Jewish media knows how to do ‘kosher slaughter’ when it comes to American foreign policy toward anti-Israel countries, both Muslim and non-Muslim. The latest example is an Opinion post by David E. Sanger at the Jew York Times on October 29, 2014.
In the post, the Israeli propagandist tried to pull the ‘Jewish rug’ from under AIPAC-controlled US Senate and Congress by warning that during the next five weeks, there is a possibility Tehran might agree with Washington’s demand to freeze its nuclear program before achieving the “capability” to make a nuclear bomb. But since president Barack Obama knows that the majority of US lawmakers are against such a deal, he may use his special presidential privilege to ratify the deal without Congress approval.
“No one knows if the Obama administration will manage in the next five weeks to strike what many in the White House consider the most important foreign policy deal of his presidency: an accord with Iran that would forestall its ability to make a nuclear weapon. But the White House has made one significant decision: If agreement is r President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it,” Sanger wrote.
The very next day, Eric Schultz (Jewish), White House spokesperson, called JYT’s report being a propaganda lie. “The notion that we are trying to avoid congressional consultation and input on this is preposterous,” he said.
Derek Davison (Jewish), a Washington-based researcher and former employee of notorious anti-Muslim RAND Corporation, claimed at the LobeLog website that Iran sanctions cost US economy billions of dollars each year.
Stephen Lendman, American Jewish writer and radio talk-host, says that Iranian should never trust the United States because its agreements are’nt worth the paper they’re written on. America has a long history of violating treaties and other agreed on obligations.
Michael A. Cohen, fellow at the Century Foundation, a Jewish advocacy group, wrote at The National Interest on August 4, 2014: “In order to achieve greater accommodation with Iran, the United States could provide less unqualified support to Israel and approach the region with greater even-handedness. This could manifest itself in stronger pressure on Israel to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, diminished backing for Israeli military adventurism or greater acceptance of Iranian influence in the region. With Obama focused on the so-called Asian pivot, a deal with Iran would also be yet another piece of evidence that America and Israel’s interests in the region are moving in divergent directions.”
French philosopher, author and anti-Imperialist activist Thierry Meyssan in a recent article has accused Iranian president Sheikh Hassan Rouhani for sabotaging Imam Khomeini‘s anti-Imperialist 1979 Islamic Revolution by pulling Iran out of the ‘Axis of Resistance’ alliance later nurtured by Ayatullah Ali Khamenei and Rouhani’s predecessor Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Meyssan has claimed that Rouhani administration under the cover of a P5+1 and Iran nuclear deal is pushing Iran into Western imperialist world dominated by the US and Israel.
“Contrary to a simplistic idea spread by Atlanticist propaganda, the Islamic Revolution was not made with the Shiite clergy, but against both it and the Shah. Even the clergy described the Ayatollah Khomeini as “schismatic” until it followed the popular movement and eventually went along with the imam. Relations between the revolutionaries and the clergy soured again during the war imposed by Iraq at the time, the Guardians of the Revolution-including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad- noticing that the children of the clergy were absent from the front,” Meyssan said.
“More than a year after his election, the popularity of Sheikh Rouhani is plummeting, public opinion divided between those who accuse him of not having changed much and those who accuse him of promoting a social class at the expense of the majority. Upon the evidence, if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was allowed to run in the next presidential election, he would be elected in the first round. However, it is doubtful that the opportunity will present itself. In 2013, his candidate, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, was forbidden to compete, while polls gave him victory in the second round. Everything will be done to rule out Ahmadinejad’s election in 2017, Meyssan added.
“In the likely event – barring the premature death of the Supreme Guide – of the failure of the Rouhani plan, Washington continues to prepare its “Plan B”: a vast destabilization of the country, far more powerful than that of 2009. At the time, the idea was to lead people to believe in a rigging of the presidential election which would otherwise have been won by the pro-US side.  This time, there should be a remake of the Syrian pseudo-revolution of 2011,” Meyssan said.
“In the event of the fall of Sheikh Hassan Rouhani, Washington will launch false news that the public will believe. With digital techniques, it is possible to display fictional current events, as has been experienced in Libya (with the fall of the Libyan Jamahiriya aired four days in advance to demoralize the population) and in Syria (with the many protest events that everyone has seen but which never existed). The rejection of the Rouhani project will therefore only give the signal for a new confrontation,” Meyssan concluded.
Sheikh Rouhani’s “agenda” described by Meyssan above reminds me renowned investigative journalist and author of the ‘Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of Iran Nuclear Scare’, Gareth Porter, who addressed Tehran’s New Horizon Conference earlier this month. Trevor LaBonte says Porter in an interview told Jewish magazine Buzzfeed that New Horizon conference was a gathering of conspiracy theorists, who don’t believe in the official story of 9/11