DON BELL REPORTS

A WEEKLY COMMENTARY

Year Twenty-Seven ... Number Forty-One ... October 10, 1980

Table of Contents

THE REVIVAL OF BRINKMANSHIP

A quarter of a century ago the Builders of the New World Order were engaged in a two-part program: to dismember the Empires of the West, and to weaken the Nations of the West -- especially the United States of America -- in order to create a "balance of power" between the NATO nations and the Warsaw Pact slave states. These two Regional World Sectors were to be equal in all things including military power, diplomatic influence, economic strength, etc. This "balance of power" concept is best understood if we consider the import of our official defense policy which is known by the acronym, MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). The completion of this part of the Planners' Program produced this result: Militarily we are inferior to the Soviet Union; but the interdependent NATO is probably equal in power to the interdependent Warsaw Pact. We say "probably;" the Middle East powder keg could prove us wrong.

The first part of the Planners' Program, the dismemberment of the Empires of the West, would rob Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain et al., of their colonies in Africa, Asia and Central America, so that scores of mini-states could be created for exploitation and development. Most of the selected leaders of these mini-states would have neither the character nor the ability to govern their people and resist economic exploitation. Where competent and able leaders did exist -- Tschombe of the Congo, Batista of Cuba, Somoza of Nicaragua, etc -- they would be disposed of so there would be no interference with exploitation (by either the Communists or the Monopoly Capitalists, who seem to be in league with each other).

This Planners' Program -- decolonization and depowering -- involved in the United States and France in a very special way. A resurgence of national spirit and patriotism grew in post-war France, probably because of the influence of the national hero, Charles de Gaulle. It was necessary to "punish" France and at the same time weaken the United States by creating a series of wars in French Indo-China. This brings us to the year 1964. The French stronghold at Dien Bien Phu was surrounded and about to fall to the Viet Minh forces. Gen Ely, the French chief-of-staff, flew to Washington seeking help. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was willing (being a ranking CFR member, he would be). According to Carroll Quigley, the "historian and stool pigeon" who told too much about The Conspiracy in his book Tragedy and Hope, wrote (page 1044) that "For a few days the United States, at Dulles' prodding, tottered 'on the brink' of war. Dulles proposed a 'united action policy' which he described in these terms: 'If Britain would join U.S. and France would agree to stand firm ... If these three Western states could combine with friendly Asian nations, just as the UN stepped in against North Korean aggression in 1950 ... and if the Chinese Communists intervene quickly, their staging bases in South China will be destroyed by U.S. air power'." But because of British commitments to the Soviet Union, Britain refused to go along with Dulles. So Dulles had to content himself by forming SEATO, an eight-nation organization that was totally ineffective and powerless. However, President Eisenhower did send advisers and "trainers" for the South Vietnamese army in 1955, and the number of these advisers grew and grew until in 1962 President Kennedy said if the US military advisers were shot at, they had permission to shot back. The US became even more deeply involved when it officially withdrew its support of President Ngo Dinh Diem, with US officials probably arranging for his assassination. But the total commitment to war came in August, 1964. President Johnson said two U.S. Destroyers had been sunk by North Vietnamese boats and on Aug. 7 Congress authorized the President to take whatever action he deemed necessary and advisable. That Tonkin Resolution served in the place of an official Declaration of War. Over 50,000 Americans died as a result.

We mention all this because that dreadful part of American history began with the "Brinkmanship" of John Foster Dulles. This prompted the sending of US advisers and observers to Southeast Asia. Then, with added touches by President Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon's Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, there was accomplished what the World Planners desired: the weakening of US power, prestige and respect around the world.

And we now seem to have a repetition of the same general chain of events: US advisers and observers are in Saudi Arabia for defense purposes; a US Naval fleet lies outside the Persian Gulf awaiting possible action; Marines and much heavy equipment wait in and around the Island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, awaiting possible call to action. Any potential "Strait of Hormuz Incident" could be used exactly as the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" was used, to get the United States involved in yet another limited and no-win war -- and a war in which the forces of International Communism and Monopoly Capitalism could be the only winners.

Brinkmanship -- skirting on the brink of war -- is the term adopted to describe the CFR-directed policy of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in 1954. In the year 1980, just over a quarter of a century later, Secretary of State Muskie is at odds with National Security Advisor Brzezinski. So, it is the Trilateralist Under Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, who has been commissioned by "the powers that be" to conduct this curent revival of Dulles's Brinkmanship. Here is how media conglomerate Knight-Ridder's bureau chief in Washington James McCarty, analyzed this latest Brinkmanship:

A disturbing element in this arranged Brinkmanship is Spotlight's assertion, in its Oct. 13 issue, that "Iraq Invaded Iran After Vow by Rockefeller of U.S. Help" Spotlight is far more dependable newswise than is the controlled media, and its assertion that Trilateral Chieftain Rockefeller's hand is in the mess, is logical and believable. Adding to the tension in that area, came the declaration by King Hussein of Jordan that his country would do everything in its power to help Iraq win its war against Iran. This was countered by an announcement that terrorist-promoting Libya and pro-Communist Syria had begun to airlift war supplies to Iran. This was followed by the report from Irsaeli radio that Syria and the USSR had just signed a mutual assistance pact which made Syria a virtual member of the Warsaw Pact. Meanwhile, a whole series of seemingly pre-planned "anti-semitic" incidents took place in France, to be followed by Communist-inspired counter demonstrations in favor of Israel. If we include Spotlight's exclusive report with the controlled-media reports, it would seem that of the journalist's "five little serving men" -- Who, What, Where, Why and When - all have served except Why? Why should such a war erupt in a most dangerous place at such a most dangerous time? A clue to the answer is provided in the one word "Jerusalem." This is partially explained in an editorial published by the Oct. 9 Straight Talk, which is Tom Anderson's weekly news service to conservative publications. That editorial follows.

