Neocon Project: Damage Control Time (1)

In a recent post—Is A Major Escalation Of The Neocon War On The World In The Works?—I argued that the Neocon regime in DC was preparing for escalation on both the Middle East front as well as the Russian front. The need to escalate was brought on because of the reverses the American Empire has suffered on both fronts of its war to subdue a recalcitrant world. In the Middle East, the need to regroup was brought about by the Israeli defeat in Gaza, the Houthi blockade of the Red Sea, and the moral defeat inflicted by the ICJ ruling ordering Israel to cease its plausibly genocidal acts in Gaza.

Today, Alastair Crooke’s new article lays out the moral defeat that the ICJ has inflicted on the “Israel Project”:

ICJ Contests Assertions of Unassailable Moral Purpose, Shaking Western Power-Structures

To be sure, the opposition to Israel’s genocide didn’t wait for the ICJ ruling—the civilized world had seen what was happening and was speaking out with a vigor and clarity that we had probably never seen before. Nevertheless, as I wrote, the ICJ ruling provided an international rallying point that Western Globalist censorship could not suppress. That is the central point of Crooke’s article:

The cornerstone to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings made this Friday is that they revoke the ‘Israeli’ project’s assertion of unassailable moral rectitude.

…

This is a stunning outcome that ultimately will shift the global power-balance. The asserted unassailability and moral irreproachability to Israeli conduct finally has been judged to be (plausibly) genocidal — and illegal.

The ‘Israeli Project’ has been planted at the very core of Western foreign policy. The subsequent ‘industrialisation’ of the notion of unassailable moral rectitude drew on this (imputed) incontestability to justify, not just Israeli actions per se, but to spawn proxy power-structures across the Westernised world.

This idea of unassailable moral rectitude is, of course, the foundation on which the American Empire has insisted in order to replace long established International Law standards with its own ad hoc Rules Based Order. We make the rules because of our supposed unassailable moral rectitude, and we punish the recalcitrant without regard to International Law standards. Just as Israel wages war without regard to such standards. This is what Crooke is saying in the next two paragraphs:

The latter essentially took the centrality of the moral rightness of the Israeli State to project a moral superintendency over the US and European Western political matrix.  This power-structure — loosely called the ‘Lobby’ —  inserted itself into the wider polity, assuming disproportionate influence through conflating US interests as congruous with — and participating in — the probity of the Israeli ‘cause’.

The moral unassailability claim by key Western power-centres has been punctured, perhaps for good by the ICJ.

…

This is a devastating occurrence for certain power-structures in the West: In the wake of the ICJ ruling, people will feel freer to speak-out on sensitive issues, where repression of speech has been in practice. And no one can miss the symbolism of Gaza: Whatever rights or wrongs that have occurred there (maybe plenty), a tiny people are standing defiantly against the overwhelming might of powerful states, seeking liberation.

For a very useful thumbnail sketch of the machinations of this “Project” of “Lobby” over the decades, I can’t recommend highly enough today’s article by Kelly Beaucar Vlahos at Amcon. In fact, my impression is that the American military establishment is aware enough of our vulnerabilities and faltering capabilities that it will resist the calls to turn the attack on Tower 22 into a “Pearl Harbor Moment.” (Several commentators remarked upon Austin’s seeming lack of enthusiasm for even the retaliation.) The professional, serving military leadership understand that the current retaliatory strikes will not stop or deter any of the players behind the events in the Middle East.

Beware the Iran ‘Pearl Harbor’ Moment

That, of course, will not deter the Neocons from attempting to salvage their grand strategy. For now my guess as to what that involves runs along these lines. As stated in the previous post linked above, the basic idea is to first stop the bleeding along two lines—the economic blockade on the West inflicted by the Houthis and the moral damage inflicted on the US in the court of world opinion. The hope is that both can be ended by requiring Israel to end its genocide. This bitter pill could be made palatable to Netanyahu by supporting a new war in Lebanon against Hezbollah—which could keep Netanyahu in power and out of jail.

