So what is “total isolation?” The best example is South Africa where sanctions were placed on the government, there was dis-investment in the country, and it was named a pariah nation. It crushed the nation and caused a political change that prior to its institution would have never occurred.
The first step in this onerous political game was played out today when the Palestinians said they could not agree with the agreement that Kerry had proposed. They said unless Jerusalem is the Palestinian capital and that all land in Judea and Samaria was ceded to them, there would be no agreement. It is obvious to most that Israel will never agree to these two demands and especially the one relating to the holiest city in Judaism.
So where does this leave Kerry? He will be stymied and to get an agreement, he has only one point onto which he can exert pressure and that is Israel and on Netanyahu personally. We suspect the Secretary of State will insist that Israel acquiesce to the Palestinian demands. To ensure that the country can live in “peace” there will be promises of UN and United States troops to guarantee that the borders are protected.
However, the point that Netanyahu will insist there be no negotiations is Jerusalem. This is one point to which even the most peaceful Israeli will not agree. It must remain a Jewish city, controlled and administered by the Israeli government. The Palestinians know this. And for this reason they have placed it as one of their demands.
Netanyahu will and can be somewhat flexible on borders and other issues and will try to accommodate Kerry. However, the Palestinians will insist that all of their demands must be met or there will be no agreement. They believe (and are probably right) that Kerry will force the Israelis to swallow this bitter pill.
Kerry will have reached a deadlock. Netanyahu will not agree to Jerusalem. The Obama team wants an agreement and have decided to do anything to accomplish that goal. It is at this point that the Secretary of State will employ what we call the “total isolation” option. This proposal as it will be presented to Netanyahu will have the following points. Unless Israel agrees to the Palestinian demands:
–Israel will be cut off from military supplies and equipment from the United States
–All financial support (foreign aid) from the United States to Israel will end
– The United States will go to the UN and have Israel branded a “pariah” nation. This will include sanctions, dis-investment and the curtailing of all trade.
– As a result of the “pariah” designation, United States law would prevent supporters of Israel in this country from sending money, supplies, food, military equipment to the them. It could also be interpreted to forbid tourism.
In other words, Israel would be starved for cash, military supplies and friends until they agree to Palestinian demands for a peace treaty which will expand over time. Israel will not be a comfortable place to live under these conditions.
We expect the declaration of the “total isolation” option to be done sometime after the first of the year, probably in the first quarter. However, it could be later depending on other events in the region and the world.
The unresolved questions are, will Netanyahu fold? Will Israel give up its ancestral Capital? Will Obama and Kerry be so gutsy? Will the world follow the Obama/Kerry team on this? How long could Israel hold out against such tremendous pressure? Would Russia and China intervene?
Of course, we could be wrong. However, with the recent death of Nelson Mandela, the memories of crushing the regime in South Africa have been rekindled and many of those who do not like Israel also were not fans of the ruling Afrikaners including Obama and Kerry.
Let’s hope that we are wrong and that Kerry and Obama become involved in other issues that keep their attention and the Palestinian-Israeli issue loses its luster. Unfortunately, we see no other way that the Obama-Kerry can complete their dream of bring about Middle East peace. It would be the wrong decision but that never has stopped this
In three latest crises, why are we not leading?
Charles Krauthammer – The Kansas City Star, December 9th, 2013
The first crisis, barely noticed here, is Ukraine’s sudden turn away from Europe and back to the Russian embrace.
After years of negotiations for a major trading agreement with the European Union, Ukraine succumbed to characteristically blunt and brutal economic threats from Russia and abruptly walked away.
This is no trivial matter. Ukraine is not just the largest country in Europe, it’s the linchpin for Vladimir Putin’s dream of a renewed imperial Russia, rolling back the quarter-century advancement of the “Europe whole and free” bequeathed by America’s victory in the Cold War.
The U.S. response? Almost imperceptible. As with Iran’s ruthlessly crushed Green Revolution of 2009, the hundreds of thousands of protesters who’ve turned out to reverse this betrayal of Ukrainian independence have found no voice in Washington. Can’t this administration even rhetorically support those seeking a democratic future, as we did during Ukraine’s Orange Revolution of 2004?
