The Reason Why the US is Aiding and Protecting Iran?

Have you wondered, as I have, why the US under “Democrat” leadership is gifting Iran billions of American tax-payers’ money?

Why it appoints Iranian supporters of the Ayatollahs’ regime to high positions in the White House and the Pentagon?

Why the “Biden” administration tolerates attacks on US ships by Iran and its proxies?

What Obama meant by “leading from behind”?

Why the “Biden” administration sabotages Israel’s defensive wars?

Does this article answer those questions?

Excerpts:
According to the U.S. blueprint, the United States and Iran will jointly administer a set of Levantine provinces, including Israel; a future Palestinian state; and Lebanon. Jordan, which is also part of the local geography, is configured as an American protectorate to balance out Syria, which was recognized by Barack Obama, publicly in 2015 and privately in his letters to Ali Khamenei, as an Iranian regional “equity” and will therefore apparently be administered solely by Iran.

Whatever problems may arise between the three Levantine provinces and their local subdivisions are to be adjudicated jointly by the U.S.-Iran condominium, with local governing entities being free to plead their cases in Washington but powerless to take independent action without taking on both the global superpower and its regional partner.

The U.S. plan for Gaza and the Palestinians, which came with the public imprimatur of Barack Obama himself, the leader of the ruling party in Washington. The Obama plan, which begins with ending Israel’s military operation against Hamas, includes international engagement and investment in Gaza, and the formalization of the status of the Palestinian Territories as a proto-state under American management.

[Obama’s] senior adviser, Hochstein, laid out a parallel multiphase plan for the Hezbollah-run country [Lebanon], which likewise features increased international engagement and cover, supplementing the United States’ substantial existing investments in so-called Lebanese state institutions, whose job is to run cover and provide support for Hezbollah.

So what does that [plan] consist of? It starts with U.S. investment and government grants to both countries that dwarf anything that the United States put into Gaza before the war. For Tehran, such investment is a subsidy; for the United States, it is a way of “containing the fallout” from any pesky rocket attacks, since Israel will be naturally constrained from bombing anything built with U.S. money or housing U.S. personnel.

Then, there is active U.S. training and equipment for Lebanese and Palestinian armed forces, which in turn serve as shields and auxiliaries for much larger and more powerful terrorist armies that dominate both societies. Funding these (fictional) entities is like creating a large, heavily armed version of UNRWA, the supposed U.N. “relief agency” that funded Hamas and its tunnels before Oct. 7. Except the human shields these entities deploy will now be American military trainers.

The vision driving policy in Washington since Barack Obama’s first term [is] the realignment with Iran and the reconfiguration of the regional order.

Obama’s division of the region is intended to elevate a regional middle power and inflate its status across the region while orchestrating regional and international investment in its territories so that it can “do its job” as a U.S. partner.

In Obama’s conceptual universe, the special province is recognized as an Iranian satrapy ruled directly by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its local legion—with an accepted American presence, whose function is to provide protection and direct investment, both of which serve in turn to prop up Tehran.

Refracted through this lens, the Obama-Biden [“Biden” is superfluous here, he could contribute nothing – JB] team’s policy in Lebanon offers a sketch of its adapted special province model, which it plans to implement in the Palestinian Territories following the end of Israel’s monthslong incursion into Gaza.

Underscoring the privileged place the Lebanese special province holds in Team Obama-Biden’s regional configuration is the American physical headquarters in the tiny country: the U.S. embassy. The second smallest Arab country is host to the second largest U.S. embassy on earth (the largest is in Iraq)—a 43-acre, $1 billion mammoth.

The new US embassy complex in Beirut under construction
.

The obvious question one might ask is: Why would America make that kind of investment in a pseudo-state run by Iran’s local representative? The answer is, precisely because it is Iranian territory.

The purpose of large-scale U.S. investment in Lebanon and its state institutions, as well as the building of an embassy that resembles a LEED-certified version of the Crac des Chevaliers in the hills overlooking Beirut, is not to attempt a hostile takeover or, to use the insufferable jargon of Washington hands, to “compete” with Iran. The last time there was perceived hostility in the American involvement in Lebanon, Iran blew up the U.S. embassy and the Marine barracks and kidnapped and murdered U.S. citizens in Beirut throughout the 1980s. No, the U.S. involvement is understood by all to be friendly and beneficial, aimed not at undermining the Iranian domain but at consolidating it in a joint venture … not for the purpose of managing a declining empire, but for the inverted goal of consolidating the realm of an artificially inflated middle power that will administer the region under America’s aegis, for a price.

If the colossal embassy is the physical marker of the American investment in the Special Province of Lebanon, the principal avenue for U.S. involvement has been in the training and equipping of the security forces. Although they’re called the Lebanese Armed Forces [LAF], internally, the special province’s army performs gendarmerie functions; national security and defense policy and actual military functions are the domain of the Iranian court and its local military force, Hezbollah.

