The pro-Israel lobby is accelerating the destruction of Israel. The Jews are pushing for their own demise, and they don’t even know it. Every action that Israel pushed the US to do, from the overthrow of Saddam to the toppling of Assad, are leading to Israel’s demise. The toppling of Saddam Hussein was something that Israel wanted, and the result was the rise of Iran. The toppling of Assad in Syria was something that Israel wanted, and the result was the rise of Turkey which is now preparing for war with Israel. As the Israeli reservist general Yitzhak Brik wrote in September of 2025, Turkey’s “military buildup and operations in Syria require the Israeli security establishment to prepare for the possibility of future friction, as a result of the Turkish army entering Syria, the equipping of the Syrian army with weapons by the Turks, the development of combat means in Turkey such as missiles, and the expansion of the Turkish Air Force. In my opinion, these will be directed against Israel in the future.”
Iran devastated Israel with its missiles which were able to bypass both Israel’s Iron Dome and American interceptors. It is, thus, quite obvious that a war with Turkey — the second biggest power in NATO — will devastate Israel. But the rise of Turkey is thanks to the toppling of Assad, which Netanyahu happily took credit for, and which is something that was being pushed for decades by the pro-Israel lobby in America. The plans of the zionist lobby (which thought itself clever) are paving the path towards Israel’s own destruction.
The US pulling out of the Iran Deal was something that Israel wanted (its also something that Trump’s major donor, the zionist Sheldon Adelson wanted) and the result was Iran accelerating its nuclear project. The US bombing Iran was something Israel, and its zionists acolytes in the United States, wanted. And the result will be Iran quickening its pursuit toward nuclear armament. Israel is like Haman who, making the noose for Mordecai, ended up hanging from that very noose. Israel is like Judas who, thinking that he could enrich himself by betraying Christ, ended up destroying himself.
The Iraq War was done, supposedly, to help Israel, but it ended up making the Middle East more destabilized. Saddam Hussein was killing Islamist insurgents, and he was a major check against Iranian power. Once he was defeated by the Americans, Iran rose up, and Islamic Jihad also erupted in Iraq. So what was the point of invading and occupying Iraq? In the book, Assassins’ Gate: America in Iraq, foreign policy writer George Packer wrote that “it still isn’t possible to be sure, and this remains the most remarkable thing about the Iraq war.” Packer quotes Richard Haass, the director of policy planning in the State Department during Bush Jr.’s first term, declaring that he would “go to his grave not knowing the answer.” There is something of an enigma behind the Iraq War. What was the point of doing a war that would have such a destructive ripple effect? Even though the war was done in the name of stability, the whole war is infamous for how much instability it caused. What makes the Iraq War even more bizarre is the fact that it was ardently pushed for by Israel, and yet the result was Israel being less safe, since the Jewish state has been complaining about a rising Iran, a consequence of Saddam’s downfall.
Before the Iraq War was launched, the pro-war Neo-conservatives — who were all pro-Israel — argued that by removing Saddam Hussein, Israel’s position in the Middle East would be even more fortified. Philip Zelikow, who served on Bush Jr.’s Foreign Advisory Board and who also was the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, said in a lecture at the University of Virginia in September of 2002 that Saddam was not a direct threat to the United States: “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 — it’s the threat against Israel.”
He went on to say: “And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.” Why would it be a hard sale? Because people don’t want to die for another country. This is why they had to connect the 9/11 attack with Saddam Hussein; they needed to emotionally manipulate the American masses by contributing the trauma of 9/11 to the Middle Eastern dictator that they wanted to remove. The Israel lobby knew this. Hence why in the fall of 2002, a group of American political consultants, known as the Israel Project, distributed a six-page memorandum titled, “Talking about Iraq,” to key Israelis and pro-Israel figureheads in the United States which specified the strategy of making sure that the pushing for the Iraq War did not look like it was being done for Israel:
“If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.”