A Washington Post headline explains: “With Russia in mind, U.S. takes cautious approach on Ukraine unrest.” We must not offend Putin. We must not jeopardize Obama’s precious “reset,” a farce that has yielded nothing but the well-earned distrust of allies like Poland and the Czech Republic, whom we wantonly undercut in a vain effort to appease Russia on missile defense.
The second crisis is the Middle East — the collapse of confidence of U.S. allies as America romances Iran.
The Gulf Arabs are stunned at their double abandonment. In the nuclear negotiations with Iran, the U.S. has overthrown seven years of Security Council resolutions prohibiting uranium enrichment and effectively recognized Iran as a threshold nuclear state. This follows our near-abandonment of the Syrian revolution and de facto recognition of both the Assad regime and Iran’s “Shiite Crescent” of client states stretching to the Mediterranean.
Equally dumbfounded are the Israelis, now trapped by an agreement designed less to stop the Iranian nuclear program than to prevent the Israeli Air Force from stopping the Iranian nuclear program.
Better diplomacy than war, say Obama’s apologists, an adolescent response implying that all diplomacy is the same, as if a diplomacy of capitulation is no different from a diplomacy of pressure.
What to do? Apply pressure. Congress should immediately pass punishing new sanctions to be implemented exactly six months hence — when the current interim accord is supposed to end — if the Iranians have not lived up to the agreement.
The third crisis is unfolding over the East China Sea, where, in open challenge to Obama’s “pivot to Asia,” China has brazenly declared a huge expansion of its airspace into waters claimed by Japan and South Korea.
Obama’s first response — sending B-52s through that airspace without acknowledging the Chinese — was quick and firm. Japan and South Korea followed suit. But when Japan then told its civilian carriers not to comply with Chinese demands for identification, Washington told U.S. air carriers to submit.
Which, of course, left the Japanese hanging. It got worse. During Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to China, the administration buckled. Rather than insisting on a withdrawal of China’s outrageous claim, we began urging mere non-enforcement.
Again leaving our friends stunned. We should be declaring the Chinese claim null and void, ordering our commercial airlines to join Japan in acting accordingly, and supplying them with joint military escorts if necessary.
This would not be an exercise in belligerence but a demonstration that if other countries unilaterally overturn the status quo, they will meet a firm, united, multilateral response from the West.
Led by us. From in front.
“Believe me, we are all skeptical,” Kerry told members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. “But we now have the best chance we’ve ever had” to negotiate with Iran, USA Today reports.
“We’re asking you to give our negotiators and our experts the time and the space to do their jobs,” Kerry added. That means “to hold off with new sanctions while we negotiate. I’m not saying never. I’m just saying not right now.”
House Foreign Affairs Chairman Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., said he has “serious concerns” about the agreement. But Republicans aren’t the only ones opposed to the president’s plan. Rep. Juan Vargas, D-Calif., explained that while he was a fan of Kerry and once thought he’d would make a good president, the administration’s negotiated deal with Iran was “naive” and would not ultimately keep America and her allies safe.
Read more stories from TheBlaze
News | Comment (0)
Obama’s four-state solution
Caroline Glick – carolineglick.com, December 10th, 2013
Inadvertently, President Barack Obama just made an important contribution to our understanding of the Palestinian conflict with Israel.
Since Hamas ousted all PLO forces from the Gaza Strip in 2007, Gaza has operated as a separate political entity from Judea and Samaria. Indeed, it has been a de facto independent Palestinian state, controlled by Hamas. Gaza’s only connection to Judea and Samaria has been financial. Every month, the PLO-controlled Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria transfers tens of millions of dollars in US and other international donor funds to Gaza to finance the terror state.
Despite the clear distinction between the two areas, the US and the rest of the world have continued to insist that an Israeli-PLO peace deal will cover Gaza as well as Judea and Samaria. Obama always insists that a future Palestinian state must be “territorially contiguous,” meaning in a final deal Israel will be required to cut itself in half in order to give the Palestinians a land corridor connecting Gaza with Judea and Samaria.
