The War on Islam: Irrational U.S. Behavior or Calculated Zionist Plan?

Part 3: Readings in the Jewish Zionist Control of the United States: Interviews with Francis Boyle, James Petras, and Kim Petersen

Is the belligerent U.S. enmity toward Islam an expression of the Jewish Zionist control of the United States? The second question is equally as pertinent as the title’s question. Recalling the Crusades, is it not legitimate to question whether we are witnessing a replay of Pope Urban II and over two centuries of pillaging European wars on the people of the Eastern Mediterranean under the pretext of liberating the “holy land” from Muslims? Is the analogy of a replay true or false?

To debate this issue, the hating of Islam could never be separated from the political and ideological conditions that allow it to happen. This means rational factors rooted in the politics of U.S. imperialism are orchestrating the anti-Islam campaign and using it as a tool of war against the Arabs. Proving this point, with the exception of Afghanistan, no other predominantly Muslim country has become a theater for U.S. wars except the Arab states.

There is something literally sinister about the Hating Islam Phenomenon and all this deafening noise seeking to perpetuate America’s destruction of the Arab nations under the guise of war on “islamic terror”. ((My usage of lowercase in words referring to Islam and Muslims is political. It is my opinion that in the U.S. written media, the capitalization is intentional. When the noun and qualifier are capitalized, the message is that we are dealing with politically accepted qualities. So, when the media writes “Islamic State (DAESH)”, for example, why capitalize the words if this organization is neither Islamic nor a standard political state? Consequently, writing “islamic state” is appropriate.)) Who created this criminal type of war and why? Who turned it into a catchphrase to the point that when uttered alone, the word “terrorism” means violence by Muslims and Muslims only? Far more important, it is time to acknowledge a straight fact. There is no “war on terror”. Also, there is no war between the United States and its erstwhile and current mercenaries (“islamic militants”). Unassailable evidence can confirm that the United States has been, by proxy and directly, financing, arming, and training these mercenaries to serve its plans in the Arab World.

Today, wars are everywhere in the Arab World. We have American wars, Russian wars ((Russia’s war in Syria must be looked at with a specific lens. In our series on the Imperialist Violence in Syria, Kim Petersen and I discussed Russia’s role in Syria in Part 6 of 7 “Russia in Syria: White Knight, or Imperial Conspirator?“)), French wars, British wars, and we have Saudi wars against other Arab states. But these are not wars in the classical sense. What we have here is the systematic destruction of the Arab nations mainly at the hands of the United States, as well as by means of organized criminals whom the U.S. and the West cynically call “muslim terrorists”.

In the incessant anti-Arab and anti-Muslim campaigns, the West has produced mountains of “evidence” to support its “war on islamic terror”, and claims on the perfidy of Arabs and Islam could fill entire stadiums. Biased essays, faked documentaries, outlandish books, and stereotyped films on the “evils” of Islam have inundated all corners of the earth. To what end did the United States and the West unleash all this anti-Islam pandemonium knowing it is only a religion?

Wait! But when we cross-reference the war on the Arabs to the long-term objectives of American, European, and Israeli imperialisms, we begin to see the emergence of a relation between the war on Islam and the war on the Arabs.

So how should we describe the U.S. war on Islam? Is it a product of irrational thinking? Is it a result of rational political processes? Do these processes find justification in objectives of hegemonic U.S. imperialism and Zionism?

Earlier I stated, “Rational factors rooted in the politics of U.S. imperialism are orchestrating the anti-Islam campaign”. Axiomatically this validates the premise that irrationality does not apply in this type of war. For one, it is not typical of advanced imperialist states whose open culture and stable political systems developed over a long period. As for the United States, it is universally known that its domestic politics, foreign policy, and state decisions are a product of deliberation. Meaning, decisions are not happenstance. To be sure, they are a rational consequence of agendas. Conclusion: U.S. decision?making is articulate, lucid, rational, and consistently supported by game theories and managerial sciences (Robert McNamara’s data model of the US war on Vietnam is just one example).

Accordingly, the worldwide crimes of the United States are products of deliberate and sanctioned policies. Examples of such policies abound in American history. Take Andrew Jackson, for example; his visceral hatred of the Original Peoples was a state policy that resulted in their mass extermination. However, the expected outcome of his hate was rooted in the design to empty the land of its natural inhabitants thus to expand the emerging American continental empire. So too was the forced relocation of the Cherokee tribes from North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and other southern states. In the same vein, McKinley’s colonization of the Philippines (a spoil of the Spanish-American war) was not in response to a dream where God whispered in his ears to colonize that nation. To be sure, McKinley was executing a definite expansionist colonialist plan.