In recent years, however, the Obama-Biden team incorporated the LAF into the American counterterrorism enterprise, which has defined U.S. involvement in the region over the past quarter century. That enterprise is another facet of the American-Iranian partnership. Centering U.S. investment in the LAF on a target acceptable and beneficial to Iran is intended to reassure Tehran as to the shared nature of the force’s mission.

As another token of reassurance, the LAF is deployed along the border with Israel. In addition to playing a support role to Hezbollah in the area, positioning the U.S.-sponsored force in between Israel and the Iranian force means that an Israeli attack would have to target an American asset.

The same model is now being reproduced for the Special Province of Palestine. An ongoing Team Obama-Biden project is to stand up a Palestinian analogue to the LAF—let’s call it the PAF, an enterprise that began well before Oct. 7 under the supervision of the Obama-Biden team’s security coordinator in the Palestinian Territories, Lt. Gen. Michael Fenzel. Fenzel is also the administration’s point man in its campaign targeting Jews in Judea and Samaria—the flip side of the PAF policy, both of which are designed to consolidate a nascent Palestinian Special Province.

Initially, Fenzel was said to have been standing up a 5,000-strong force trained and equipped by the United States. The objective of Fenzel’s force is to sharply curtail IDF operations in Judea and Samaria, setting the stage for full Palestinian control of the West Bank under American supervision.

Like its Lebanese counterpart, the PAF has been folded into the U.S. counterterrorism framework.

Being designated a U.S. counterterrorism partner force is code for both guaranteed perpetual American investment and reassurance to Iran that the force will safeguard, not subvert, Tehran’s realm.

The PAF’s job is not to go after Iranian forces, such as Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but to act as an auxiliary force and, by virtue of American sponsorship, as a constraint on IDF activity.

Since Oct. 7, Washington’s plans for the PAF have gone into overdrive. Like the LAF up north, the PAF features prominently in Team Obama-Biden’s “Day After” plan—that is, the formalization of the Palestinian Special Province, with its dual jurisdictions.

Within a couple of months since Oct. 7, the administration was already putting out talkers about the need to “strengthen” and “beef up” Fenzel’s nascent PAF. After a meeting between Fenzel and Palestinian Authority Intelligence Chief Majed Faraj in late 2023, chatter about guaranteeing funding (including salaries) for the force started to pop up in D.C.—again, following the LAF template. It’s said that during a meeting between Fenzel and the commander of the PA’s National Security Forces, Nidal Abu Dukhan, they also discussed U.S. salaries for the PAF.

In Lebanon, the Obama-Biden team has already deployed American trainers and special forces personnel. In fact, the U.S. military routinely docks naval vessels in Lebanese ports and uses an airstrip in the Hezbollah-controlled Bekaa to land airlifts of equipment for the LAF—turning all of these places into infrastructure that is ostensibly part of America’s global counterterrorism efforts. [Is that what it’s all about? - JB]

In addition to Fenzel, the Obama-Biden team is said to be considering appointing a U.S. official to serve as the top civilian adviser who would be “based in the region” and would “work closely with the commanding officer” of a postwar security force in Gaza (which the State Department prefers to describe as a “gendarmerie”).

In the Lebanese Special Province, the United States has assembled a consultative group with the ambassadors of four other nations (France, Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia) to manage the selection of a new “president”—a post that’s been vacant since 2022. The administration’s public pronouncements emphasize the importance of a new “president” for Lebanon. In reality, the administration’s point man on Lebanon, Special Adviser Hochstein, deals with Hezbollah through its ally, Shiite militia leader and “Speaker of Parliament,” Nabih Berri, among other cutouts, like former Director of General Security Abbas Ibrahim. The Lebanese government is a facade, an official channel to funnel U.S. aid and to cover for the fact that the administration is dealing as directly as possible with Hezbollah.

In fact, that’s precisely what the administration did in 2022 when it imposed its maritime boundary agreement, which in reality functioned as an official American designation of the Special Province of Lebanon as a U.S. protectorate, thereby discouraging Israeli military operations in that territory.

Hochstein, then as now, talked as directly as he could with Hezbollah and advanced Iran’s interests, which he then pressed a client minority prime minister in Israel to accept in their entirety. One measure of the authority of this designation is that Israeli operations in Lebanon still haven’t happened, despite the “loss of sovereignty” declared by the U.S. secretary of state—who apparently gets to declare such things without the Israelis feeling able to say “boo". Even after the Majdal Shams slaughter, Hochstein reportedly told Defense Minister Yoav Gallant that the United States opposed a strike on Beirut.