But during his remarks at the Saban Forum on Saturday, Obama let the cat out of the bag. Gaza, he admitted, is a separate entity. A peace deal, he explained, “is going to have to happen in stages.”
As he sees it, a peace deal will involve an Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. A post-Israel Judea and Samaria will be so wonderful that the Gazans will decide to join it. [Doesn't that sound great? One big Happy Hamas party.]
Obama explained, “If there is a model where young Palestinians in Gaza are looking and seeing that in the West Bank Palestinians are able to live in dignity, with self-determination, and suddenly their economy is booming and trade is taking place because they have created an environment in which Israel is confident about its security and a lot of the old barriers to commerce and educational exchange and all that has begun to break down, that’s something that the young people of Gaza are going to want. And the pressure that will be placed for the residents of Gaza to experience that same future is something that is going to be I think overwhelmingly appealing.”
Before considering whether Gazans will likely behave as Obama expects them to, we need to consider the implications of his assertion that Gaza will not be automatically included in a peace deal.
Israelis and Palestinians engage one another for different reasons. Israelis are told we need to engage the Palestinians because they pose a demographic threat to our continued viability as a Jewish state.
In his remarks at the Saban Forum, Secretary of State John Kerry claimed that the Palestinian “demographic time bomb” is an existential threat on the level of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. If we don’t vacate Judea and Samaria as we vacated Gaza, he warned, we will be doomed as a Jewish nation state.
For the Palestinians, the peace process is supposed to lead to a satisfaction of their assumed yearning for self-determination as a nation.
Israeli demographics and Palestinian nationalism have been the basic assumptions upon which the peace process has been based. But the Obama-recognized fact that Gaza is a separate political entity demonstrates the emptiness of both.
The truth is that the “demographic time bomb” is a PLO-concocted lie. In its 1997 census, the PLO falsified its data and inflated the number of Palestinians by 50 percent. They then projected natural growth and immigration rates that bore no relation whatsoever to reality.
In truth, demography is one of Israel’s strongest advantages, not an existential threat. Were Israel to absorb the Palestinian populations of Gaza and Judea and Samaria tomorrow, Israel’s Jewish majority would be reduced from 78% to well over 50%. While Israel’s Jewish identity would not be in doubt, it would be weakened.
On the other hand, without Gaza, there is no demographic threat to Israel’s Jewish majority. If Israel applies its sovereignty over Judea and Samaria and offers a path to citizenship to its Palestinian residents, Israel would still retain a two-thirds Jewish majority. And if current fertility and immigration rates hold, within 15 to 20 years, Jews could well restore their 80 percent majority overall.
Then there is the Palestinian nationalism issue.
Obama’s acknowledgement that Gazans will have to be convinced to join a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria exposes the lie at the heart of it. Since the League of Nations assigned both sides of the Jordan River to the Jewish people in 1922, the international community has insisted that the path to peace will be forged by taking land from the Jews and giving it to the Arabs.
First we had a two-state solution when Jordan, with its overwhelming Palestinian majority, was carved out of the Jewish territory.
For the past 20 years, we have been told that we need a three-state solution with another Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
Since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, we have had two Palestinian states – in Gaza and Jordan. And yet, the Gazans who we are told are motivated by nationalist aspirations have refused to declare an independent Palestinian state in Gaza. And now Obama is talking about a four-state solution – three Palestines and one rump Israel.
The Palestinians’ refusal to ever view the areas under their control as the focus of their nationalist aspirations indicates that there is something awry in the international community’s assumption that the Palestinians are motivated by nationalist aspirations.
And that brings us to Obama’s projection that once the Gazans see how great things are in post-Israel Judea and Samaria, they will join the peace train. We’ve been told things like this before.
In 1993 we were told that the Palestinians as a whole would embrace peace once Israel recognized the PLO and allowed it to set up an autonomous government in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In the event, the Palestinians became more violent and radicalized and anti-Jewish under PLO rule, until in 2006 they elected Hamas to lead them.