General Wesley Clark stated in 2002 that the war in Iraq was for Israel, stating that “those who favor this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid that at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel.” In 2003, a German journalist asked the prominent Neo-conservative, Ruth Wedgwood, why he (the journalist) should support the Iraq War. Wedgwood responded by saying that she “could be impolite,” “and remind Germany of its special relationship with Israel. Saddam presents an existential threat to Israel.” Just weeks before the US’s invasion of Iraq the journalist Joe Klein wrote in an article for Time magazine:
“A stronger Israel is very much embedded in the rationale for war with Iraq. It is a part of the argument that dare not speak its name, a fantasy quietly cherished by the Neo-conservative faction in the Bush administration and by many leaders of the American Jewish community.”
The South Carolina senator, Fritz Hollings, stated in 2004 in a speech on the Iraq War at the Senate floor that it “is not a conspiracy. That is the policy… Everybody knows it because we want to secure our friend, Israel.” The conservative figurehead, Robert Novak, called the Iraq War “Sharon’s war” even before the war was commenced. In April of 2007, Novak said: “I am convinced that Israel made a large contribution to the decision to embark on this war. I know that on the eve of the war, Sharon said, in a closed conversation with senators, that if they could succeed in getting rid of Saddam Hussein, it would solve Israel’s security problem.” When it was obvious that the US was going to invade Iraq, the journalist Michael Kinsley wrote in 2002: “The lack of public discussion about the role of Israel in the thinking of “President Bush” is easier to understand, but weird nevertheless. It is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it.”
The situation with Iraq is similar to what has been happening with Iran. There were concerns about Iraq’s nuclear and chemical weapons arsenal as there are fears today over Iran’s nuclear project. There were UN inspections which eliminated Saddam’s nuclear program and led the Iraqi leader to destroy his biological and chemical weapons stockpiles. Regardless of this, the US still invaded Iraq. The major Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, reported in February of 2001 that “Sharon believes that Iraq poses more of a threat to regional stability than Iran, due to the errant, irresponsible behavior of Saddam Hussein’s regime.” The US destroyed Saddam’s regime and this led to the rise of Iran, and the Israelis are complaining about this, urging for regime change policy against Iran. They push for the problem, and then want the US to solve the problem.
In the spring of 2002, just a number of months prior to the Bush administration’s own marketing for the war, Netanyahu travelled to Washington in the middle of April and met with various American senators and editors of the Washington Post to tell them about the dangers of Saddam Hussein. A few weeks later, Ra’anan Gissen, a Sharon spokesperson, told a Cleveland reporter that “if Saddam Hussein is not stopped now, five years from now, six years from now, we will have to deal with an Iraq that is armed with nuclear weapons, with an Iraq that has delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction.”
In the middle of May of 2002, the former Israeli prime minister, Shimon Peres, declared that “Saddam Hussein is as dangerous as bin Laden,” and the United States “cannot sit and wait” while he creates his nuclear weapons. In June of 2002, yet another former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, wrote in the Washington Post that the Bush administration “should first of all, focus on Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein. Once he is gone there will be a different Arab world.” A very different Arab world did indeed arise after Saddam’s toppling, but it wasn’t (and has not) been a good one, but one riddled with gore and carnage. So the Israelis pushed for this war, and they got what they wanted, but what was the result but more terrorism, Jihadist massacres, the slaughter of Christians, a massive migrant crisis (which has led to a dangerous revival of nationalism in Germany), and the rise of Iran against which the Israelis are pushing for yet another war.
Sharon told the Bush administration that delaying the invasion of Iraq “will not create a more convenient environment for action in the future.” Sharon’s spokesperson, Ra’anan Gissen stated that postponing the war would “only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction.” And Israel’s Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told CNN that “the problem today is not if, but when.” Israel’s Deputy Defense Minister Weizman Shiry echoed this panic: “If the Americans do not do this now, it will be harder to do it in the future. In a year or two, Saddam Hussein will be further along in developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Media headlines further amplified the panic that Israel wanted to convey. One CBS article entitled, “Israel To U.S.: Don’t Delay Iraq Attack”, wrote that “Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons.” Shimon Peres told CNN that “we think and know that he [Saddam] is on his way to acquiring a nuclear option.” We all know the end of the story for this hysteria: a million dead Iraqis, thousands of US troops dead, and trillions of dollars wasted. And for what? A belief in a lie, a lie that was uplifted by Neo-conservatives, Jewish Warhawks and Christians zionists all of whom believed that this disastrous and most destructive war was for the glory and protection of Israel.
