Home > Perle’s pogrom
Wars and conflicts International
Richard Perle spoke to the AIPAC conference and proclaimed, to loud hosannas, that the United States must start dropping bombs on Iran to stop its dangerous nuclear program. From Dana Milbank’s brave article:
". . . at a luncheon ’debate’ in between, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and informal administration foreign policy adviser Richard N. Perle tried to one-up each other in pro-Israel views."
and:
"Perle provoked cheers from the crowd when he favored a military raid on Iran, saying that ’if Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon, I think we will have no choice but to take decisive action.’ When Harman said the ’best short-term option’ is the U.N. Security Council, the crowd reacted with boos."
The underlying assumption is that it is a fact that Iran is on the verge of producing a nuclear bomb, and the main educational thrust of the AIPAC conference was to prove that point to American politicians. Therefore, it is clear that Perle and AIPAC are demanding an American military attack on Iran. This would be bad enough, but is made much worse by the following seven facts:
Perle is an integral part of the neocon crowd that actively lied to the American people about Saddam’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, and thus has zero credibility.
Even if Iran had bombs, which it doesn’t, they could only be used for defensive purposes, as nuclear retaliation would be fatal to the country.
The only nuclear power in the Middle East with dangerous bombs is none other than Israel, the country that Perle and AIPAC work for.
The reason we know about Iran’s nuclear program is that Iran has allowed UN inspectors to inspect, something that Israel won’t allow.
Any bombs Iran might ever have in the distant future could never pose any threat to the United States as Iran has no means to deliver them.
Since the Iranian nuclear program is spread out and hidden in anticipation of just the attack Perle is calling for, bombs wouldn’t stop it.
Bombing will kill a lot of civilians, but will have no effect on dislodging the Iranian government, and will indeed strengthen the position of the hardliners in Iran.
If we therefore sieve out the bullshit from Perle’s remarks - a process which usually leaves nothing left - what he is advocating is for the United States to drop bombs on innocent civilians of a sovereign country that poses absolutely no threat to the United States. Here we have a prominent Jewish intellectual talking to a group of Jewish lobbyists for Israeli interests, advocating what amounts to a slaughter of Muslim civilians - a Jewish pogrom against Muslims, if you will - all to the cheers and applause of his audience. I know we’re not supposed to make the Hitler comparison, but this is getting awfully close (Hitler had his bogus and lying reasons for the Holocaust too). Given what we now know about the lies about Iraq, the fact that Perle has the audacity to stand up and start lying for war again is amazing.
Whatever else Perle may be, he is not stupid, so why is he advocating a course for the United States that will lead to the consolidation of the strength of the hardliners in Iran? Surely that can’t be in the interests of Israel? The plan is to so enrage the Iranians with the bombing attacks - to put a bee in their turbans - that the next step of the long-term Zionist plan for the Middle East can be put in place (other parts of the plan include instigating wars so that land can be taken, illegally occupying that land, oppressing the inhabitants and calling their reaction ’terrorism’, pushing for the attack in Iraq, and taking steps to ensure that Iraq is broken into small countries). The Iranian leaders might decide to retaliate against the United States bombing by sponsoring some act of terrorism. In what is the more likely scenario, however, their justified anger would put them in a position to be portrayed by the disgusting American media as so angry that a American or Israeli terrorist attack faked to look like it was sponsored by Iran would serve as the reason for American military retaliation. This would involve actually fighting a war on the ground to remove the current Iranian leadership. In other words, the point of the bombing advocated by Perle and AIPAC is to lead to a real war in Iran with hundreds of thousands of American soldiers on the battlefield. Since more bombs won’t teach the mullahs a lesson, American troops would have to fight and die in Iran.
The United States can barely fight the war it has going now, and the Pentagon likes to keep a few troops around in case of a war of necessity (as opposed to the hobby wars which the neocons like so much), so a draft will be necessary. This would please the neocons as an end in itself, as they like the fascist values that the total miltarization of society brings, and they particularly want the United States to be like Israel. Needless to say, neither the neocons nor their children will participate in this draft, but will bravely serve in the First Jewish Typing Corps, cheering on the battle against all those evil Muslims. The poor in America can serve as the fodder units to die in the Middle East.
Iran has two or three times the population of Iraq, hasn’t been weakened by a sanctions regime, has piles of money to spend on arms, and has the example of Iraq to allow it to prepare for the American attack. Since the Americans obviously can’t handle Iraq, just wait for Iran. Why would Perle want the United States to fall into this disaster of a war? There are three reasons:
Neocons consider themselves to be change agents, and like to do things which have a big effect on people’s lives, and are particularly fond of war as an end in itself. They consider it ennobling.
The chief neocon goal is to start a general crusade of the Christians against the Muslims, for no other reason than that they really, really hate Muslims (the attack on Iraq is clearly a crusade, and is understood to be such by the Pentagon).
The only way Greater Israel - the ultimate goal - is going to happen is in the general confusion of a conflagration in the Middle East.
