AMERICA IS A BANANA REPUBLIC CONTROLLED BY ISRAEL AND THE JUDAISTS.
EVERYTHING IS FOR THE JUDAISTS AND ISRAEL.

Thanks for the interesting article, Sir. You make some interesting points.

But America’s domestic and international policy always makes perfect sense if you remember that:

a. It is controlled by the Judaists, many of whom are Israeli dual citizens, who own and operate all 3 branches of our govt. and use the US govt. to carry out the Judaists agenda, at the expense of the American public’s interest;
b. The Jewish agenda is:

i. Support Israel, make it supreme in the Middle East and destroy all opposition to it in the Middle East and the world;

ii. Destroy the white race, or at least its majority status and cohesiveness (due to their mythical belief that the are a special race, called “Jews”, and whites tried to exterminate them) by promoting massive 3rd world immigration, liberalism, multi-culturalism, feminism, black mania, malcegenation (by showing white woman with black man on TV in ads, shows, movies) and looting them financially. The Jewish controlled media attacks anybody who opposes their own destruction by using propaganda tactics such as name calling (calling them anti-semite, racist, neo-nazi, misogynist, hater), etc. In other words, if you love yourself or your own country, you are a “hater”. What a scam!

The gullible left always thinks that US is doing this or that because of oil. They thought that the Iraq war and all the Middle East conflict is because of oil. Nonsense. The US got no monetary benefit out of Iraq—only a trillion dollar expense, several thousand US dead soldiers. Iraq war was for Israel and Israel only, as Saddam was sending paying suicide bombers to bomb buses in Tel Aviv and sending Scuds to Gaza. These 2 types of attacks against Israel have not happened since Saddam was removed, saving a few hundred Israelis at the expense of a trillion dollars–of the goyim, who are nothing in Jewish eyes.

So its all for Israel. The attacks against Russia are for Israel too, because Russia supports Syria/Iran who are against Israel, so they are going for the jugular. Their “final solution” is to destroy Russia and make the world “safe” for Israel and the Judaists—that is under the total control. They may have decided to try the approach you mention, but the end goal is the same–for Israel.

No.

The neocons are trying to detach Syria’s allies.

If it succeeds then once they’ve destroyed Syria Iran will go back on the axis of evil list.

Great article!

Iran would have to be pretty stupid to fall for Washington here. How can Iran feel secure with any partnership with the U.S. when Isreal is constantly pushing to bomb them.

You can almost hear the conversation in some smoke filled room: “We will use Iran to help us knock out Russia, once Russia is taken care of we can then turn on Iran and bomb them back to the Stone Age.”

Meanwhile Iran would be pretty stupid to not play along. Why not add the infrustruture and the oil revenues and make Europe even more dependent on the welfare of Iran. Meanwhile it is the U.S. And Isreal that is facing the prospects of being turned against each other here.

If only Isreal was not part of the equation, the U.S. gambit might have worked.

What a tendentious pant load. Look, with US natural gas now selling in the dog days of summer at under $3/million btus and the US oil and gas industry on the ropes with oil under $50 only a moron would believe Whitney’s BS.

The last thing Obama/Democrats want is a collapse of the shale gas industry in Ohio/Pennsylvania heading into the 2016 elections. Oil and gas pricing is set at the margins. To hit Russia ( and boost North American oil and gas prices) Iran isn’t relevant. Expediting US LNG exports from Cove Point, Md and Sabine Pass would do the trick even if Australia was unable to ship a single LNG tanker load to Europe. Natural gas is not in short supply and, given the collapse in world trade, neither is oil. Iran only makes the oil situation more fragile. It has no way any time soon to impact European gas supplies.

There is no gas pipeline from the Persian Gulf into Europe just as there is no gas pipeline from Russia into China. These are all pipeline dreams of idiots.

@strategically isolate Russia and China

One would perpetually wonder what to “isolate Russia and China” means? Is it anything else that the delusion that really Russia or China (and the more Russia and China) need the West to survive? That they can’t live without Coca-Cola and French cheese? That they really love so much the Westerners that they would die of longing for them? Say cheese!