In 2005 we were told that once Israel vacated Gaza, the Gazans would abandon their war against Israel and use their energies to transform Gaza into a Middle Eastern Singapore. Instead they transformed it into a Middle Eastern Afghanistan.
In 2007, after Hamas ousted the PLO from Gaza, we were told that the international community would pour so much money into the PLO-run PA in Judea and Samaria that the Gazans would decide that they want the PLO back. Instead, Hamas has grown more popular in Judea and Samaria.
In other words, there is no reason to think Obama’s sunny projection is correct.
Clearly without meaning to, Obama told us the truth.
There is no demographic time bomb. Israel has no reason to withdraw from Judea and Samaria. Absorbing the areas into sovereign Israel will not endanger the country demographically.
And the fact that the Gazans do not see themselves as part of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, (or in Jordan), shows that the Palestinian national movement is not what it has been billed as. Obama’s four-state solution is not about demography or Palestinian nationalism. It is about making up reasons to force Israel to surrender its strategic and historic heartland.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
The popular YouTube channel Baracksdubs has stitched together Barack Obama’s many speeches for this presidential carol.
They obviously had a lot of material to work with, but Mashable asks an important question: In which context did the commander-in-chief have to say “jingle”?
Read more stories from TheBlaze
News | Comment (0)
Stephens: Chuck Hagel Was Right
Bret Stephens – The Wall Street Journal, December 9th, 2013
But it wasn’t a stumble. It was a gaffe—an accidental, embarrassing act of Washington truth telling—by a guy who doesn’t do insincerity nearly as well as his boss.
This much was apparent from the revealing performance Barack Obama delivered last week at the Brookings Institution, where he was interviewed by Israeli-American entertainment mogul Haim Saban on the subject of the Iranian nuclear deal. It was just the kind of Q&A the president likes doing: Mr. Saban wrote an op-ed in the New York Times NYT last year explaining why he planned to vote for Mr. Obama and donated more than $ 1 million to Democrat-backing super-PACs. In return, the president named Mr. Saban’s wife Cheryl to a U.N. post.
Maybe that’s why the president’s answers contained more than the usual quotient of half-truth, misdirection and puffery: It’s easier to sucker a sycophant.
Here are a few of my favorite Obamisms from the interview:
1) “We are stopping the advancement of the Arak facility,” he said, referring to Iran’s construction of a plutonium reactor.
Containment, not prevention, is the president’s real policy on Iranian nukes. Associated Press
The reality, as Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif bluntly pointed out, is that “construction will continue” at Arak. Tehran has merely undertaken not to fuel the reactor—assuming that’s even an option for the time being—for at least six months.
2) “There’s nothing in this agreement or document that grants Iran a right to enrich,” Mr. Obama said later on, referring to Iran’s enrichment of uranium in 10,000 centrifuges.
The reality is that the Geneva deal allows Iran to continue to enrich uranium (though it has to oxidize the produced uranium, a reversible process), and it specifies that a final accord “would involve a mutually defined enrichment program.” So Geneva doesn’t “grant” Iran a right to enrich. It merely accepts it de facto and envisions it de jure.
3) “It is precisely because of the international sanctions and the coalition that we were able to build internationally that the Iranian people responded by saying, we need a new direction in how we interact with the international community and how we deal with this sanctions regime,” Mr. Obama said early in the interview.
Except the president isn’t quite sure he believes in, or can keep track of, what he’s saying. “The idea that Iran, given everything we know about their history, would just continue to get more and more nervous about more sanctions and military threats, and ultimately just say, okay, we give in—I think does not reflect an honest understanding of the Iranian people or the Iranian regime.”
Well, which is it? Are the Iranians susceptible to sanctions and military pressure or not?
4) “When the president of the United States says he doesn’t take any options off the table, that should be taken seriously. And I think I have a track record over the last five years that indicates that that should be taken seriously.” Mr. Obama then added: “I said it’s a problem for Syria to have chemical weapons that it uses on its own citizens. And when we had definitive proof that it had, I indicated my willingness potentially to take military action.”