There should be no assumptions on how the U.S. government runs the business of the imperialist state. It is true that the White House appears to exercise control over vital processes leading to decisions—especially in foreign policy. However, the reality is quite different. The complex structure of the American power is such that neither the White House nor the Congress are independent from the gargantuan and capillary institutions, agencies, financial centers, civilian-military connections, think tanks, and advisory boards, etc. that, de facto, direct the American state. Within this context, when interventionist policies are made by the few in the top tier of power, the one thing that follows is a string of justifications.

In a system thusly conceived, the hating of Islam paradigm is a rehash of previously tested rationalizations to elicit acceptance. Repeatedly, when the drive for intervention is underway (e.g., the invasions of Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq), the phase that comes after is already set to begin. In the current phase of U.S. hyper-imperialism, it is impossible to conceal the aim of the Hate Islam policy. Taking notice of U.S. announcements and active interventions, this cannot be but the complete fracturing of all the Arab States to control their strategic and geopolitical assets, as well as to crown Israel as the master of the region.

To see the Hate Islam Policy in its Zionist dimension, we need to look at a number of things. First off, it is relevant to mention that the anti-Islam American mindset predates the installation of Israel. This seems to suggest that Zionists has nothing to do with what is going on. In reality, the connubial ties between Western ideological attitudes and ideological Zionism have become so interwoven that we have to read them carefully and in multiple contexts. In addition, attributing the American hostility to the aftermath of 9/11 is not a credible suggestion because U.S. policy, since Harry Truman, is essentially based on antagonizing the Arabs and on supporting Israel in all matters. Such support is neither coincidental nor contingent upon circumstances. Meaning, it is unconditional because those who decide on giving it—American Jewish and non-Jewish Zionists—are in control of how the U.S. government must act in relation to the settler Zionist state.

Second, does the charge that the U.S. anti-Islam war is a Zionist initiative hold any truth? Based on empirical observation of American politics and the distribution of power inside the system, the answer is intuitively yes. It is YES because of the fact that American Jewish Zionists are the primary advocates for a militarily strong Israel, as well as for the use of U.S. military power against the opponents of the Zionist state.


First, one hundred years after Arthur James Balfour donated Palestine to the Zionist movement as if it were the property of his mother, the Arabs are still rejecting the Jewish Zionist colonization of Palestine. Second, the Palestinians are still resisting, until this very day, the Zionist occupation of their lands. Arguably, this firm rejection has a consequence. It entailed that in order for American Jewish Zionists (epicenter of U.S. power structures) to perpetuate the existence of Israel, the Arabs must be turned into the declared enemies of the United States.  Enmity to Islam, therefore, is an ideological expedient to fight the adversaries of the Zionist state. As such, it is the means to destabilize, overpower, and destroy the Arab nations in the name of Zionism and the fortunes of American imperialism.

The following citations do not cite Islam by name. But the connection is evident. When American Jewish Zionists call for the destructions of the Arab states that oppose Israel, the unstated proposal to fight Islam is implicit because Islam is the soft belly of the Arabs due to its historical, cultural, and emotional values.

The first citation is “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” by known anti-Arab Jewish Zionists including Richard Perle, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and others. It is noteworthy that this group had prepared this study for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. In the report, this group of Jewish Zionist ideologues and conspirators called for the destruction of Iraq and Syria by toppling their regimes. Both objectives have been achieved through United States. The report was published by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. This observation is of capital importance. The Institute chaired by another Jewish Zionist, Anthony Cordesman, presents itself as an advisor to the United States in matters of military strategies. So when Cordesman and associates published the report, the implication is unmistakable: Israel’s strategic thinking on destroying the Arab system of nations opposing Israel is being carried out in the United States by American Jewish Zionists.

The second is “The Project For The New American Century,” a manifesto conceived mostly by American Jewish Zionists in 1997. The PROJECT had for a focus not only the general idea of imposing U.S. imperialist power on the world, but also the specific targeting of Iraq, Iran, and other states opposing Israel. It is, therefore, axiomatic to conclude that the actual target of the PROJECT is the Arab states—knowing that submitting the world to U.S. dictatorial bent is not that easy to achieve. For the record, key figures of the PNAC held prominent positions in the George W. Bush regime. The PNAC achieved its first success when Wolfowitz, Cheney, Feith, Libby, and Bush propelled the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Again, has the Hate Islam institution become a manifest Zionist enterprise? And, where do we fit this institution in the anti-Islam mentality attitudes of the United States? The argument that established mentality attitudes could play a significant role in the anti-Islam campaign is credible. Still, credibility is insufficient to prove that such campaign could actually morph into fighting wars just because hate is driving it.