It is very instructive to see how things have been viewed from the Chinese perspective 200 years ago:
As James Bradley explains in “The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire and War”, China sold massive volumes of tea and silk to Western nations, but it refused to buy much in return. “We possess all things,” one of its Manchu emperors told Britain’s King George III in 1793. “I set no value on objects strange and ingenious, and have no use for your country’s manufactures.”

Germany dominates Eastern, Central, and Southern Europe and, as a US puppet, has been conspiring with the United States to destroy Russia as a prelude to attacking China with “soft” and perhaps “hard” power. However, in the gas vector (replacing Russian gas with Iranian gas), Germany first sought to ensure that its own gas supplies from Russia were secure. North Stream has just started increasing its gas capacity 3-fold while Germany orchestrates freezing South Stream and Turkish Stream as alternative sources of Russian gas for Eastern, Central, and Southern Europe.

Germany, how dare you! … unless you want to replace Ukraine and become the single conduit for transporting Russian gas to Europe. The rest of Europe will have to beg Germany for gas supplies, and Russia will have to beg Germany to continue those supplies. This will also give Germany an upper hand in dealing with the naive and clumsy Americans. Yes, we all know, Germany is really the country that won WWII and now dominates the European continent. It just took a little time for Germany to make that clear.

But that is not what is going to happen. The war for gas may lead to the breakup of the European Union more quickly than anything Greece does as European countries wake up and push back against German hegemony.

I can’t accept that whomever is controlling the USA’s chaotic foreign policy is sufficiently nuanced to have this as a driving strategy – I suspect it comes as a late bonus. The rapprochement with Iran was a balancing act with multiple factors arguing in favour and only one against:

Positive
(1) An alliance against IS
(2) Opening of trade and the benefits to the US economy
(3) Easing of world oil prices (yes with the benefits alluded to in the article)
(4) Obama’s legacy
(5) Relief of a major international stress point
(6) Enhanced intelligence overview

Negative
Incurring Israel’s great displeasure and the consequent political fallout

I have not included the limitations imposed on Iran’s nuclear capability on the positive side because they have always been inconsequential.

This reminds me of the young socialist who’s suddenly got faith and the good book and the great idea that explains everything. One hopes he’ll grow up and get a job in the real world which will give him a feel for complexity and uncertainty.

As has already been pointed out you would have to do better than Mike Whitney to prove the case that bringing down the price of oil and gas was part of US policy. It is not that a knowledgeable person might not make a nuanced case about the probabilities. After all promoting economic growth, not least in India and China, would be on the plus side. Hurting Venezuela would hardly rate compared with keeping Russia under economic pressure but both could be given some weight.

Reducing European dependence on Russian hydrocarbon supplies is an obvious policy goal, but much more European than American.

There’s no explanation given for the supposed transition Obama has made to rejecting the prudent views he once evidenced about American imperial outreach. Nor is it explained how Whitney’s excitable oversimplification deals with Russia and China’s part in achieving agreement or what Obama might have done if they had given him a deadline after which they would no longer support sanctions. And yes there’s lots of good business to be done with Iran as an independent benefit without reference to China or India. It could even be possible that defeating Daesh which beheads Americans becomes easier if the Iranians have been given their money back. I’m with the commenter who so rudely called Whitney’s emission BS. Yep total crap with just occasional nudges of the truth like a fairground fortune teller.

An informative article, which were it painted with somewhat lighter shades of belligerence, in the multilateral relationships between the ADB, the proposed AIIB (which is undergoing ratification), the IMF and the WB would have commanded higher ratings.

Europe and London which are both signatories to the Articles of Agreement of the AIIB and potentially Ratifiers as well (and one expects the US, Japan and Australia to follow, as the paid in subscriptions become clearer), will shepherd in a new era of global economic co-operation.

Asia and Asia Minor require a $10 trillion in infra-structure spending over the next decade or so, and the expectation is – as you correctly surmise – an increasing role for Iran to supply Europe with its O&G needs. Furthermore this is likely to be folded in with a pipeline via Athens, accessing the Leviathan and Tamar gas assets of Israel. Its a prospect, worthy of much felicitation.