At the Battle of Thermopylae, it is recorded that the Spartan King Leonidas indicated his willingness potentially to die for Greece. At Gettysburg, Union soldiers gave the last full measure of their potential indication.
And if the Iranians violate the present accord? “I won’t go into details,” Mr. Obama said. “The options that I’ve made clear I can avail myself of, including a military option, is one that we would consider and prepare for.”
Let’s break this down for the real world. The president will not use military force under any circumstances and will resist efforts to resume sanctions in the event a final accord fails. Instead, he has accepted the principle of a nuclear-capable Iran; he only asks Tehran that its nuclear breakout time be in the range of six to 12 months as opposed to, say, two to six.
Perhaps this is supposed to be a comfort to an Israel, a Saudi Arabia, or a Bahrain. But they understand the game Iran intends to play: accept modest, time-limited and reversible constraints on their nuclear program. Exchange them for broad concessions of fact and principle by the U.S. Eventually, the West will get used to the idea of Iran with borderline nuclear capability gradually extending its influence in the region as American influence recedes. We’re bored with the Middle East anyway.
The argument is now being made that a containment policy beats the unforeseen risks associated with stopping Iran by force. People who dine in Washington eateries that only recently Tehran made plans to blow up should not concede this point so cavalierly. If Iran was prepared to aggress that way without the benefit of a nuclear umbrella, just imagine how it will behave with one.
If a picture is worth 1,000 words, it looks like the first lady has a few for her husband and Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt…
This Obama – Danish PM thing has quickly become a real-time soap opera: pic.twitter.com/bHExijwgeG
— Karl Sharro (@KarlreMarks) December 10, 2013
Read more stories from TheBlaze
News | Comment (0)
In the book Animal Farm, the failed Collectivist effort that occupies most of the book is the building of a windmill. The animals are told that if a windmill is built, they will not have to toil away as much and that they will finally enjoy leisure time. Building the windmills becomes their common goal… their dream. Even after it is destroyed (and blamed on one of their own) they persist. In 2013 America, it is the Bald Eagle – symbol of this nation – which must be “sacrificed” for the windmill. Specifically, wind farms chopping up Bald Eagles and having their owners exempt from paying any fines for killing a protected species.
[F]ederal officials announced Friday that some wind power companies will be allowed to kill or injure bald and golden eagles for up to 30 years without penalty.
Looking at 2012 levels of wind power, you have about 1,250,000 birds and bats getting killed by wind farms every year. As the LA Times noted, Barack Obama wants to see wind power increase 12 times over what we have today.
That’s a lot of birds and bats killed so Little Johnny can play his Playstation.
Duke Energy was fined $ 1 million in November of 2013 for Bald Eagle deaths. It was one of the first fines such as that to have been levied on an “alternative” energy company.
Within a week, it was announced, wind farms could kill as many Bald Eagles as they wanted – for up to 30 years – and face no fines or penalties.
The irony is great. Liberals constantly say that Republicans are allowing gas and oil companies to destroy the environment but here is a case of Democrats doing the same thing by allowing these bird deaths.
Democrats are hypocrites because they will change their tune depending upon the subject. Releasing CO2 into the air? That’s bad we should tax it. 1,250,000 birds and bats being killed every year by windmills? That’s okay. We should regulate businesses! But don’t regulate abortion clinics or even require doctors to perform them!
Just like how the animals in Animal Farm were sacrificed so the windmill could be built (it never did succeed), so are birds sacrificed for the goal of “green” energy.
The Bald Eagle is the symbol of freedom and strength so, maybe it’s because Liberals hate that?
Is War With China Inevitable?
As a general rule, extreme economic decline is almost always followed by extreme international conflict. Sometimes, these disasters can be attributed to the human survival imperative and the desire to accumulate resources during crisis. But most often, war amid fiscal distress is usually a means for the political and financial elite to distract the masses away from their empty wallets and empty stomachs.
War galvanizes societies, usually under false pretenses. I’m not talking about superficial “police actions” or absurd crusades to “spread democracy” to Third World enclaves that don’t want it. No, I’m talking about real war: war that threatens the fabric of a culture, war that tumbles violently across people’s doorsteps. The reality of near-total annihilation is what oligarchs use to avoid blame for economic distress while molding nations and populations.
