All of America’s
billionaires want to conquer both Iran and Russia, but they disagree with
one-another about the order in which it should be done.
The debate between
Obama’s and Trump’s policies on Iran is basically a dispute between America’s
billionaires. America’s electorate are just observers. The actual decisions
will be made by only the big-money people, because they are the gate-keepers to
power, certainly in America,
even if not necessarily in some other countries.
Usually, America’s Republican billionaires
are obsessed against Iran, and America’s Democratic billionaires are obsessed
against Russia, but nonetheless on June 30th, the Boston Globe’s
columnist Stephen Kinzer exaggerated when he headlined, “In an astonishing turn, George
Soros and Charles Koch team up to end US ‘forever war’ policy” and he
reported that, “the leftist financier George Soros and the right-wing Koch
brothers have little in common. They could be seen as polar opposites.” There
actually is no such basic disagreement amongst America’s billionaires regarding
foreign policies, as there is regarding domestic policies — on which topics
they indeed are as far apart as liberals and conservatives are. Whereas Soros
and the Kochs famously disagree on domestic policies, the situation is very
different on foreign policies, where they all basically agree with one-another,
because they all are neoconservatives. Some may want America
to conquer Iran first and Russia second, while others may want to conquer
Russia first and Iran second, but all US billionaires are neoconservatives,
simply because spreading the US empire until their Government controls every
country on earth is just as profitable for America’s aristocrats today, as the
spread of Britain’s empire was profitable for Britain’s aristocrats, and as the
spread of Germany’s empire was profitable for Germany’s (but only non-Jewish)
aristocrats during the Third Reich — and so on, throughout human history. The
big-money people are always neocons, even if only moderate ones.
For example, the Koch brothers’ Cato
Institute is a propanganda operation for Trump’s policy to grab Venezuela and Syria; and for Obama’s policy to
postpone grabbing back Iran; and it blames the “Libya Fiasco” on NATO — basically on Europe.
So, that’s a Democratic Party, instead of a Republican Party, moderate
neoconservatism, which Cato is pumping, and that’s also George Soros’s propaganda-line. It is neoconservatism
(endorsement of US imperialism), but it is not consistently the extremist sort
that’s represented by people (the neocon purists) such as Victoria Nuland,
Robert Kagan, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Bill Krystol, Nikki Haley, Elliott
Abrams, and Eliot Cohen. In fact, sometimes Soros does (or his ‘charities’ do) veer into such
far-right extremism, promotion of outright genocide, which neither of the
Kochs (nor any of their ‘charities’) has done; and, therefore, if anything,
“the leftist” Soros is actually more of a neoconservative than “the right-wing”
Kochs are. Soros definitely is more of a neocon regarding Russia than the Kochs are. Perhaps Soros is a heavy investor in firms
such as Lockheed Martin, which thrive on wars, and especially thrive on any
tensions against Russia, since anti-Russian tensions increase spending on
strategic weapons, which are such firms’ bread and butter. But neither the
Kochs nor Soros have ever been against American imperialism per se.
Kinzer exaggerates their differences — as do most political commentators.
What, then, is the real substance of this
new ‘charity’ to propagandize for restoration of Obama’s policy toward Iran?
Kinzer says, “Soros is an old-fashioned New Deal liberal. The Koch brothers are
fire-breathing right-wingers who dream of cutting taxes and dismantling
government. Now they have found something to agree on: the United States must
end its ‘forever war’ and adopt an entirely new foreign policy.” However, FDR’s
New Deal was much more drastic than anything Soros has advocated; Roosevelt was
dealing with the greatest economic crash in history. There’s no comparison.
Furthermore: whereas FDR was passionately opposed to all imperialism and was
determined to end the British Empire as soon as the German and Japanese and
Italian empires would be defeated in WW II, Soros is a champion of American empire very much in the British
mold. And, to the exact contrary of “the United States must end its
‘forever war’,” Soros is among the champions of intensifying America’s and
Europe’s war against Russia. Not only was he one of the principals behind Obama’s February
2014 bloody coup in Ukraine that was hidden behind massive
anti-corruption demonstrations, but he personally propagandized for, first,
an additional $20 billion to go toward Ukraine’s war against the separatist
region on Russia’s border, and then a month later hiked that demand to an added
$50 billion.
On 20 November 2014, he headlined in The
New York Review of Books, “Wake Up, Europe”, and said: “the Russian attack on Ukraine
is indirectly an attack on the European Union and its principles of
governance.” At the website Live Mint, he headlined on 1 January 2015, “George Soros | Europe at war: Supporting the new Ukraine in
2015 and beyond is the most cost-effective investment the EU could make”,
and he urged: “Putin’s regime is based on rule by force, manifested in repression
at home and aggression abroad. … Ukraine needs an immediate cash injection of,
say, $20 billion, with a promise of more when needed, in order to stave off a
financial collapse. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) could provide these
funds, as it did previously, with the EU promising to match the IMF’s
contribution.” A month later, at The New York Review of Books again,
he headlined “A New Policy to Rescue Ukraine”, and he more than doubled
the amount, to “a new financial package of $50 billion or more. Needless to
say, the IMF would remain in charge of actual disbursements, so there would be
no loss of control. But instead of scraping together the minimum, the official
lenders would hold out the promise of the maximum. That would be a
game-changer. Ukraine would embark on radical reforms and, instead of hovering
on the edge of bankruptcy, it would turn into a land of promise that would
attract private investment. Europe needs to wake up and recognize that it is
under attack from Russia.” So, first, his President, Obama, overthrew Russia’s
next-door neighbor, Ukraine, and installed there a rabidly anti-Russia regime,
and then Soros urged that $50 billion more in debt be created in order for
Ukraine to grab back the rejectionist region (which had voted over 90% for the
Ukrainian President whom Obama had overthrown). And, somehow, this would
produce in Ukraine “radical reforms and, instead of hovering on the edge of
bankruptcy, it would turn into a land of promise that would attract private
investment.”
