He Will Confirm A Covenant With Many...the U.S.- Israel Strategic Alliance - Part II

Dec 25


Doug Krieger

Doug Krieger

  • Share this article on Facebook
  • Share this article on Twitter
  • Share this article on Linkedin

The U.S.-Israel Strategic Dialogue is being propelled by Iran's nuclear program and absurdities coming from the mouth of its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Now the U.S. and Israel have little choice . . .


“Strategic Dialogue” talks between the U.S. and Israel—were commenced in earnest at the end of November,He Will Confirm A Covenant With Many...the U.S.- Israel Strategic Alliance - Part II Articles 2005 (U.S. State Dept. Bulletin).  These “talks” are propelled to their inevitable conclusion (i.e., the U.S.-ISRAEL DEFENSE PACT/TREATY) by Iran’s preposterous charges this past week:  No Jewish Holocaust under Hitler; Israel is a “Zionist-European Tumor” which, ipso facto, should be excised from the Middle East and transplanted into Germany-Austria; and, “no, we’re not making a Weapon of Mass Destruction, even though ‘Israel must be wiped off the map!” (My conjectures.) 

Historic revisionism is alive and well—therefore, do not conclude that this series on the “Strategic and Eschatological Imperatives” embedded in the U.S.-Israel Defense Pact (upcoming) is as naïve as you may have surmised (i.e., pure speculation and benignly obscure Christian fundamentalism gone amok).  Israel’s audacious materiality—in spite of the Adolf Hitler-Grand Mufti, Haj Mohammed Amin Al-Husseini original Axis of Evil—mocks the secular outrage toward Zionism and declares heretical the blather, and hyper symbolism of Biblical liberalism!  (Palestinefacts.org) 

There are forces like those written hereunder which make the heralding of Daniel the Prophet’s final week of Gentile World Power all the more irreversible and prophetically intrusive, in spite of the mockers—both secular and religious—who claim these prognostications are fantasy, or just plain fear-mongering among theological misfits who still claim the Bible has something to say about where this world’s heading! 

“They’ve been wrong before—let them prattle about their future Antichrist all they want . . . it’s relatively harmless . . . besides, who’s listening; who cares . . .in any event, the Millerites, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and wacko-Christian fundamentalists like Hal Lindsey et al, have always dabbled in the ethereal world of prophetical make believe and we’re still here, aren’t we?” 

Friend . . . you’d better get a grip . . . things are changing, faster than you had any idea . . . and their “prophetical alignment” does not bode well for a world utterly unprepared for what’s driving the personality behind:  “HE SHALL CONFIRM A COVENANT (i.e., “Treaty”) WITH THE MANY…” (Daniel 9:27). 

As Winston Churchill once said: 

“We reject with scorn all these learned and laboured myths that Moses was but a legendary figure. We believe that the most scientific view, the most up to date and rationalistic conception, will find its fullest satisfaction in taking the Bible literally. We may be sure that all these things happened as they are set out in Holy Writ. In the words of a forgotten work of Mr. Gladstone, we rest with assurance upon ‘the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture...’ Let the men of science and of learning expand their knowledge and probe with their researches every detail of the records which have been preserved to us from these dim ages. All they do is to fortify the grand simplicity and essential accuracy of the recorded truths which have lighted so far the pilgrimage of man.” 


When I published my article “Behold, the Prince of Persia” (buzzle.com, June 2005), there were fears that a “Nuclear Iran” would galvanize Radical Islam and stiffen the insurgency in Iraq, compel a “democratic takeover” of secular Middle East nations like Egypt and Turkey, and drive Israel (and for that matter the U.S.) to the brink of a unilateral-preemptive strike at Iranian nuclear facilities.  Likewise, because of the Iranian-Syrian Defense Pact (early 2005), Syria and the Palestinian Authority, would find themselves pouring into the “cup of trembling to all the nations ‘round about” Israel. 

Well, we stand on our “prophetic laurels” and declare the rise of the “Prince of Persia” is all the more enraged through the election and regime of one, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (President of Iran since August 3, 2005) . . . consider this, as the world continues to spin upon this precarious axis of inscrutible uncertainty . . .  

