Matthew Gould and the Plot to Attack Iran 440

This is Matthew Gould, second from right, British Ambassador to Israel, who was pictured speaking at a meeting of the Leeds Zionist Federation that was also the opening of the Leeds Hasbarah Centre. The Leeds Zionist Federation is part of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, motto “Speaking Up for Israel.” A collection was made at the meeting to send packages to members of the Israeli Defence Force.

On 29 May 2011 The Jerusalem Post reported: “British Ambassador Matthew Gould declared his commitment to Israel and the principles of Zionism on Thursday”.

Remember this background, it is unusual behaviour for a diplomat, and it is important.

The six meetings between British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould and Minister of Defence Liam Fox and Adam Werritty together – only two of which were revealed by Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell in his “investigation” into Werritty’s unauthorised role in the Ministry of Defence – raise vital concerns about a secret agenda for war at the core of government, comparable to Blair’s determination to drive through a war on Iraq..

This is a detective story. It begins a few weeks ago, when the Fox-Werritty scandal was first breaking in the media. I had a contact from an old friend from my Foreign Office days. This friend had access to the Gus O’Donnell investigation. He had given a message for me to a trusted third party.

Whistleblowing in the surveillance state is a difficult activity. I left through a neighbour’s garden, not carrying a mobile phone, puffed and panted by bicycle to an unmonitored but busy stretch of road, hitched a lift much of the way, then ordered a minicab on a payphone from a country pub to my final destination, a farm far from CCTV. There the intermediary gave me the message: what really was worrying senior civil servants in the Cabinet Office was that the Fox-Werritty link related to plans involving Mossad and the British Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould.

Since I became a notorious whistleblower, several of my ex-friends and contacts have used me to get out information they wanted to leak, via my blog. A good recent example was a senior friend at the UN who tipped me off in advance on the deal by which the US agreed to the Saudi attack on pro-democracy demonstrators in Bahrain, in return for Arab League support for the NATO attack on Libya. But this was rather different, not least in the apparent implication that our Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, was engaged in something with Werritty which went beyond official FCO policy.

I was particularly concerned by this because I knew slightly and liked Matthew Gould, from the time he wrote speeches for Robin Cook. I hoped there was nothing much in it. But then Gould’s name started to come up as professional journalists dug into the story, and reported Werritty’s funding by pro-Israeli lobby groups.

I decided that the best approach was for me to write to Matthew Gould. I did so, asking him when he had first met Werritty, how many times he had met him, and how many communications of every kind there had been between them. I received the reply that these questions would be answered in Gus O’Donnell’s report.

But Gus O’Donnell’s report in fact answered none of these questions. It only mentioned two meetings at which Fox, Gould and Werritty were all three present. It did not mention Gould-Werritty bilateral meetings and contacts at all. To an ex-Ambassador like me, there was also something very fishy about the two trilateral meetings O’Donnell did mention and his characterisation of them.

This led me to dig further, and I was shocked to find that O’Donnell was, at the most charitable interpretation, economical with the truth. In fact there were at least six Fox-Werritty-Gould meetings, not the two given by O’Donnell. Why did GOD lie? I now had no doubt that my informant had pointed me towards something very real and very important indeed.

Matthew Gould was the only British Ambassador who Fox and Werrity met together. They met him six times. Why?

The first meeting to which O’Donnell admits, took place in September 2010. O’Donnell says this was

“a general discussion of international defence and security matters to enable Mr Gould better to understand MOD’s perspective.”

O’Donnell says Werritty should not have been present. An FCO spokesman told me on 21 October that

“Mr Gould’s meeting with the Defence Secretary was arranged by his office as part of his pre-posting briefing calls.”

All Ambassadors make pre-posting briefing calls around Whitehall before taking up their job, as you would expect. But even for our most senior Ambassadors, outside the Foreign Office those calls are not at Secretary of State level. Senior officials are quite capable of explaining policy to outgoing Ambassadors; Secretaries of State have many other things to do.

For this meeting to happen at all was not routine, and Werritty’s presence made it still more strange. Why was this meeting happening? I dug further, and learnt from a senior MOD source that there were two more very strange things about this meeting, neither noted by O’Donnell. There was no private secretary or MOD official present to take note of action points, and the meeting took place not in Fox’s office, but in the MOD dining room.

