scheme, Kiernan did describe the individual 

asserting this worldview as “a senior American State Department official 

who has played a central role in the mediatory efforts of Henry Kissinger 

during the past two years.” 

This description, of course, could include Kissinger himself and, if 

truth be told, the speaker was probably Kissinger. If not, the speaker cer- 

tainly reflected Kissinger’s thinking as a key player in Kissinger’s global 


Responding to a question by Kiernan as to whether the Middle East 

conflict could be resolved without world war, the speaker (perhaps 

Kissinger) asserted: 

The evolution of events in the Middle East during this century can be likened 

to the construction, if you can imagine it, of an inverted pyramid. 

The capstone, which in the case of such a pyramid turns out to be its base, 

was formed out of the inevitable conflict between foreign Zionists’need and 

ambition on the one hand, and local Arab pride and aspiration on the other.132 

Note that the speaker admits that the conflict resulting from the inser- 

tion of the Zionist state into Arab territory in Palestine was “inevitable.” 

There have been those who have said, for a generation, that this was the 

whole purpose of the provocative establishment of Israel in the first place. 

The speaker continued:

As the pyramid grew, the stones in each of its successively widening tiers 

had added to them further elements—the passions and needs of other foreign 

interests, the passions and aspirations of other national groups within the Arab 

world.  Each succeeding tier sucked more of the world into it. Now the pyramid 

is finished. And there it stands,incongruously balanced on its point,its four sides 

reaching up and out into every corner of the world.133 

In other words,the crisis in the Middle East began drawing in the rest 

of the nations of the world—similar, precisely, to what is now happening 

with the ongoing struggle today between the United States and tradition- 

al allies such as France and Germany, not to mention the opposition of 

Russia and China, over the issue of war with Iraq—an outgrowth of the 

Israel-Palestine conflict itself. The scenario painted continues: 

We all know that it is impossible for a pyramid to stand freely in such an 

upside-down manner. So far,it has been supported on its four corners by the rest 

of the world. 

Although it has precariously tipped now and then, it has managed to remain 

more or less upright. But the effort to keep it upright has imposed greater and 

greater tension on those who support it. 

Tension is resolved in two ways, our psychologists tell us. One way is 

through outburst. The other is through withdrawal. The fight-or-flee mechanism 

which is part of every human being’s reaction system. 

Now,you tell me. Will it be resolved peacefully? Or will it take a world war 

to bring about a resolution? 

If my analogy is correct,there can be no question of the ultimate outcome.134 

In other words, a world war must result as a consequence of the 

Israeli-Arab conflict.  The scenario proceeds: 

One way or the other—whether one side or the other relaxes its support of 

the pyramid and withdraws,or whether one side or the other chooses to eradicate 

its tension through outburst—the pyramid will lose its balance and come tum- 

bling down. 

Either way, the resolution of the situation will come out of the dust and rub- 

ble of the collapsed pyramid. The Israeli-Arab conflict, the very thing that start- 

ed it all, will be forgotten.135 

Again, note the suggestion that the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed 

central to the world war described in this frightening outline. The scenario 



East and West will be left to pick over the remains like buzzards dining on 

carrion.  That is, if there still is an East and West.136 

Note the closing words: “if there still is an East and West.” What 

nations will be allied as “the East”and which as “the West”? 

Are new alignments emerging—taking the place of the traditional 

Cold War era of “USA vs. USSR”? 

Is the Arab world—along with the rest of mankind—simply a pawn 

in a much larger game in which the neo-conservatives are only tools 


The final outcome of the drive for a world empire—dictated by 

American military might in the hands of a select few,a clique of hard-line 

neo-conservative war-hawks, the “high priests of war”—remains to be 

seen. However, based on what we have witnessed thus far, much blood 

has been shed and will continue to flow. 

America’s disastrous venture in Iraq is just the beginning—andjust 

beginning. Since George W. Bush first declared “victory”in Iraq, things 

have only gotten worse. America’s short-lived triumph has been turning 

into a Vietnam-style debacle—and the bodybags continue coming home. 

The neo-conservative myth about Saddam’s “weapons of mass 

destruction”has long ago been declared the lie that well-informed people 

knew it was. Many grass-roots Americans are now coming to realize that 

the pretext for the war against Iraq was nothing more than old-fashioned 

lies and propaganda, pure and simple. 

The truth is:the President of the United States lied to the American 

people and to the entire world. He was influenced in so doing by his neo- 

conservative advisors—liars all—and they have effectively set the stage 

for the deaths of more and more Americans and people worldwide. A 

world-wide conflagration could indeed be the final result. 

There is absolutely nothing “American”or “patriotic”about the ide- 

ological or religious or geo-political motivations of the neo-conservative 

HighPriests of War, although today they claim to be the real patriots, the 

real leaders, the real fighters for American traditions. Nothing could be 

further from the truth. 

America—and the world—will be best served by a forthright and 

unswerving drive to exorcise these predators once and for all. 

The time has indeed come. Somethinghas to be done.


Who will be ruling America . . . 

when America is ruling the New World Order? 

An examination of “the secret agenda behind the agenda” 

of the High Priests of War. 

The United Nations—as we have known it—can effectively be con- 

sidered a ghost of the past. The UN has been shelved, sidelined, con- 

signed to the trash heap—at least temporarily—by the one world dream- 

ers who once saw the global body as the means of establishing a world 

hegemon. Today’s imperialists now envision Uncle Sam as their official- 

ly-designated world policeman or,in their more academic terms “the cen- 

ter of a new international system.”137The goal is “a world that looks like 

America, and is therefore safe for all.” 

However, despite the rhetoric—which might please the ears of many 

grass-roots American patriots (or those who fancy themselves that)—it’s 

not quite so simple. There’s more to this agenda than meets the eye. 

What might be described as The Grand Scheme for a New World 

Order—in the wake of America’s new “imperial”role—was imparted in 

quite candid fashion in a major two-part policy paper in the Summer 2003 

and Winter 2004 issues of TheJournal of International Security Affairs

house organ of the definitively influential Jewish Institute for National 

Security Policy (JINSA), which has been referenced repeatedly in the 

pages of The High Priests of War

Once a previously little-known Washington think tank,JINSA is now 

often publicly acknowledged as perhaps the most specific guiding force 

behind Bush administration foreign policy today. So when something 

appears in a JINSA publication, there’s a lot of weight behind it. 

The author,Alexander H. Joffe,a pro-Israel academic,has been a fea- 

tured writer in the pages of this JINSA publication,and that he was given 

so much space to tout his theories certainly reflects the high regard in 

which his views are held. 

Joffe’s two-part series was entitled “The Empire That Dared Not

Speak Its Name.” In his essay, Joffee frankly admitted that “America is 

an empire”and asserts that, yes, this is a very good thing. 

Joffe says that when the UN dared to take on Zionism, that marked 

the demise of the UN in the minds of the internationalists. Joffe writes: 

“The end of the General Assembly as a credible body may plausibly be 

ascribed to the infamous ‘Zionism is Racism’resolution in 1975.”The 

JINSA author contends that the world should be “grateful”that the UN 

has been  “discredited, reduced to farce and ultimately ground to a halt,” 

referring, of course, to UN positions that the Zionists and their allies in 

the world empire movement find offensive. 