The attack on Iran and the planned consequences of that attack would be the biggest mistake in American history. It would lead inevitably to a general crusade of Americans against Muslims all over the world. It may not happen (Syria appears to be the most likely first target, and there are those in the American government who would love to get their hands on the Saudi oil fields). However, if it does happen, when the shit hits the fan - and it will - Americans will be looking for someone to blame. American Jews just barely avoided being blamed for the Iraq debacle. The American anti-war movement, such as it is, won’t be able to stop this war, particularly if it is arranged to fight it within the context of the war on terror (and even huge anti-war rallies are ignored by the arms-manufacturer-owned disgusting American media, and thus have no political effect). Important leaders are going to have to take a stand. Unless some prominent American Jewish leaders start to speak up decisively against this new war, the American Jewish community is going to deeply regret the consequences of the latest proposed Jewish pogrom against Muslims (and moderate American Christian leaders also have to start to counter the plans of the Christian Zionists). The relentless AIPAC push towards disaster means it is no longer possible to safely play the bad faith game of pretending to hold liberal principles while secretly cheering on the most vile plans of the Zionists.
Forum posts
1 June 2005, 20:51
In 1970 while working for Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Richard Perle was caught by the FBI giving classified information to Israel.
Your government is not your government, its loyalties are elsewhere.
The amount of people that have been charged with spying in the Bush cabinet is criminal and the MSM stay silent.
2 June 2005, 05:56
You do realise that Russia and Iran are public allies, so the thing is once we attack Iran (which it looks like we are going to do under false pretenses) would you really blame Russia for attacking the US?
Oh I forgot everything for Israel.
2 June 2005, 10:58
Richard Pearl is an evil man, if you knew his history you would know that he is a tool of the devil. If you look into his eyes you see the fires of hell burning in them. He has spent his lifetime as a deciple of the devil.
2 June 2005, 12:26
He totally endorses Israels/ Mossads philosophy ;
’’BY WAY OF DECEPTION, WE WILL MAKE WAR’’
2 June 2005, 16:49
He IS evil, they don’t call him "the Prince of Darkness" behind his back, for nothing! He is very intelligent too, a very troubling combination. He must be tried for promoting illegal wars-pounced out of the US on his ass would really be best for the entire country. Tell him Israel is his new home, and don’t come back. He can live with car bombs and the wall, its what he so richly deserves.
A Soldier’s Mother
3 June 2005, 09:02
I agree deport him. I can’t stand looking at him, he just oozes evil and sleeze. Make him live in the hell he helped foster,
5 June 2005, 09:43
This article appears in the March 21, 2003 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Cheney and Perle To Go Down
Like Ollie North?
by Michele Steinberg
New Yorker magazine and its senior investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, have produced a devastating exposé of the shady dealings of Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle, the self-described "Prince of Darkness" who works non-stop for a war against Iraq. Even before the New Yorker’s March 17 issue, with Hersh’s article called "Lunch with the Chairman," hit the newsstands, the international wires from New York, to Washington, London, Baghdad, and Tel Aviv had felt the impact of its exposé. The exposure of Perle, and questions about two other prominent Administration figures—Vice President Dick Cheney and Henry A. Kissinger—could be the very "exit strategy" needed for Iraq. But this "exit strategy" requires that Cheney, Perle, and Kissinger be ousted from any position in the U.S. government because of potential conflict of interest and profiteering.
According to Hersh’s report, Perle and two other Defense Policy Board members, Kissinger and Gerald Paul Hillman, have not only spent more than 18 months, and untold amounts of government money, making war plans against Iraq in the bowels of the Pentagon; they also created a Delaware-registered company, Trireme Partners LP, in November 2001 following the 9/11 attacks, to make a handsome profit from America’s "war on terrorism," and even more from an Iraq war. Profiteering? Conflict of interest? These are only some of the questions. But before delving into the dark recesses of the Perle dossier, there are a couple of other elements to consider.
Kissinger Resigns
There is the case of Trireme advisor Henry Kissinger. Recall the headlines of USA Today and other major press on Dec. 13, 2002: "Kissinger Quits as Chairman of 9/11 Panel." Yes, the same Henry A. Kissinger who sits on the Advisory Board of Perle’s Trireme Partners LP, which is schnooring for government anti-terrorism contracts in the hundreds of millions of dollars, had been named to head an independent commission to "investigate" the intelligence failures prior to Sept. 11. When members of Congress, and families of those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks, wanted Kissinger and the Commission members to provide financial disclosure of their clients, Kissinger balked, and feigned indignation that such a request insulted his integrity. He resigned rather than provide the requested information.
Was Trireme one of the reasons why Kissinger balked about disclosing information on his clients? According to Hersh’s article, mid-December 2002 was an intense period of negotiations for Trireme, with Perle associates Gerald Hillman and Christopher Harriman deep in negotiations with Adnan Kashoggi, the Saudi multi-millionaire who had been the Iran-Contra middleman for Ollie North. Trireme was also meeting Harb Zuhair, an Iraqi-born Saudi businessman, in an effort to get $100 million from Saudi princes and businessmen. Kissinger’s public role might have exposed this operation.