Retired Brigadier General Shlomo Brom, former deputy commander of the Israeli military’s planning division, wrote that Israeli intelligence services and political leaders provided “an exaggerated assessment of Iraqi capabilities,” raising “the possibility that the intelligence picture was manipulated,” and he also wrote that “The failures of this war indicate weaknesses and inherent flaws within Israeli intelligence and among Israeli decision-makers”. In other words, the Israelis lied. And because of that lie we got mass deaths, a revived Iranian power, and the revival of European nationalism due to the migrant crisis caused by the Iraq War. In the midst of the typical smokescreen of “mistakes were made,” Israel of course had run away from any accountability.
Shlomo Brom observed: “In the questioning of the picture painted by coalition intelligence, the third party in this intelligence failure, Israel, has remained in the shadows… Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.” Israel tried to make it out as though Iraq was not a major priority for it, but once the war was in full motion, it was clear that Iraq was a huge focus of the Jewish state, since it was pushing for the invasion of Iraq so intensely. As Shlomo Brom wrote:
“Once the Bush administration decided to take action against Iraq, it was more difficult for Israel to maintain its position that dealing with Iraq was not the highest priority, especially when it was obvious that the war would serve Israel’s interests.”
The Iraq War was to the interests of Israel. Hence why they were pushing for it so fervently, and why they were against any peaceful alternative to war. This explains why Israel was thrown into a panic when President Bush expressed his desire to get UN Security Council authorization for the war in September of 2002. And Israel got even more fretful when Saddam agreed to allow UN inspectors to enter Iraq, because this would have reduced the likelihood of war. This reminds us of how the Obama administration angered Israel and the zionist hoards in the US when he established the Iran Deal in 2015, in which Iran agreed to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its nuclear facilities. Israel and Zionist funders like Sheldon Adelson (a major funder for Trump’s political career), were pushing Trump to pull out of the Iran Deal. In May of 2018, Trump did just this, regardless of the fact that on March 5, 2018, the director of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, confirmed that Iran was honoring its part of the deal:
“Our inspection work has doubled since 2013. IAEA inspectors now spend 3,000 calendar days per year on the ground in Iran. We have installed some 2,000 tamper-proof seals on nuclear material and equipment. We have carried out more than 60 complementary accesses and visited more than 190 buildings since JCPOA Implementation Day. We collect and analyse hundreds of thousands of images captured daily by our sophisticated surveillance cameras in Iran – about half of the total number of such images that we collect throughout the world. We collect over one million pieces of open source information each month. All of our activities are supported by state-of-the-art technology, including data collecting and processing systems. Our current verification capability is much stronger than it has ever been. As of today, I can state that Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments. It is essential that Iran continues to do so. If the JCPOA were to fail, it would be a great loss for nuclear verification and for multilateralism.”