O’Donnell may have been able to fox the media, but to a former Ambassador this whole meeting stunk. I bombarded the FCO with more questions, and discovered an amazing fact left out by O’Donnell. The FCO spokesman replied to me on 21 October 2011 that:

“Mr Werritty was also present at an earlier meeting Mr Gould had with Dr Fox in the latter’s capacity as shadow Defence Secretary.”

So Gould, Fox and Werritty had got together before Gould was Ambassador, while Fox was still in opposition and while Werritty was – what, exactly? This opened far more questions than it answered. I put them to the FCO. When, where and why had this meeting happened? We only knew it was before May 2010, when Fox took office. What was discussed? There are very strict protocols for senior officials briefing opposition front bench spokesman. Had they been followed?

The FCO refused point blank to answer any further questions. I turned to an independent-minded MP, Jeremy Corbyn, who put down a parliamentary question to William Hague. The reply quite deliberately ignored almost all of Corbyn’s question, but it did throw up an extraordinary bit of information – yet another meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould, which had not been previously admitted.

Hague replied to Corbyn that:

“Our ambassador to Israel was also invited by the former Defence Secretary to a private social engagement in summer 2010 at which Adam Werritty was present.”

Getting to the truth was like drawing teeth, but the picture was building. O’Donnell had completely mischaracterised the “Briefing meeting” between Fox, Werritty and O’Donnell by hiding the fact that the three had met up at least twice before – once for a meeting when Fox was in opposition, and once for “a social engagement.” The FCO did not answer Corbyn’s question as to who else was present at this “social engagement”.

This was also key because Gould’s other meetings with Fox and Werritty were being characterised – albeit falsely – as simply routine, something Gould had to do in the course of his ambassadorial duties. But this attendance at “a private social engagement” was a voluntary act by Gould, indubitable proof that, at the least, the three were happy in each other’s company, but given that all three were very active in zionist causes, it was a definite indication of something more than that.

That furtive meeting between Fox, Werritty and Gould in the MOD dining room, deliberately held away from Fox’s office where it should have taken place, and away from the MOD officials who should have been there, now looks less like briefing and more like plotting.

My existing doubts about the second and only other meeting to which O’Donnell does admit make plain why that question is very important.

O’Donnell had said that Gould, Fox and Werritty had met on 6 February 2011:

“in Tel Aviv. This was a general discussion of international affairs over a private dinner with senior Israelis. The UK Ambassador was present.”

There was something very wrong here. Any ex-Ambassador knows that any dinner with senior figures from your host country, at which the British Ambassador to that country and a British Secretary of State are both present, and at which international affairs are discussed, can never be “private”. You are always representing the UK government in that circumstance. The only explanation I could think of for O’Donnell’s astonishing description of this as a “private” dinner was that the discussion was far from being official UK policy.

I therefore asked the FCO who was at this dinner, what was discussed, and who was paying for it? I viewed the last as my trump card – if either Gould or Fox was receiving hospitality, they are obliged to declare it. To my astonishment the FCO refused to say who was present or who paid. Corbyn’s parliamentary question also covered the issue of who was at this dinner, to which he received no reply.

Plainly something was very wrong. I therefore again asked how often Gould had met or communicated with Werritty without Fox being present. Again the FCO refused to reply. But one piece of information that had been found by other journalists was that, prior to the Tel Aviv dinner, Fox, Gould and Werritty had together attended the Herzilya conference in Israel. The programme of this is freely available. It is an unabashedly staunch zionist annual conference on “Israel’s security”, which makes no pretence at a balanced approach to Palestinian questions and attracts a strong US neo-conservative following. Fox, Gould and Werritty sat together at this event.

Yet again, the liar O’Donnell does not mention it.

I then learnt of yet another, a sixth meeting between Fox, Gould and Werritty. This time my infomrant was another old friend, a jewish diplomat for another country, based at an Embassy in London. They had met Gould, Fox and Werritty together at the “We believe in Israel” conference in London in May 2011. Here is a photo of Gould and Fox together at that conference.

I had no doubt about the direction this information was leading, but I now needed to go back to my original source. Sometimes the best way to hide something is to put it right under the noses of those looking for it, and on Wednesday I picked up the information in a tent at the Occupy London camp outside St Paul’s cathedral.

This is the story I was given.

Matthew Gould was Deputy Head of Mission at the British Embassy in Iran, a country which Werritty frequently visited, and where Werritty claimed to have British government support for plots against Ahmadinejad. Gould worked at the British Embassy in Washington; the Fox-Werritty Atlantic Bridge fake charity was active in building links between British and American neo-conservatives and particularly ultra-zionists. Gould’s responsibilities at the Embassy included co-ordination on US policy towards Iran. The first meeting of all three, which the FCO refuses to date, probably stems from this period.

