01-06-2023, 09:40 PM
WHAT ROLE DID THE US-ISRAELI RELATIONSHIP PLAY IN 9-11?
Jeff Gates
On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good. Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)."
Intelligence wars rely on mathematical models to anticipate the response of "the mark" to staged provocations. Reactions thereby become foreseeable-within an acceptable range of probabilities. When Israeli mathematician Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in
economic science, he conceded that "the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel" has turned "Israel into the leading authority in this field."
With a well-planned provocation, the anticipated response can even become a weapon in the arsenal of the agent provocateur. In response to 9-11, how difficult would it be to foresee that the U.S. would deploy its military to avenge that attack? With fixed intelligence, how difficult would it be to redirect that response to wage a long-planned war in Iraq - not for U.S. interests but to advance the agenda for
Greater Israel?
The emotionally wrenching component of a provocation plays a key role
in the field of game theory war planning where Israel is the authority.
With the televised murder of 3,000 Americans, a shared mindset of
shock, grief and outrage made it easier for U.S. policy-makers to
believe that a known Evil Doer in Iraq was responsible, regardless of
the facts.
The strategic displacement of facts with induced beliefs, in turn,
requires a period of "preparing the mindset" so that "the mark" will
put their faith in a pre-staged fiction. Those who induced the March
2003 invasion of Iraq began "laying mental threads" and creating
agenda-advancing mental associations more than a decade earlier.
Notable among those threads was the 1993 publication in Foreign Affairs
of an article by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. By the time his
analysis appeared in book-length form in 1996 as The Clash of
Civilizations, more than 100 academies and think tanks were prepared to
promote it, pre-staging a "clash consensus" five years before 9-11.
Also published in 1996 under the guidance of Richard Perle was A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e., Israel). A member
since 1987 of the U.S. Defense Policy Advisory Board, this
self-professed Zionist became its chairman in 2001. As a key adviser to
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Perle's senior Pentagon post
helped lay the required foundation for removing Saddam Hussein as part
of a Greater Israel strategy, a key theme of A Clean Break released
five years before 9-11.
A mass murder, articles, books, think tanks and Pentagon insiders,
however, are not enough to manage the variables in a "probabilistic"
war-planning model. Supportive policy makers are also required to lend
the appearance of legitimacy and credibility to an operation justified
by intelligence fixed around a pre-determined agenda.
That role was eagerly filled by Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, a
Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from
Arizona, when they co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
Echoing Tel Aviv's agenda in A Clean Break, their bill laid another
mental thread in the public mindset by calling for the removal of
Saddam Hussein three years before 9-11.
The legislation also appropriated $97 million, largely to promote that
Zionist agenda. Distracted by mid-term Congressional elections and by
impeachment proceedings commenced in reaction to a well-timed
presidential affair involving White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Bill
Clinton signed that agenda into law October 31, 1998 - five years
before the U.S.-led invasion that removed Saddam Hussein.
After 9-11, John McCain and Joe Lieberman became inseparable travel
companions and irrepressible advocates for the invasion of Iraq.
Looking "presidential" aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore
Roosevelt in January 2002, McCain laid another key thread when he waved
an admiral's cap while proclaiming, alongside Lieberman, "On to
Baghdad."
By Way of Deception
The chutzpah with which this game theory strategy progressed in plain
sight could be seen in the behavior of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz, another Zionist insider. Four days after 9-11, in a
principals' meeting at Camp David, he proposed that the U.S. invade
Iraq. At that time, the intelligence did not yet point to Iraqi
involvement and Osama bin Laden was thought to be hiding in a remote
region of Afghanistan.
Frustrated that President George H.W. Bush declined to remove Saddam
Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War, Wolfowitz proposed a No-Fly Zone in
northern Iraq. By 2001, the Israeli Mossad had agents at work for a
decade in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. Intelligence reports of
Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda also came from Mosul - reports that later proved
to be false. Mosul again emerged in November 2004 as a center of the
insurgency that destabilized Iraq. That reaction precluded the speedy
exit of coalition forces promised in Congressional testimony by senior
war-planner Wolfowitz.
The common source of the fixed intelligence that induced America to war
in Iraq has yet to be acknowledged even though intelligence experts
agree that deception on such a scale required a decade to plan, staff,
pre-stage, orchestrate and, to date, cover up. The two leaders of the
9-11 Commission report conceded they were stopped by Commission members
from hearing testimony on the motivation for 9-11: the U.S.-Israeli
relationship.