To answer the question asked in the headline: “No. Nyet. Nein. Bu’. ”

The word “aimed” implies rational thought, premeditation, a plan, and that, folks, is and has been missing from this admin for going on about 8 years now. From Victoria Nuland, to John Kerry, to General “Hoser” Breedlove this admin has offered nothing but wall-to-wall loser loose cannons. I appreciate the effort, Mike, but your piece was about 1, 999 words too long. Realizing that your pay scale may be linked to the number of words in the piece, I salute you, everybody has got to make a living; however, there is the drawback, in that using the number of words, and without crayons mind you, gives a bit of your credibility to this entire misadventure.

Remember, folks, this admin (and thus you) see this as an “honest” effort to defuse the heightened tension of affairs in the mideast, and thus we are made to see this affair as Iran foot-dragging and squalling like a red headed step child. The Iranians, however, see this affair as starting in 1952 with the removal of Mossaddegh and the American/British installation of the Shah, the CIA, and SAVAK. I cannot help but see Obama, Kerry (or Hillary) looking at these Iranian negotiators and exclaiming, “Why don’t you trust us!?!”

This White House has never known what it was doing or even what was done before they got there, and the current level of our depth in the septic tank of current affairs kind of demonstrates this. If you were able to ask the team that negotiated this deal why they settled upon this particular agreement the answers would run the gamut from “Uh, ’cause”, to “Well, somebody told me to.”, to even “Iran?”

“Expediting US LNG exports from Cove Point, Md and Sabine Pass would do the trick even if Australia was unable to ship a single LNG tanker load to Europe. ”

You obviously have no concept of the cost involved.

I think the reasons for this terrible deal are much simpler. Obama wants to give Israel the finger and lower gas prices going into the presidential election. These are the only guaranteed outcomes and both have been quickly accomplished.

You can disagree with the guy and give your own alternative opinion (which are all just theories anyway) without the need to climb on the bandwagon and be so impolite.

Over the years Mike Whitney has presented a lot of insightful articles which deserve our respect.

This makes a lot of sense to me as the definitive geopolitical metanarrative of the Iran negotiations. Those commenters poo-pooing this idea need to get mugged by reality, to coin a phrase: the war party is in charge in Washington and enemy number one is Russia.

Before any more poo-pooing, feel free to avail yourselves of the opportunity to read the links to the articles that Mike has cited.

I was impolite and I’m sorry that I have offended you but I don’t think MW having done good work in the past is any excuse for serving up to readers florid demagogic stuff with brain switched down and assertive volume nob turned up.

I called Mr Margolis on making up a quote by Stalin to Churchill because it was the sort of lazy journalism that crops up from time to time from people who have “presented a lot of insightful articles” in the past and it is not in our interests as readers (paying these days with time rather than money) to let them get away with a rueful look of mild reproof

As it happens you have yourself made a small false step in your criticism of me. What I said was, according to you, only “theories”. Whether or not that could be regarded as a criticism it is not correct. I put arguments made up of logic and facts not theories which were hypotheses to be tested. If my facts were wrong they could be contradicted, preferably with evidence. If the logic was wrong or the arguments were expressed in too absolute terms that left me open to cogent and persuasive counter-argument.

I would concede that theory could be involved if I said that it was my hypothesis or theory that the Obama administration didn’t really care a damn about Russia. One could reasonably pose that as a hypothesis or theory which, if true, could explain much. In turn it could be tested against propositions which ought to be true or false according to the truth or falsity of the theory or hypothesis. But the reality is that it was Mr Whitney who was closer to reliance on the theoretical. He asserted the primacy of the motive of damaging Russia by bringing or keeping down the price of oil and gas. I sought to apply tests of its credibility by reference to such undeniable facts as the importance for Europe of reducing its dependence on Russian hydrocarbons, the damage to fracking in America but benefit to the Indian economy if oil prices were low and the fact that Russia and China had means of preventing the deal being made etc.

This is a solid piece but fundamentally flawed because it leaves out the J-factor.