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Dec. 10, 2005, told the newly-awarded Nobel Prize winner, Mohamed El-Baradei, that his comments to persuade Iran to stop its uranium enrichment program (because its heading toward a nuclear explosion in either Jerusalem or Tel Aviv) the following not-so-ambiguous-mafia-sounding remarks:  “He (El-Baradei) knows Iran has not diverted in its nuclear program . . . it would be better for him not to have many interviews.” (Comcast Netnews

The Iranians, with diplomatic hubris, simultaneously suggested, through Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi that the U.S. participates in Iran’s nuclear program to wit:  “America can take part in international bidding for the construction of Iran’s nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and quality.” 

All this during the same week (December 3-10, 2005) in which these not so subtle remarks were made by the ever-more-resembling the coordinator of the American Iranian Hostage Crisis, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 

“Some European Countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that they condemn that person and throw them in jail . . . although we (i.e., the Iranians) don’t accept this claim (i.e., the Holocaust—six million Jews perishing in Hitler’s death camps), if we suppose it (the Holocaust) is true, our question for the Europeans is:  Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?” (Paul Hughes, Reuters, Dec. 8, 2005) 

Of course, all this was compounded by President-American-Hostage-Leader Ahmadinejad suggesting that Israeli Jews be transplanted to provinces in both Germany and Austria to salve the conscience of their Nazi past.  How fitting that all these remarks were made at the summit of the Organization of Islamic Conference held in the Muslim holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia! 

Naturally, the U.S.-Israeli reaction was vehement, especially after the October, 2005 “Israel must be wiped off the map” remarks of Mr. Ahmadinejad (The Tribulation Network): 

“I hope that these outrageous remarks will be a wake-up call to people who have any illusions about the nature of the regime in Iran” (Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Mark Regev).“ . . . an outrageous gaffe, which I want to repudiate in the sharpest manner” (President George Bush). 

Finally, the bottom line remarks of White House spokesman Scott McClellan: 

“It just further underscores our concerns about the regime in Iran.  And it’s all the more reason why it’s so important that the regime not have the ability to develop nuclear weapons.” 

Just how outrageous were Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks? 

“So, Germany and Austria, come and give one, two or any number of your privinces to the Zionist regime so they can create a country there . . . and the problem will be solved at its root . . . you oppressed them, so give a part of Europe to the Zionist regime . . . why do they insist on imposing themselves (the Europeans) on other powers and creating a tumour (Israel) so there is always tension and conflict?” 

Now, Scott McClellan’s “all the more reason why it’s so important that the regime not have the ability to develop nuclear weapons” and the innocuous subtrafuge of the U.S. State Department’s remarks regarding the U.S.-Israel Strategic Dialogue to wit, “The United States and Israel look forward to continuing this dialogue in the Spring of 2006 in Israel”—demands further “strategic dialogue.”   

Trust me—unless you’re in the market for a hot bridge deal—these U.S.-Israeli Strategic Dialogue discussions have not only commenced, they have only intensified as a result of the bombastic absurdities of Iran, along with the rhetoric and actions of Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad,  and the acceleration of the insurgency in Iraq against Bush’s War on Terror. 

The worst fighting in five years between Hezbollah and the IDF took place at the end of November, 2005.  This was preceded by a coordinated meeting between Iran’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, and leaders of Hamas (Khaled Meshaal), a deputy leader of Islamic Jihad, and Ahmed Jibril, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.  Jibril’s “organic remarks” tie Iran into the recent assaults in Northern Israel and the suicide bombing of a shopping mall in Israel’s Netanya where five Israeli citizens were killed . . .  

“We will confirmed that what is going on in occupied Palestine is organically connected to what is going on in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Lebanon” (Jibril) (ICH 12/12/05) 

All this in light of Hamas’ most recent victories at the polls . . .  