The fictions accepted as generally accepted truths included Iraqi WMD,
Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague, Iraqi
mobile biological weapons laboratories and Iraqi purchases of
"yellowcake" uranium from Niger. Only the last fact was conceded as
phony in the relevant time frame. All the rest were disclosed as false,
flawed or fixed only after the war began. An attempt to cover-up the
yellowcake account led to the federal prosecution of vice-presidential
chief of staff Lewis Libby, another well-placed Zionist insider.
Did game theory-modeled pre-staging also include the Israeli
provocation that led to the Second Intifada? An intifada is an uprising
or, literally, a "shaking off" of an oppressor. The Second Intifada in
Palestine dates from September 2000 when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon led an armed march to Jerusalem's Temple Mount one year before
9-11.
After a year of calm-during which Palestinians believed in the
prospects for peace-suicide bombings recommenced after this
high-profile provocation. In response to the uprising, Sharon and
Netanyahu observed that only when Americans "feel our pain" would they
understand the plight of the victimized Israelis. Both Israeli leaders
suggested that shared mindset ("feel our pain") would require in the
U.S. a weighted body count of 4,500 to 5,000 Americans lost to
terrorism, the initial estimate of those who died in the twin towers of
New York City's World Trade Center-one year later.
The American Valkyrie?
When successful, game theory warfare strengthens the agent provocateur
while leaving the mark discredited and depleted by the anticipated
reaction to a well-timed provocation. By game theory standards, 9-11
was a strategic success because the U.S. was portrayed as irrational
for its reaction - the invasion of Iraq that triggered a deadly
insurgency with devastating consequences both for Iraq and the U.S.
That insurgency, in turn, was an easily modeled reaction to the
invasion of a nation that (a) played no role in the provocation, and
(b) was known to be populated by three long-warring sects where an
unstable peace was maintained by a former U.S. ally who was rebranded
an Evil Doer. As the cost in blood and treasure expanded, the U.S.
became overextended militarily, financially and diplomatically.
As "the mark" (the U.S.) emerged in the foreground, the agent
provocateur faded into the background. But only after catalyzing
dynamics that steadily drained the U.S. of credibility, resources and
resolve. This "probabilistic" victory also ensured widespread cynicism,
insecurity, distrust and disillusionment along with a declining
capacity to defend its interests due to the duplicity of a game
theory-savvy enemy within.
Meanwhile the American public fell under a regime of oversight,
surveillance and intimidation marketed as "homeland" security. This
domestic operation even features rhetorical hints of a WWII
"fatherland" with clear signs of a force alien to the U.S. with its
welcome embrace of open dissent. Is this operation meant to protect
Americans or to shield those responsible for this insider operation
from Americans?
By manipulating the shared mindset, skilled game theory war-planners
can wage battles in plain sight and on multiple fronts with minimal
resources. One proven strategy: Pose as an ally of a well-armed nation
predisposed to deploy its military in response to a mass murder. In
this case, the result destabilized Iraq, creating crises that could be
exploited to strategic advantage by expanding the conflict to Iran,
another key Israeli goal announced in A Clean Break-seven years before
the invasion of Iraq.
Which nation benefitted from the deployment of coalition forces to the
region? Today's mathematically model-able outcome undermined U.S.
national security by overextending its military, discrediting its
leadership, degrading its financial condition and disabling its
political will. In game theory terms, these results were "perfectly
predictable"-within an acceptable range of probabilities.
In the asymmetry that typifies today's unconventional warfare, those
who are few in numbers must wage war by way of
deception-non-transparently and with means that leverage their impact.
Which nation-if not Israel-fits that description?
Treason in Plain Sight?
Game theory war-planners manipulate the shared mental environment by
shaping perceptions and creating impressions that become consensus
opinions. With the aid of well-timed crises, policy-makers fall in line
with a predetermined agenda-not because they are Evil Doers or
"imperialists" but because the shared mindset has been pre-conditioned
to respond not to the facts but to manipulated emotions and consensus
beliefs. Without the murder of 3,000 on 9-11, America's credibility
would not now be damaged and the U.S. economy would be in far better
shape.
By steadily displacing facts with what "the mark" can be induced to
believe, the few-within-the-few amplify the impact of their duplicity.
By steady manipulation of the public's mindset, game theory
war-planners can defeat an opponent with vastly superior resources by
inducing those decisions that ensure defeat.