As a result of the UN being shelved as a world government vehicle, 

writes Joffe, “We now have the opportunity, and obligation, to begin 

again.”However, he warns that the emerging European Union (EU) is a 

threat to the dream of a global empire. 

The JINSA writer asserts that the EU is an “alternative vision for the 

international community,”one that, as he puts it, frankly is “the authentic 

countervision to an American Empire.” According to the Zionist writer, 

the biggest problem with Europe and the EU is that “culture remains at 

the core of Europe’s problems. Nationalism was a doctrine born in 

Europe, as were its vicious mutant offspring:fascism and communism.” 

(Note: A fervent advocate of Israeli super-nationalism, the writer, 

Joffe,doesn’t seem to see the lack of logic in his attack on otherpeoples’ 

nationalism—but then,again,honesty has never been integral to the hard- 

line Zionist point of view.) 

Joffe complains that although “the new European Empire is multi- 

cultural in theory . . . in reality it is dominated politically and culturally 

by France and economically by Germany.”Today, in the EU, he says, 

“driven by a sense of postcolonial guilt and postwar ennui the door have 

been thrown open to all ideas. At the most sinister levels it has permitted 

and even legitimized a vast explosion of unhinged thought and action, 

namely anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and a wide variety of conspir- 

acy theories.” 

(The so-called “conspiracy theories”that so alarm this Zionist theo- 

retician are those that dare to challenge the “official”views of what real- 

ly happened on September 11, 2001. He is inflamed that millions of peo- 

ple in Europe and the Muslim world—not to mention the United States— 


have raised questions about Israeli foreknowledge and/or involvement in 

those events.) 

In any case, what Joffe describes as “the other kind of liberal inter- 

nationalism”is what the Zionist movement favors and Joffe defines it: 

The American Empire has no real or theoretical competitors. The goal of the 

American Empire in the 21st century is not territorial control or the exploitation 

of resources but political and economic leadership which defends and advances 

American interests, and which promotes the development and well being of all 

nations. Given our history and our values, that future lies in leveraging the 

American Empire in such a way that it becomes the basis of a new democratic 

international system. 

Ultimately the only answer for a stable and prosperous planet will be a glob- 

al system that is structurally and morally similar to the American union—semi- 

autonomous states with secular,liberal democratic systems; where states have both 

prescribed rights and agreed upon responsibilities in a larger secular, liberal dem- 

ocratic framework; one equipped with checks and balances and meaningful insti- 

tutions; with governance based on rule of law and tolerant and pluralist values. 

In the second-part of his extended essay,published in the Winter 2004 

issue of JINSA’s journal, Joffe pursued this line of thought further, 

expanding on his call for what he described as “an empire that looks like 


Amazingly, Joffe frankly talks about the United States engaging in 

massive imperial conquests in the trouble-torn regions of Africa—pre- 

sumably after the United States has already made havoc in the Arab coun- 

tries of the Middle East: 

The conditions under which America and its allies would simply take over 

and restore African countries are far from clear. What are the thresholds for inter- 

vention? What are the procedures and outcomes? Who will fight and who will 

pay? The restoration of Africa would involve long-term commitments and 

immense costs, of the sort that could only be paid for by Africa itself. That is to 

say, it would probably require American economic control, to go along with 

political and cultural control. Colonialism is always pay as you go, and it is not 

pretty. The question is both whether Africa can pay the price (or afford not to) 

and whether America has the stomach. 

Of course, Africa is not the only target of Joffe and his like-minded 

schemers (and that is precisely what they are, however, “extreme”that


term may be perceived). In fact,Joffe talks of a wide-ranging global agen- 

da—well beyond the African continent. 

In the end, however, Joffe lets the cat out of the bag, about the real 

intentions of those who are using United States military power as the 

mechanism for a bigger agenda. “New arrangements,”he says, “must 

come into being under American leadership to provide an alternative for 

states that are willing to accept rights and responsibilities.”Joffe dreams 

of a United Nations that has been re-made under the imperial force of the 

United States. And ultimately, he predicts the possibility of a world gov- 

ernment, writing: 

Possibly,after a period of chaos and anger,which in any event would simply 

intensify existing states of being, the institution [the United Nations] might be 

bludgeoned into changing. [Note his use of the term “bludgeoned.”—MCP] 

Rather than a club that admits all, the 21st century United Nations might— 

someday, somehow—be remade into an exclusive, by invitation, members-only 

group, of free, democratic states, sharing similar values. Or in the end, replaced 

by one. That day, however, may be decades off. 

Should there be any doubt that he is talking about world government, 

note Joffe’s concluding words: 

The best way to preserve the American empire is to eventually give it up. 

Setting the stage for global governance can only be done with American leader- 

ship and American-led institutions of the sort schematically outlined here. 

So it is. Despite all the high-sounding rhetoric about “democracy,” 

what it all comes down to—in the words of this pro-Israel ideologue—is 

the use of America’s military power to advance another (secret) agenda 

altogether. Even many of those grass-roots American flag-wavers (who 

may be genuine patriots) who relish the concept of an American empire 

may find Joffe’s concepts somewhat different from what they otherwise 

might perceive. 

But here, in the pages of a devotedly pro-Zionist journal, we learn 

precisely what the “story behind the story”actually happens to be. It has 

nothing to do, really, even with a “strong America”or, for that matter, 

even with America itself. 

The United States of America is simply a pawn—albeit a powerful 

one—in the game, being ruthlessly shifted about in a scheme for world 

dominance by an elite few operating behind the scenes. 

And, in the end, this does tell us very much about who The High 

Priests of War really are and what their agenda is really all about. There’s 

no mystery at all. 

What remains to be determined is what the American people—and all 

other real patriots in nations around the globe—intend to do about it. 

The question is this:will the world finally decide it istime to declare 

war on The High Priests of War? 



Reported in multiple media sources including The New York Timeson March 15, 2003. 

Forward, Feb. 28, 2003. (Kinsey’s cited comments appeared online at Slatemagazine at 

slate.com in an article dated Oct. 24, 2002.) 


Ha’aretz,April 9, 2003. 

Philip S. Golub. “Inventing Demons.”Counterpunchmagazine online at counterpunchorg, 

April 5, 2003. English-language translation republished from LeMonde Diplomatique

Michael Lind. Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American 

Politics. (New York:Basic Books, 2003), p. 138. 

Stanley Heller writing on Feb. 20, 2003 at antiwar.com 

Professor Paul Gottfried, March 20, 2003 at http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/got- 


The Sacramento Union, June 29, 1986. 


Jonathan Clarke. The  National Interest. Spring 2001. 


Michael Lind. Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American 

Politics. (New York:Basic Books, 2003), p. 132. 


“Distorting US Foreign Policy: The Israel Lobby and American Power.”Michael Lind. 

Prospect,April 2002. 




“Group Urges Pro-Israel Leaders’Silence on Iraq.”Washington Post, Nov. 27, 2002. 


Michael Lind. Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American 

Politics. (New York:Basic Books, 2003), pp. 140-141. 