According to my source, there is a long history of contact between Gould and Werritty. The FCO refuse to give any information on Gould-Werritty meetings or communications except those meetings where Fox was present – and those have only been admitted gradually, one by one. We may not have them all even yet.

My source says that co-ordinating with Israel and the US on diplomatic preparation for an attack on Iran was the subject of all these meetings. That absolutely fits with the jobs Gould held at the relevant times. The FCO refuses to say what was discussed. My source says that, most crucially, Iran was discussed at the Tel Aviv dinner, and the others present represented Mossad. The FCO again refuses to say who was present or what was discussed.

On Wednesday 2 November it was revealed in the press that under Fox the MOD had prepared secret and detailed contingency plans for British participation in an attack on Iran.

There are very important questions here. Was Gould really discussing neo-con plans for attacking Iran with Werritty and eventually with Fox before the Conservatives were even in government? Why did O’Donnell’s report so carefully mislead on the Fox-Gould-Werritty axis? How far was the FCO aware of MOD preparations for attacking Iran? Is there a neo-con cell of senior ministers and officials, co-ordinating with Israel and the United States, and keeping their designs hidden from the Conservative’s coalition partners?

The government could clear up these matters if it answered some of the questions it refuses to answer, even when asked formally by a member of parliament. The media have largely moved on from the Fox-Werritty affair, but have barely skimmed the surface of the key questions it raises. They relate to secrecy, democratic accountabilty and preparations to launch a war, preparations which bypass the safeguards of good government. The refusal to give straight answers to simple questions by a member of perliament strikes at the very root of our democracy.

Is this not precisely the situation we were in with Blair and Iraq? Have no lessons been learnt?

There is a further question which arises. Ever since the creation of the state of Israel, the UK had a policy of not appointing a jewish Briton as Ambassador, for fear of conflict of interest. As a similar policy of not appointing a catholic Ambassador to the Vatican. New Labour overturned both longstanding policies as discriminatory. Matthew Gould is therefore the first jewish British Ambassador to Israel.

Matthew Gould does not see his race or religion as irrelevant. He has chosen to give numerous interviews to both British and Israeli media on the subject of being a jewish ambassador, and has been at pains to be photographed by the Israeli media participating in jewish religious festivals. Israeli newspaper Haaretz described him as “Not just an ambassador who is jewish, but a jewish ambassador”. That rather peculiar phrase appears directly to indicate that the potential conflict of interest for a British ambassador in Israel has indeed arisen.

It is thus most unfortunate that it is Gould who is the only British Ambassador to have met Fox and Werritty together, who met them six times, and who now stands suspected of long term participation with them in a scheme to forward war with Iran, in cooperation with Israel. This makes it even more imperative that the FCO answers now the numerous outstanding questions about the Gould/Werritty relationship and the purpose of all those meetings with Fox.

There is no doubt that the O’Donnell report’s deceitful non-reporting of so many Fox-Gould-Werritty meetings, the FCO’s blunt refusal to list Gould-Werritty, meetings and contacts without Fox, and the refusal to say who else was present at any of these occasions, amounts to irrefutable evidence that something very important is being hidden right at the heart of government. I have no doubt that my informant is telling the truth, and the secret is the plan to attack Iran. It fits all the above facts. What else does?

Please feel free to re-use and republish this article anywhere, commercially or otherwise. It has been blocked by the mainstream media. I write regularly for the mainstream media and this is the first article of mine I have ever been unable to publish. People have risked a huge amount by leaking me information in an effort to stop the government machinery from ramping up a war with Iran. There are many good people in government who do not want to see another Iraq. Please do all you can to publish and redistribute this information.

UPDATE A commenter has already pointed me to this bit of invaluable evidence:

“My government absolutely agrees with your conception of the Iranian threat and the importance of your determination to battle it.” Dealing with the Iranian threat will be a large part of my work here.” Gould said.