This crisis is less about the US war on Russia than a Jewish War on Russia.

Russia is no threat to the US. If Russia sells natural resources to Europe and Europe sells its products to Russia, both benefit. As Russia’s industry and high-tech are way behind that of US and EU, Russia poses no threat to US economic domination. And even if Russia and EU grow closer, it won’t affect the US in economic terms. Russia won’t be competing with Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Ford, Intel, Dell, and etc anytime soon, if ever.

Also, most Americans are decent and generous people. Most Americans are not bothered by the rise of Russia or with Russia doing well or with Russia economically integrating with Europe.
If many Americans are now hostile to Russia, it is because they get the news from the Jewish-dominated Media.

Why do Jews hate Russia? Because of Putin’s political control over the oligarchs, because of Putin’s partial backing of some of Israel’s rivals, and because of what Putin-ism stands for culturally.

Economically, Russia is dominated by oligarchs(many of whom are Jewish), but Putin and his NSA allies have control over the state. Russia depends on oligarchic power but there is a power greater than that of oligarchic power in Russia. It’s like Singapore with Lee, China with the CCP, South Korea under Park, Spain under Franco, and etc.
All those nations had very rich people, BUT the power of money was ultimately under the thumb of a man or men of political/national vision. The rulers of those nations were not primarily motivated by money and privilege but by nationalism, heritage, and deep love for the motherland/fatherland/whachamacallit.

We prefer liberal democracy, but one problem with democracy is the rich oligarchic class comes to dominate everything. US is sort of like that. Liberal democracy is less about rule by people than rule by oligarchs who buy the politicians.

Russia is oligarchic but the oligarchs are under the thumb of Putin, a man of political and national vision.
US is oligarchic, and its politicians are under the thumb of oligarchs who have no national vision and will do ANYTHING for a buck.

Thank you. Mike Whitney is indeed a national treasure.

IMO, the whole matter is rather simple. The sanctions were / are not going to hold because everyone involved is seeing their economies crashing because of Washington’s madness.

The US must end the sanctions before they are abandoned by the others, namely Germany.

Continued US intransigence means shooting ourself in the foot while Germany, Russia, China, etc., are reaping the benefits of the potentially huge Iranian market. Iran has goods and have plenty to trade/sell in order to buy them. Others have had about enough of this sanctions nonsense.

All this grand scheming of US Imperialism is for armchair six-pack warriors and long gone. We can’t manage our country, let alone the rest of the world. Even Obama can see that.

It’s the economy, stupid.

Thanks.

So what have you to say about Donald Trump’s pedigree and qualifications in the context of your worldview?

And seriously, that rant about Blacks, have you actually looked at numbers pertaining to Blacks impregnating White women, thereby overwhelming the White race? (I am simply asking the question, but I suspect its negligible).

“The US must end the sanctions before they are abandoned by the others, namely Germany. ”

I don’t believe Germany would have the guts to do this alone at the present time – they have gone along with the US position on almost everything – including the Ukraine and Israel’s massacre in Gaza.

However as Iran made significant concessions during the Geneva talks, its position increasingly reasonable to everyone, the US administration realized that it could not keep adding new demands to concessions already agreed upon. And, because both Russia and China had been alienated of late, their support could not longer be assured. In the end I think the US was forced either to capitulate or to appear ridiculous and isolated – its power to force issues played out: most especially with the Russians.

“I don’t believe Germany would have the guts to do this alone at the present time – they have gone along with the US position on almost everything – including the Ukraine and Israel’s massacre in Gaza.”

Certainly true, but there are limits and with a Greek default/partial default inevitable Germany knows it is going to be left holding the biggest part of that debt. Germany needs to grow their economy quickly.

Germans are becoming increasingly restless with Merkel’s regime, who against the German constitution has ‘lent’ billions to Greece, Germans are tired of the kowtowing to US/Israel, polls have shown this. Like I said, there are limits.

Whether Germany goes it alone is not certain, but there are certainly others in the EU fed up with Washington’s mandated sanctions as they see their economies in decline. The EU is one big welfare scheme which can only be paid for it when it’s economies grow, most are not. Sanctions are killing them …. and us.

