What I have to say does not apply exclusively to Alexander Mercouris (AM) but to most of the Western Commentariat.
I am referring to the words of Mercouris in his podcast where he discusses the murder of Kemal Harrazi.:
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtqvH_zAFDw&t=2844s )
AM view is that Israel or Israel and members of Trump’s entourage are seeking to undermine the President’s attempt to seek peace. There is such a fundamental contradiction here that it is breathtaking. If the President cannot stop Israel from assassinating Iranian negotiators, how can he even dream of carrying out any terms of an agreement he comes to with the Iranian leadership? But what is most telling is that after these so-called Israeli interventions, there is no outraged pushback by Trump against Israel? Contrast that with the sacking of top Army Generals, such as the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Randy George, who disagreed with Trump’s military plans? If Trump will sack senior Army Generals if they stand in the way of his policy, how can one believe Israel is standing in the way of his critical foreign policy? This is breathtaking.
What is at stake here? The Western commentariat is being played but as in most similar situations, they are willing dupes, actively participating in their own deception. They want to believe in the lies they are making up. They want to believe that the US has a rational foreign policy. They do not want to explore the alternative: that there is something simply evil going on here.
Let us look at the plain facts: The British Empire used the assassination of overseas leaders for centuries as a critical weapon, as Prof Hilary Beckles has shown (note 1). European political leaders who wanted to make an approchement with Russia died mysteriously. Rosso Brigato, who assassinated Aldo Moro, are now revealed to have been a CIA operation. Aldo Moro was seeking a reconciliation with the Soviet Union. However, the Western commentariat portrays political assassination as an Israeli tactic. This same commentariat are horrified at the assassination of Kamal Khashoggi and the dismemberment of his body, but have no memory of the reduction by acid of the body of Patrice Lumumba. Then, even more outrageous, is the attempted assassination of Putin at Valdai. If this were against Trump’s policy, heads should have rolled. None did.
One of the most important details of the Valdai assassination attempt is unspoken: that the Russian intelligence service faked Putin’s whereabouts to look as if he was at Valdai. This means they considered a US attempt under the Trump administration to assassinate Putin was such a serious possibility that specific precautions were required. To be in that state of mind is to see the US empire as a source of ultimate evil, with no limit to how low it might go.
What is behind this policy? We know from Kissinger’s declassified paper that the war against communism was a smokescreen. Kissinger wrote:
‘ The world diplomatic front is a screen on which appears the apparent struggle between the Free World and the Communist camp….Behind it the real struggle goes on …’ Henry Kissinger (1955) (note 2).
We also know that Kissinger, before his passing, openly advised the Chinese ‘to prepare for War’.
This is a systemic weakness of the Western commentariat. Many of them, one must assume, are in bed with the darker aspects of US foreign policy. Let us look at an earlier situation: the Bay of Pigs. We know that the CIA was seeking to set up President Kennedy to get involved in a major invasion of Cuba. They would use a failing invasion of Cuba to trigger a major US military commitment. However, the Bay of Pigs was an utter fiasco. Let us look more closely. If Kennedy saw through these plans, he would realise he was boxed in. Once there was a failing invasion, it would be politically difficult for him to walk away. But there was one way out: leak all the details of the invasion to Fidel Castro so that there would not be a ‘failing’ invasion but a catastrophic rout. There is little discussion of how Castro knew the details of the invasion. At least there should have been a consideration that Kennedy himself leaked the information to Castro, as it allowed Kennedy an escape from the CIA trap. After his escape, the CIA would have worked out how Castro obtained the information and this would have meant a deep hatred of Kennedy at the CIA. A US President who could outsmart the CIA was a deadly threat.
Did Kennedy pass the key information to Castro? At least it should have been seriously considered by the commentariat, but it was not.
Where are we today: we have a failing invasion that has trapped a US President and an even greater ‘failing invasion’ proposed in order to trap the US President and his administration even further into more global military activity. That is one interpretation. It suggests that any land invasion is intended to fail. But a further and deeper interpretation is that the commentariat are one of the targets! These patsies maintain that there is a rational basis to US policy, and the President seeks an off-ramp. This is a deep deception operation where the US has no interest in any off-ramp but is all in for total war. That the US President is seeking an off-ramp is just deception and misdirection. Anything to get Iran from recognising they are dealing with a totally genocidal US administration that is all in with this war. As Kissinger hinted, the war is for White World Supremacy or, more politely, US Global dominance, which is just a different spelling.
Western commentariat plays its role in misdirection and obfuscation. Let us return to AM. How can he say the Israelis are flouting the President’s policies but Trump does nothing, yet when his top army General pushes back, he reacts with total administrative violence? Clearly, the US
President has power, but what are his true policies? Here, the Western commentariat adopts the policy: see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing.
__________
- ‘Britains’ Black Debt’- Hilary Beckles 2013
- ‘Baseless: My Search for Secrets in the Ruins of the Freedom of Information Act’ N. Baker 2021 p.25