“NABLUS, West Bank - Hamas supporters on Friday celebrated a landslide election victory in major West Bank towns, the strongest sign yet of the Islamic militant group’s growing political appeal ahead of Jan. 25 parliamentary elections.  Israel responded with concern, saying a Palestinian government dominated by Hamas—which calls for Israel's destruction and has killed hundreds of Israelis in attacks— would not be a partner for peace.  Thousands of Hamas supporters joined victory marches after Friday prayers. In Jenin, where Hamas won a majority of local council seats, marchers chanted, ‘To Jerusalem we march, martyrs by the millions!’ and held up copies of the Quran.” (AP, Ali Daraghmeh, Associated Press Writer, Dec. 17, 2005). 


As Lebanon, Syrian, Iran and the Palestinian Authority ratchet up the “War on Israel” – Israel has plans of their own . . .     

Uzi Mahnaimi of Tel Aviv and Sarah Baxter of the Times Newspapers Ltd. (London) quote a senior White House source saying that the nuclear threat from Iran was moving to the “top of the international agenda and the issue now was ‘What next?’” 

PM Ariel Sharon quipped:  “Israel—and not only Israel—cannot accept a nuclear Iran.”  Sure sounds like the U.S.-Israel Strategic Alliance on parade here! 

The IDF has placed its military readiness on “G” alert—the highest stage.  Israel is now on the highest military alert to prepare for an attack against Iran! 

Israel firmly asserts that by the end of March, 2006, things in Iran, and ipso facto Israel, will have reached the “POINT OF NO RETURN!”  UNIAEA head, Mohamed El-Baradei, will present his next report on Iran’s nuclear intentions in early March, 2006. 

A massive Israeli intelligence probe of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, launched from a site in northern Iraq (no doubt in cooperation with the USA) has already identified uranium enrichment sites previously unknown to the IAEA—there could be up to 50 sites in Iran coordinating the uranium enrichment program to produce a nuclear bomb capable of hitting Tel Aviv/Jerusalem. 

Israel’s top Special Forces Brigade, Unit 262, and their F-15I strategic 69 Squadron, will ready themselves for a non-stop roundtrip to deliver both air and ground devastation to Iran’s threats to wipe Israel off the map. 

This will be all the more difficult if Iran secures delivery of a $1B anti-ballistic missile system (the Tor-M1) from the Russians.  The system is designed to destroy guided missiles and laser-guided bombs from aircraft—likewise, the system can be easily and quickly installed! (ICH 12/12/2005)

Note also:  Original Source:  The Times of London, Dec. 11, 2005


Let us turn aside, for a moment, shall we, to observe the unvarnished historicity of U.S. Presidential aspirations towards Israel . . . for in this incredible glimpse into the ever-maturing “strategic relationship” between the U.S. and Israel, it has always been her Presidents who have led the way—it is the privilege of the American Executive to orchestrate U.S. foreign policy, and more so, since two World Wars and the Cold War have given birth to the Imperial Presidency; make no mistake to the contrary! 

It is this profound political significance between American Presidents and Israel that astounds the world’s diplomats and negotiators—especially, European and Moslem observers.  Understanding the evolution of the American Imperium and its unusual, yet clearly observable relationship, between its Chief Executive and Israel’s security, is most remarkable—to obfuscate this unparalleled association (as some religious and secular observers are loathe to do)—damages the academic and so-called spiritual credentials of those who deny this obvious arrangement! 

President Harry S. Truman

President Truman, whose Baptist roots predisposed him to Israel’s rebirth as a nation state for the Jews, commenced a long and ever-deepening relationship between the State of Israel and the USA. 

Truman’s predecessor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, appeared to be sympathetic to the Jewish cause (i.e., the State of Israel in Palestine); however, his assurances to the Arabs that the United States would not intervene without consulting both parties caused public uncertainty about his position.  

President Harry S. Truman, on the other hand after taking office, made it clear that his sympathies were with the Jews; hence, he accepted the Balfour Declaration (made by the British as a quid pro quo for Jewish support for the Allied cause in World War I), explaining that it was in keeping with former President Woodrow Wilson's principle of “self determination.”  