Intelligence wars are waged in plain sight and under the cover of
widely shared beliefs. By manipulating consensus opinion, such wars can
be won from the inside out by inducing a people to freely choose the
very forces that imperil their freedom. Thus in the Information Age the
disproportionate power wielded by those with outsized influence in
media, pop culture, think tanks, academia and politics-domains where
Zionist influence is most rampant.
Induced beliefs act as a force-multiplier to wage intelligence wars
from the shadows. At the operational core of such warfare are those
masterful at anticipating the mark's response to a provocation and
incorporating that response into their arsenal. For those who wage war
in this fashion, facts are only a barrier to overcome. For those
nations dependent on facts, the rule of law and informed consent to
protect their freedom, such insider treachery poses the greatest
possible threat to national security.
America is far less safe than before 9-11. Tel Aviv clearly intends to
continue its serial provocations, as evidenced by its ongoing expansion
of the settlements. Israel has shown no sign of a willingness to
negotiate in good faith or to take the steps required to make peace a
possibility. To date, Barack Obama appears unwilling to name senior
appointees who are not either Zionists are strongly pro-Israeli. The
greatest threat to world peace is not terrorists. The greatest threat
is the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
In the same way that a decade of pre-staging was required to plausibly
induce the U.S. to invade Iraq, a similar strategy is now underway to
persuade the U.S. to invade Iran or to support and condone an attack by
Israel. The same duplicity is again at work, including the high profile
branding of the requisite Evil Doer. From its very outset, the Zionist
enterprise focused on hegemony in the Middle East. Its entangled
alliance with the U.S. enabled this enterprise to deploy American might
for that purpose.
Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation
state intelligence required to take the U.S. to war in the Middle East
while also making it appear that Islam is the problem. If Barack Obama
continues to defer to Tel Aviv, he can rightly be blamed when the next
attack occurs in the U.S. or the European Union featuring the usual
orgy of evidence pointing to a predetermined target. Should another
mass murder occur, that event will be traceable directly to the
U.S.-Israeli relationship and the failure of U.S policy-makers to free
America from this enemy within.
Jeff Gates, A widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker,
educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders
worldwide, Jeff Gates' latest book is Guilt By Association—How
Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War (2008). His previous
books include Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street From Wall Street
and The Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism for the 21st century.
Jeff Gates
On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good. Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)."
Intelligence wars rely on mathematical models to anticipate the response of "the mark" to staged provocations. Reactions thereby become foreseeable-within an acceptable range of probabilities. When Israeli mathematician Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in
economic science, he conceded that "the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel" has turned "Israel into the leading authority in this field."
With a well-planned provocation, the anticipated response can even become a weapon in the arsenal of the agent provocateur. In response to 9-11, how difficult would it be to foresee that the U.S. would deploy its military to avenge that attack? With fixed intelligence, how difficult would it be to redirect that response to wage a long-planned war in Iraq - not for U.S. interests but to advance the agenda for
Greater Israel?
The emotionally wrenching component of a provocation plays a key role
in the field of game theory war planning where Israel is the authority.
With the televised murder of 3,000 Americans, a shared mindset of
shock, grief and outrage made it easier for U.S. policy-makers to
believe that a known Evil Doer in Iraq was responsible, regardless of
the facts.
The strategic displacement of facts with induced beliefs, in turn,
requires a period of "preparing the mindset" so that "the mark" will
put their faith in a pre-staged fiction. Those who induced the March
2003 invasion of Iraq began "laying mental threads" and creating
agenda-advancing mental associations more than a decade earlier.
Notable among those threads was the 1993 publication in Foreign Affairs
of an article by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. By the time his
analysis appeared in book-length form in 1996 as The Clash of
Civilizations, more than 100 academies and think tanks were prepared to
promote it, pre-staging a "clash consensus" five years before 9-11.
Also published in 1996 under the guidance of Richard Perle was A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e., Israel). A member
since 1987 of the U.S. Defense Policy Advisory Board, this
self-professed Zionist became its chairman in 2001. As a key adviser to
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Perle's senior Pentagon post
helped lay the required foundation for removing Saddam Hussein as part
of a Greater Israel strategy, a key theme of A Clean Break released
five years before 9-11.
A mass murder, articles, books, think tanks and Pentagon insiders,
however, are not enough to manage the variables in a "probabilistic"
war-planning model. Supportive policy makers are also required to lend
the appearance of legitimacy and credibility to an operation justified
by intelligence fixed around a pre-determined agenda.