And then what was happening during Trump’s second term? The Trump administration began talking about making a deal with Iran. Trump should have just kept to the first deal, but this did not happen due to pro-Israel interests in the US. The result of the 2018 pullout from the Iran Deal was Iran accelerating its uranium enrichment. Former Israeli Mossad official, Sima Shine, lamented how Iran was going to pursue its nuclear project now even more because of Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran Deal:
“With the deal in place, Iran was more constrained. As time passes, as the secondary sanctions will bring Iran to a point in time where they are not benefiting anymore from the agreement… they will go back to… the nuclear project”
And this is exactly what happened, with Iran increasing its enrichment. The Israeli government loves talking about how much it wants peace. But when the US had a deal with Iran, the Israelis and their acolytes in America were the biggest pushers for it to be done away with. And since the Americans canceled the Iran Deal, why should the Iranians trust American diplomacy, especially now after the Israelis attacked Iran right before a diplomatic meeting which was scheduled to happen in Oman? The pushing for war against Iran is the same type of strategy that the Israel lobby was doing when Iraq was on its crosshairs. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told the press: “The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.” Saddam’s agreement to be inspected was to the freight of the Israelis who were demanding war. Marc Perelman wrote in September of 2002: “Saddam Hussein’s surprise acceptance of ‘unconditional’ United Nations weapons inspections put Israel on the hot seat this week, forcing it into the open as the only nation actively supporting the Bush administration’s goal of Iraqi regime change.”
Benjamin Netanyahu was a major pusher for the Iraq War, writing an article for the Wall Street Journal titled, “The Case for Toppling Saddam,” in which he wrote: “Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,” writing further that “I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a preemptive strike against Saddam’s regime”. On February 17th of 2003, Haaretz published an article titled, “Enthusiastic IDF Awaits War in Iraq” which explained how Israel’s “military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.” Ten days later, James Bennet wrote an article in the New York Times titled, “Israel Says War on Iraq Would Benefit the Region.” America’s delay to go to war against Iraq caused worry in Israel, as the Jewish newspaper, Forward, published an article on March 7th of 2003 titled, “Jerusalem Frets as U.S. Battles Iraq War Delays”.
If I am blessed for blessing Israel, was all the chaos that came with the Iraq War, a blessing? If I am blessed for blessing Israel, was all the bloodshed and chaos that came as a result of removing Assad, a blessing? The Christian zionists got caught up in the heresy (and they still do) that when the Bible speaks of Israel, it means the literal modern state of Israel. And so they unanimously backed the Iraq War. They believed in the Neo-conservative propaganda which was flooding American society. The Neo-con figureheads pushing for the Iraq War were people like Elliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle. They were all zionists and they were all pushing for a reckless and destructive war. Even before 9/11, on January 26th of 1998, these figureheads signed on to a letter to President Clinton on behalf of their organization, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), calling for the US to topple Saddam Hussein.
And in February of the same year, these same Neo-cons signed onto another letter calling for regime change in Iraq. This second letter was written with the support of the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, an organization created in 1990 by Richard Perle, Democrat strategist Ann Lewis, and former Congressman Stephen J. Solarz. Also in 1998, these same Neo-cons exerted their efforts to get Congress to pass the Iraq Liberation Act which decreed that “it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
Getting this act passed was a huge victory for the Neo-cons because it legislated for $97 million to fund pro-regime change groups. The group they had in mind the most was the Iraqi National Congress headed by a professional thief and liar named Ahmed Chalabi, who was wanted by the Jordanian government for defrauding the Petra Bank. Chalabi became one of the main sources for the Neo-cons to prove that Saddam was a threat to the US. Chalabi was providing the Americans with false evidence about Iraq. This in fact was acknowledged by the CIA and the State Department who deemed Chalabi as both dishonest and unreliable (see Mearsheimer, Israel Lobby, ch. 8, pp. 250-252). Former CIA officer Bob Baer said: “The CIA doesn’t trust Chalabi because he has a long history of making arrangements with other countries… [and] not telling anyone about them.”
Even though Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, Jewish American Neo-con Paul Wolfowitz was incessantly harping on Iraq just days after 9/11. At an important meeting with Bush at Camp David on September 15th of 2001, Wolfowitz pushed Bush to attack Iraq before Afghanistan. Paul Wolfowitz was so adamant that Cheney had to tell him to “stop agitating for targeting Saddam.” One Republican lawmaker recounted how Wolfowitz “was like a parrot bringing [Iraq] up all the time. It was getting on the president’s nerves.”