Does the anti-Islam project have any affinity with the purpose of the Crusades, which is conquest? The answer is yes—although methods may differ. That is, the marauding nature of the West has not changed a bit for the past nine centuries. When Donald Trump exhorts “Take their oil”, in reference to the Iraqi oil, he simply confirmed that U.S. imperialist piracy is not driven by religion but by America’s original concept of banditry, thievery, and lust for expropriating other’s wealth and lands.

Consequent to this argument, is there any parallel between the Crusades of the 11th-13th centuries and the crusade of today? Does this reflect anti-Islam attitudes as developed historically? Otherwise, how would we define them?

As reminder, the Crusades happened originally because of the Seljuk Turks’ territorial expansion into Europe. Pointedly, though, the Pope and marauding European warlords and kings did not conduct their wars in response to the Seljuk as distinct people in expansionist mode. Instead, they used religion as a cry of battle and characterized their invasion of the Greater Syria region as struggle between “good” Christianity and “infidel” Islam.

Analogies aside, as we should not use distant historical events to substantiate events in the present, we should attempt to capture the meaning of the same in relation to what unscrupulous ideologues of empire and clash of civilizations tyrants are trying to accomplish with their criminal wars. Having stated that, the Hating Islam phenomenon cannot be explained by pointing to terroristic acts by some Muslims. If such an approach is valid, then it is very easy to point to American and European acts of military terror everywhere in the world, and indict the religion of those who ordered them.

After the manufactured attack against the World Trade Center in 1993 (attributed to Muslim Fundamentalist), something odd happened. The Zionist administration of Bill Clinton opened the gates for war against Arabs, Muslims, and Islam. An early indication of this war was the steady appearance of the phrase “war on terror”. After the suspicious event of 9/11, U.S. wars and interventions against the Arab nations (starting with Eisenhower sending the marines to Lebanon in response to the Iraqi Revolution of 1958; Reagan sending the marines to Lebanon in 1982; Reagan’s attack on Libya in 1986; and George H. W. Bush’s war on Iraq in 1991 acquired an added configuration: The war on Islam. Explanation: While the rational foundation of the wars against the Arab states are all rooted in the U.S. and Israeli imperialist designs, the war on Islam, as a cultural war meant to destabilize the Arab psyche were intentionally couched with what seems irrational behavior like urinating on the Quran or calling the Muslim prophet Mohammad, pedophile and terrorist. It is my argument that such apparent irrationality was consciously conceived and systematically implemented. Consequently, U.S. political and ideological decision-making and imperialism is a product of rational deliberation and clear objectives.

The march to hating Islam was long. From the time when Truman succumbed to the Zionist pressure to install Israel in Palestine until present, the veiled anti-Islam mentality gradually coalesced with the world objectives of the Jewish Zionist establishment. With their gigantic propaganda machine, hating Islam and Muslims has become a joyful fixation. To know more about the spasmodic infatuation with hating Islam, visit the Islamophobia Network website. It provides a list of internet websites mastered by Jewish Zionist specializing in denigrating Arabs, Islam, and Muslims).

Does the United States have valid reasons to declare an ideological war on Islam? The answer is a resolute NO. Ideological wars, per se, are of no consequence if no fighting wars follow because this type of wars is normally fought with words, opinions, and propaganda—example: the U.S.-Soviet cold war. In the case of the United States vs. Islam, however, it is important to mention that the hyper-imperialist superpower declared active wars only on pre-selected Arab states. The pretext, as they say, is to eradicate “islamic terror”—of course, other pretexts centered on invented threats to the U.S. exist as well. This implies that the United States wants to convey the impression that Islam is not the target but its theological references to “violence” are. This further implies that the United States has politically decided to attribute “islamists attacks” in the West to those expressions of the Islamic Quranic culture.

Two peculiar aspects distinguish U.S. wars against the Arab nations. First, all Arab states that the U.S. attacked and destroyed were active opponents of the Zionist state. Second, all U.S. vassals including the terrorist Wahhabi state of Saudi Arabia were spared the Israeli-American war. Now, considering the caustic hostility of the United States toward Islam, it is imperative to question whether such hostility is normal to the American system.