That role was eagerly filled by Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, a
Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from
Arizona, when they co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
Echoing Tel Aviv's agenda in A Clean Break, their bill laid another
mental thread in the public mindset by calling for the removal of
Saddam Hussein three years before 9-11.
The legislation also appropriated $97 million, largely to promote that
Zionist agenda. Distracted by mid-term Congressional elections and by
impeachment proceedings commenced in reaction to a well-timed
presidential affair involving White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Bill
Clinton signed that agenda into law October 31, 1998 - five years
before the U.S.-led invasion that removed Saddam Hussein.
After 9-11, John McCain and Joe Lieberman became inseparable travel
companions and irrepressible advocates for the invasion of Iraq.
Looking "presidential" aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore
Roosevelt in January 2002, McCain laid another key thread when he waved
an admiral's cap while proclaiming, alongside Lieberman, "On to
Baghdad."
By Way of Deception
The chutzpah with which this game theory strategy progressed in plain
sight could be seen in the behavior of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz, another Zionist insider. Four days after 9-11, in a
principals' meeting at Camp David, he proposed that the U.S. invade
Iraq. At that time, the intelligence did not yet point to Iraqi
involvement and Osama bin Laden was thought to be hiding in a remote
region of Afghanistan.
Frustrated that President George H.W. Bush declined to remove Saddam
Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War, Wolfowitz proposed a No-Fly Zone in
northern Iraq. By 2001, the Israeli Mossad had agents at work for a
decade in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. Intelligence reports of
Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda also came from Mosul - reports that later proved
to be false. Mosul again emerged in November 2004 as a center of the
insurgency that destabilized Iraq. That reaction precluded the speedy
exit of coalition forces promised in Congressional testimony by senior
war-planner Wolfowitz.
The common source of the fixed intelligence that induced America to war
in Iraq has yet to be acknowledged even though intelligence experts
agree that deception on such a scale required a decade to plan, staff,
pre-stage, orchestrate and, to date, cover up. The two leaders of the
9-11 Commission report conceded they were stopped by Commission members
from hearing testimony on the motivation for 9-11: the U.S.-Israeli
relationship.
The fictions accepted as generally accepted truths included Iraqi WMD,
Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague, Iraqi
mobile biological weapons laboratories and Iraqi purchases of
"yellowcake" uranium from Niger. Only the last fact was conceded as
phony in the relevant time frame. All the rest were disclosed as false,
flawed or fixed only after the war began. An attempt to cover-up the
yellowcake account led to the federal prosecution of vice-presidential
chief of staff Lewis Libby, another well-placed Zionist insider.
Did game theory-modeled pre-staging also include the Israeli
provocation that led to the Second Intifada? An intifada is an uprising
or, literally, a "shaking off" of an oppressor. The Second Intifada in
Palestine dates from September 2000 when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon led an armed march to Jerusalem's Temple Mount one year before
9-11.
After a year of calm-during which Palestinians believed in the
prospects for peace-suicide bombings recommenced after this
high-profile provocation. In response to the uprising, Sharon and
Netanyahu observed that only when Americans "feel our pain" would they
understand the plight of the victimized Israelis. Both Israeli leaders
suggested that shared mindset ("feel our pain") would require in the
U.S. a weighted body count of 4,500 to 5,000 Americans lost to
terrorism, the initial estimate of those who died in the twin towers of
New York City's World Trade Center-one year later.
The American Valkyrie?
When successful, game theory warfare strengthens the agent provocateur
while leaving the mark discredited and depleted by the anticipated
reaction to a well-timed provocation. By game theory standards, 9-11
was a strategic success because the U.S. was portrayed as irrational
for its reaction - the invasion of Iraq that triggered a deadly
insurgency with devastating consequences both for Iraq and the U.S.
That insurgency, in turn, was an easily modeled reaction to the
invasion of a nation that (a) played no role in the provocation, and
(b) was known to be populated by three long-warring sects where an
unstable peace was maintained by a former U.S. ally who was rebranded
an Evil Doer. As the cost in blood and treasure expanded, the U.S.
became overextended militarily, financially and diplomatically.
As "the mark" (the U.S.) emerged in the foreground, the agent
provocateur faded into the background. But only after catalyzing
dynamics that steadily drained the U.S. of credibility, resources and
resolve. This "probabilistic" victory also ensured widespread cynicism,
insecurity, distrust and disillusionment along with a declining
capacity to defend its interests due to the duplicity of a game
theory-savvy enemy within.
