US Neocons Use Hamas Attack To Push For War On Iran
Even as the brutal attacks on Israel by Hamas fighters were taking place, US neocons saw a crisis they could not bear to see go to waste. Without proof - and against logic - they blamed the whole incursion on Iran and demanded that the US begin attacking Iran in response. Also today: the war party is exploring ramming through a single massive aid bill for both Israel AND Ukraine to exploit US anger over the Hamas attacks in favor of the neocon proxy war on Russia. Will they succeed?
I will be guiding you through a couple of topics as we move ahead.
And one of the things we want to talk about today, the first thing we want to talk about today, obviously, is what's going on in Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East, larger Middle East.
Lots happening since Saturday, since, as you well know, I'm sure Hamas launched a surprise attack on some Israeli military bases and unfortunately on some civilians.
And we see now the response in Israel has been a massive attack on Gaza, flattening of neighborhoods.
So we basically have a situation of war like we haven't seen in a long time.
But of course, as we know with the neocons here at home, the mantra is never let a crisis go to waste.
And so the bombs had barely started falling from Israel into Gaza.
The assault had barely stopped from Hamas into Israel proper that the neocons in the U.S., of course, were calling for an attack on Iran.
Because no matter what happens, you attack Iran, because that's all they can talk about.
And so taking advantage of this, starting off, was an article by the Wall Street Journal, which we discussed yesterday with Dr. Paul.
And we can put that first clip up just to remind you of what it was all about.
Iran helped plot attack on Israel over several weeks.
It was an unsourced article.
The lead on the article, Summer Said, is said to have been fired from Reuters for making up stories.
So we don't know the full story about it.
But the Wall Street Journal is not nicknamed the Wall Street Journal for nothing.
The Wall Street Journal was not alone, of course, because the usual gaggle of neocons rushed to the talk shows to make their points known that Iran must be attacked because of the Hamas movement against Israel.
Of course, Hamas, though friendly with Iran, is certainly not ideologically allied with Iran.
It's closer to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in terms of its ideology.
Nevertheless, so let's have a look at a couple of clips to get an idea of what the neocons were saying immediately pushing their war with Iran.
Now, first, we have one of the top neocons, Mike Pompeo, former CIA director, former Secretary of State.
You might call him Secretary of Hate under President Trump.
Of course, Trump, like everyone else he hired, he had to renounce Pompeo, who it turns out hated his boss and stabbed him in the back.
Nevertheless, on this, they may agree.
Let's listen to Pompeo up first, 221 to 240, and hear what he has to say about what's going on and who's going to be able to do that.
How would you do that?
And how would you coordinate with Israel on that?
And would you support an Israeli act to take out some of these nuclear facilities?
Because if they get invaded from the north and from Gaza, they are going to be in existence peril.
Yes, Martha.
The Israelis will do just fine.
They'll defend themselves.
I have great confidence in their capacity to do that.
The way you do it is you start with the simple things.
You build out a coalition in the region.
You make it clear to the welfare of states that we're going to be your friend.
We're going to be.
We can go back to 221 if we can.
That was starting at the end of the clip.
Two minutes, 21 seconds.
Back.
There we go.
That's fine.
There we go.
Okay.
So the way you square this is to continue to put pressure on the primary actor, the world's largest state sponsor, Tehran.
It's now the case that the Iranians have killed nine Americans.
It requires a response against Iran.
You can't just keep taking out militias and knuckleheads in Iraq.
You have to go at the heart of the beast, and that is the Iranian leadership.
How would you do that?
We have from Mike Pompeo.
You have to go at the heart of the beast, which is the Iranian leadership.
He's talking about a U.S. attack on Tehran.
That's how he solves the problem.
Now, next, you have someone who is slightly more unhinged, and that's Nikki Haley, who's running for president.
And she has a couple of thoughts about what Netanyahu should do.
Let's start at 46 seconds and listen to Nikki.
This is not just an attack on Israel.
This is an attack on America because they hate us just as much.
And what we have to understand is this is the reason that we have to unite around making sure our enemies do not hurt our friends.
America can never be so arrogant to think we don't need friends, just like we needed them on 9-11.
That's why Ukraine needs us when Russia is doing this.
That's why Israel needs us when Hamas and Iran are doing this.
