One Ha’aretz article describes how some Jewish individuals—high American officials, gave Israeli leaders tips on how to manage American actions and influence US Congressmen. The article concluded: “Perle, Feith, and their fellow strategists are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests.” Later, other western Jewish press syndications would attempt to clean up the perceptions of these warmongering Jews.

Ha’aretz reported that the goal was far more than just an invasion of Iraq: “at a deeper level it is a greater war, for the shaping of a new Middle East.” The article said that the war “was being fought to consolidate a new world order.” Now, where have we heard that one before?

“The Iraq war is really the beginning of a gigantic historical experiment…”.

We’re now seeing the tragic and violent result of that regime-change experiment. Now, their sights see set on Israel’s uprooting and elimination of Iran.

American author, peace activist, and former CIA analyst Kathleen Christison discussed the neoconservatives who promoted war against Iraq in a 2002 article. She wrote: “Although much has been written about the neo-cons who dot the Bush administration, their ties to Israel have generally been treated very gingerly.”

The Bush administration, she wrote, was “peppered with people who have long records of activism on behalf of Israel in the United States, of policy advocacy in Israel, and of promoting an agenda for Israel often at odds with existing U.S. policy.”

“These people,” she wrote, “who can fairly be called Israeli loyalists, are now at all levels of government, from desk officers at the Defense Department to the deputy secretary level at both State and Defense, as well as on the National Security Council staff and in the vice president’s office.”

Author Stephen Green wrote a meticulously researched 2004 expose describing how some of these individuals, including Perle and Wolfowitz, had been investigated through the years by U.S. intelligence agencies for security “lapses” benefiting Israel.

Yet, despite a pattern of highly questionable actions suggestive of treason, they continued to procure top security clearances for themselves and cronies. The neocon agenda would also become extremely influential in Britain.

(During the recent U.S. presidential election, neoconservatives were extremely hostile to Trump. Ever since his election, these jews were perturbed about having less influence in his administration than they expected to have with Hillary Clinton’s, were she to win. They were relieved to see him targeting their pet punching bags in the Middle East, though. It is clear that the jews didn’t stay outside the White House’s inner circle for long. Biden’s administration is the most jew’d administration in American history. However, under Trump, the jew, Michael Ledeen was quite close to Trump’s recently named White House National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, then Trump appoint Elliott Abrams as Deputy Secretary of State.)


The neocon regime-change strategy had been laid out in a 1996 document called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” It was written for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a study group led by Richard Perle. Although Perle and the other authors were American citizens, the “realm” in question was Israel. Big shocker, there!

Perle was chairman of the United States Defense Policy Board at that time. He had previously been U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy.

The report stated that in the past, Israel’s strategy was to get the U.S. to use its money and weaponry to “lure Arabs” to negotiate. This strategy, the plan stated, “required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes.” To this day, none of this has changed, especially where Iran is concerned.

The report recommended, however, that Israel go beyond a strategy just focused on Israel-Palestine, and address the larger region – that it “shape its strategic environment.”

It called for “weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria” and “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.” The paper also listed Iran and Lebanon as countries to be dealt with (and Turkey and Jordan as nations to be used in the strategy).

This plan stressed that it was necessary to obtain U.S. support for the strategy, and advised that Israel use “language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the cold war … .” Over the last decade and throughout the past 2 presidential administrations—Obama’s and Trump—we have borne witness to what the jews have done to the region, with the aid of the US and retarded Christian Americans.

Perle, Douglas Feith (who would be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense by 2001) and the other signatories of the report framed their proposal as a new concept, but the idea for Israel to reshape the political landscape of the Middle East had been discussed for years. (Lest we be unclear, “reshape the political landscape” means to change governments, something that has never been accomplished without massive loss of life and far-reaching repercussions). The jews have their crosshairs fixed on Iran, but they would knock off a few other nations before their last stop.

End of Part 2