Time, February 17, 2003. 


Ha’aretz, February 18, 2003. 




James Bennett writing in The New York Times, Feb. 27, 2003. 


See ADL website at adl.org. Statement issued dated March 21, 2003. 


“The Bloodstained Path,”Dennis Kucinich. The Progressive, November 2002. 


Statement by Congressman Kucinich found at:http://www.kucinich.us/ 


US Congressional Record. Senate proceedings. March 19, 2003. 


Bill and Kathleen Christison, writing in Counterpunchmagazine at counterpunch.org, Dec. 

13, 2002. 


Cited by Christison, Ibid. 




Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2003. 


New York Times, March 24, 2003. 


Forward, March 21, 2003. 






Michael Lind. Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American 

Politics. (New York:Basic Books, 2003), p. 138. 


Benjamin Ginsberg. The Fatal Embrace: Jews and The State. (Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press), 1993., pp. 204-205. 


The Nation, March 22, 1986. 


The Neo-Conservatives:The Men Who Are Changing America’s Politics. (New York:Simon 

& Schuster, 1979), p. 1.


Ibid., p. 81. 


Frances Stonor Saunders. The Cultural Cold War. (New York:The New Press, 1999). 


Sidney Blumenthal. The Rise of the Counter-Establishment:From Conservative Ideology to 

Political Power. (New York:Times Books, 1986), p. 148. 


Ibid., p. 159. 


Sidney Blumenthal, p. 154. 


The Washington Post, March 19, 2002. 




Eric Alterman. The Nation, Dec. 23, 1986. 


Stephen D. Isaacs. Jews and American Politics. (New York:Doubleday & Company, 1975), 

p. 254. 


Anne Hessing Cahn, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. April 1993. Online at 



Anne Hessing Cahn. Killing Détente: The Right Attacks the CIA (State College, 

Pennsylvania:Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998), p. 151. 


Ibid. p. 30. 


Ibid., p. 187. 


The Spotlight, Feb. 5, 1996. 




John Ehrman. The Rise of Neo-Conservatism: Intellectuals and Foreign Affairs, (New 

Haven, Connecticut:University of Connecticut Press), 1995., p. 112. 


Ginsberg, p. 205. 


Ginsberg, p. 205. 


Richard Gid Powers. Not Without Honor:The History of American Anti-Communism. (New 

York:Free Press), 1995, p. 393. 


New York Times, Nov. 23, 1981. 


John Ehrman, pp. 139-141. 


Anne Hessing Cahn in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. April 1993. Online at 





The Bryen affair is documented in detail in The Armageddon Network, by Michael Saba. 

(Brattleboro,Vermont:Amana Books, 1977) 


Business Week, May 21, 1984. 


The Washington Post Magazine,April 13, 1986. 


“U.S. Secrets and the Israelis.”Boston Globeeditorial. August 28, 1986. 


New York Times, May 3, 1986. 


All quoted remarks from:Wall Street Journal, Jan. 22, 1992. 




The Weekly Standard, March 17, 2003. 


“Bill Kristol, Keeping Iraq in the Cross Hairs,”Washington Post. March 18, 2003. 


Washington Post,Aug. 21, 2001. 


All quotations:Ibid


Michael Lind. Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American 

Politics. (New York:Basic Books, 2003), p. 131. 


The Boston Globe, March 23, 2003. 


“Bush’s Grand Strategy,”Andrew J. Bacevich, American Conservative, Nov. 4, 2002. 


“America’s Age of Empire,”Todd Gitlin. Mother Jones, Jan/Feb. 2003. 


Gitlin, Ibid


“In Praise of the Bush Doctrine,”Norman Podhoretz, Commentary, Sept. 2002. 







The Washington Post,August 1, 2002. 


The Washington Post, July 28, 2002. 




Washington Monthly, June 2002. 






The Washington Post, Oct. 16, 2002 


All quotes, Ibid




Michael Lind. Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American 

Politics. (New York:Basic Books, 2003), pp. 133-134. 


time.com, Feb. 5, 2003. 


New York Review of Books, February 13, 2003 




Washington Post, Jan. 13, 2003. 


The Washington Post, Feb. 9, 2003. 


Washington Times, Feb. 14, 2003. 


Michael Ledeen. The War Against the Terror Masters. (New York:Truman Talley Books/St. 

Martin’s Press, 2002), pp. 212-213. 


Ibid., p.236. 


The Washington Post, Oct. 30, 1993. 


The New Yorker,April 7, 2003. 


Michael Lind. Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American 

Politics. (New York:Basic Books, 2003), p. 157. 


The New Republic, Jan. 29, 2001. 


Kathleen & Bill Christison in Counterpunchmagazine at counterpunch.org, Dec. 13, 2002 


Benjamin Ginsberg. The Fatal Embrace: Jews and The State. (Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press), 1993, p. 211. 


Lind, p. 149. 


“Born Again Zionists,”Ken Silverstein and Michael Scherer, Mother Jones, Sept./Oct. 





Silverstein & Scherer, Mother Jones. Ibid




Lind, p. 148. 






Congressional Record, Senate. March 4, 2002. 


Cited in Michael Lind. Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of 

American Politics. (New York:Basic Books, 2003), p. 153. 


The Washington Times, Jan. 22, 2003. 


The Washington Times,Aug. 13, 2001. 




Until otherwise noted,all quotations which follow are excerpted from:Edward Herman and 

Gerry O’Sullivan. The ‘Terrorism’Industry: The Experts and Institutions That Shape Our View of 

Terror. (New York:Pantheon Books, 1989). 


John F. Sugg,Fair EXTRA,January/February 1999 at http://www.fair.org/extra/9901/emerson.html 


Anis Shivani, writing in Counterpunchmagazine at counterpunch.org, Sept. 14-15, 2002. 







New York Times,April 5, 2003. 


Cited by Lamis Andoni, writing in “Bernard Lewis: In the Service of Empire”published 

online at The Electronic Intifada, Dec. 16, 2002 (see electronicIntifada.net). 






American Renaissance, Nov. 1993. 


American Free Press, March 11, 2002. 


James Bamford, Body of Secrets. (New York:Doubleday, 2001), p. 71. 


Ibid., p. 82. 




Ibid., p. 83. 




Ibid., pp. 84-85. 


Thomas Kiernan. The Arabs. (Boston:Little Brown & Company, 1975), p. 425. 




Ibid., p. 426. 






Until otherwise noted, the cited quotations which follow are taken from the Summer 2003 

Journal of International Security Affairs, published by the Jewish Institute for National Security 

Affairs in Washington, D.C. See their website at JINSA.org. 


Until otherwise noted, the cited quotations which follow are taken from the Winter 2004 

Journal of International Security Affairs, published by the Jewish Institute for National Security 

Affairs in Washington, D.C. See their website at JINSA.org. 