There are new economic systems being built which exclude the US, we either wake up or others are jumping ship.

Agreed, one cannot reasonably expect the Russians & Chinese to continue sanctions against Iran when they are continually demonized and sanctioned themselves. The dance must end and Obama, even Obama has figured that out.

Thanks.

I surely hope you’re right about German public opinion but there, as in the US, the people they vote for get picked for them and carefully screened and vetted and castrated (with the possible exception of Angela).

Mike Whitney makes his point that the US eventually agreed to the deal because it was bad for Russia – but as I said, I think the US agreed because it had little choice. Yet Mike’s argument will be a good one to use when actually selling the deal to Congress.

Thanks too.

Fascinating. Coherent though that doesn’t make it all right. Previously Koko had been inclined to side with my Sunday school teacher who thought your language was too crude for you to be acceptable at afternoon tea but now Koko has been told to put both sword and list away.

Still. Questions. Jewish dominated media? Please explain to me where you think Rupert Murdoch and his media empire fit in. And, fair warning: this is, in part, a general sussing out question to see if you make up facts or pretend to knowledge you don’t have because I have known many members of the Murdoch family for a long time. (And none of Rupert’s wives have been Jewish).

Another question is how you relate homosexuals and their causes, and the timing of them over the last 65 years, to anything Jews, or some Jews, may want. I am by the way against gay “marriage” without much emotion attached to my reasons. (a) I think it is insensitive of gays to try and appropriate a term and institution which is precious to a lot of decent people who adhere to traditional religions; (b) I think there is a large element of money motive in it – getting access for example to pension rights designed to look after stay at home wives in another era; and (c) I think government should get out of the marriage business while retaining the welfare of children as paramount and also some protection for people who might be exploited because sexual attraction or other source of relative weakness has made them vulnerable. So I am just looking for a secular answer. (I recall Greg Cochran quoting some Jew of about 2000 years ago to the effect of “we may not be as smart but at least we are not a lot of pooftahs like them” to which, when I quoted that to an urbane Reform rabbi he said, wryly “I wish!”).

Then there is the question of who qualify as Jews for you explanatory world view given the huge rate of marrying out in the US as there was also in Germany before Hitler.

That must complicate the tribals-sticking-together story which you seem to support.

And BTW what part do you think Maslow’s hierarchy of needs may play in your story of Jewish influence? I mean principally the idea that, when you are very rich and successful it is natural to look around for some higher order outlet for one’energy and imagination.

Further to questions about “the Jews” will to power and their means, their precise objectives and their success I note that on a rational view of relations with America many countries might have little interest in the Middle East or the Ukraine but huge interest in the TPP being negotiated almost in secret because it has almost nothing to do with free trade (for better or worse: the destruction of Australia’s cheap clothing and motor industries has been long overdue – not the US situation) and a lot to do with giving Disney et al, and the pharmaceutical corporations, super profits by enforcing excessive IP monopolies. Where is the Jewish influence in that qua Jewish rather than Adam Smith’s everyday friendly monopolisers? Of course smart people buy up patents and, particularly, copyrights as investments which they sometimes seek to exploit by abuse of the justice system. But the first time I came across such opportunist buying up of copyrights was at a lunch given for me at a very old merchant bank in London without a Jew in sight. In fact all 7 other people present were Old Etonians and it was a great grandson of the founder, with no degree but a fine sporting career behind him, who told me his niche was buying up copyrights!

The problem with your approach is that you didn’t do the math.
Just take the volume of NG needed by Europe and divide it by the volume of NG a LNG tanker can transport safely and you will reach to the conclusion that the US LNG export to Europe is a dream. Building a pipeline through the Atlantic Ocean would be far more viable, but still within science fiction domain.