Because of the very predictable correlation between financial catastrophe and military conflagration, it makes quite a bit of sense for Americans today to be concerned. Never before in history has our country been so close to full-spectrum economic collapse, the kind that kills currencies and simultaneously plunges hundreds of millions of people into poverty. It is a collapse that has progressed thanks to the deliberate efforts of international financiers and central banks. It only follows that the mind-boggling scale of the situation would “require” a grand distraction to match.
It is difficult to predict what form this distraction will take and where it will begin, primarily because the elites have so many options. The Mideast is certainly an ever-looming possibility. Iran is a viable catalyst. Syria is not entirely off the table. Saudi Arabia and Israel are now essentially working together, forming a strange alliance that could promise considerable turmoil — even without the aid of the United States. Plenty of Americans still fear the al-Qaida bogeyman, and a terrorist attack is not hard to fabricate. However, when I look at the shift of economic power and military deployment, the potential danger areas appear to be growing not only in the dry deserts of Syria and Iran, but also in the politically volatile waters of the East China Sea.
China is the key to any outright implosion of the U.S. monetary system. Other countries, like Saudi Arabia, may play a part; but ultimately it will be China that deals the decisive blow against the dollar’s world reserve status. China’s dollar and Treasury bond holdings could be used as a weapon to trigger a global sell-off of dollar-denominated assets. Oil-producing nations are likely to shift alliances to China because China is now the world’s largest consumer of petroleum. And China has clearly been preparing for this eventuality for years. So how can the U.S. government conceive of confrontation with the East? Challenging one’s creditors to a duel does not usually end well. At the very least, it would be economic suicide. But perhaps that is the point. Perhaps America is meant to make this seemingly idiotic leap.
Here are just some of the signs of a buildup to conflict.
Currency Wars And Shooting Wars
In March 2009, U.S. military and intelligence officials gathered to participate in a simulated war game, a hypothetical economic struggle between the United States and China.
The conclusions of the war game were ominous. The participants determined that there was no way for the United States to win in an economic battle with China. The Chinese had a counterstrategy to every U.S. effort and an ace up their sleeve – namely, their U.S. dollar reserves, which they could use as a monetary neutron bomb. They also found that China has been quietly accumulating hard assets (including land and gold) around the globe, using sovereign wealth funds, government-controlled front companies and private equity funds to make the purchases. China could use these tangible assets as a hedge to protect against the eventual devaluation of its U.S. dollar and Treasury holdings, meaning the losses on its remaining U.S. financial investments was acceptable should it decide to crush the dollar.
The natural response of those skeptical of the war game and its findings is to claim that American military would be the ultimate trump card and probable response to a Chinese economic threat. Of course, China’s relationship with Russia suggests a possible alliance against such an action and would definitely negate the use of nuclear weapons (unless the elites plan nuclear Armageddon). That said, it is highly likely that the U.S. government would respond with military action to a Chinese dollar dump, not unlike Germany’s rise to militarization and totalitarianism after the hyperinflationary implosion of the mark. The idea that anyone except the internationalists could “win” such a venture, though, is foolish.
I would suggest that this may actually be the plan of globalists in the United States. China’s rise to financial prominence is not due to its economic prowess. In fact, China is ripe with poor fiscal judgment calls and infrastructure projects that have gone nowhere. But what China does have is massive capital inflows from global banks and corporations, mainly based in the United States and the European Union. And it has help in the spread of its currency from entities like JPMorgan Chase and Co. The International Monetary Fund is seeking to include China in its global basket currency, special drawing rights (SDR), which would give China even more leverage to use in breaking the dollar’s reserve status. Corporate financiers and central bankers have made it more than possible for China to kill the dollar, which they openly suggest is a “good thing.”
Is it possible that the war game scenarios carried out by the Pentagon and elitist think tanks like the RAND Corporation were not meant to prevent a war with China, but to ensure one takes place?