This map illustrates what the hard-line American neo-conserva- 

tives and their allies in Israel perceive to be the ultimate bound- 

aries of what is known as “Greater Israel.”Although the neo-con- 

servatives deny this is their goal, the truth is that numerous 

Zionist leaders, over the years, have frankly outlined the dream 

of “Greater Israel.”Note that the borders of Greater Israel incor- 

porate quite a bit of territory that the non-Jewish people of the 

world recognize as belonging to other countries. In fact,most peo- 

ple (even many well-informed intellectuals) have no idea this con- 

cept of “Greater Israel”is integral to the neo-conservative point 

of view and that the American war against Iraq was a first step in 

the drive toward the goal of achieving “Greater Israel.”The policies of the neo-con- 

servative clique that controls the administration of American President George W. 

Bush (bottom left) are aligned ideologically and geopolitically with Israel’s hard-line 

Likud expansionists allied with Israel’s Ariel “The Butcher”Sharon (top right).


The resources of media baron Rupert Murdoch (left) are a primary force behind the pro- 

Israel neo-conservative propaganda network. His publications such as The New York Post 

and The Weekly Standardare major voices for Israel’s interests. Murdoch’s critics contend 

he is essentially a highly-paid “front man”for billionaire patrons of Israel as Edgar 

Bronfman, Sr. (center), longtime chief of the World Jewish Congress, and Lord Jacob 

Rothschild (right) of the legendary European banking empire. Murdoch’s propaganda is 

supplemented by other pro-Israel publishers such as Mortimer Zuckerman (bottom left) 

who has been chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish 

Organizations and who owns U.S. News & World Report, The Atlantic, andThe New York 

Daily News, Martin Peretz (bottom center) publisher of the influential New Republic, and 

Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon (bottom right), a creation of the CIA-controlled 

Korean intelligence agency. Moon’s Washington Timesnewspaper—virtually a Republican 

house organ—is the “must read”neo-conservative daily in the nation’s capital. 


William Kristol (left) and his father,Irving Kristol (right) are the leading publicists for the 

Israeli lobby’s neo-conservative network. The younger Kristol—a ubiquitous “talking 

head”in the media, which gives him endless publicity—acts as publisher/editor of Rupert 

Murdoch’s Weekly Standardand operates two major organizations,Empower America and 

the Project for the New American Century. The elder Kristol—who began as a devoted 

American follower of Soviet gangster Leon Trotsky (bottom left) and who was later associ- 

ated with two CIA-funded “cultural”organizations—is the driving force behind two influ- 

ential journals, The National Interest andThe Public Interest and has been the veritable 

“godfather”of the neo-conservative movement,even promoting a “war against terrorism” 

long before the 9-11 terrorist attacks. The Kristols are closely connected to the Lynde and 

Harry Bradley Foundation which funds many neo-conservative front groups. A longtime 

Kristol collaborator, going back more than 50 years, is fellow “ex-Trotskyite”Norman 

Podhoretz (bottom right), whose considerable clout came through his years as editor of 

Commentary, the influential “neo-conservative” journal of the American Jewish 

Committee. Podhoretz’s son, John, initially joined William Kristol at The Weekly Standard 

but is now ensconced at Murdoch’s New York Postpenning pro-Israel screeds.


As far back as the early 1970s, Richard Perle (left) and Frank Gaffney (center) were key 

operatives for the Israeli lobby on Capitol Hill, working out of the office of then-Senator 

Henry M. “Scoop”Jackson, a fanatically pro-Israel Democrat from Washington (right) 

whose presidential ambitions were largely financed by supporters of Israel. While on 

Jackson’s staff, Perle was investigated by the FBI on charges of espionage on behalf of 

Israel,although the investigation was quashed. Today Perle and Gaffney are key figures in 

the neo-conservative pro-Israel propaganda network. Other longtime close associates of 

Perle include former Reagan administration National Security Council staffer Michael 

Ledeen (bottom left), who actually called for the “creative destruction”of the Arab world, 

Elliott Abrams (bottom center),the son in law of Norman Podhoretz (“ex-Trotskyite”asso- 

ciate of neo-conservative godfather Irving Kristol) and former Navy Secretary John 

Lehman (bottom right), who once joined Perle in a venture promoting the interests of an 

Israeli weapons manufacturer. Abrams is now the Middle East specialist on the George W. 

Bush administration’s National Security Council. Lehman is a member of the commission 

ostensibly “investigating”the 9-11 terrorist attacks.


During the closing days of the Gerald Ford administration (1974-1976),Richard Perle was 

a key figure in official Washington organizing and promoting the “Team B”of pro-Israel 

hard-liners working to advance Israel’s cause in the U.S. military and intelligence commu- 

nity. One longtime CIA official who strenuously objected to—and worked behind the 

scenes to combat—Team B’s pro-Israel propagandizing,John Paisley (left) was murdered, 

almost certainly by Israel’s Mossad. Notable among the “hawks”Perle recruited to “Team 

B”was Paul Wolfowitz (center), who, today—as Deputy Defense Secretary—is the most 

influential maker of foreign policy in the “Dubya”Bush administration. Wolfowitz and his 

deputy, Douglas Feith (right), another veteran advocate for Israel, are the real powers 

behind Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (bottom left). A Wolfowitz protégé, I. Lewis 

“Scooter”Libby (bottom center), runs the office of Vice President Dick Cheney (bottom 

right). Prior to the vice presidency, Cheney demonstrated his devotion to Israel by serving 

on the board of the Perle-connected Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. 


Shown sharing a toast (above)are businessman Michael Saba (left) and the veteran jour- 

nalist to whom this book is dedicated,Andrew St. George (right). The two worked closely 

together for years seeking to publicize the Israeli espionage scandal involving Richard 

Perle’s longtime associate Stephen J. Bryen (far right). Saba wrote a book about the Bryen 

affair, The Road to Armageddon, while his friend St. George wrote extensively about the 

scandal in the pages of The Spotlight, one of the few publications to dare to delve into the 

matter. Saba,an Arab-American civil rights activist,happened—by pure chance—to be in 

a Washington, D.C. coffee shop at the very time Bryen (then a high-ranking congressional 

staffer) was passing classified U.S. defense secrets to Israeli operatives. Saba overheard the 

intrigue, and recognizing Bryen, reported what happened to the FBI. Although a Jewish- 

American federal prosecutor wanted to indict Bryen for espionage, pressure from Bryen’s 

highly-placed allies resulted in the indictment being quashed. Bryen was later rewarded 

with a top post in the Reagan administration Defense Department as deputy to Richard 

Perle and later founded the influential Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs which 

is today seen as the guiding force behind the Bush administration’s foreign policy. 

No account of the lunacy and fanaticism rampant 

within neo-conservative circles would be com- 

plete without reference to one of Israel’s most 

devoted advocates in Washington, Attorney 

General John Ashcroft (right), shown before the 

classic statue—“The Spirit of Justice”—at the 

Department of Justice. This photo was taken 

before Ashcroft spent $8,000 in taxpayers’money 

to cover up the bosom of this fabulous work of 

classic art because it offended his sensibilities. 

Ashcroft is said to be frightened of calico cats 

(inset) because,for religious reasons,he considers 

them “tools of the devil.”Evidence of peculiar 

activity by known Israeli intelligence operatives 

on American soil— before and on the day of the 

9-11 attacks—has been dismissed by Ashcroft as 

an “urban legend.”It is not.