Because the hate of a religion is not applicable to the birth of the American state (as evidenced by George Washington’s toleration of religions), adaptation, acculturation, and indoctrination to hate Islam is the answer. I propose, therefore, that the origin of this hate must be the rise to power of Jewish Zionists and their support of the planned Zionist state in Palestine. Dialectically, this hate is related to the cause of Israel. In this context, the United States of the 20th century has developed uninterrupted hostile postures toward Arabs and Muslims that culminated in today’s wars against them.

Furthermore, the rise to power of American Jewish Zionism meant something else. It established Israel as an important player in American politics. With AIPAC and sisters in control of the White House and Congress, Israel has become, by words and deeds, the director of America’s foreign policy. Given the strength of such power assets, unleashing any kind of war against the Arabs under the accusation of “terrorism” is a strategic Israeli quest. An example is Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that the Palestinian Resistance Movement of Hamas is an extension of “al?Qaeda” (read “Netanyahu: ISIS, Hamas, al-Qaida all branches of the same poison tree“).

Daniel Pipes, an Arab and Muslim hater, and a fascist ideologue of American Jewish Zionism, epitomized how Zionists spread the war on Arabs by implying that Islam and terrorism are the same.  In his article, “Sorry Mr. President, ISIS Is 100 Percent Islamic“, Pipes says:

In the end … neither U.S. presidents nor Islamist apologists fool people. Anyone with eyes and ears realizes that the Islamic State, like the Taliban and al-Qaeda before it, is 100 percent Islamic.


Copious evidence—factual and political—proves that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are American creations. It also proves the United States and Saudi Arabia have armed and trained both. As for the newest “islamic state”, ironclad evidence proves a number of things. First, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates financed and armed them. Second, Turkey provided logistics, transit, and training. Third, the United States provided the entire strategy, indirect proxy training, and direct military intervention to avoid their defeat. Now, the fact that the United States is behind the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and “islamic state” (or DAESH) proves beyond the sturdiest shadow of doubt that:

  1. America created them to serve its geopolitical plans in Central Asia and the Middle East, and
  2. that al-Qaeda and “islamic states” are American in essence, spirit, and other birth traits, and they are all intent, as are the United States and Israel, on destroying (as has happened so far) the Arab nations that oppose Israel while sparing the Gulf regimes.

Second, the adjective “Islamic” used by Pipes is both deceptive and demagogic. This adjective may be used in reference to attributes such as architecture, arts, philosophy, etc. Since both Taliban and al-Qaeda that Pipes mentioned, and DAESH that I added, owe their existence to U.S. imperialist planning and financing by the Wahhabi state of Saudi Arabia, then a number of conclusions follow:

  1. Wahhabism, not Islam, is the core ideology of these groups, and
  2. Wahhabism, which the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are trying to pass as Sunni Islam, is neither Islam nor Sunnism. The Islam of Mohammad, for example, does not call for beheading of people in public squares. Briefly, Wahhabism should never be construed as a rigid “islamic Sharia”. Judged from its edicts and ways of thinking, Wahhabism is an aberrational form of islamized thought. As such, it is alien to the Muslim Doctrine. To prove this, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Libya, for example, are mostly Sunni, but their Sunnism has absolutely NOTHING to do with so-called “sunnism” of the Saudi Wahhabi state. Consequently,
  3. when Pipes calls the creed of all terrorists groups that the United States founded “Islamic”— with a capitalized first letter—it is a flagrant attempt at confounding names, denominations, and purposes.

To close, Islam, being a cultural superstructure and a universally venerated religion, it is highly improbable that the United States would consider it a real target for one good reason: No one could ever vanquish religious beliefs. Consequently, if Islam is not the target, then what and who is in the bulls eye?

In the next part, I shall wrap-up my particular discussion on Islam, and move to discuss Theodore Roosevelt’s view of Islam, a view that paved the road for the Zionist power in the United States. Afterwards, I will move to address the Zionist presidency of Donald Trump.


Part 4
Part 5
Part 6: Interview with Francis Boyle
Part 7: Interview with James Petras
Part 8: Interview with Kim Petersen

Read Part One here; Part Two here.

B.J. Sabri is an observer of the politics of modern colonialism, imperialism, Zionism, and of contemporary Arab issues. He can be reached at: Read other articles by B.J..