The driving force behind the push for the Iraq War was a small gang of neoconservatives who wanted to use American power to alter very geopolitically important areas of the earth, like the Middle East. Of course, at the top of their agenda was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Their members included Kenneth Adelman, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, John Bolton, David Wurmser, Elliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, William Safire, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and James Woolsey (who was the head of the CIA from 1993 until 1995). All of these men had one thing in common — they were all pro-Israel. Woolsey was fixated on proving that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack. To do this, he sought to confirm an early report that Mohammed Atta (one of the 9/11 hijackers) had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague. The story was later confirmed to be a fabrication, but both Woolsey and Dick Cheney pushed it as actual evidence for their destructive cause. Douglas Feith is another hardcore pro-Israel advocate who co-authored, alongside David Wurmser and Richard Perle, the “Clean Break” report in June of 1996. The Clean Break memo was written for the Israeli think-tank called the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, for the purpose of guiding the policy of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The report had a focus on “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right.” The Clean Break report called for Israel to take steps to change the entire order of the Middle East. The plan told Netanyahu to work with Turkey to “destabilize” threats to Israel and bring a “balance of power” in the Middle East:
“Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, ‘comprehensive peace’ to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.”
The report also stressed that Israel needs to sever itself from American aid in order to become self-reliant:
“Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.”
The report goes on to say that Israel should work with Turkey in “containing” Syria, which meant going against the Assad regime:
“Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.”
The report speaks of a “natural axis” between Israel, Turkey and Iraq that could sever the Assad regime from the rest of the Arab world, and fragment Syria to the point where its borders would change:
“Damascus fears that the ‘natural axis’ with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria’s territorial integrity.”
This is exactly what Israel has been trying to do in Syria: it heavily contributed to the revolution to overthrow Assad, and after this, it has been working to keep Syria divided in order to keep it weak. Also, both Israel and Turkey are controlling Syria, which is what the Clean Break memo wanted. The very neoconservatives who wrote the “Clean Break” memo — Richard Perle, David Wurmsur, and Douglas Feith — would go on to influence foreign policy in the United States in favor of the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein. What these neocons were pushing for the benefit of Israel, they would push the United States to accomplish, and that was regime change in Iraq.
But what ended up happening as a result of the destruction of Saddam’s government was the rise of Iran, since the Americans had removed the biggest threat to Iran. As Time Magazine wrote in 2023, the Iraq War “ultimately benefited Iran’s aggressive and expansionist agenda by capturing much of the political and military institutions in Baghdad and Damascus. Despite its tremendous cost, the war weakened America’s geostrategic position and damaged our national credibility.”
As long as the Saddam regime was in power, Iran was directing its resources against Iraq. With Saddam gone, Iran could then use its resources to solidify its position as a regional power in the Middle East, and to go against the Sunni Arab peninsula and Israel. Israel thought it was a great a idea to remove Saddam, but now it is facing an Iran that is willing to bomb the Jewish state. And the world witnessed as Tel Aviv — and other parts of Israel — were torn apart by Iranian hypersonic missiles. It looked so bad for Israel, that the Israeli government was threatening jail time to anyone who would dare film the missiles hitting the Jewish land. It was so bad for Israel, that America had to do a symbolic strike on Iran’s nuclear sites (which did not destroy Iran’s nuclear program) to save Israel. Israel has spent decades fighting enemies that were militarily inferior to it. And then, when the moment came to face a regional power with serious weapons, Israel did not fight beyond twelve days. This is the tendency of Israel: great euphoria in the beginning, and then… defeat. Christ was nailed onto a cross to the cheers and scoffing of a Jewish mob, and then their temple was reduced to ruins in the midst of a million Jewish corpses. The Israeli reservist general, Yitzhak Brick, wrote after Israel did its surprise attack on Iran:
“I fear that what has happened to us many times will happen to us – great euphoria at the beginning of the journey from successes, and later on we reach the ground of reality.”
Brick wrote that Israel is not going to be able to destroy Iran’s nuclear project: “This is because there are sites located a thousand meters underground, and all that will be achieved will be a certain suspension, but not a complete elimination of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.”