A senior player in Richard Perle’s power network is aging “Team B”veteran Paul Nitze 

(left),who,in the early 1960s,was involved in the recently exposed “Operation Northwoods” 

scheme by another pro-Israel stalwart, General Lyman Lemnitzer (center), to stage terror- 

ist attacks on American soil to be falsely blamed on Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. A younger 

Perle protege is Daniel Pipes (right), the son of Perle’s Team B recruit Richard Pipes. 

Virulently anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, Pipes has always received vast and friendly media 

publicity. George W. Bush rewarded Pipes for his hate-mongering with an appointment to 

the U.S. Institute of Peace which,considering Pipe’s presence,is clearly misnamed. 

Christopher Bollyn (above) was 

one of the first journalists to 

reveal that key neo-conserva- 

tives had actually proclaimed a “new Pearl Harbor”could provide a 

pretext for the U.S to launch a drive for a global imperium. This 

indeed became the case when “Dubya”Bush launched war against 

Iraq, having deceived many Americans, through outright lies, that 

Iraq had played a part in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Actually, as far 

back as 1975, infamous intriguer Henry Kissinger (left) was suggest- 

ing a Middle East war could provide the foundation for establishing a 

realigned world of the type of which the neo-conservatives dream.


Three characters who promote Israel’s agenda within the so-called “Christian Right”all owe 

their careers to the patronage of neo-conservative kingpins William and Irving Kristol. 

William Bennett (left)—named Ronald Reagan’s Education Secretary with Irving Kristol’s 

support—gave young Kristol his first high-level government job. Since then Bennett has 

become a highly-paid author and lecturer and is a co-chair of Kristol’s Empower America 

operation. Former Ambassador Alan Keyes (center),young Kristol’s college roommate,made 

lots of money seeking various offices, paying himself big salaries out of his campaign funds. 

Gary Bauer (right)—who shares a vacation condominium with Kristol—declares support for 

Israel central to Christian “family values.”Critics contend the “no-chance”candidacies of 

Keyes and Bauer in the 2000 GOP presidential primaries were instigated by William Kristol 

who hoped their efforts would draw votes away from Pat Buchanan—a critic of Israel—who 

was popular among Christian voters because of his opposition to abortion. Significantly more 

influential on the Christian Right are televangelists (bottom, left to right) Jerry Falwell, Pat 

Robertson, and Tim LaHaye. The trio has reaped immense profits in broadcasting and pub- 

lishing deals made possible only because they have been “approved”by powerful pro-Israel 

families and interests who have an immense, undeniable influence in the media. 


Two close friends, former GOP 

members of Congress, Newt Ging- 

rich (left)and Vin Weber (right)are 

reliable voices for the neo-conserva- 

tive agenda. Gingrich’s wife even 

received a stipend from an Israeli 

firm while Newt was in Congress. 

When nailed in the House check-kit- 

ing scandal and forced out of office, 

Weber’s courtship of Israel paid off: 

William Kristol drafted Weber to co- 

chair his Empower America unit. 

Weber and Gingrich have also been 

recruited to the Council on Foreign 

Relations, “American cousin”to the 

Rothschild-funded Royal Institute 

for International Affairs in London. 

When those who control the media agenda want a “scholarly”face to promote attacks on the 

Arab and Muslim worlds,they turn to Bernard Lewis (left),a British native of the Jewish faith, 

who is dubbed an authority on the Islamic world, but whose own ethnic antecedents are never 

mentioned. Lewis—who drapes his bigotry in elegant prose—is the father of a top figure in 

AIPAC,the lobby for Israel. When the media wants sensational stories of Arab conspiracies,they 

hype the theories of so-called “terrorism expert”Steven Emerson (center) who is not an 

“expert,”but simply a well-paid hack writer funded by multiple pro-Israel sources. A particu- 

larly shrill neo-conservative hate-peddler, Charles Krauthammer (right)—a psychiatrist- 

turned-pundit who has called for an all-out U.S. war against the Muslim world—surpasses even 

neo-conservative stalwart George Will in his obsessive interest in endless jabbering about how 

wonderful Israel is and how awful anyone who criticizes Israel is.


Senators John McCain (R-Ariz)—left—and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)—center—were 

among the most strident congressional advocates of war against Iraq. Another pro-Israel 

fanatic, Sen. James Inhofe (right), an Oklahoma Republican, actually claimed on the 

Senate floor that God opened a spiritual door that allowed the 9-11 attack on the United 

States because the United States had not been sufficiently supportive of Israel. In contrast, 

Rep. Jim Moran,a liberal Democrat from Virginia (bottom left),was subjected to national 

media abuse for suggesting the American Jewish community had enough clout to stop the 

push for war against Iraq. The media reported—only once and in passing—that Moran’s 

remarks were in response to a friendly question from one of Moran’s Jewish constituents 

who agreed with Moran’s opposition to the war. West Virginia’s Sen. Robert Byrd (bottom 

center) and Ohio’s Rep. Dennis Kucinich (bottom right) were among the most eloquent and 

outspoken members of Congress fighting the schemes of the neo-conservatives to bring 

America into war. The pro-Israel owners of the major broadcast networks and newspapers 

paid back Kucinich by imposing a virtual blackout on his 2004 presidential campaign. 


Although President George W. Bush (left) frequently described Iraqi leader Saddam 

Hussein (center) as “the guy who tried to kill my dad,”referring to a flimsy and apparent- 

ly baseless conspiracy theory alleging a “plot”by Saddam against former President George 

H. W. Bush (right), what the younger Bush never mentions is that his father’s friend and 

fellow Republican,former Illinois Rep. Paul Findley (bottom left) revealed in 1992 that for- 

mer Israeli intelligence officer Victor Ostrovsky (bottom center) had exposed a 1991 plot by 

a right-wing faction in Israel’s Mossad to kill the elder Bush,who they perceived as a threat 

to Israel. Ostrovsky provided the details to former Rep. Pete McCloskey (bottom right), 

another Bush friend,who then conveyed a warning about the plot to the Secret Service. In 

his 1994 book, The Other Side of Deception, Ostrovsky reported the Mossad planned to 

assassinate Bush during a conference in Madrid. Having captured three Palestinian 

“extremists,”the Mossad leaked word to the Spanish police that terrorists were on their 

way to Madrid. The plan was to kill Bush, release the Palestinians on the scene and kill 

them on the spot. Bush’s assassination would be blamed on the Palestinians—another 

Mossad “false flag.”The major media has never once reported this shocking story.

In January of 2001,while grassroots Republicans were cele- 

brating the new Bush administration and cheering greatly 

admired Gen. Colin Powell—the military hero newly- 

appointed as secretary of state—readers of Jewish newspa- 

pers such as Forwardwere being given a very negative pic- 

ture of Powell. In a front-page headline story on Jan. 19, 

2001 (above),Forwardannounced the Israeli lobby was leery 

of Powell and that the “hawks”—the neo-conservatives— 

were maneuvering “to limit his power over foreign policy 

and boost that of [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld.”As 

the neo-conservatives began banging the drum for war against Iraq, media voices such as 

World Jewish Congress chief Edgar Bronfman’s Time(inset) andthen Newsweek and its 

sister publication, The Washington Post, followed Forward’s lead and began questioning 

Powell’s capabilities. Essentially, Powell’s crime was being insufficiently supportive of the 

demands by the neo-conservatives—most of whom never served in the military—that 

Americans be sent as cannon fodder for Israel in a war against Iraq. Among the most stri- 

dent pro-war advocates of “American”imperialism have been (bottom, left to right) 

Commentary, published by the New York chapter of the American Jewish Committee, 

Rupert Murdoch’s WeeklyStandard(edited by William Kristol) and U.S. News &World 

Report, owned by Mort Zuckerman, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major 

American Jewish Organizations. 