From Israel National News. It also says that he will be trying to promote a positive atmosphere between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority, but the shallowest or the deepest search shows the same picture; an entirely biased indeed fanatical zionist who must give no confidence at all to the Palestinian Authority. He must be recalled.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

440 thoughts on “Matthew Gould and the Plot to Attack Iran

1 11 12 13 14 15
  • Jon

    Stephen, no problems. We’re in more agreement than you think!
    I am no fan of the Iranian regime, but I think war needs to be avoided, though not at any cost at all. I agree that Iran should not acquire the bomb, but then Hussein willingly complied with weapons inspectors, and look what happened to him. The Western position is fundamentally dishonest: Blair et al will still harp on about “weapons inspectors being kicked out of Iraq” when anyone who knows their lemons knows they were withdrawn in prep for war. I still think several of our leaders belong in the dock at the ICC.
    However we may have to diverge on the military-industrial complex. There is nothing formulaic in taking the view that if one links ones personal financial health (or the economic health of whole countries) to war, then more war is likely to be the result. It’s not necessarily evil in the cartoonish sense of the word – it’s a complex mix of human behaviour and the aggregate of the motivations of a large number of (mainly selfish and greedy) actors – and is actually difficult to stop once it is in place. I thought this it was Carter who coined the phrase, but I’ll defer to Herbie here – Eisenhower sounds about right.
    Sophia – Avaaz seems to be a good organisation with good intentions. It is fully transparent about what it does. What on earth are you talking about?

  • Sophia


    “Avaaz seems to be a good organisation with good intentions”. First, intentions aren’t everything. Second, Avaaz relies on exhibiting these good intentions in order to disseminate misguided information where it matters most for Israel. I would say that Avaaz is first and foremost a disinformation agency. Look at this camapign for Iraq full of biases and contradiction:

  • Stephen


    You may be correct on Eisenhower coining the usage – but I’m afraid I know through many hours combing the works of marxist economists such as Baran and Sweezey that they definitely employed the term as well – and my guess is this may be where Jon gets his analysis from either directly or indirectly.

  • wendy

    “In the interim I was able to watch Brodie Clark in front of the Home Affairs Committee and seeing some Conservative Friends of Israel holding the line for Mrs May and attempting to cut the legs from under Mr Clark who seems to be a honourable man and whom I believe. He is a civil servant of 38 years’ standing, with 15 years in senior posts and with a CBE for his services.”
    the problem for those committee mps is that brodie has a functioning brain and they dont ..

  • Stephen


    Hasn’t anyone told you that everyone in the British establishment is connected to everyone else. Just to let you into a secret I share at least one mutual aquaintance with Craig – so does that make Craig a Zionist shill or whatever is your current term of affection.

    PS It was me that turned off BT this morning.

  • JaneGrey


    You’re making it up. There was no page with a picture. I bet you. Find its deletion log.

  • Herbie

    Er, Stephen.
    The point is that one of the foremost American Generals of WWII and after and a subsequent American President for the Republican party initially made the observation about a military industrial complex and warned of its dangers.
    Your attempt to minimise that observation, in your mind by reference to Marxists is shown to be worthless.
    That’s the point
    You’re the only one who seeks to downplay the issue, based on nothing but pure ignorance.
    Yours is nothing but a kneejerk reaction to what you merely assume is lefty. You’re obviousy watching too much television and not studying enough.
    And, it doesn’t matter where Jon gets it from. After Eisenhower everyone who knew what was going on was using the phrase because it accurately describes what’s going on.
    “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex.” He said, “we recognize the imperative need for this development … the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist … Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

  • Guava Anxiety Mist

    Can’t do apostrophes, doesn’t associate MIC with Ike…he is a troll, and a poor one at that.

  • John Goss

    My moderator at the Guardian replied once more saying:

    Hello again John
    We do indeed have a note reminding readers that the views they see in the comments may not necessarily reflect the views of the Guardian.
    Unfortunately, this does not give the Guardian protection from legal proceedings. The company could still be seen as ‘the publisher’ of the content appearing on the site. I’m sure you can understand why we would therefore need to take a cautious approach to potentially legally-risky comments.
    If you strongly feel that the information you have about Matthew Gould is newsworthy then I would urge you to contact our news desk. Our journalists will then be able to investigate further.
    The contact details for the different editorial departments and desks can be found here:
    Kind regards
    to which I responded
    Hello again to you Adaobi,
    While I understand your viewpoint, and that of the Guardian from a legal perspective, it does seem that to remove the link to a serious piece of journalism, and yet leave some inane comments, shows a lack of judgment on your behalf, that is, providing you have carte blanche powers to act on your own as a moderator. It appears all links on Guardian pages to Craig Murray’s blog have been removed.
    My understanding since I was last in touch is that Craig Murray contacted the Guardian offering the article to which a link was made in my comment, and despite there being no legal or factual objection to it as a journalistic article, for some reason it was refused publication (even though many consider it to be in what might be termed the old parlance ‘a scoop’). I realise pressures are brought to bear from outside. But normally the Guardian is bold, or used to be. After all it launched the campaign which brought the Murdochs to task. This is why it is beyond my comprehension that your legal team did not invite Mr Murray to show that his sources were unimpeachable.
    In supplying me with the Guardian contact link are you suggesting that if I got in touch I might meet with a more positive response than Mr Murray received?
    Kind regards
    John Goss