Then, recent news about Vice President Dick Cheney’s financial ties to Halliburton present even more of an appearance of conflict of interest. According to Pacifica radio’s report in January 2003, Halliburton—the company which was headed by Cheney until the Presidential election in 2000—gave him a $20 million golden parachute, and is making billions of dollars from the war on terrorism and the drive for war on Iraq—is one of the major American companies bidding on contracts for "post-war" reconstruction of Iraq. So far, $900 million in contracts are on the line, and the figures are expected to soar into the billions if Iraq is attacked by American military "shock and awe" methods. There’s one small additional detail: Halliburton is currently paying Cheney $1 million a year in uncollected fees (obtainable when he completes his term of office).
According to news accounts in the London Guardian and elsewhere, a division of Halliburton called KBR, also known by the name Kellogg Brown & Root, is doing U.S. defense and anti-terror government work "building cells for detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. It feeds American troops in Uzbekistan. And near the Turkish/Iraqi border, Halliburton helps run three military bases." In July, reported Pacifica, the New York Times wrote "that Halliburton is the only company that has a contract with the Army that has an unlimited budget." The Times said that "KBR is the exclusive logistics supplier for both the Navy and the Army, providing services like cooking, construction, power generation, and fuel transportation. The contract recently won from the Army is for 10 years and has no lid on costs." But Halliburton is also up to its ears in shady dealings with Enron, and with charges that it overbilled the U.S. government. It has already paid $2 million in fines.
Thus, the heat drawn by Richard Perle’s alleged extortion attempts against two prominent Saudi businessmen, could also make things very uncomfortable for Vice President Cheney. With Perle and Cheney under scrutiny for corruption and conflict of interest, the President could seize this opportunity to follow Lyndon LaRouche’s advice and purge the chicken-hawks from his Administration.
’Blackmailing’ the Saudi Allies
According to Hersh, on Jan. 3, 2003, Perle held a lunch meeting in Marseilles, France, with former Iran-Contra moneybags Khashoggi, and the Iraqi-born Saudi businessman Zuhair. Perle’s purpose was to solicit $100 million in investments in his Trireme Partners LP. Trireme is involved in homeland security and defense contracting, and has reportedly already lined up $45 million in investments, including $20 million from Boeing. Among the other principals in the company besides Perle and Kissinger are Gerald Hillman, a businessman with no prior experience in military or national security affairs, whom Perle placed on the Defense Policy Board (DPB); and Chris Harriman.
Hersh conducted interviews with several Trireme officials; members (unnamed) of the DPB; Khashoggi; and Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar. According to those interviews, late last year, Khashoggi was approached by Harriman on behalf of Trireme; and just before Christmas, Khashoggi, Zuhair, Harriman, and Hillman met in Paris. Zuhair said he had just returned from Baghdad and, apart from the business deal, was interested in brokering a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis, by working out a deal under which Saddam Hussein would admit he had weapons of mass destruction, but would leave Iraq with his sons and some top ministers, in return for the United States calling off the invasion. Harriman penned several memos in late December 2002 to Zuhair, memorializing the proposals. According to some accounts, the memos were endorsed by Perle, the principal of the firm. This led to the Jan. 3, 2003 lunch meeting in Marseilles among Perle, Khashoggi, and Zuhair, at which—according to Khashoggi and Zuhair—Perle pushed the idea of ten Saudi businessmen each kicking in $10 million in investments into Trireme.
Prince Bandar, the long-serving Saudi Arabian Ambassador in Washington, told Hersh he got wind of the Marseilles meeting, and the Saudi government reacted furiously. "There is a split personality to Perle," Bandar was quoted telling Hersh. "Here he is, on the one hand, trying to make a hundred-million dollar deal; and, on the other hand, there were elements of the appearance of blackmail—’if we get in business, he’ll back off on Saudi Arabia’—as I have been informed by participants in the meeting."
Prince Bandar’s account of the Marseilles session is more than credible. First, Perle has a track record of mixing his personal business with his political and ideological efforts, always in support of right-wing Israeli interests. As a principal in the defense contracting firm Abbington Associates, Perle promoted Israeli and American arms sales with Turkey; and he received tens of thousands of dollars a year during the 1990s as a consultant to another arms-selling firm—headed by Doug Feith, the current Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy and a self-avowed follower of the Zionist fascist Vladimir Jabotinsky. Perle and Feith were two of the co-authors of the 1996 "Clean Break" strategy paper delivered to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The paper was a blueprint for abrogating the Oslo Accords, premised on provoking a war against Iraq.
Second, Perle is notorious, in both Washington and Riyadh, for his sponsorship of the July 10, 2002 DPB session at which Marc Rich’s employee, Laurent Murawiec, delivered a violent diatribe against the House of Saud, calling for American occupation of Saudi oil fields and carving of an independent Eastern Province puppet state. Early this year, Murawiec repeated his rant at a security conference at Hertzliya, Israel.
Since the appearance of the Hersh article, Perle has tried, desperately, to dodge the accusations, claiming, to Hersh, that he had not discussed business at the meeting. Later, on CNN Late Edition on Sunday, March 9, Perle fumed at Hersh, calling him "the closest thing in American journalism to a terrorist." Despite Perle’s protestations and threats to sue Hersh, the scandal is not going away—until Richard Perle does.