In March of 2003—on the eve of the American invasion of Iraq—Michael Collins Piper,the 

author of The High Priests of War, was in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab 

Emirates (UAE), as the invited guest of the distinguished Zayed Centre for Coordination 

and Follow-Up, the official think tank of the League of Arab States. Piper’s lecture, on the 

topic of American media bias in favor of Israel,received highly favorable news coverage in 

the Arabic and English-language press in the Middle East (see above). However,Piper was 

shocked to learn that—prodded by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith— 

the Bush administration’s ambassador to the UAE contacted the Zayed Centre to complain 

about Piper’s lecture, attempting to quash an American citizen’s First Amendment rights 

while he was on foreign soil. The ADL and the Mossad-linked Middle East Media Research 

Institute (MEMRI)continued to raise such a ruckus about the lectures by Piper and oth- 

ers at the Zayed Centre that the Bush administration finally put so much pressure on the 

government of Abu Dhabi that the Zayed Centre was shut down,demonstrating that Israeli 

lobby power even extends, at least indirectly, into the upper reaches of the Arab world. 


In 1992 former Rep. Paul Findley remarked that “in all the 

words written about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, 

Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, has never been 

mentioned, despite the obvious fact Mossad complicity is as 

plausible as any of the other theories.”However, in 1994, in 

his book Final Judgment (right) Michael Collins Piper— 

author of The High Priests of War—documented the Mossad 

role’s alongside the CIA in the JFK conspiracy. Although 

neverin any major bookstore, some 45,000 copies of Final 

Judgment are now in circulation—more than more widely- 

publicized books on the topic. Now in its 768-page 6th edi- 

tion (ordering coupon on page 127)Final Judgmentexplains 

how JFK’s murderset the stage for the Israeli lobby to 

achieve the immense political power it has today. The book 

documents that in 1963 JFK (bottom left)was embroiled in 

a bitter secret conflict with Israeli leader David Ben-Gurion 

over Israel’s drive to build the atomic bomb. Ben-Gurion resigned in disgust,saying that because of 

JFK,Israel’s “existence [was] in danger.”Upon JFK’s assassination,U.S. policy toward Israel began 

an immediate 180-degree turnabout. Final Judgment documents what Israeli journalist Barry 

Chamish says is  “a pretty cogent case”for Mossad involvement in JFK’s murder. The fact is that 

when New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison prosecuted trade executive Clay Shaw with con- 

spiracy in the assassination, Garrison had stumbled on the Mossad link: Shaw served on the board 

of Permindex, a front for Mossad arms procurement operations.  A key Permindex shareholder, the 

Swiss-based Banque De Credit Internationale, was the fiefdom of Tibor Rosenbaum, a top Mossad 

official, and chief money laundry for Meyer Lansky, “chairman”of the crime syndicate and Israeli 

loyalist. The CEO of Permindex was Louis Bloomfield of Montreal, an operative of the Bronfman 

family, intimate Lansky associates and leading patrons of Israel. Final Judgment points out that 

James Angleton,the CIA’s Mossad liaison,was a devoted partisan of Israel who orchestrated a false 

scenario linking accused assassin Lee Oswald to the Soviet KGB. Even “mainstream”organized 

crime sources note that leading “Mafia”figures accused of being behind the assassination were 

Lansky subordinates. Perhaps Oliver Stone failed to mention these details in JFK  because his film 

was financed by Arnon Milchan, an Israeli arms dealer linked to 

smuggling of materiel to Israel’s nuclear program—the point of 

contention between JFK and Israel. Although Israeli diplomat 

Uri Palti called Piper’s thesis “nonsense,”and pro-Israel colum- 

nist George Will declared it “vicious intellectual licentiousness,” 

The Los Angeles Times grudgingly admitted that Final Judgment 

was “novel indeed,”saying it “weave[s] together some of the key 

threads in a tapestry that many say is unique.”The very week in 

1997 the American Library Association sponsored “Banned 

Books Week,”the Anti-Defamation League—a leading cog in 

the Israeli lobby—created an uproar, forcing cancellation of a 

college seminar on the JFK assassination because Piper had been 

invited to speak. The ADL feared “impressionable” students 

might take Piper seriously, but they believed those same kids 

were old enough to fight in foreign wars to protect Israel.

Abraham, Spencer, 20 

Abrams, Elliott, 13, 20, 27, 112 

Allen,Andrew E., CIA and Mossad 

operative, 90 

“American Empire” essentially a Zionist 

project, 99-103 

American Enterprise Institute, 5, 12, 22 

American Free Press (alternative national 

weekly paper), 14, 22, 32, 57-59, 79, 89, 92 

American Jewish Committee, 38, endorses 

Jared Taylor:88 

Anderson, John, 80 

Anti-Defamation League (ADL), 9, 68, 75, 79 

Anti-Muslim and Anti-Arab hate-mongering, 


“Anti-terrorism”propaganda and legislation 

(pre-9-11), 69, 80-87 

Ashcroft, John, 68-69, terrified of calico cats 

and scantically-clad classical statues:114 

Ashcroft staff member attacks Gentiles as 


Bacevich,Andrew, 43-45 

Bauer, Gary, 35, 116 

Bennett,William, 20, 22, 35, 116 

Big Oil & Zionism, 57-59 

Bilderberg Group, 22 

Bollyn, Christopher, 92, 115 

Bolton, John, 9, 12, 13, 20, 55 

Boody, Robert, 80 

Boot, Max, 42 

Bradley Foundation, Lynde & Harry, 22, 

36, 37, 111 

Bronfman, Edgar, 19, 51, 74, 110 

Brownback, Sam, 72 

Bryen, Stephen, 23, 29, 30-34 

Bryen (Stephen) Espionage Scandal, 30-32 

Buchanan, Pat, 35, 43 

Bush, George H. W., 41-42, 58, and Mossad 

plot to kill him:61; 119 

Bush, George W., 2, 5, 20, 24, 40-42, 43-45, 

45-47, as religious fanatic:46, 67, allied with 

Sharon:54-56, 57-59, 61, 66, 86, 91, 109, 119 

Byrd, Robert, 11, 118 

Clement, Richard, 27 


n effort has been made to make this index as broad-ranging as possible. 

Although the index largely focuses on proper names,there has also been 

an effort to include some subject listings, along with cross-references. 

