Contrarian Explanations even when true are slow to be accepted
Paul Craig Roberts
I was thinking about myself recently, about whether efforts to inform that are contrarian can be successful. In economics I am known for my reformulation of our understanding of the Soviet Economy and Soviet economic history and for my statement of supply-side economics that added the second blade of the scissors to macroeconomics and was adopted by President Reagan as the economic policy of his administration. Both are paradigmatic changes which require a lot of time to gain general acceptance. People content with what they already know avoid as long as they can the trauma of learning something new.
I am finding that the same holds for our understanding of current events. I was the first to point out that the slow pace at which Putin was conducting the Ukraine conflict was widening the conflict dangerously, and now we find that Europe is preparing for war with Russia in four years. Recently the Russian expert Gilbert Doctorow announced that he agrees with me that Putin’s never-ending war is an ever-widening war, so there are two of us who see the obvious.
In the case of the Israeli-American aggression in the Middle East during the first quarter of the 21st century, I seem to be the only one who has identified the source of the Israeli-American aggression against “seven countries in five years” to be the Zionist agenda of Greater Israel. As long as this agenda is the agenda of the Israeli government, there can be no peace in the Middle East. Negotiations that are proposed are pointless as long as the Zionist agenda remains Greater Israel, which originally consisted of Israel’s claim from the Nile to the Euphrates, but now from the Nile to Pakistan, which includes Iran,Turkey, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. How are Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Lebanon to negotiate their own extermination as nation states? The destruction of Iraq, Libya, and Syria as functioning states in control of their own territory was achieved with American blood and money under the guise of “the war on terror.” Americans, of course, fell for “the war on terror” just as they fall for every lie told them by Washington.
I have offered the Greater Israel explanation in my columns and in interviews by Nima on Dialogue Works, On Target with Larry Sparano, with Mike Farris on Coffee and a Mike, on podcasts and TV in foreign countries, including a recent interview on Press TV in Iran. Despite my efforts, talk, including the Iranian government’s, continues to emphasize negotiations that leave untouched the Zionist policy of Netanyahu’s government.
The Muslin countries in the Middle East and the US puppet oil sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf do not understand that Greater Israel means their termination. This is obvious from their talk about negotiations. Do they really think their termination required by Greater Israel is negotiable? How exactly is Iran supposed to negotiate its termination? Termination is what regime change is. John Bolton, President Trump’s first term National Security Advisor, recently said that “I urged that our objective [in Iran] be regime change. . . . so did Netanyahu.”
Bolton told TV host Afshin Rattansi that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has encouraged President Donald Trump to carry out a regime change operation in Iran for many years. Bolton, as one of Washington’s leading neoconservatives said he agrees. Bolton went on to say that there is no change in what Trump has been hearing from the Israeli prime minister over the years.
Bolton then contradicts himself and claims that Trump’s decision to attack Iran was not influenced by Israel. https://www.rt.com/news/639401-iran-regime-change-netanyahu-bolton/
Bolton perhaps realized that Trump said the decision was his in order not to look like a puppet of Israel and repeated Trump’s claim that Trump was responsible. However a more authoritative statement comes from Reed Rubinstein, Legal Advisor, US Department of State in the official US State Department document justifying Washington’s attack on Iran. The official explanation of Washington’s attack on Iran is:
“As the United States has explained in multiple letters to the U.N. Security Council, including most recently on March 10, the United States is engaged in this conflict at the request of and in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally.” https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-legal-adviser/2026/04/operation-epic-fury-and-international-law/
The question before the American people is whether the President of the US and his government represent America or Israel.
Rubinstein’s defense of Washington’s attack on Iran as legal under law is so feeble that we can disregard it. Iran has done nothing to the US, but Iran has suffered from aggressive US sanctions and two military attacks on Iran and many assassinations of Iranian leaders by Washington and Israel. President Trump speaks of Iran as a “terrorist state,” but it is the US and Israel that are the terrorist states. The number of assassinated Iranian leaders murdered by Washington and Israel is large, and both governments brag of their successful murderous activities.
The fate of the Middle East will be decided by whether the remaining Muslim states, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon believe in their right to exist stronger than Israeli-America believes in their extinction.
The Muslims have never been able to unite, making it easy for them to be ruled by Turks, then British and French, then Americans, and in the likely future by Israelis.
In the Unites States the question is whether Americans will continue to be ruled by Israel or will the immigrant-invaders supplant the Israel Lobby. That is the choice Americans face. With the Republicans Americans will continue under Israel’s rule. With the Democrats Americans will be ruled by immigrant-invaders. As I have said many times previously, no political party represents Americans. Perhaps this realization is spreading among the American population and will loose its contrarian character. If so, possibly a political party could form that would represent Americans, allowing the American people to regain their sovereignty.