TTP is facing one big trouble from Europeans and Malayasian over the US attempts to pimp for the Israel. Products from West Bank and East Jerusalem should be labelled the way anytpduct from an occupied cpuntry should be. US doesn’t want this and has inserted in TTP that for the success full implementation of TTP ,the parties have to accept this non related dictat .
Those countries ,no wonder ,think that US is also .an occupied country

Rupert Murdoch isn’t Jewish and so are not e B Clinton,G Bush jr . Neither was Truman or L Johnson.
Neither are these 47 senators who took AIPAC word for Iran over US intelligence(http://www.lobelog.com/47-senators-take-aipacs-word-over-u-s-intel-community/)

BTW before Rupert bought WSJ ,the paper was more interested in what good for US and not what god for Israel.
1997 WSJ talks of the necessity of negotiations,trade,and talks between Iran and US despite having same concerns even back then on nuke,terrorism,revolution,human rights.

Now it even defends the spying by Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman ( ” First They Came for the Jews’ Dorothy Rabinowitz in WSJ )

Rupert Murdoch gets Jersualem Award,gets to talk to Blair on a regular basis before Iraq war and brags that he pushed for war ,laments he couldn’t entirely shape the official Blair policy. And he offers a ready ,prepared smooth conduit for the arch Islamophobes .

Great response!!!

But Russia is part of the deal, right? It is a deal whose signatories are the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, China, and the E.U. Although it is true that the Russian flag is unattended in this group photo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#/media/File:Iran_Talks_Vienna_14_July_2015_%2819067069963%29.jpg), Russia has been an enthusiastic supporter of the deal and again, as I said, a co-signatory.

“Sasson” for “Sassoon”; now “TTP” for “TPP”: let me guess: you are ambidextrous as well as mildly dyslexic?

On substance I think you may be confusing the secretuve Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations with the no-doubt-equally-secretive negotiations for an sgreement centred on Europe. It would be the latter that involved Israel I guess and Malaysia would not be involved.

Just speculating further on what seems to be a pro-Israeli Murdoch stance… Perhaps it is a personality matter shaped by Scottish ancestry which included a grandfather who was Moderator of the Presbyterian church and a father who wrote vigorous criticisms of the British (English) WW1 generals. He has been both decisive and a risk taker and no doubt admires that in Israel as well as finding those qualities in Jews who work for him profitable. He would have been brought up on the greatness of John Monash who became Australia’s greatest general from a background of his parents being Prussian Jews who emigrated.

The Russians have been involved in this the whole time…don’t you think they would have raised opposition to the deal at some point if it was all an obvious ploy to sabotage them?

“Rupert’s father, Sir Keith, founded the dynasty during World War I as a dirty-tricks minion for “Billy” Hughes, probably Australia’s nastiest prime minister. His cover myth as a heroic war reporter has been so thoroughly dismantled that now it impresses none but family retainers.

At Versailles, Keith was Billy’s ever-present aide in striving to make the Peace Conference into a vicious cock-up, rich in racist and imperialist content. Curiously, the pair would have had zero leverage but for the failure of a plot of Keith’s, which sought in 1918 to remove Australia’s battlefield commander on the Western Front, John Monash, for being an unheroic Jew.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/07/18/a-real-history-of-rupert-murdoch-2/

Just go and read . Find out for yourself . Its in the http://www.lobelog.com

Thanks for the lobelog.com link but …. what specifically are you responding to that I have written and which of the many links or articles on that site are you recommending for present purposes?

I take it you have quoted Counterpunch accurately and I am aware of some such allegations as you quote. I knew old people who had known Billy Hughes and obviously regarded him with ambivalence as he was apparently an entertaining old rogue. A cut rate Lloyd George perhaps.

From memory there are some problems with your version. One is that I am completely unaware of any stories of Keith Murdoch having been a heroic war reporter. So nothing to debunk as far as I know. Another is that Hugheshi became PM on 27 October 1915 just as the British and I suppose French forces were preparing to pull out of Gallipoli. It was Murdoch’s manoeuvrings to get adverse reports on the British commanders at Gallipoli months earlier past censorship which made his name bigtime and that was well before Hughes became PM. No doubt Hughes was impressed by all that and started a relationship which was usefully symbiotic. I didn’t remember anything about Murdoch and Monash at the time when, according to his memoirs, Lloyd George was hoping to replace Haig with Monash in 1919! A distinguished old man of that generation that I got to know well who was a friend and great admirer of Monash though also mildly anti-Semitic in the late Victorian to 1930s style disapproved of Keith Murdoch and, I think, Billy Hughes. He didn’t think much of journalists or politicians except a few well known to him who hadn’t let down his standards – on which they all disappointed him in the end I think. Anyway KM is OK by me: he sacked a Commie relative of mine!
So, back to the start. We have no reason to think that Rupert is in anyone’s control or undue influence. Some would say that was a pity, but not even his mother could stop him publishing the page 3 girls or ramping up the News of tge Screws for profit.