Intensified U.S. meddling in Israeli domestic affairs as well as the direct interference in Israel’s foreign and security policy since the maritime deal was sealed provide insight into where the state of Israel fits in the Obama-Biden team’s regional architecture alongside the joint U.S.-Iranian special provinces.

Israel is a troublesome client, to be managed when possible by the U.S.-aligned faction inside the country, combined with external pressure like having Israel’s prime minister declared a war criminal by the International Criminal Court. [“Biden” did that? Or is it that he could have stopped it but didn’t? - JB]

In the same vein, Washington’s framing of Iran’s April 13 direct missile and drone attack against Israel is instructive. Israel was constrained from retaliating against the Iranians. Instead, the United States made clear that the only legitimate defensive arrangement is one by the American-led integrated regional missile defense, which will effectively calibrate the “hit” that Israel is required to take, while ruling out of bounds any Israeli response to being attacked. That is to say, not only would Israel be denied the autonomous decision-making to go on the offensive, but also, even its defense would be contingent on what the United States deemed acceptable. Accordingly, following Hezbollah’s rocket attack on Majdal Shams, the administration reportedly listed targets in Lebanon that it considers to be out of bounds for Israel, including Hezbollah’s stronghold in the southern suburbs of Beirut.

The Obama team sees Jewish sovereignty as a destabilizing factor in the regional arrangement with Iran, which therefore must be constrained, IF NOT OUTRIGHT ABOLISHED. [My capitalization - JB]

To fit in Obama’s “regional integration” vision, Israel has to be reduced to a province, with no sovereign control over its defense policy with regard to the Iranians and their holdings in the U.S.-managed regional architecture, in which you’ll have the subdivisions of Gaza and the West Bank united within “Palestine”. Jerusalem will be a special jurisdiction shared with Israel under international supervision. Within these units, “administrative councils” will be the official governing bodies, which we will refer to as “governments” while actual power resides elsewhere.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/ottoman-american-empire

1 Like

A better, cheaper, faster solution would have been to abolish the Ayatollah regime.

But it seems that Obama likes it.

1 Like

This insanity goes way beyond “aiding and abetting” our enemies. It’s an out and out partnership and alliance, with the obvious goal of destroying Israel.
And who would even imagine that this would end well for the U.S. except for a traitor who intends to destroy it and replace it with a World Caliphate.

1 Like

Melanie Phillips writes:

At time of writing, Israelis are bracing for a possible direct and multi-front attack by Iran.

Following Israel’s assassination in Beirut of Hezbollah chief of staff Fuad Shukr and the even more spectacular assassination in Tehran itself of the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued an order for Iran to strike Israel directly in retaliation.

If this takes place, it may take a terrible toll of Israeli civilians. Nevertheless, Iran will be the loser because Israel will use those high casualty numbers to launch an all-out war against this genocidal enemy.

The point is that, until now, Israel has been unable to do that even though it has the capacity. That’s because its ostensible best friend, the U.S., has been playing a two-faced game.

The general assumption is that, in the event of an Iranian onslaught that may overwhelm Israeli defenses, the U.S. will come to Israel’s aid. While this remains likely, with at least 12 U.S. warships now deployed to the region, there is nevertheless an element of doubt.

America may not want Israel to be destroyed. [America does not, but the Obama conspiracy does - JB.] But it has been preventing Israel from directly attacking Iran, the instigator and funder of the seven-front war against the Jewish state that started with the Oct. 7 pogrom. For that reason, the U.S. may even be cooking up with Tehran the “acceptable limits” of any Iranian revenge attack—just as it astonishingly did over the Iranian attack on Israel in April—to forestall a devastating Israeli counter-strike.

With Iran openly advertising its intention to destroy Israel and America after four decades of terrorist attacks against the West, this war could have ended soon after it began 10 months ago if Israel, with or without the U.S., had set fire to Iran’s oilfields or sunk the Iranian fleet.

The Oct. 7 pogrom itself wouldn’t have happened had the Biden administration not been funneling billions in sanctions relief into Tehran’s coffers, refusing to respond appropriately to multiple Iranian attacks on American assets and frantically signaling that the U.S. would take no action to harm Iran.

If the U.S. had wanted to deter Iran, it would have conspicuously equipped Israel with bunker-buster bombs. Instead, the Bidenites have applied the thumbscrews to Israel by forbidding it to take the action necessary to deter let alone defeat such an enemy.

Straight after the Oct. 7 attack, the U.S. forbade Israel from mounting a preemptive attack on Hezbollah, which has some 150,000 missiles embedded in southern Lebanon. The result has been more than 6,000 rockets, drones and missiles fired by Hezbollah at northern Israel, burning great swathes of it to the ground and turning some 80,000 Israelis into refugees in their own country.