The reservist major general, Amos Gilad, warned against Israel attacking Iran, saying that the end result will be Israel’s defeat:
“Eventually, Iran will say, Israel attacked us, so we have no choice but to develop nuclear weapons. Our reward will be our defeat.”
The fact that Iran’s missiles were able to bypass Israel’s infamous Iron Dome and America’s interceptors marks the beginning of the end of the decades long belief of America’s and Israel’s military superiority in the Middle East. Iran exposed Israel’s vulnerability and has proved that indeed Israel can be defeated.
But this rise of Iranian power was enabled by the very policy that was being pushed by Israel. The pro-Israel lobby thought that it was winning by getting the United States to overthrow Saddam, but all it did was unleash what is now a serious existential threat to Israel. And the thing is, almost nobody wants to get into the trenches to save Israel. The modern day state of Israel is more hated now than it ever has been since the Roman Empire crushed them in the Roman-Judean War. Who wants to fight for Israel besides a bunch of unhinged evangelical judiaizers who read the Scriptures and don’t realize how much blood they have on their hand? Israel will eventually be destroyed, and the world will not pity the harlot city Jerusalem, Sodom and Egypt where also our Lord was crucified (Revelation 11:8).
Now, lets talk about how the Israel lobby pushed for the overthrowing of the Assad regime, an objective which has led to the destabilization and devastation of Syria. After the toppling of Saddam Hussein in April of 2003, there was much talk about how Assad was going to be next. Syria was not an existential threat to Israel. In the early 2000s, Syria’s defense budget was one-fifth of that of Israel’s. In 1982, Israel’s military easily routed Syrian forces in Lebanon. Syria was no match to Israel, which is why Assad avoided provoking Israel. Syria, under Assad, had no nuclear weapons program. Syria did have a large stockpile of ballistic missiles which could have been used to launch chemical weapons. But the Israelis never seriously worried about Syria under Assad, because is has a much more massive arsenal, including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons which would have destroyed Syria easily.
Syria was neither a threat to the United States, and gave no reason to the Americans to launch a war against it. In fact, after the 9/11 attack, Syria provided the US government with vital intelligence about Al-Qaeda. Assad’s goal was to have better relations with the United States as part of his mission to reform the image of Syria by adapting it to the Western world. Flynt Leverett, a former Bush administration official and one of the topmost experts on Syria, wrote that “Bashar has repeatedly stated his interest in a better relationship with the United States. Such interest is fully in keeping with [Assad’s] father Hafez and in line with any realistic assessment of Syria’s strategic needs.” Leverett also noted that relations with the United States are “critical to his [Assad’s] long-term ambitions for internal reform.” Seymour Hersh visited Assad at his office in Damascus in 2003, and found him eager to talk because “he wanted to change his image, and the image of his country.” Its not as if Syria was unwilling to reason with Israel either. Syria had been trying to make peace with Israel in the early 1990s. They actually got close to a deal in 2000, but Prime Minister Ehud Barack became very hesitant because the Israeli people did not want their government to give up the Golan Heights to Syria. Dennis Ross, Clinton’s chief Middle East negotiator, later stated: “If not for Barak’s cold feet, there might have been a deal in January 2000.”
The Israelis were bent on toppling the Syrian government. In the spring of 2002, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) pushed for the US government to designate Syria as part of the “axis of evil”. Congressman Eliot Engel, proposed the “Syria Accountability Act” in Congress. This “act” would have imposed sanctions on Syria if it did not withdraw from Lebanon, stop supporting Hezbollah and give up its “weapons of mass destruction.” But Bush opposed the Syria Accountability Act in the spring of 2002, in fear that the US would lose Syria’s intelligence on al-Qaeda.
In early December of 2003, Assad asked the Israelis to resume peace talks, but he only received the silence of Ariel Sharon. The veteran military correspondent, Ze’ev Schiff, wrote in Haaretz that “the most astonishing thing about the Syrian president’s proposal to resume talks with Israel is the response of official Israel … Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has remained silent. Not a word has been heard from him … In the past we always hoped for such proposals.”