Unfortunately, because of the fact that the “neo-conservative”movement in the 

United States has become so intermeshed with that of the hard-right Likud bloc 

in Israel, along with Jewish and Christian fundamentalist groups, both foreign 

and domestic, the distinctions often become quite blurred. Indeed, the truth is 

that the term “Israeli lobby”itself has almost become synonymous with that of 

the term “neo-conservative network.” And although the neo-conservatives often 

howl hysterically that “neo-conservative” is often used as a subtle way of 

describing someone who is Jewish, nothing could be further from the truth, par- 

ticularly since some of the most fervent critics of the neo-conservatives and of 

Israeli excesses happen to be Jewish. Despite all this, the index should prove 

helpful. We’ve provided additional explanatory material where appropriate,espe- 

cially when it illuminates the character of the individual or organization being 

referenced. God—who is known, by the way, in the Arab world, as “Allah”— 

smiles on those who have the patience to assemble a comprehensive index. 

Persons whose photographs appear in the photo section are noted in italics.

Cannistraro,Vince, 84 

Case, Clifford, 23 

Castro, Fidel, 92-94 

Center for Security Policy, 36, 38 

Cheney, Dick, 12, 13, 34, 41, 86, 91, 113 

China and Israel, 33-34 

Christensen,Arne, 64 

Christian Coalition, 39, 73 

Christian critics of Zionism, Neo- 

Conservatism, 78-80 

Christian fundamentalists allied with Jewish 

fundamentalists, 68-76 

“Christian Right”& Neo-Conservatives, 67-76 

CIA (and American racists), 88 

CIA conflict with neo-conservative “Team B”, 


CIA funded American Trotskyites, 18 

Clinton,William, 54, 62-63 

Cohen, Eliot, 35 

Committee for a Free World, 28 

Committee on the Present Danger, 27, 28, 92 

Council on Foreign Relations, 22, 35, 38, 39, 

63, 64, 66 

“Creative Destruction”of the Arab world (neo- 

conservative theory), 60-61, 

Crowley, Dale, Jr., 78-79 

Cuba (to be blamed for “terrorism”), 92-94 

Decter, Midge, 29, 35 

Delay, Tom, 72 

Donnelly, Thomas, 36, 41 

D’Souza, Dinesh, 42 

Eisenhower, Dwight D., 93-94 

Emerson, Stephen, 37, 83-84, 88, 117 

Empower America, 22, 35, 38, 64 

Falwell, Jerry, 59, 70-71, 78, 79, 116 

Feith, Douglas, 12, 13, 34, 42, 49, 55, 71-72 

“Fifty Unanswered Questions About 9-11,” 

(report from American Free Press), 92 

Final Judgment, by Michael Collins Piper, 122 

Findley, Paul, 61, 119 

Foxman,Abe, 68, 75 

Fradkin, Hillel, 36 

Franks, Tommy, 49 

Friedman, George, said Israel was “big win- 

ner”on 9-11, 59 

Gaffney, Frank, 36, 38, 72, 112 

Gerecht, Reuel,, 37 

Gingrich, Marianne, 64 

Gingrich, Newt, 64, 117 

“Goyim”(racist term used by Ashcroft-Bush 

staffer to describe non-Jews), 68 

“Greater Israel,” 2, 57-59, 67 

Hannah, John, 13 

Heritage Foundation, 81 

Himmelfarb, Gertrude, 15, 29 

Hubbard,Al  20 

Indyk, Martin, 62-63 

Inhofe, James, 72-73, 118 

Israeli propaganda and “terrorism,” 80-84 

Jackson, Henry M., 5, 12, 23, 24, 25, 36, 78 

Jewish fundamentalists aligned with Christian 

fundamentalists, 68-76 

Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs 

(JINSA), 13, 31, 33-34, 42, 81, targets United 


JINSA:see Jewish Institute for National 

Security Affairs. 

Joffe,Alexander, 99-103 

Johnson, Paul, 42 

Joyce, Michael, 37 

Kagan, Donald, 37 

Kagan, Frederick, 37 

Kagan, Robert, 6-7, 37, 53, 

Kampelman, Max, 28 

Kass, Leon  20 

Kemp, Jack, 22 

Kennedy, John F., 93-94, assassination:122 

Keyes, Alan, 116 

Kissinger, Henry, 22, 38, 66, plan for world 

war:95-97, 115 

Krauthammer, Charles, obsessive-compulsive 

advocate for Israel, 8, 37, 42-43, 64, 117 

Kristol, Irving, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 28, 35- 

39, 45, 81, 111 

Kristol,William, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 

29, 34, 35-39, 41-42, 45, 52, 63, 81, 91, 111 

Kucinich, Dennis, 10-11, 118 

La Haye, Tim, 59, 74-76, 79, 116 

Lake,W. Anthony, 63 

Laquer,Walter, 82 


Ledeen, Michael, 29, 60-61, 82 

Lefkowitz, Jay, 20 

Lehman, John, 36, 37-38, 112 

Lemnitzer, Lyman, 92-94, 115 

Lewis, Bernard, 85-88, 117 

Libby, I. Lewis, 12, 20, 113 

Lieberman, Joseph, 52, 77-78, 118 

Likud Party of Israel (allied with neo-conser- 

vatives), 2, 5, 12, 19, 49, 51-52, 54-56, 57 

Lisker, Joel, 30 

Luttwak, Edward, 82 

Marcos, Ferdinand, targeted by neo-conserva- 

tives, 38 

McCain, John, 20, 38, 62, 64-66, 118 

McConnell, John, 20 

McCloskey, Paul (Pete), 61, 119 

Media attacks Vatican, 76-77 

Media promotes “dispensationalism,” 74-76 

Middle East Media Research Institute 

(MEMRI), 13, attacks Michael Collins Piper: 


Military targeted by neo-conservatives, 47-51 

Moon, Sun Myung, 76, 78, 110 

Moran, Jim, 1, 118 

Mossad and JFK assassination, 122 

Mossad plot to kill GHW Bush, 61 

Mossad targets Michael Collins Piper:121-122 

Murdoch, Rupert, 5, 6, 19, 38, 64, 110 

Neo-conservatives  & “anti-Europeanism,” 


Neo-conservatives & “Christian Right,” 67-73 

Neo-conservatives & new imperialism, 40-45 

New World Order scenario by Henry 

Kissinger: 95-97 

Nitze, Paul, 25, 27, 28, 35, 115 

“Operation Northwoods,” 93 (generally, 92- 


Oppenheimer family, 19 

Ostrovsky,Victor, 61, 84, 119 

Overthrow.com, 89-90 

Paisley, John, 26-27, 113 

Pearl Harbor (9-11 as “new”Pearl Harbor), 


Peretz, Martin, 38, 110 

Perle, Richard, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14, 23, 24, 29, 30, 

31, 32-34, 36-38, 42, 48, 52, 55, 78, 92, 112 

Pike,Winston “Ted”and Alynn, 79 

Piper, Michael Collins, targeted by Mossad: 