Whenever Iran or its proxies have attacked Israel over the past 10 months, America has forced Israel not to respond with anything like deterrent force. As an inevitable result, Iranian proxies have continued to attack again and again.

This is what the Bidenites call “de-escalation". The strange thing about the word “escalation” as used by the Bidenites and their Western media echo chamber is that it never seems to apply when Iran or its proxies unleash further and bigger volleys of rockets and missiles.

When a Hezbollah rocket hit the soccer pitch in Majdal Shams last weekend and massacred 12 Druze children, White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby said: “We certainly don’t believe that, as horrific as this attack was, that it needs to result in any kind of escalation.”

For the Bidenites, “escalation” only appears to happen when Israel defends itself against further attack. This is a way of always pinning aggression on Israel, even when it is defending itself against aggression.

Israel can never be perceived as the victim, only the villain of the region—the grotesque mindset shared to a greater or lesser extent across the progressive West.

In the Wall Street Journal, the assassinated Haniyeh was described as “pragmatic”, “moderate” and a “leading advocate for ceasefire". This to describe a man who had the blood of thousands of Jews on his hands, celebrated the Oct. 7 pogrom and said that the people of Gaza needed “the blood of the children, women and elderly … so that it will ignite within us the spirit of revolution so that it will arouse within us persistence … defiance and advance".

In a similar vein, Britain’s new Labour government has turned venomously against Israel.

Britain has withdrawn its legal objection to the International Criminal Court prosecutor’s request for warrants to arrest Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Britain’s prime minister, the former human rights lawyer Sir Keir Starmer, has thus demonstrated that he regards the two men as war criminals rather than condemning the prosecutor for upending international law, truth and justice in favor of genocidal propaganda.

Britain has also restored funding to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), despite evidence of its copious links with Hamas. And it has signaled that it will ban at least some arms sales to the embattled Jewish state.

At the moment that Israel is fighting for its very life, Starmer has decided to side with Israel’s barbaric enemies. Yet his government regularly intones its “support for Israel’s right to self-defense", just as members of the Biden administration routinely declare that America’s commitment to Israel is “ironclad".

This is all utter humbug. Astoundingly, the U.S. is going out of its way to protect Iran. Not only has it helped enrich and empower Iran by lifting sanctions; not only does it persistently grovel to Tehran; but the administration has been compromised by clandestine ties to the terrorist regime—ties that also implicate the Democratic presidential candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris.

The Washington Free Beacon has revealed that Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) this week wrote to Harris expressing concern over links between her National Security Adviser Philip Gordon and Ariane Tabatabai, chief of staff to the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict.

Shortly before the Oct. 7 pogrom, Tabatabei was named as an agent of influence for Iran—at the heart of the U.S. government and with the highest level of security clearance—as part of an “Iran Experts Initiative” created by Iranian officials to bolster Tehran’s position on global security issues within the Beltway.

She had been infiltrated into the U.S. State Department by Robert Malley, who was the point man on Iran under both the Obama and Biden administrations until he was removed in June 2023 following a still unexplained “mishandling of classified materials".

Gordon, who is likely to play a central national security role in a Harris White House, was the co-author with Tabatabei of at least three opinion pieces that the lawmakers said had been “blatantly promoting the Iranian regime’s perspective and interests”, claiming that sanctions against Iran would create “catastrophe” and cause Tehran to “lash out".

Cotton and Stefanik also claimed that Gordon was “closely associated with the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), another Iranian influence organization that allegedly collaborates with Tehran".

Yet more explosively still, the two lawmakers added that Amos Hochstein, a senior energy official who has become an unofficial envoy to Lebanon, “allegedly passed intelligence about Israeli airstrikes to Hezbollah potentially [? - JB] as recently as this weekend". [!!!]

These astounding claims that the Biden administration has been suborned by Iran seem to have caused barely a ripple in the American media. Instead, like others across the progressive West, they are busily complaining that the assassinations of Shakr and Haniyeh have set back the chances of a ceasefire in Gaza.

In any normal universe, the insistence that a war by Iran aimed at destroying the West is nothing more than a conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza that could be ended by a ceasefire that would give Iran victory would be regarded as evidence of either insanity or treason. In the Democratic Party and in liberal circles throughout the West, however, it’s mandatory.

https://www.jns.org/israels-treacherous-frenemies/?_sc=NTAyMDI0NiMxNTUxODM%3D&utm_campaign=Evening+Syndicate+Thursday+812024&utm_medium=email&utm_source=brevo

1 Like

“In any normal universe” this “would be regarded as evidence of either insanity or treason”.
It is both. In the universe we’re now forced to inhabit, both insanity and treason have been normalized. We’ve gone through the Looking Glass.

1 Like