October 2, 2005

What has been the end of the Neocon's Iraq strategy from the start? It's fairly obvious now that it wasn't WMDs or even oil. It's clear to me that it was done for the benefit of Israel. But now that the Palestinians have been boxed in and any conceivable Israeli security objectives have been met, it's obvious that Iraq is part of a more sinister endgame.

For some two years prior to the Iraq war, in Council of Foreign Relations and other elite circles, stories were circulated about the benefits of partitioning Iraq into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions for the benefit of the "Greater Mid East" (read instead: "Eretz Israel").

It now appears that with the help of mercenaries and provocateurs (as in the case of the captured British commandos) this situation will become a reality at some point. This could lead to a bloody civil war--easily anticipated prior to the U.S. invasion--and probably leave the Israelis in control of the majority of Iraq's oil through proxies in a future Kurdistan.

A depopulated, destroyed Iraq will be in no position to prevent the diversion of its oil supplies and water from the Tigris and Euphrates to Eretz Israel. Further, the conflict could spill over into Syria and Iran and other regional states, possibly drawing them into a conflict reminiscent of the Iran-Iraq war.

In order for this Neocon strategy--to turn Israel into a world power not dependent on the fickle U.S. for its survival--to work, it is obvious that Iran will have to be substantially weakened. Enter the latest Israeli noises that sound like an ultimatum to the U.S. and the world to de-nuclearize Iran or else.

Further evidence that the U.S. is gearing up for a major military conflict with Iran may come in several weeks as President Bush is expected to propose the legalization of millions of illegal Mexican workers in the U.S. This is important as a large-scale military callup could produce labor shortages that would not be appreciated by the president's wealthy backers. Cheap Mexican labor can keep the economy humming as a draft progresses.

Another key to the war effort could be a value-added tax. While President Bush has said he had no plans to raise income taxes to pay for the Iraq war and two hurricanes (and presumably a future war) he said nothing about a VAT that would transfer the tax burden for war squarely onto the backs of poor and middle-class Americans--something his wealthy backers also should appreciate.