In point of fact, Daniel Pipes, in his review of Michael T. Benson's book Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel states: 

“Benson proves that Truman's policies resulted not from nose-counting (the “Jewish vote” in America) but from deeply-held beliefs. His pro-Israel outlook ‘was based primarily on humanitarian, moral, and sentimental grounds, many of which were an outgrowth of the president’s religious upbringing and his familiarity with the Bible.’ Extensive research into Truman’s biography and earlier career shows his impressive consistency. Benson, of the University of Utah, establishes Truman as a studious child and deeply religious young man who, when he unexpectedly found himself in the Oval Office, lived faithfully by his precepts. In the case at hand, he expressed sympathy for Zionism as early as 1939 and reiterated his views many times subsequently.” (Palestinefacts.org) 

Truman initiated several studies of the Palestine situation that supported his belief that, as a result of the Holocaust, Jews were oppressed and also in need of a homeland. Notwithstanding Truman’s support for the Jewish state, and throughout both the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, the Departments of War and State, recognizing the possibility of a Soviet-Arab connection and the potential Arab restriction on oil supplies to the United States, advised against U.S. intervention on behalf of the Jews. 

Britain and the United States, in a joint effort to examine the dilemma, established the “Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry.” In April 1946, the committee submitted recommendations that Palestine not be dominated by either Arabs or Jews. It concluded that attempts to establish nationhood or independence would result in civil strife; that a trusteeship agreement aimed at bringing Jews and Arabs together should be established by the United Nations; that full Jewish immigration be allowed into Palestine; and that two autonomous states be established with a strong central government to control Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and the Negev, the southernmost section of Palestine.

British, Arab, and Jewish reactions to the recommendations were not favorable. 

In spite of his own Departments of War and State, and of the Brits subterfuge regarding the Jewish State, he immediately recognized the Jewish State upon their declaration of independence—eleven minutes after Israel’s declaration of statehood (American Heritage).

This “Presidential Recognition” was, according to Margaret Truman (daughter of President Truman), “the most difficult decision (he) ever faced as president” (Christian Science Monitor).  The immediate involvement of the President of the United States—overruling his powerful Secretary of State George Marshall—set a precedence wherein the Presidency and Israel became synonymous in diplomatic parlance.  In other words:  The President of the United States—not the nation, per se (i.e., Legislative or Judicial branches of government), nor its State Department—became the deciding factor and the fulcrum of the relationship between Israel and the USA. 

“Administrative tension” between the U.S. State Department and the President, especially in regards to Israel vis-à-vis U.S. national interest throughout the Middle East, and in particular the acquisition of cheap energy in maintenance of America’s ever-expanding economy, is of no small notoriety; yet, provides ample wiggle room when the President wishes to register consternation if the Executive perceives Israel “has gone too far.” 

President Dwight Eisenhower  

With the decline of Britain as the self-appointed protector of the Middle East, and the rise of the Cold War, America’s immediate, though periferal role with Israel, was about to change—and change significantly. 

Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser seized the Suez Canal in October of 1956—whereupon Britain, France and Israel (as co-conspirators) launched a surprise attack; but, Ike considered the bizarre adventure as a “mid-Victorian form of gunboat diplomacy.”   

“I’ve just never seen great powers make such a complete mess and botch of things” – October 30, 1956 (President Eisenhower). 

It was the President of the United States who torpedoed the tripartite effort against an Arab nation and won him, at the time, the praise of the UN and as the defender of third-world nations against Israel and the West. 

The upshot of Suez, in so far as the U.S.-Israel “Strategic Relationship” is concerned—made the U.S. the dominant player in the Middle East, and, ipso facto, intimately involved with Israel.  Furthermore, it brought the Cold War smack dab into the midst of the Middle East.   

“The affair (Suez) convinced Eisenhower that a move into the area by the Soviet Union would be disastrous to Europe and Nation, because of oil needs.  He announced the Eisenhower Doctrine:  The U.S. would send weapons and cash to any Mideast nation threatened by communism” (Christian Science Monitor 10/26/2001). 

There’s no doubt that the USA was supporting Israel from the get-go (not just Arab states opposed to communism) . . . but then came . . .  