The Senkaku Islands
Every terrible war has a trigger point, an event that history books later claim “started it all.” For the Spanish-American War, it was the bombing of the USS Maine. For World War I it was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. For U.S. involvement in World War I, it was the sinking of the Lusitania by a German U-Boat. For U.S. involvement in World War II, it was the attack on Pearl Harbor. For Vietnam, it was the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. While the initial outbreak of war always appears to be spontaneous, the reality is that most wars are planned far in advance.
As evidence indicates, China has been deliberately positioned to levy an economic blow against the United States. Our government is fully aware what the results of that attack will be. And by the RAND Corporation’s own admission, China and the United States have been preparing for physical confrontation for some time, centered on the concept of pre-emptive strikes.
The Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea provide a perfect environment for the pre-emptive powder keg to explode.
China has recently declared an “air defense zone” that extends over the islands, which Japan has already claimed as its own. China, South Korea and the United States have all moved to defy this defense zone. South Korea has even extended its own air defense zone to overlap China’s.
China has responded with warnings that its military aircraft will now monitor the region and demands that other nations provide it with civilian airline flight paths.
The U.S. government under Barack Obama has long planned a military shift into the Pacific, which is meant specifically to counter China’s increased presence. It’s almost as if the White House knew a confrontation was coming.
The shift is now accelerating due to the Senkaku situation, as the U.S. transfers submarine-hunting jets to Japan.
China, with its limited navy, has focused more of its energy and funding into advanced missile technologies — including “ship killers,” which fly too low and fast to be detected with current radar. Currently, very little diplomatic headway has been made or attempted. The culmination of various ingredients makes for a sour stew.
All that is required now is that one trigger event — that one ironic “twist of fate” that mainstream historians love so much, the spark that lights the fuse. China could suddenly sell a mass quantity of U.S. Treasuries, perhaps in response to the renewed debt debate next spring. The United States could use pre-emption to take down a Chinese military plane or submarine. A random missile could destroy a passenger airliner traveling through the defense zone, and both sides could blame each other. The point is nothing good could come from the escalation over Senkaku.
Why Is War Useful?
What could possibly be gained by fomenting a war between the United States and China? As stated earlier, distraction is paramount. Global financiers created the circumstances that have led to America’s possible economic demise, but they don’t want to be blamed for it. War provides the perfect cover for monetary collapse, and a war with China might become the cover to end all covers. The resulting fiscal damage and the fear Americans would face could be overwhelming. Activists who question the legitimacy of the U.S. government and its actions, once considered champions of free speech, could easily be labeled “treasonous” during wartime. (If the government is willing to use the Internal Revenue Service against us today, just think about who it will send after us during the chaos of a losing war tomorrow.) A lockdown of civil liberties could be instituted behind the fog of national panic.
War also tends to influence the masses to agree to centralization, to relinquish their rights in the name of the “greater good” and to accept less transparency in government and more power in the hands of fewer people. But more so, war is useful as a philosophical manipulation after the dust has settled.
After nearly every war of the 20th and 21st century, the propaganda implies one message in particular: National sovereignty, or nationalism, is the cause of all our problems. The establishment then claims that there is only one solution that will solve these problems: globalization. This article by Andrew Hunter, the chairman of the Australian Fabian Society, is exactly the kind of narrative I expect to hear if conflict arises between the United States and China.
National identity and sovereignty are the scapegoats, and the Fabians (globalist propagandists) are quick to point a finger. Their assertion is that nation states should no longer exist, borders should be erased and a one-world economic system and government should be founded. Only then will war and financial strife end. Who will be in charge of this one world interdependent utopia? I’ll give you three guesses.
The Fabians, of course, make no mention of global bankers and their instigation of nearly every war and depression for the past 100 years; and these are invariably the same people that will end up in positions of authority if globalization comes to fruition. The bottom line is that a war between China and the United States will not be caused by national sovereignty. Rather, it will be caused by elitists looking for a way to end national sovereignty. That’s why such a hypothetical war, a war that has been gamed by think tanks for years, is likely to be forced into reality.