DON BELL REPORTS

A WEEKLY COMMENTARY

Year Twenty-Seven ... Number Thirty-Nine ... September 26, 1980

Table of Contents

THE "TOLSTOY" CONSPIRACY

The problems were mounting: double-digit inflation, increasing unemployment, decline in morale and morality, growing distrust of Big Brother government -- and then came war. This is an election year. There is an incumbent determined to do anything necessary to stay in power. The war involves Iran, who might be willing to trade American hostages for much needed war supplies. And this set of circumstances gives rise to the lurking suspicion that the war may have been planned by someone bigger than Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. There is the fact that a war between Iraq (with Soviet-made weapons) and Iran (with U.S.-made weapons) which threatens the world's oil supply, places President Jimmy Carter in the role of "peacemaker" and has upped his poll-rating in an election year. As peacemaker between the Arabians of Iraq and the Persians of Iran (both being Muslim) should do even better for Jimmy.

Are we being too unfair to Jimmy? If so, it is not to promote his opponents in the race. There are minor party candidates who would make far better presidents than Carter, Reagan or Anderson. Due to media and money control they haven't a chance, of course. But our efforts concern survival of the Nation, not of any political party. So, let's reason together:

A few weeks ago controversial columnist Jack Anderson wrote a series of articles in which he charged, with considerable documentation that backed up the charge, that Jimmy Carter was preparing for war in Iran "to give Jimmy Carter a dramatic political push upward in popularity just before the November 4 election." In reporting this, we quoted several newsletters in which their editors also predicted that a Carter war was being planned. For example, R.E. McMaster, Jr. wrote in his "The Reaper": "Make no mistake about it, despite Jimmy Carter's incredible inconsistency and economic incompetence, he is one shrewd cookie when it comes to politics. And if it takes a war to get re-elected, Jimmy Carter will engineer one." Well, a war has been engineered, and there are many who believe that "it was planned that way."

Let's begin with that assumption that Carter will do anything to get re-elected. Human Events, slavishly pro-Reagan but otherwise leaning toward objectivity, headlined its September 27th lead story, "Carter's Politics of Hate," and the article began: "The formal general election campaign was barely two weeks old last week, and already the mean, vindictive tactics that many, including this publication, had predicted Jimmy Carter would unleash against Ronald Reagan were everywhere manifest. Whether it involved leaking sensitive national security information to the press for political advantage, politicizing such traditionally non-political agencies as the State and Defense departments to help in his own re-election, or characterizing his opponent as a friend of the rich and an enemy of the poor, there seemed little that this president would not do or say to maintain his tenuous lease on the White House. But for sheer gutter politics, perhaps nothing in the Georgian's previous record can match his assertion last week (later partially retracted) that Ronald Reagan .. has been practicing the politics of 'racism' and 'hatred'." (unquote).

That was written and published before Carter topped his "racism and hatred" essay by telling the California AFL-CIO conference in Los Angeles that, "Six weeks from now the American people will make a very profound choice .. whether we have peace or war." Carter said in effect that if he is elected the nation will "go forward and have peace." But if Reagan is elected, the nation will "go backward and have war." A storm of protest was raised and Carter's White House spokesman, Jody Powell offered a partial apology by saying that Carter was "guilty of an overstatement of the case."

There is here a strange kind of historical repetition which was brought out by a constitutent writing to his congressman, Robert Lagomarsino, of California. The letter was inserted in the Congressional Record of Sept. 18 (p. E 4461). We quote: "I remember when President Wilson was re-elected, after he promised to keep the U.S. out of World War I. The United States was at war within a month of when he began his second term after being re-elected. When President Roosevelt was re-elected in 1940, after promising to keep us out of World War II, he asked and got the right to send the anti-German allies war supplies under the Lend-Lease Act. In order to get these supplies through, Roosevelt had U.S. destroyers escorting convoys of allied ships part way across the Atlantic and pinpointing German submarines, which the allied warships attacked. When a German submarine fired a torpedo at the American destroyed Greer, Roosevelt, who had not told the people what he was doing, feigned surprise and outrage and ordered U.S. warships to shoot on sight at hostile German ships. The destroyer Greer was torpedoed in September 1941 before the U.S. was at declared war. Roosevelt got us into World War II by his actions (the writer doesn't mention the Pearl Harbor ploy-Ed.). President Truman pulled our troops out of South Korea and North Korea invaded South Korea. President Johnson got us into war in South Vietnam after claiming that Goldwater, if elected, would get us involved in a war in South Vietnam! And now Carter is claiming Reagan is a war monger! What's new?" (Unquote).

What's new is that the other presidents kept us out of war just long enough to get re-elected! Carter could be getting us into war just to get elected! But if is the same con game, worked backward to win re-election.