In the middle of December in 2006, Bashar al-Assad told the Italian newspaper, La Repubblica: “Talk to Syria, and like many Israelis are saying, ‘even if you think its a bluff you have nothing to lose.’”
Between September 2004 and July 2006, Syrian and Israeli officials secretly met in Europe with the goal of coming up with a peace deal between their countries. The two sides eventually reached an agreement: Israel would return to the June 4th, 1967 border between the two countries, and in return Syria would stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and even “distance itself from Iran.” Syria then proposed that the talks shift from an “academic level” to an “official level,” and the Olmert government refused.
Right after the Americans took over Baghdad in the middle of April 2003, the Israeli government began pushing the United States to topple the Syrian government. In May of 2003, Sharon’s national security advisor, Ephraim Halevy, came to Washington and pushed US officials to take what the reporter Ori Nir described as “decisive action” against Syria. Israel commenced a misinformation campaign to try to get the US to war against Syria, accusing Assad of holding Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction” (which were nonexistent). Itamar Rabinovich, the former Israeli ambassador to the United States, implied that Assad had a connection to 9/11, saying that he “wondered… whether, given the quality of their sources, the Syrians had had advance information about the September 11th plot — and failed to warn the United States.” Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the Iraq War, exclaimed that “there has got to be regime change in Syria”. Richard Perle, one of the authors of the “Clean Break” memo which called for the overthrow of Saddam, told a journalist that “we could deliver a short message, a two-worded message [to other hostile regimes in the Middle East]: ‘You’re next.’” The Defense Policy Board, led by Eliot Cohen, Kenneth Adelman, and James Woolsey, also called for the US to go against the Syrian government. Woolsey went so far as to declare that the United States was engaged in “World War IV” against Iraq, Iran and Syria.
The conspirators for war continued on with their spreading of chaos for the glory of empire. One month before the Iraq War, John Bolton — the Assistant Secretary of State — told leaders of the Israeli government that after Saddam Hassan gets toppled, Syria will be next on the list. Reportedly, Bolton was preparing to tell Congress that Syria’s “weapons of mass destruction” had a reached a level where they were a severe threat to the stability of the Middle East (the only thing that has proved to be a threat to Middle East stability is the United States). But the CIA objected to Bolton’s assertions and said that he was indeed inflating the whole situation. It didn’t matter. The warmongering had to continue. In September of 2003, John Bolton stood before Congress and referred to Syria as a growing threat to America’s interests in the Middle East. How was it a threat to the US? It was a threat to Israel’s interests, and so the zionists kept blowing the horn of war.
We all know the rest of the story. Assad was overthrown in December of 2024 and now who is in Syria? Israel is in the south and Turkey is dominating the rest of Syria. Is this not what was pushed for in the “Clean Break” report in 1996? It reads:
“Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.”
Well, Israel and Turkey are both in Syria. But, they are not friends and are on the verge of clashing over who is going to control Syria. Turkey wants to control the Syrian air bases, but Israel does not desire this and even bombed the T4 air base in the Homs region to discourage the Turks from taking it. Turkey currently has the largest army in the Near East; it certainly has a navy larger than that of Israel’s, and it is the second largest military force in NATO. And now, it is smack right next to Israel in Syria. Hence, the Israeli government’s Nagel Committee (which was created to make estimations for Israel’s defense) stated in January that “The threat from Syria could evolve into something even more dangerous than the Iranian threat … Iran has long been our greatest threat, but new forces are entering the arena, and we must be prepared for the unexpected.”
In other words, Israel knows that Turkey is more dangerous than Iran. But the world watched Iran attack Israel, watched Iran’s missiles bypass both Israel’s Iron Dome and America’s interceptors and hit Israel itself. If Turkey is more dangerous than Iran, and now you have both Iran and Turkey locking in on Israel, Israel is doomed. But what unleashed this disaster for Israel? It was the zionist lobby itself. It pushed for the overthrow of Saddam, and Israel had to face Iran as a result. The zionist lobby pushed for Assad to be overthrown, and now Israel is facing a rising Turkey which has filled the power vacuum created by the US and Israel.