What, then, about Iran? Kinzer reports:
“‘This is big,’ said Trita Parsi, former president of the National Iranian
American Council and a co-founder of the new think tank.” So, who is Trita
Parsi, and what is his National Iranian Council? Are they progressives, such as
Kinzer implies? Here’s from Wikipedia, on both: Parsi‘s
relatives aren’t publicly known, but a plug for him says: “Founder and president of the
National Iranian American Council, Parsi was born in Iran to a Zoroastrian family.
His father, a politically active university professor, was jailed twice, first
by the Shah and later by the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini. At the age of four,
Parsi fled with his family to Sweden where he grew up. He came to the US as an
adult, and received his Ph.D. from the School of Advanced International Studies
at Johns Hopkins University.” In other words: he got his PhD from the staunchly
neoconservative JH SAIS, after his Zoroastrian father, a professor in the
US-imposed Shah’s Iran jailed him once, and then the Shiite successor
Government under Khomeini also jailed him once, and then the entire family fled
to Sweden, and then Parsi came to the US — the land which had overthrown Iran’s
democracy and imposed the Shah. It’s unlikely that a person who fled his
homeland and now lives and thrives in its enemy imperialistic country that’s
trying to grab it back, would be favorable toward that country, and toward its
continued independence from its former imperial master. This is especially so
if Parsi’s success has come from aristocrats of the Shah’s regime, who were
stooges of the US — agents of the exploiting foreign aristocracy (mainly
America’s oil aristocrats). On 14 April 2017, the neocon site The Daily Beast
posted an 8,000-word article “The Shady Family Behind America’s Iran Lobby” by “a
well-known Iranian dissident who requested that The Daily Beast keep his
identity concealed,” and it alleged that the National Iranian American Coucil
had been co-founded by Parsi with money that came from the family of “Mohammad
Bagher Namazi, also known as Baquer Namazi,” who “is the patriarch of the
family and formerly the governor under the Shah of the oil-rich Iranian
province of Khuzestan.” If that is true, then it’s likely a very wealthy
family, part of Iran’s aristocracy under the US-imposed dictatorship by the
Shah. And if that is true, then the American billionaires Koch and Soros are
now hiring the Namazi clan’s agent Parsi to lead this new institute, the Quincy
Institute, in order to restore Barack Obama’s Iranian policy.
Furthermore, Obama was very hostile
towards Iran; his policies simply were less hostile than Trump’s are. Obama and
his Administration continued the Clinton and Bush lie that “Iran is the top state sponsor of terrorism”. Furthermore,
it was under Obama that the US Government officially accused — and fined — Iran
as having been the state-sponsor of the 9/11 attacks. That lie, and $10.5 billion fine (blaming Iran for 9/11),
are neoconservative enough, for most Americans, but not neoconservative enough
for America’s Republican billionaires, except now for Charles Koch, Soros’s
partner in co-founding what is to be called the Quincy Institute, which will be
trying to get Obama’s policy restored.
In an article on 18 February 2019
titled “How
America’s Dictatorship Works” I mentioned another aristocrat under the
Shah who had become active in US politics, but this one was the second-biggest
donor to incoming Republican President Donald Trump’s Inaugural Committee:
Hushang Ansary of Stewart &
Stevenson, at $2 million, … [who] had previously been the CEO of the National Iranian Oil Company
until the CIA-appointed dictator, the brutal and widely hated Shah, was
overthrown in 1979 and replaced by Iran’s now theocratically
overseen limited democracy. The US aristocracy, whose CIA had overthrown Iran’s
popular and democratically elected Prime Minister in 1953, installed the Shah
to replace that elected head-of-state, and they then denationalized and
privatized Iran’s oil company, so as to cut America’s aristocrats in on Iran’s
oil. Basically, America’s aristocracy stole Iran in 1953, and Iranians grabbed
their country back in 1979, and USbillionaires have been trying to get it back
ever since. Ansary’s net worth is estimated at “over $2 billion,” and,
“By the 1970s, the CIA considered Ansary to be one of seventeen members of ‘the
Shah’s Inner Circle’ and he was one of the Shah’s top two choices to succeed
Amir Abbas Hoveyda as Prime Minister.” But, that just happened to be the time
when the Shah became replaced in an authentic revolution against America’s
dictatorship. Iran’s revolution produced the country’s current partially
democratic Government. So, this would-be US stooge Ansary fled to America,
which had been Iran’s master during 1953-79, and he was welcomed with open arms
by Amerca’s and allied aristocracies.
Perhaps Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or
whomever wins the Democratic nomination will be able to get some money from the
Kochs, and not only from Soros and other Democratic Party billionaires, but
President Trump will likely have on his side plenty of billionaires who simply want the US to conquer Iran. All of America’s billionaires
want to conquer both Iran and Russia, but they disagree with one-another about
the order in which it should be done.
The debate between Obama’s and Trump’s
policies on Iran is basically a dispute between America’s billionaires.
America’s electorate are just observers. The actual decisions will be made by
only the big-money people, because they are the gate-keepers to power, certainly in America, even if not necessarily in some other
countries.