Presidents John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon 

Strategic cooperation accelerated with John Kennedy’s 1962 sale of HAWK antiaircraft missiles to Israel—again, over the objection of the “Arabist” State Department. 

After Israel’s smashing military victory in 1967 and capture of the Siani, Golan Heights and West Bank—as well as the old city of Jerusalem—Presidents Johnson and Nixon became convinced that the Arabs were not capable of attacking Israel for many years. 

A policy of quantitative military equlibrium was in place in the early ‘60s wherein Lyndon Johnson would provide Israel with tanks and aircraft, but would balance these sales by transference of the same to Arab countries.  This policy would inhibit any one state from gaining the military advantage over the other.  This all changed in 1968 when Johnson committed Phantom jets to Israel.  In so doing, he established the USA as the overwhelming arms supplier of Israel and moved the geopolitical equation from quantitative to Israel’s qualitative favor. 

Indeed, Johnson’s Baptist upbringing affirmed his pro-Israel posture: 

“Most if not all of you (speaking to an American Jewish audience) have very deep ties with the land and with the people of Israel, as I do, for my Christian faith sprang from yours . . . the Bible stories are woven into my childhood memories as the gallant struggle of modern Jews to be free of persecution is also woven into our souls” (Jewish Virtual Library). 

At this point Israel did not significantly contribute to “Western defenses” in the region because its potential to contribute to a policy of containment was negligible.  However, that perception changed when the USA called upon Israel to buttress King Hussein’s government and oust the Syrians from their incursion into Jordan in 1970. 

Nixon, continued the policies initiated by Johnson, however, it is well known that his affection towards Israel was at best superficial and, for that matter, his predisposition toward being downright anti-Semitic in his private conversations (William F. Buckley, Nixon and Anti-Semitism on the Right, Feb. 10, 1997, National Review) ultimately led, as some surmise, to Israel’s horrific losses during the 1973 Yom Kippur War in which Egypt and Syria sought to regain land lost in the ’67 War.   

Notwithstanding, Nixon came to Israel’s rescue and played nuclear brinkmanship with the Soviets, putting them on notice by declaring a worldwide nuclear alert to prevent their intervention on the side of the Arab belligerents.  From here the world would witness, for the first time, a new USA involvement into the Middle East cauldron:  The Peace Initiatives . . . 

President Jimmy Carter  

Under Carter (1974-1979) a time of de facto strategic cooperation prevailed wherein Israel was allowed to sell military equipment to the U.S. and, for the first time, joint military exercises were held by the two.   

It is here that the “Man of Peace” enters into the fray.   

“Consider the Camp David accords—still the most important Middle East pact to which the U.S. has served as midwife.  President Jimmy Carter had taken office promising a new look for U.S. foreign policy.  The hard realpolitik of the Nixon-Ford era, when everything was seen through the lens of the cold war, would be modified.  In its place would be an attempt to deal with regional problems on their own terms.  In the Middle East, that meant a comprehensive approach to Israeli-Arab differences, including some sort of solution for the problem of displaced Palestinians.” (CSMonitor

The point to be made in all of Carter’s deliberations is the injection of the “Comprehensive Peace Factor” into the equation—it was and is the USA that is at the helm of such peace initiatives; specifically, it is the President of the United States America that is the prime factor, the pivotal figure in any and all such negotiations. 

In solidarity with his Baptist roots, Jimmy Carter’s support for Israel was unwavering: 

“(I) believed very deeply that the Jews who had survived the Holocaust deserved their own nation, and that they had a right to live in peace among their neighbors.  I considered this homeland for the Jews to be compatible with the teaching of the Bible, hence ordained by God.  These moral and religious beliefs made my commitment to the security of Israel unshakable.” (Carter’s memoirs

Notwithstanding Carter’s  pro-Israel sentiments, he, like virtually all of the U.S. Presidents, have expressed—beneath the veneer of solidarity with Israel—reservations to one degree or another, especially in response to the “Jewish lobby” (i.e., AIPAC) in meddling with the perceived national interests of the USA. 

“President Carte

Source: Free Guest Posting Articles from ArticlesFactory.com