  • Guava Anxiety Mist


    If they simply publish the link without actually publishing the content, they won’t be in any legal danger. See if they’ll allow you to post a comment on the lines of: “Here’s an interesting piece by CM about the Fox-Werritty affair and the Ambassador to Israel” with the link.

  • Stephen

    “who knew what was going on was using the phrase because it accurately describes what’s going on.”

    Well I don’t think it does – and you and others certainly haven’t supported that view. As they say what can be stated without evidence may be rebutted without evidence. I think that even your side of the argument might recognise that there are other factors at play such as oil to meet consumer demand, ideology, terrorism, Israel – Palestine conflict, the financial sector etc.etc. Happy to debate how modern economies work – but things have moved on since the days of Ike and the marxist economists I referred to. But throw in glib references to MIC then please expect the same in return.

  • Jimbo

    Good stuf, Mr Murray.

    I’ve posted this to RT & Al Jazeera plus several others. This deserves coverage by the MSM – even if only to say that you’ve made an allegation of a plot.

  • Stephen

    If you wish to play the quote game on MIC – I could of course quote St Noam Chomsky (PBUH) “There is no military-industrial complex: it’s just the industrial system operating under one or another pretext (defense was a pretext for a long time)”

  • johnf


    “Both were born in August. I guess they would have been in the same class, as both were irritatingly brilliant – (Osborne-Magdalen, Gould – Peterhouse,Cambridge)

    Its worth pointing out that the far right Peterhouse College (home of Maurice Cowling, Godfather of Thatcherism and founder of a whole school of rightwing historians) is where The Henry Jackson Society was founded a few years ago – the British outpost of Washington’s neo-conservative and likudnik fans. their first speaker was Richard Perle.

    Trevor Roper did not think that the average Peterhouse student was that bright.

  • John Goss

    Thanks Guava Anxiety Mist. I suspect that they check posts by user names. They almost certainly search for the link string. I can’t see it being up for long.

  • Herbie

    My main point to you was to suggest that you cannot dismiss the concept and practice of a military industrial complex and the implications of it by dismissive reference to marxists.
    That is what you sought to do and I showed you that someone who knew a lot about such matters from a Conservative position was the first person to raise the matter publicly in a mass sense.
    I’ve achieved that evidentially.
    I’m not here to educate you further, mainly because it would be pointless but also because it’s a waste of my time when there’s so much else more productive to do.
    My feeling is that trolls like you seek to bog genuine people down in long tedious arguments to distract them from more important things.
    Readers can make up their own mind on the matter.
    I’m done with you.

  • Jon

    Stephen, I’m happy to debate with you. But my reference to the military industrial complex was not “glib”, and it is not helpful to mock people’s admiration of Chomsky either, if you are looking for a respectful debate. I’ve not heard of Baran or Sweezey, nor have I read them, and I sense you intended to imply that “where I get my analysis from” shows I’ve not thought about it myself. I’d rather hoped that my post shows the opposite.
    I’ll drop out of this conversation now.

  • lisa

    It is, some might say, assumed that Iran will not survive the attack that so many see as looming. Given that everybody who wants to know, knows the goal, and the methods, and even the approximate schedule, we may expect the Iranian State to take steps to prevent the success of such an endeavor. Only yesterday they announced via der Spiegle that “every attack” will be “immediately” replied to [in kind?]. It might be plausible to expect Iran to have learned how to defeat an empire – as they were once the super-power and they were “defeated” – they’ve perhaps learned that empires devour themselves after they are stopped. Iran has only to stop the expansion to defeat the empire. That’s what happened at Salamis – can they have forgotten this? Oh! I hope that rational minds prevail! Once begun, the business is fraught with grave risk and dangerous outcomes of an unpredictable nature.

  • Sophia


    Contact established with Al-Akhbar English via Angry Arab with request to publish the article. Al Akhbar, Lebanon, is widely read in the Arab world and diaspora. This is a MSM. I Would like to see the faces of pro-zionist Arabs who are pushing for a war on Iran when they see the article!

