Iran, Israel, and the United States government

T. Belman. Levoritz argues that the US and other globalists don’t want Israel to be able to defend itself or to out-compete the US.  Is he right?

By Jerold Levoritz, AM THINKER

No one offers a reasonable explanation for Biden begging Iran to rejoin the debunked, tawdry, ineffective, and cynical agreement to keep nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands, if just for a while.  Israel keeps providing updates on how close the Iranians are to completing their weapons of mass destruction.  The U.S. government “cooperates” with Israel, holding joint exercises, but keeps weapons out of Israel’s hands that could bring the Iranian project to a screeching halt — namely, bunker-busters and the means to deliver them.

Speculation is rife, and facts are hard to come by.  I have a theory about what’s going on, though.

The United States government seems to want the Iranian conflict with Israel to continue or to explode because peace has no value.  Israel’s defensive requirements keep the American arms industry buzzing along.  American aid to Israel (roughly $3 billion a year) mostly gets funneled back into arms purchases from the United States, sales that might flag under conditions of peace.

Moreover, cooperation between Israel and the U.S. arms companies gives the U.S. government access to Israeli innovation.  American industry is perfectly capable of its own innovation, but the integration between the government and its domestic arms industry is cozy to the point of corruption.  For both, cost overruns and extended development times are valuable commodities.

However, anytime America really needs to do something, relying on Israeli innovations reduces time.  For example, think of the rushed development of U.S. laser weapons that had been dragging along for decades until it became important or, perhaps, even imperative, given Russian and Chinese supersonic cruise missiles.

It’s possible that America has abetted the Israel-Iran conflict for more nefarious purposes than just polishing our arms industry.  In the end, I predict, Iran and Israel will have at it.  They will go to war with unknown consequences.

Both these nations hold their military self-defense as critical to their national independence.  If they can weaken or destroy each other, that would be seen as a triumph for leftists and demonic globalists, whose goal it is to ensure that no nation should ever be able to defend itself.

The Russian-Ukraine war has been designed to weaken Russia just as a conflict between Israel and Iran would weaken both sides.  That is just a fine outcome for American policy wonks.  Even if Israel were to defeat Iran, Israel’s loss of life, wealth, and vitality would weaken her as well, all without American boots on the ground.  In the same way, America will fight to the last Ukrainian.

In the case of Israel’s defeat, that, too, would be an acceptable outcome for American policy experts, especially since it would reduce competition for American companies.  Israeli innovation offends American businesses and, especially, intelligence agencies because Israel’s dominance in cyber-security, water management, and agriculture technology gives Israel greater expertise than they have.

If poor countries can learn to feed themselves with Israeli instruction and technology, what will happen to American agribusiness?  If Israeli innovation can cure diseases, what will be left of Big Pharma, where the only good drug is one that must be taken forever?

The most painful part of writing this essay occurred when I finally had to admit to myself that the U.S. government does not care about Israel’s survival.  The Jews have always been expendable and still are.  The Jews’ attempt to survive in their own state is being undermined by U.S. policies that support continual conflict.

Forget about words of sympathy from the U.S. State Department after a tragic loss of life.  All meaningless!  Regarding Israel, watch only what our government policies support.

The insistence on a “two-state solution” supports continued conflict.  (Other factions in and out of government that favor one state of “all its people,” meaning anyone, Jewish or not, who ends up in Israel, no matter their genocidal intent, would certainly cause continued conflict because that would bring an end to a state for the Jews.)

U.S. monetary support for the corrupt Palestinian Authority causes continued conflict.

The U.S. government’s acquiescence to the Palestinian policy of paying those who murder Jews is a cause of continued conflict.

Contributions to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) purposefully developed only to criticize Israel cause continued conflict.  Financial support for the Iranian regime, which pays for terrorist projects inside Israel and along its borders, causes continued conflict.

Pressing for a return to the ’67 borders causes continued conflict because those borders caused the ’67 Six-Day War in the first place.

Demands for both parties to practice restraint cause continued conflict, making slaughtering Jews leaving their synagogue on the Sabbath equivalent to battling terrorists who receive funding from Iran and the Palestinian Authority to murder unarmed civilians.

Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, sadism, cultural decrepitude, and limited intellectual capacity on the part of U.S. career foreign policy experts are all potential causes for continued conflict both for Israel and for many other places around the world.  What would these hordes of pension-seeking policy wonks do to earn a living if peace broke out?  They might have to learn to solve problems instead of creating them.