Wow!

f’n amazing

you said it brother!

kudos

The Netanyahu block in Israel would certainly agree with you.
One can easily understand the bitterness of those who risked their lives for the better future of Jews in Israel but instead “accomplished” Bibi and Avigdor Lieberman. Adelson’s wealth and obscene intrigues in the US only add insult to the injury:
“Affronting the US president, his administration and his party, Netanyahu is gambling with our future. Which brings us to the emperor of the gambling world, the king of Las Vegas, the prince of Macao: Sheldon Adelson.
Adelson does not hide his support for Netanyahu the man, the family and the party. He spends huge sums of money on a Hebrew daily newspaper that is distributed gratis to Israelis, whether they want it or not. It is now the largest-circulation paper in Israel, and devoted personally to Netanyahu and his wife. It has no other purpose.
Yet Adelson seems to have no real interest in Israel. He does not live here, even part time. So what is he getting in return? Adelson has bought Netanyahu for one single purpose: to place a stooge of his in the White House. It is an aim that any other multi-billionaire cannot even dream of. … To succeed, he has to mobilize the immense power of the pro-Israel lobby over the US Congress and destroy President Obama. The first step in this long march is to defeat the Iranian deal. Netanyahu is just a cog in this grand design. But a very important cog.
Does this look like a caricature of Der Stürmer, the infamous anti-Semitic Nazi rag, or, worse, like a page out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the notorious anti-Semitic forgery? It is the classical anti-Semitic picture: the ugly finance-Jew striving for world mastery.
For an Israeli, there is something revolting in this picture. The Zionist vision was born out of the total rejection of this caricature. Jews would cease dealing in stocks and shares and money-lending. Jews would till the land with the sweat of their brow, do productive manual work, reject all kinds of parasitic speculations. This was considered such a high ideal that it justified even the displacement of the indigenous Arab population.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/24/sheldons-stooges-netanyahu-and-the-king-of-vegas/
There is a finger for the high-spirited Zionists that dreamed about the “high-ideal” Israel, and this finger is shown by the racist Israeli scum of the Soviet brand. Bibi just has been trying to catch up with them in order to be in power.

Pimping for Israel.
“So President Hollande, the Head of the Armed Forces and as such, controller of France’s nuclear capability, claims that Israël has no nuclear weapons. Yet everybody knows that Israël is one of the four nuclear powers who have not signed the non-proliferation treaty (with India, Pakistan and the Popular Democratic Republic of Korea….)
On the 6th December 2006, the US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, admitted during a Senate hearing that Israel possessed the atomic bomb. A few days later, the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, admitted as much with a throw-away phrase during an interview with the German channel, N24.”
The “bosses” are not able, still, to come to terms with the internet and with the wealth of information available online: http://www.voltairenet.org/article188266.html

“The reason Obama wants to ease sanctions on Iran is because he wants to push down oil prices while creating an alternate source of natural gas for Europe. In other words, the real objective here is to hurt Russia which is currently at the top of Washington’s Enemies List.”

Low energy prices are bad for energy-producing nations. Russia is one of them and Iran is another. Oil prices are roughly correlated with gas prices, because oil and gas often occur together. Easing sanctions on Iran would lower world oil prices somewhat (although I believe this has already been priced into the market), but gas prices would also be lowered. There should be some explanation of why Iran’s gaining an additional customer (Europe) would compensate for the decline in prices for Iranian oil and gas.

spot on…. you nailed it Tom

yep the only one out of the deal we are told is Israhell