And I'll say this to Prime Minister Netanyahu, finish them.
Finish them.
Hamas did this.
You know Iran's behind it.
Finish them.
They should have hell to pay for what they've just done.
So Nikki Haley is telling Netanyahu to, quote, finish Iran.
It's as if it's some sort of a plot in a thriller TV show where you just simply finish them once and for all.
That is really about the depth of Nikki Haley's thought process on this.
But not to be outdone, we have Lindsey Graham, who was on every talk show with the same mantra.
And if we can go to, I think, a minute five of Lindsey Graham, he has his own suggestion on what should be done.
Senator, I want to get your reaction to this, because I think you probably will have a strong reaction to it.
This is further to the headline that came out a little while ago about Hamas.
Senator, I want to get your reaction to this, because I think you probably will have a strong reaction to it.
This is further to the headline that came out a little while ago about Hamas.
Okay, let's start earlier on on that.
We had this queued up wrong.
It's my fault.
To hold Iran accountable.
How much more death and destruction do we have to take from the Iranian regime?
I am confident this was planned and funded by the Iranians.
Hamas is a bunch of animals who deserve to be treated like animals.
So if I was Israel, I would go in on the ground.
There is no truce to be had here.
I would dismantle Hamas.
This is the best opportunity Israel has to destroy Hamas.
Take it to the Iranians.
If you harm one American in Syria by using your Iranian militia against us in Syria, if you escalate the war by urging Hezbollah to attack Israel in the north, if Hamas kills one American Israeli hostage, we're going to blow up your oil refineries and put you out of business.
It is now time to take the war to the Ayatollah's backyard.
Okay, we can quit there.
So now you have an idea of what they're saying.
They want to take the fight to Iran.
Now, understandable that Lindsey Graham believes there should be a retaliation against Hamas because Hamas was definitely behind the attack.
But the problem is bringing Iran into it.
And in fact, if we go to that next clip, that next photo, this is Dave DeCamp on antiwar.com who points out Israel itself is saying there's no evidence that Iran was involved in the Hamas attack.
On Monday, Israeli officials said they had no evidence Iran was involved in the Hamas attack on southern Israel after a report from the Wall Street Journal.
We have no evidence or proof, said IDF spokesman Nir Dinar.
He left open the possibility that Tehran was linked, saying just because you don't have the evidence doesn't necessarily mean Iran isn't behind it.
So they're not jumping out ahead of this, and I think it's probably a matter of they don't want to bite off too much more than they can chew.
You know, there are a couple of questions to ask when you think about Iran's potential involvement in the Hamas attack.
And I was listening to Alexander Mercurius on the way over, and he makes some good points that I'm going to borrow from heavily.
But I think anyone else who thinks about it might consider these points.
First of all, why would Iran get involved in these Hamas attacks from Gaza into Israel at this point?
And if you look at what Iran has been doing over the past, it doesn't matter what you think about Iran, what they've been doing over the past couple of years, certainly since the start of the special military operation, they've been expanding their ties.
They've mended fences with Saudi Arabia with the assistance of China.
They have expanded their trade throughout the region and throughout the world.
They've signed trade agreements with China.
They, of course, have formed a more close alliance with Russia and even Syria.
So anyone looking at Iran's behavior in the field over the past year and a half in the sort of global arena would notice that they're behaving like rational actors.
Why would they put all of the things that they've been working for to this point in jeopardy for the sake of this attack, which obviously is going to be, and we're seeing it now, retaliated against by Israel.
Now, that's not to say that they weren't behind it, but you have to question why would they do something like that.
It doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense.
Now, the other thing to consider, and Alexander Mercurius did talk about it as well, is that why would Israel be denying it at this point?
Because as we know, Netanyahu, since, I don't know, 30 years, has been talking about Iran, Iran, Iran.
Why are they not pushing the Iran issue right now?
And I think, again, it's probably because they have enough on their plate right now dealing with Hamas in Gaza and also the slowly simmering and heating up issue of Hezbollah to the north in Lebanon and also Hezbollah militias in Syria.
They don't necessarily need to have a two or three front war right now, much less a forefront war.
And also there's the issue of Israel dealing with the situation with Hamas, dealing with what had happened, is more understandable in the context of Israel versus Hamas.
Whereas if you bring in Hezbollah, if you bring in Iran, all of a sudden it becomes what looks more like a larger regional war based on religion, based on Islam and Israel.
And I don't know that that's necessarily the kind of thing that they want to get into at this point, a wider war.
Now, we've seen it was a surprise attack.
It was a massive intelligence failure.
But we also saw that Israel was not as prepared and was not as invincible as they were thought to be, similarly to the U.S. military equipment sent to Ukraine.
It hasn't proven itself to be all it's cracked up to be.
So they have a black eye because of this.
My guess is that there's no reason to open up a wider war after that.
So let's move on to a couple of other things after this.
And the first is the blind anger in Israel over the attacks.
Now, we saw there are two aspects to the attacks.
Of course, there are the targeting of military installations, which in a war is what happens.
And then there was the targeting of civilians inside Israel, which was particularly brutal and obviously would evoke a strong reaction, as we felt after 9-11, that strong visceral reaction.
And you're seeing a couple of those things.
If you look now, this is the defense minister of Israel.
He said, I've ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip.
There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel.
Everything is closed.
We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.
Very, very strong statement.
That was criticized pretty heavily because it looks like they're targeting civilians.
But again, the anger is understandable.
And now if you look at what Netanyahu has been tweeting out lately, there's a video clip, I think, at the end.
There you go, that third one.
Just play that first 15 seconds of Netanyahu's tweet.
So he's been sending out some posts, some tweets or posts showing them blowing up a lot of what look like civilian apartment buildings.
And obviously, this is an urban setting.
There is no Hamas military base that can be bombed.
They're all intertwined.
Nevertheless, you're seeing what looks at least to be like a lot of blind anger and blowing up of civilian infrastructure.
Now, I've talked to a couple of contacts that I have in the military area, and a couple of points that they've made that I think are pertinent to our discussion here is that what could have been a huge tactical victory for Hamas, you go in to the military bases, you take the soldiers, and you get out.
It could have been a huge boost for them.
But the brutality of the attacks on civilians reportedly at the music festival and at a couple of villages overshadows what would have been a military victory.
Obviously, now Israel is also hitting civilians in Gaza in retaliation.
But the next step that's been announced by the Israeli government is ground troops into Gaza.
And that carries with it a good deal of risks because it is urban warfare.
You carry the risk of high casualties on the part of the IDF, the Israeli Defense Forces.
The question is whether they'll be able to maintain high levels of casualties among their fighters after what they've just endured.
And you also have the warning from Hezbollah that if there is a ground incursion into Gaza, we will enter the fight full force from the north and from the east.
So you have a lot of risks involved with this.
And the person I talked to said they should, obviously, although they're upset now, they should calm down and think carefully, the Israelis, that is, about their next step.
So we'll continue to watch and see what's happening here.
Hopefully, the neocons will not prevail here in the U.S. because the last thing we also need, and certainly Israel does not need to have Iran, which has been proven to have some fairly sophisticated, some very sophisticated weaponry.
Aid and Conflict Dynamics00:05:32
If you look at the theater of operations in Russia and Ukraine, you don't necessarily want to unleash that on Israel at this point.
And I think that's probably why Israel seems to be cool to the idea of pointing the finger to Iran.
So the other thing that I want to talk about related to this is this idea that's now being floated of, now the aid to Israel has already been sent military aid, replenishment of the iron dome and other things, 155 millimeter shells have been sent.
But the idea of a big aid package is now in the works and knowing the affection of both parties on Capitol Hill toward Israel, there's really very little chance.
There's virtually no opposition to whatever the spending may end up being.
But the question is we can't leave Ukraine behind.
Poor old Zelensky yesterday was tweeting things about blaming Russia for the Hamas attack.
It sounded like he was trying to get some attention.
But that wasn't really flying.
Nobody has been talking about Ukraine for the past several days.
And I think he's quite lonely.
But the question is now the Project Ukraine is a Democratic Party project primarily.
And increasingly, it's becoming a partisan project with Republicans rejecting additional funding or the continued support for Ukraine in what is increasingly obviously a losing battle with Russia.
So what the idea that's popping into the heads in Washington, D.C. is, well, why don't we put them together?
And here's Bill Kristol floating the idea at first.
And you can see he says, well, shouldn't Biden, McConnell, and Schumer agree now on a big, year-long arsenal of democracy supplemental with ample funding for Ukraine and Israel as well as border security.
Get it past ASAP in the Senate and have a discharge petition ready with 218 signatures in the House.
It's a clever move.
Medea Benjamin, who is the founder of Code Pink, she writes about it in this next clip as well.
She says, Democrats are preparing a legislative package that lumps Israel aid in with massive Ukraine funding.
So Republicans who support Israel but question aid to Ukraine will feel obligated to vote for it.
A sneaky way to make sure both conflicts continue.
And I think she has a very good point there.
What kind of opposition might you see?
You'll see some Republicans angry that Ukraine aid is thrown in with Israel aid, but I don't see any possibility of a Republican voting against the joint package.
Now, the Biden administration has floated out $100 billion additionally for Ukraine.
Will they do another $100 billion for Israel?
They only get, what, $4 or $5 billion a year.
How amped up is it going to be?
It's a good question.
And how will Americans feel when they see $100, $150,000, $200 billion being sent to both countries?
Again, it's how Washington works.
You put stuff together so that this guy can't vote against it.
This guy can't vote against it.
So you could see, I would guess as early as, you know, if they, this is Tuesday, if they elect a new speaker tomorrow, I could see as quickly as Thursday action this week on the floor to pass, because you have to pass these bills while the emotions are high.
Because when people calm down a little bit, when they sober up a little bit, they realize that maybe the Patriot Act wasn't such a great idea.
Maybe going to war with Iraq wasn't such a great idea.
So you have to strike while the iron is hot, and that's probably what they're going to try to do possibly this week.
Now here's what the Washington Post had to say about it.
The White House considers adding Ukraine to Israel aid package.
House Republicans warned sharply against effort to link support for Jerusalem and Kiev, but some Biden officials see an advantage to doing so, and I would not disagree with them.
Now go to the next one, and the Washington Post adds, while providing military and economic aid to Ukraine has fractured the GOP, there is near unanimous support in the party for helping Israel.
Of course, the thinking among White House officials and some pro-Ukraine lawmakers is that linking the two aid requests could prompt some Republicans to vote for the combined package because they would be unwilling to block military aid to Israel after Netanyahu declared the country to war.
Now, John Kirby, the spokesman for the White House, for the National Security Council, said we believe both are important.
He is not saying what they are planning to do or hoping to do.
So we have to see what they will do at the end.
But obviously, the crisis is continuing.
Part of the problem, of course, in both, something that they share, and this is what a contact that I spoke with yesterday mentioned, is that Israel and Ukraine are both suffering in a way because of this sense of U.S. support, letting them do whatever they wish.
With Ukraine, it's the behavior over the last 10 years.
Obviously, there have been problems with Gaza, which has been referred to as an open-air prison.
So U.S. diplomacy certainly is partly responsible for the ongoing problem.
Crisis Continues: U.S. Support Debate00:01:40
Again, that's our interventionist foreign policy.
However, there is a bright spot for people that love war, and that is in our next couple of clips.
Who benefits?
You always have to ask yourself who benefits in these situations.
Well, if we go to the next clip, this is the defense stocks in the United States.
Following the attacks on Israel, Lockheed Martin is up 6%.
Raytheon is up 5%.
Boeing's not up as much.
Northrop Grumman, almost 5%.
General Dynamics is up 4%.
You go over to the European stocks, European military stocks.
The next clip, you see a huge jump.
Ryan Metall, Leonardo, BAE systems.
You see plenty of growth.
The next time an American Utah hawk tells you what's happening in Ukraine, the Middle East, or Taiwan, it's all about defending freedom.
So there you have it.
It's a tragic situation.
It's an unfortunate situation.
Everyone is jockeying for positions right now, including especially the neocons.
There's going to be a lot of money spent.
There's going to be a lot more bloodshed.
Secretary of State Blinken tweeted out something yesterday that seemed positive toward Turkey's Erdogan, suggesting that we have some sort of a conflict management, some sort of a talks beginning.
And he promptly deleted the tweet.
So clearly, the U.S. is happy for this war to be happening.
They want to see more of it.
The people on the ground, both Israeli citizens and civilians and Palestinian civilians, probably have different thoughts.
But of course, the Americans turning it on are nowhere near the battlefields.