After Assad was overthrown, Netanyahu made a victory speech, saying that Mr. al-Assad’s collapse “is the direct result of our forceful action against Hezbollah and Iran, Assad’s main supporters”. This was also the result of Israel backing Syrian rebels. Foreign Policy reported how “Israel began arming rebel groups aligned with the Free Syrian Army in 2013, including factions in Quneitra, Daraa, and the southern areas of the Damascus countryside. The arms transferred at the time were mostly U.S.-manufactured M16 assault rifles.” It also reads that “Israel went from supporting hundreds of fighters to reaching groups comprising thousands of rebels.” So Israel backed the Syrian revolution and proudly took credit for the overthrow of Assad.
Now, Israel is facing Turkey. It boasted of its actions, but is only paving the path towards its own destruction. After Assad was toppled and Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, was assassinated, Israel was in a state of ecstasy, thinking that they have crushed Iran’s allies and thus have crippled Iran. But the world watched as Iran bypassed both Israel’s Iron Dome and America’s interceptors and struck Israel. Iran’s rise was due to Saddam’s overthrow, which was pushed for by the pro-Israel lobby. And now, Turkey is facing Israel. This was due to Assad’s overthrow, and this was pushed for by the pro-Israel lobby in the US. Around a thousand Israeli soldiers have been killed in Gaza since the beginning of the slaughter in 2023, and this is against a small paramilitary group called Hamas. How do you think Israel will do against the second most armed country in NATO — Turkey? Israel will be devastated. On September 21 of 2025, the Israeli reservist general, Yetzhak Brik, wrote:
“This policy of Turkey stems from its desire to increase its regional influence and secure its security interests, while filling the void left after the fall of the Assad regime, and it poses a risk to Israel that is tens of times greater than the Iranian threat.”
Turkey sees Syria as a part of its sphere of influence, but Israel is trying to fragment Syria into various cantons and thus prevent Turkey from controlling Syria. What will eventually happen? What happened when NATO kept being active within Ukraine which Russia has always seen as part of its sphere of influence? Russia invaded. Eventually there will be a clash between Turkey and Israel and it will devastate the Jewish state. General Brik also wrote that the “Turkish army is the second largest in NATO, and it is constantly strengthening. While the Israeli Air Force has a significant technological advantage, especially with stealth aircraft like the F-35, the Turkish army enjoys an advantage in manpower and a large naval force. It is also developing its own ballistic missiles with increasing range, which will be aimed at Israel”.
But Israel still boasts in its strength, and does not care to see how its past objectives — the overthrow of Saddam and Assad — is leading to its demise. We are reminded of the story of the war between David and his son, Absalom. David’s counselor Ahithophel deserted David and became an advisor to Absalom. He advised Absalom to assassinate David as opposed to having a major war with his father, because David’s army was made up of Philistines who were men of war, and Ahithophel knew that Israel would lose in a war against such warriors. But, David sent his own advisor, Hushai, to approach Absalom and pretend to be on his side. Hushai told Absalom that Ahithophel’s plan would not work and that it would be better to deploy all of Israel’s army to overwhelm David’s smaller Philistine army. Absalom, thinking himself wise, took Hushai’s advise and not Ahithophel’s. Ahithophel, finding out that Absalom rejected his advise, and knowing full well that Absalom was going to lose, hanged himself (2 Samuel 17:23). Absalom was defeated, and he was found suspended from a tree before being thrust through. Ahitophel and Absalom thought they were clever, but both ended up hanging to their deaths. Judas thought he was smart when he betrayed Christ for wealth, and he destroyed himself. The Israel lobby thought it was clever to take out Saddam and Assad, but their actions are only leading Israel to its own demise.