**************************************

Crown Prince Fahd's call for Jihad, Holy War, to save Jerusalem and liberate the other occupied lands comes because of the continued provocations of Israel and the United States' inability, or unwillingness, to control its protege. The provocations are so intense and sweeping that the Prince had no choice, as he put it, but to appeal to all Muslims in the world to unite and work toward the liberation of their holy places. For now, Israel's occupation of all Palestine complete, and its annexation of Jerusalem is a fait accompli, although illegal and denounced by the rest of the world.

Jihad need not be an immediate struggle. It should be prepared for over a period of time and include resources to resist the Zionist resources backed by the finances of Jews worldwide and the power and prestige of the United States administration, Congress, economy, armed forces and media. This the Muslims will have to take into consideration in their determination to adopt Jihad, not to commit aggression, but essentially to regain what others have wrested from them. Thus, the call also is a repudiation of past attempts that were made to negotiate a settlement. The Camp David accords, rejected by Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world except their signatory, Egypt, have proved their inanity. Egypt has frozen the so-called autonomy talks, and Israel has proved to the world at large that it did not mean to go ahead with them anyway.

The Camp David framework has become glaringly inept, and Israel has shown that it could not care less for any meaningful negotiations to reach a peaceful settlement in the region. Top Western leaders are as convinced of that as the Arab ones, but they simply are unable to say it or protest against it publicly. This leaves the Arabs, whose lands are occupied, and the Muslims whose holy places are annexed, very little option but to prepare themselves for battle, sooner or later. Words and statements alone, as the Prince said, will be a waste of time and energy. The Muslims are facing a unique idea of defiance that is backed by the most powerful military machine in the world, and it is a matter of "being or not being at all," as the Prince put it. (Unquote).

**************************************

It is important to understand that Jihad, the Muslim name for "Holy War," is concerned with religion, not with nationality or genealogy. We might say the same of Zionism, which is concerned with a "Jewish Peoplehood," rather than with religion or nationality. So here we have the makings of a worldwide conflict that has little to do with traditional nationalism, but with people who believe the same thing, regardless of country or color.

However, aside from the ties of Islam, there has remained through the ages a time-honored sense of nationhood with one people in the Muslim Brotherhood: the Iranians, or the Persians as they were known from the beginnings of history. Lay history tells us, and the Holy Bible confirms, that the Medes and the Persians swept down from the North and occupied most of the then known world including the lands inhabited by the Israelites. The Medes and Persians established what amounted to a One World Government which was in its height in about 500 B.C., when Cyrus the Great was its Emperor. This was the Cyrus who permitted the ingathering of the Israelites and the rebuilding of the Temple as chronicled in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. And here is where genealogy becomes important.

The true Israelites are the descendants of Abraham's son Issac. The Arabs are descendants of Abraham's son Ishmael. Both are Semitic. But the Medes and the Persians were Aryan. While the bulk of the Aryans and Iranians are of the Islamic faith, they are genealogically different.

In the course of history the Medes disappeared, as did the ten lost tribes of Israel. But the Persians remained more or less intact. Their land was overrun by Arabs, Tamerlane's hordes, the Afghans, the Ottomans, and they regained control of their country following World War II. In 1935, the name of their country was changed from Persia to Iran.

Our apologies for the abbreviated and therefore oversimplified historical references, but it is important to understand that, aside from religion, Iranians are different from Arabs in almost every respect. Which is a fact that the Power Brokers have been able to use to their advantage. "Divide and Conquer" is the name of this game. And saving Israel is an aim of the game. So, Prince Fahd called for a Jihad, a Holy War, against the occupiers of their land and their holy places in Palestine. This would be a Muslim war against Israel and a war that could refuse to remain a "limited and no-win" war. So, the plan of pitting Muslim-and-Arab Iraq against Muslim-but-Aryan Iran, was one way to save Israel and at the same time put certain oil fields back under the control of certain "developers." That "control" has been slipping ever since the oil-rich countries began thinking for themselves and forming OPECs, and certain "unions" such as that of Libya and Syria.

POSTSCRIPT. Does the Trilateral Commission -- that Power behind the Governments of North America, Western Europe and Eastern Japan -- really control and direct this entire Mideast operation? Did Zionist leaders concoct the conflict to forestall a Muslim Holy War that could destroy political Israel? Is this just a fight between two States seeking to gain or retain ownership of a vital sealane? Will this conflict expand into another limited, no-win war? Or a total, nuclear war? These questions are moot. Answers are conditional. But, one thing is very certain. As Barry Goldwater said it: "If the American people do not penetrate the fog of propaganda which has led to our present position of military weakness, if we don't discard the policy of appeasement and accomodation which has controlled our foreign policy since World War II, the days of the Republic are numbered. Unless we who profess to believe in freedom wake up, the world is headed for a period of slavery ..."

But national salvation really begins at home. Revival of morality and return of Christian standards of conduct, but personally and nationally, these are the keys to enduring temporal kingdoms. Our need is for leaders with Christian character and moral conviction, not with party labels and political promises.

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