    Let’s see…

  • Stephen


    Perhaps you should read what I actually said – the fact that Eisehower used the term/conceived it really is neither here or there to the argument – I just said the argument was beloved of 60s and 70s marxists – which it was. I still don’t think it is valid today just because Eisenhower used the term or Chomsky said it wasn’t relevant. I could write a paper to support why I don’t believe it is valid but I think it would go over your head.


    The reference to glib was to Herbie’s comments – I wasn’t intending to debate the issue with you, but just demonstrating that I didn’t agree that the MIC theory was of current relevance. The MIC theory was the bedrock of much development economics and was certainly pushed hard by many marxist economists – and I do think that they may have had more of a point with the former Soviet bloc and Maoist China. Contrary to what Herbie might think – I do actually belive that marxist economists do say a lot that is valid, just not in this case. As for introducing Chomsky, I clearly don’t share your respect, but the reference was just to point out to Herbie that two can play at the names game.

  • ingo

    A very good Idea that Sophia, this stroy seems to be galvanising the MSM into two camps, those who’d rather shit themselves than publish facts and act upon this threat to our foreign policy resolve, and those who have published it and savour the moment seing the Guardian cringe.

    Which of the informed websites and publishers are actually prepared to put vexing questions to our MSM, a very important pressure point?


  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq


    You fail to appreciate in your ‘politically correct’ entreaty that compromise is liberated by mutual trust and true belief, lost in the blink of an eye, can take a lifetime to reestablish or not at all. In the case of a father raping his daughter, a priest sodomizing his pupils, a lover murdering a rival, illegal war-mongers murdering children, rulers killing protestors and a state crushing the lives of another; all these evil deeds are inalienable because life and freedom are sacrosanct. Yet all these acts are committed by the minority and laws exist to punish the few who cause pain or who place almost the entire world in peril from possible war and terrorism.
    Residing in Britain, Israel and the United States this minority are spoilers of all dreams and use falsehoods and media propaganda to gain support from others in their reckless activities, such as increasing settlements in the West Bank, and dividing those who seek reconciliation and peace objectives.
    America’s conflict with Iran and Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians disguises both America and Israel’s problems within their own societies. America is a bankrupt police state while Israel has descrimination, apartheid and religious conflict.
    Considering the present Middle East crisis we witness in the pages of history – fifty years of intensive strife; thirty-three years of Israel occupation of the West Bank; several UN resolutions that have characterized Israel’s occupation as illegal; accords at Cairo, Madrid, Oslo I, Oslo II, and Wye, Maryland that still have not been fulfilled; three million Palestinian refugees and tens of thousands dead and wounded from terrorism and wars. Despite the horrors of the conflicts and their casualties, America and Israel have been deliberately negligent in resolving the Middle East struggle.
    Your attempts to exhort trust and compromise are in reality a continuation of subterfuge, harangue and mumbo jumbo wrapped in a sugar coated shell of mitigation.

  • Herbie

    For the record, Chomsky isn’t disagreeing with what Eisenhower was saying. Rather he’s taking it further.
    He feels that the terminology “military-industrial” is too limiting in describing a process that applies across the whole corporate sector.
    There’s nothing particularly marxist about these positions as clearly both conservatives and leftists can agree upon them.
    It’s no more controversial than agreeing that it’s raining or that the sun is shining.
    Even neocons would agree with this process since their whole strategy for current domination is based on this process.
    The only disagreement is that some people think this process is a negative development whilst others welcome it.

  • Frank FitzWalter

    Another possible publisher for your article, Craig:
    [email protected] – a U.S. site for the men and women who actually do the fighting.
    Interesting that Hague, amongst others, are getting out of their prams about the ‘3000’ dead in Syria whilst totally ignoring the estimated 50,000 dead Libyans or the 1.5 million dead Iraqis. And no mention of the warnings against an attack on Iran by Russia. I suspect that China, too, would be unhappy about one of its markets and suppliers of oil being obliterated. The Indian sub-continent will be equally upset when the radioactive dust from the attacks contaminates their country. Bopal revisited.

  • BGD

    Why not send it as a submission to They get “85,000 unique visitors per day” submissions need to be sent to the editor : [email protected]
    You can also tweet them:

    Also submit it to
    Voltairenet : [email protected]

    When you think about it, there are many dissident websites globally and media sources but there are very few UK based sites that sit close to the ‘mainstream’.

1 11 12 13 14 15

Comments are closed.