But this would only be a halfway measure. For the longer term, even if the real long term involves “dealing with” Iran, the US understands that its bases across Syraq …

are not defensible. What is required is some way shield Israel from hostile Iran influenced states and groups—Assad’s Syria, Hezbollah, Iraq. The earlier Neocon scheme to use jihadi outfits like ISIS is no longer viable, for now. Further, this new security arrangement can only work if Saudi Arabia participates—along with Jordan, wedged between KSA and Israel. That’s why, as also referenced yesterday, the US is one again floating the idea of Saudi - Israeli “regularizing” of relations. However, that won’t be enough. The US will need to pry KSA out of BRICS—otherwise, KSA will be to subject to Russian influence. If all of these machinations can be pulled off, expect renewed attempts at overthrowing Shiite influence across the Sunni/Kurdish stretches of Syraq.

Obviously, none of this will be easy. Both Turkey and Iran will be opposed to every aspect of this. For now, dealing with Hezbollah will probably take priority.

Now, also today, Simplicius examines further aspects of this scheme, focusing on how to make any of this possible. That goes back to the issue of moral rehabilitation, and the key problem of drawing KSA in. To do that may require extreme measures—such as the creation of a Palestinian state, including the West Bank. Don’t be fooled by Simplicius’ title. The first part deals with the Middle East (that’s what “attacks” refers to):

Biden Launches Attacks as Russia Again Breaches Major Avdeevka Lines

Excerpts:

Recall in the last update I indicated rumors that, amid a welter of secret talks, Israel was considering some kind of full ceasefire and, presumably, an end to the war.

Now there are new reports that the US has fully doubled down on the creation of a Palestinian state—in other words, the long-sought-after two-state solution:

…

The United States is actively pursuing the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with security guarantees for Israel and exploring options with partners in the region, the State Department spokesperson said on Wednesday. [Reuters]

That’s the carrot part, to draw in the Saudis—exploring options with partners in the region—the Palestinian state is to provide cover for the Saudis, so KSA can take credit for this accomplishment. The hope, then, is that the Houthis will drop their blockade. I said ‘hope’.

A new WaPo piece confirms these developments by adding that Blinken will soon head to the MidEast to try to finalize this deal by convincing Saudi Arabia to agree to normalize its relations with Israel on the express condition that Israel not only fully ends the Gaza conflict, but commits to creating a Palestinian state which includes Gaza and the West Bank.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken plans to travel to the Middle East soon. He’ll probably stop first in Saudi Arabia, where he hopes for a renewed pledge from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to normalize relations with Israel if — and only if — Israel ends the Gaza conflict and commits to the eventual creation of a Palestinian state that includes Gaza and the West Bank. [WaPo]

As you can see, there are a lot of details to be worked out—as the word “eventual” signals. At this point of his article, Simplicius sounds, in his own words, “impressed”. But then he points out the real difficulties—all coming from the Israeli side. This solution would likely doom the state of Israel—and maybe not even in the long term. It could come sooner than that. Establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Back would, if it were to mean anything at all, require the removal of hundreds of thousands of illegal Jewish “settlers”—squatters on Palestinian land. If anyone thought that Israeli politics were fractious before, the past would pale in comparison to what would come of such a move.

We’ve covered the angle at length before, but in essence, due to Israel’s demographic discrepancies with its Arab neighbors amongst other things, to allow a Palestinian state to grow on its borders, protected by a legitimate UN seat (rather than “observer” status), would mean the eventual total dissolution of Israel and the forfeiture of all prophecies of Moshiach’s return.

…

Yes, you see, given that Israel has hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers occupying ostensibly Palestinian territory, the creation of a legitimate state would necessitate the total expulsion of all settlers, which would play like a sort of Israeli Nakhba on TV. Recall, the whole point of the illegal settlements was always about one thing only: keeping a Palestinian state from forming. So this would mean the end to a grand plan spanning many decades, and a historic failure of an age-old Zionist vision.

Simplicius isn’t really exaggerating. This whole scheme is a bit of Rube-Goldberg thing—lots of complicated mechanisms that need to work together perfectly. And even if it all works out, it is likely to lead to the demise of the entity it was supposed to rescue. That, of course, is the point of the “security guarantees”, meaning American security guarantees—Israel as something like Puerto Rico, or Guam, or American Samoa? You can see why this would be so unpalatable. And then there’s Hezbollah. And Iran. And BRICS. Does all this suggest just how desperate the situation has become?