However, let us assume (and this is an assumption) that all was coincidence, and that there was no outside pressure involved, that this dispute between the two countries of the oil-rich Middle East is, as Anwar Sadat of Egypt hinted, an argument between "two adolescents who shouldn't have been given guns to play with." Here is the way the Iraq-Iran war can be explained in such case: There has been a long-standing argument about some territory that was taken, or leased, from Iraq by Iran, and never returned. The territory in question includes some strategically placed islands that could control the passage of all vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. After the Shah of Iran was deposed and exiled, to die in Egypt, the Iranian military fell on bad times. Officers were executed, troops deserted, equipment was hardly kept at combat-ready. The internal situation in Iran was so chaotic that President Hussein of Iraq felt it would be an excellent time to reclaim that disputed territory. There also was a personal political reason: the ruling clique in Iraq belong to the Sunni Muslim sect, while the majority of Iraqis are Shiites (as are most Iranians). The unrest in Iran, was causing unrest in Iraq, and it was necessary for Hussein and his party to demonstrate strength if they were to remain in office. There is nothing like a war to unite people behind their leaders (as Carter knows). So, a little war was advantageous to President Hussein of Iraq. And the same thing can be said of the Ayatollah and President Abol Hassan Bani-Sadr, who also head a chaotic populace that was becoming uncontrollable. Hence, a little war was just what the doctor would have ordered, for both Iraq and Iran. If both countries benefit politically from the war, it will be difficult to settle the conflict. And if the conflict gets out of hand, and the Strait of Hormuz closed to ships, World War III might get into the shooting stages.

Then came a change in the state of the States of Araby. Oil became "as good as gold" and despite foreign (Rockefeller and Rothschild) control of their oil production and marketing, the ruling families of Araby found untold wealth at their command. And the Soviet Union, the United States and the Common Market Nations of Europe have been anxious to supply them with arms and to train their military personnel. At the same time there is this "religious imperative" which calls for the protection of Israel at all costs. Simultaneously, a "Holy War" is being promoted by the Moslem Brotherhood. The seriousness of this situation was brought out by Hilaire du Berrier, a qualified and respected observer who reports from Monte Carlo. He wrote just before the Iraqi-Iranian undeclared war began:

Although both Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev are said to be observing a strict hands-off policy (as of September 25, that is), this is certainly not true of Ikhwan al-Islam, the Moslem Brotherhood, which is doing everything within its power to bring this intra-Islam conflict to a quick conclusion. Yasir Arafat has paid official visits to Baghdad and Tehran. To maintain whatever standing he yet may have in the Brotherhood, Anwar Sadata of Egypt has condemned both belligerents and called upon the U.S. to intervene. And the very influential "Islamic Group" which is composed of the leadership of all Moslem States has met under the asupices of the UN and named a three-man delegation to go to the two warring governments and demand a cessation of hostilities. So it is quite possible that, as you read this Report, the shooting phase of this first battle of a new war will have ended. But it may be a mere lull before a greater storm.

Analyzing the situation as Carter must have seen it, there was one imperative: He had to have the "Jewish vote" if he expected to win re-election. There had been that costly gaffe at the UN when the US voted anti-Israel. Apologies had followed, but damage was done. Carter tried fence mending by approving more aid to Israel -- $2.9 billion this time -- and he received lagging interest in that lagging peace offensive between Israel and Egypt. But there was great danger that Carter would lose New York State to Anderson, which wouldn't help Anderson much, but it would kill Carter politically. Also, Carter was seeking legitimate ways to utilize the advantage of incumbency, to keep his face before the people in papers and on TV screens. He was criticized, not applauded, when he opened a televised press conference with a five-minute statement that was a political advertisement for himself. Reagan should have had equal time. And Carter was criticized when he used the stealth aircraft announcement for political gain. He lost ground by calling Reagan a racist and hatemonger, added to the damage when he implied that the choice between Reagan and Carter was the choice between war and peace. He was checkmated from using another military operation involving U.S. troops in an attempt to gain freedom for the 52 hostages and re-election for himself because that ploy had been exposed. So, there remained a way: have agents promote a war against Iran by a third party and then hope for a trade of spare parts for hostages, and a win for Carter?

The preceding is presumption, not provable fact. The Trilats may have done it all without regard to Carter's re-election, since they also have Reagan and Anderson under control. But their control of the Middle East was being challenged by Islamic resurgence. Turmoil in Turkey. The uniting of pro-Soviet Libya and Syria. The now pressing problem of how to handle a Soviet Union that was about to fall into the control of younger, military-minded leaders, as Brezhnev was about to follow Mao and Tito. In such a situation, a war pitting Moslem against Moslem (divide and conquer) without allowing too much damage to the world's oil supply (presently glutted); this could seem an ideal expedient to a clique that intends to solidify a New World Order.

So, it may have been a plot to assure Carter's re-election; it may have been a way to "divide and conquer" Moslem resurgence; or it may have been merely a despot seeking control of a vital sealane. Take your choice. But regardless of the reason or the result, we are convinced that in this Tolstoy Controversy "you ain't seen nothin' yet."

Extra copies of this Newsletter: 1 copy: 25 cents, 10 copies: $1.50, 20 copies: $3.00, 30 copies: $4.50, 40 copies: $6.00, 50 copies: $7.50, 100 copies: $10.00. More than 100 copies: 10 cents each. Please include extra if 1st class postage is desired. Subscription rates: $24 per year. Foreign airmail: $30 per year. DON BELL REPORTS Weekly, emphasizing the Christian American point of view. Address all orders: DON BELL REPORTS, P.O. BOX 2223, PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33480

Back to Top