Pipes, Daniel, 25, 115 

Pipes, Richard, 25 

Podhoretz, Norman, 29, 35, 38, 45-47, 88, 111 

Podhoretz, John, 35, 38, 111 

Pomerantz, Steve, 84 

Powell, Colin, 12, 21, 49, 120 

Preston, Don, 80 

“Preterist”movement, 79-80 

Project for the New American Century, 6, 22, 

36, 37, 41, 91 

Quayle, Dan  6, 20 

Reagan, Ronald (and neo-conservatives), 5, 12, 

16, 18, 19, 28-29, 31, 32-33, 38, 46 

Rees, Matthew, 20 

Revell, Oliver (Buck), 84 

Rittenhouse, E. Stanley, 79 

Robertson, Pat, 59, 79, 116 

Rockefeller family, 22, 63 

Rockefeller, Nelson, 33 

Rodman, Peter  12 

“Rogue States Rollback”plan by neo-conser- 

vatives, 62-66, 

Rostow, Eugene, 27, 28 

Rothschild, Lord Jacob(and family), 19, 22, 

63, 64, 79, 110 

Royal Institute of International Affairs, 22, 63 

Rumsfeld, Donald, 29, 49, 50, 86, 87, 91, 113 

Saba, Michael, 30, 32, 114 

Safire,William, 64 

Scaife, Richard Mellon, 84 

Schiller, Rabbi Meyer, 90 

Schumer, Charles, 68-69 

Scofield, Cyrus, 79 

Scully, Matthew, 20 

September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 59, 91- 

92, 94 

Shahak, Israel, 59 

Sharon, Ariel, 2, 5, 8, 9, 36, 51, allied with 

Bush:54-57, 67, 109 

Shattan, Joseph, 20 

Solarz, Stephen, 38 


Steyn, Mark, 42 

St. George, Andrew, 24, 26, 32, 114 

“Team B”Affair, 24-27, 92 

“Terrorism Industry”(pre-9-11), 80-83 

Trotsky, Leon (and Trotskyites), 15-17, 18, 33 

Troy, Tevi, (Ashcroft staffer-turned-Bush advi- 

sor called non-Jews “goyim”), 68 

US racists attack Arabs, Muslims, 88-90 

U.S.S. Liberty, 39 

USSR (Neo-conservatives misrepresent Soviet 

intentions), 24-27, 29 

Taylor, Jared, 88-90, endorsed by Rabbi 

Meyer Schiller, 90 

United Nations targeted by neo-cons, 99-103 

Vatican targeted by neo-conservatives, media, 


Vidal, Gore, 17 

Walker, Charls, 28 

Walters, John, 20 

Weber, Mark, associated with anti-Arab agita- 


Weber,Vin, 22, 38, 64, 117 

Wehner, Peter, 20 

White, Bill (overthrow.com)  89-90 

Wittmann, Marshall, 39 

Wohlstetter,Albert, 24 

Wolfowitz, Paul, 12, 13-14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 

34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 49, 50, moves against 

military:50-51, 71, 72, 86, 87, 91, 113 

Wurmser, David, 12, 55, 

Wurmser, Meyrav, 12 

World Jewish Congress, 51, 74 

Zakheim, Dov, 12 

Zionism & the new imperialism, 45-47, 51-52, 

54-56, 57-59, 

Zionism & Big Oil, 57-59 

Zuckerman, Mortimer, 110, 120 

126 INDEX 

A gutsy newspaper with 

some powerful enemies 

A no-nonsense independent weekly 

alternative to the “processed news” 

of the corporate Media Monopoly 

The one news outlet that dared 

to publish this book! 

American Free Press(AFP) is the maverick national media 

voice that’s been in the forefront reporting the uncen- 

sored story of the neo-conservative warmongers—that 

well-financed ring of arms dealers, lobbyists and “ex-Trotskyites” who forced America into the 

no-win debacle in Iraq. AFP brings its readers the important stories suppressed or ignored by 

the self-styled “mainstream”media. Each week—20 pages of uncensored news and informa- 

tion on a wide variety of topics, ranging from civil liberties and the fight against the police 

state to alternative health and wholistic therapies, taxes and finance, trade and foreign poli- 

cy. You name it. AFPis on the cutting edge. Isn’t it time you subscribe? American Free Press: $59 

for ONE year (weekly issues) OR $99 for TWO years (weekly issues). 

Call 1-888-699-NEWS (6397) today and charge a subscription to Visa or MasterCard. 

You may also mail check, money order or credit card information to: 

American Free Press, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20003. 

Check us out at http://www.americanfreepress.net

Ordering Coupon 







PAYMENT OPTION:❏ Check/Money Order  ❏ Visa  ❏ MasterCard 

CARD # ______________________________________________________ 

EXPIRES ______________  SIG. __________________________________ 

NAME _______________________________________________________ 

ADDRESS ____________________________________________________ 

CITY, STATE, ZIP _______________________________________________ 



1-888-699-NEWS HP84 

D.C. residents please add 5.75% sales tax. 

Call 1-888-699-NEWS & charge to Visa or MC 

Send with payment to: American Free Press, 645 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20003 



Order extra copies of The High Priests of Warto 

alert friends, family and civic groups to the dangers 

posed by the neo-conservative power network that 

dragged America into the disastrous debacle in Iraq. 

n The High Priests of War, author Michael Collins 

Piper has come forth with what is indisputably the 

first full-length exposition of the little-known history 

of the neo-conservative warmongers inside the Bush 

administration who orchestrated the war against Iraq. 

Order extra copies of The High Priests of War(softcov- 

er, 144 pages, item #2000) using the coupon below. One 

copy is $19.95; two copies are $35; three copies are $45; 

five copies are $60. For six copies or more, please call 

Anne at 202-547-5585 for bulk/carton rates. Send pay- 

ment to AFP, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100, 

Washington, D.C. 20003 or call AFPat 1-888-699-NEWS 

(6397) toll free to charge to Visa or MasterCard. 



Michael Collins Piper 

P.O. Box 15728 

Washington, DC 20003 

Email: piperm@lycos.com 

Dear Reader: 

My first book, FINAL JUDGMENT, essentially explained how 

and why the Israeli lobby managed to become so powerful in 

Washington—a direct consequence of the JFK assassination. 

There are, of course, those who refuse (for reasons I 

understand) to acknowledge that my charge that Israel’s 

Mossad was a key player in JFK’s murder is based on a solid 

and well-documented foundation. 

However, what is beyond debate is that there was an unde- 

niable and immediate 180 degree turn-about in U.S. policy 

toward Israel and the Arab world upon JFK’s murder and the 

power of the Israeli lobby became entrenched as it had never 

been before. 

In THE HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR, I’ve examined the hard-line 

“neo-conservative” forces that constitute the backbone of 

the Israeli lobby today. They have exercised their power in 

a manner that has led to tragedy for America and the world 

and which is certain to lead to further disasters in the near 

future. They are shameless criminals of the worst sort and 

I do not hesitate to say it. 

Writing about these subjects is “radical” and “controver- 

sial,” but, as they say, it’s a dirty job and someone has to 

do it. I make no apologies for telling the truth. 

That’s why I have appreciated the continuing expressions 

of support and constructive criticism I’ve received from my 

readers over the years. I always look forward to your e-mails 

and letters and hearing what you have to say. 




Published on November 25, 2009 at 9:14 am  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://jewise.wordpress.com/high-priests-of-war-2/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: