Readers here know that I have no love lost for Grbzbwquz Grbnutski, or whatever his name is (we're still waiting for more vowels please), the Rockefailure geopolitical guru and one of the founders of the Trilateral Commission. And reader's here know that I am alarmed at the growing tension between the West and Iran, and Iran's backers, China and Russia, and the insanity that seems to be coming out of Tel Aviv recently. Well, imagine my surprise when I read this:
Did you catch it? Here it is again:
"The Israelis have a trump card, one they’ll only play if they have a reasonable expectation of success, and that is to launch an attack on their own that would inevitably bring in the US. This would happen because Israeli fighter jets on their way to bomb Iranian targets would have to pass over Iraqi territory: however, what assurances do they have the Americans won’t interfere? As Zbigniew Brzezinski put it in an interview:
"'We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? … We have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a ‘Liberty’ in reverse.'
"However, it looks like we just may be “impotent little babies,” at least if we take Joint Chiefs chairman Mike Mullen’s comments as indicative. Wired.com reports:
"'In a town hall on the campus of the University of West Virginia, a young Air Force ROTC cadet asked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen to respond to a “rumor.” If Israel decided to attack Iran, the speculation went, those jet would need to fly through Iraqi airspace to reach their targets. That airspace is considered a ‘no-fly’ zone by the American military. So might U.S. troops shoot down the Israeli jets, the airmen asked the chairman, if they breached that airspace?'
"'Mullen tried to sidestep the question. ‘We have an exceptionally strong relationship with Israel. I’ve spent a lot of time with my counterpart in Israel. So we also have a very clear understanding of where we are. And beyond that, I just wouldn’t get into the speculation of what might happen and who might do what. I don’t think it serves a purpose, frankly,’ he said. ‘I am hopeful that this will be resolved in a way where we never have to answer a question like that.’
"'The cadet followed-up: ‘Would an airmen like me ever be ordered to fire on an Israeli – aircraft or personnel?’
"'Mullen’s second answer was much the same as his first. ‘Again, I wouldn’t move out into the future very far from here. They’re an extraordinarily close ally, have been for a long time, and will be in the future,’ the admiral said.'
"An Israeli attack on Iran would almost certainly provoke assaults on US positions in Iraq, including the huge US embassy and the thousands of mercenaries left in place after the phony US “withdrawal.” Indeed, avoiding such a scenario as described above may very well be a major motivating factor behind the US decision to pull our so-called “combat troops” from Iraq. That’s one way of ensuring that Mullen will never have to answer “a question like that.'"
For once, Mr. Brzezinski is talking sense, and doubtless sending a clear message to Isreal: "Don't Try it without prior approval." But then we read of the discomforting exchange between a cadet and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, who is sending a different set of signals that Brzezinski.
There are, it seems to me, two possible ways to interpret this, both disquieting: (1) Mullen and Brzezinski's remarks are a coordinated campaign to keep the Iranians (and Israelis) off balance by communicating a contradictory set of signals. This is dangerous on the face of it, since diplomacy, especially during such high international tensions, depends on clarity of messages, not obscurity or contradiction. The confusion, however, does serve to keep both Tehran and Tel Aviv guessing about what the American response to such an Israeli attempt might be, and as the article points out, Tel Aviv may think twice about cutting the life of the host that it so parasitically lives off of.
(2) The second possibility is, to my mind, a more intriguing one, and that is that Brzezinski's and Mullen's comments represent an actual rift within the "notional security" establishment of the USA, for clearly, Bzrzezinski represents the corporate-State department bloc of interests, and Mullen the "military industrial" complex. In short, we may be looking at genuine disagreement within a powerful faction of the Western elite over the proper future course. That should give one pause, for it would mean that the power of the Rockefailure interest to set the agenda is waning, and that their "program" to some extent has slipped from their total control to something less.
In any case, two and a half cheers for Mr. Brzezinski, for at least for once adopting a more sane course, that some - to paraphrase Chancellor Bismarck - "some damn fool thing in the Middle East" set off a World War. In 1914, it was the "small nation" of Serbia that, knowing it had a powerful backer in Russia, defied the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and touched off World War One. St. Petersburg had allowed its foreign policyto be set in Belgrade. The USA can ill afford to have its foreign policy determined in Tel Aviv, and Mr. Brzezinski is correct to point that out.