Meanwhile the American public fell under a regime of oversight,
surveillance and intimidation marketed as "homeland" security. This
domestic operation even features rhetorical hints of a WWII
"fatherland" with clear signs of a force alien to the U.S. with its
welcome embrace of open dissent. Is this operation meant to protect
Americans or to shield those responsible for this insider operation
from Americans?
By manipulating the shared mindset, skilled game theory war-planners
can wage battles in plain sight and on multiple fronts with minimal
resources. One proven strategy: Pose as an ally of a well-armed nation
predisposed to deploy its military in response to a mass murder. In
this case, the result destabilized Iraq, creating crises that could be
exploited to strategic advantage by expanding the conflict to Iran,
another key Israeli goal announced in A Clean Break-seven years before
the invasion of Iraq.
Which nation benefitted from the deployment of coalition forces to the
region? Today's mathematically model-able outcome undermined U.S.
national security by overextending its military, discrediting its
leadership, degrading its financial condition and disabling its
political will. In game theory terms, these results were "perfectly
predictable"-within an acceptable range of probabilities.
In the asymmetry that typifies today's unconventional warfare, those
who are few in numbers must wage war by way of
deception-non-transparently and with means that leverage their impact.
Which nation-if not Israel-fits that description?
Treason in Plain Sight?
Game theory war-planners manipulate the shared mental environment by
shaping perceptions and creating impressions that become consensus
opinions. With the aid of well-timed crises, policy-makers fall in line
with a predetermined agenda-not because they are Evil Doers or
"imperialists" but because the shared mindset has been pre-conditioned
to respond not to the facts but to manipulated emotions and consensus
beliefs. Without the murder of 3,000 on 9-11, America's credibility
would not now be damaged and the U.S. economy would be in far better
shape.
By steadily displacing facts with what "the mark" can be induced to
believe, the few-within-the-few amplify the impact of their duplicity.
By steady manipulation of the public's mindset, game theory
war-planners can defeat an opponent with vastly superior resources by
inducing those decisions that ensure defeat.
Intelligence wars are waged in plain sight and under the cover of
widely shared beliefs. By manipulating consensus opinion, such wars can
be won from the inside out by inducing a people to freely choose the
very forces that imperil their freedom. Thus in the Information Age the
disproportionate power wielded by those with outsized influence in
media, pop culture, think tanks, academia and politics-domains where
Zionist influence is most rampant.
Induced beliefs act as a force-multiplier to wage intelligence wars
from the shadows. At the operational core of such warfare are those
masterful at anticipating the mark's response to a provocation and
incorporating that response into their arsenal. For those who wage war
in this fashion, facts are only a barrier to overcome. For those
nations dependent on facts, the rule of law and informed consent to
protect their freedom, such insider treachery poses the greatest
possible threat to national security.
America is far less safe than before 9-11. Tel Aviv clearly intends to
continue its serial provocations, as evidenced by its ongoing expansion
of the settlements. Israel has shown no sign of a willingness to
negotiate in good faith or to take the steps required to make peace a
possibility. To date, Barack Obama appears unwilling to name senior
appointees who are not either Zionists are strongly pro-Israeli. The
greatest threat to world peace is not terrorists. The greatest threat
is the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
In the same way that a decade of pre-staging was required to plausibly
induce the U.S. to invade Iraq, a similar strategy is now underway to
persuade the U.S. to invade Iran or to support and condone an attack by
Israel. The same duplicity is again at work, including the high profile
branding of the requisite Evil Doer. From its very outset, the Zionist
enterprise focused on hegemony in the Middle East. Its entangled
alliance with the U.S. enabled this enterprise to deploy American might
for that purpose.
Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation
state intelligence required to take the U.S. to war in the Middle East
while also making it appear that Islam is the problem. If Barack Obama
continues to defer to Tel Aviv, he can rightly be blamed when the next
attack occurs in the U.S. or the European Union featuring the usual
orgy of evidence pointing to a predetermined target. Should another
mass murder occur, that event will be traceable directly to the
U.S.-Israeli relationship and the failure of U.S policy-makers to free
America from this enemy within.
Jeff Gates, A widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker,
educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders
worldwide, Jeff Gates' latest book is Guilt By Association—How
Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War (2008). His previous
books include Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street From Wall Street
and The Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism for the 21st century.