News Breakdown | Time Magazine highlights battling factions of the OCGFC

Okay. For the news breakdown today, I wanna do something a little bit different. I know I said that I was gonna try and do at least one session live, and I was thinking about doing this one live, to be honest, but I never set a time for when to do that. And I don't wanna just do it sort of spontaneously and not let any of the members know when we're gonna do it. So I think we need to settle on a on a time for when that would be most convenient for for all the members to attend and participate.

So I'll just record this one and and put it up. And inshallah, we can do another one, you know, in a in a in a few days if we can set a time for that, Insha'Allah. So this one, what I want to do today is to look at a very revealing article that was published in Time Magazine. I shared it in the Telegram group, actually. It's an editorial.

But since it is Time Magazine, and Time Magazine is just about as mainstream as you can get in terms of American media, I think that it's quite informative. This is published on 07/24/2024. It was written by John Hoffman, who's a research fellow at the Cato Institute, which is a conservative slash libertarian think tank that was founded in 1977 by Charles Koch, who is one of the so called Koch brothers, the owners of the founders and owners of Koch Industries. His brother I forgot his brother's name. He died recently.

We'll talk more about the Koch brothers and Koch Industries and Charles Koch later. Now okay. Here's the article. Again, Time Magazine. As Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces a joint session of congress, Washington must finally face reality.

Its emphatic embrace of Israel's war in Gaza is not advancing US interests or promoting regional stability to say nothing of the immense human toll, which of course comes last. Noteworthy here, I think, is that they're basically saying that Israel is a source of regional instability, and they're saying that this instability is against US interests, which is basically completely the reverse of the position that The United States has traditionally taken. What they're basically saying is that Israel no longer serves its traditional function Because its traditional function, it was depicted as a sort of island of stability in an unstable region. Never mind the fact that the region was unstable because of Israel, but that was in American interest at the time. Since the Arab states were deemed to be unreliable and untrustworthy, historically, that was that was sort of grew out of pan Arabism during the nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies.

So they've they've sort of flipped the script, basically saying that the perception of the Arab world what used to be the perception of the Arab world is now the perception of Israel. In other words, that it's a that they're operating against US interests, that they're undermining US interests, and that they're a source of destabilization, which is what they used to say about the Arabs. Okay. Continue with the article. In fact, it's doing the opposite.

So long as Washington refuses to change courses or refuses to change course, The US will continue to confront major problems that are the product of its own policies. Netanyahu remains wedded to the idea that Israel's army can achieve his goal of eradicating Hamas in Gaza. But as IDF spokesman Daniel Hagari recently admitted, quote, anyone who thinks we can eliminate Hamas is wrong. In the military realm, the group Hamas maintains operational capacity and and continues to fight in areas of Gaza where Israel previously claimed that Hamas had been eliminated, which comes as a surprise to no one. US Intelligence estimates that only 30 to 35% of Hamas's military wing have been killed since October 7.

I think that's probably high while claiming that it has recruited thousands of new volunteers over the course of the war, obviously. Hamas also remains deeply embedded in the political fabric of Gaza. Okay. So this is obviously accurate except in terms of the the casualty figures for Hamas, which I think are probably lower than what they're estimating. The author is stating that basically Hamas is a reality.

Hamas is a reality in Gaza, and it's not gonna go away. Ultimately, it has to be treated as a political entity and has to be dealt with through political means, through diplomatic means, not military means. This is basically what the author is saying or implying. This is in line with the global consensus, and it mirrors the position of bricks and is reflected in the recent reconciliation between all of the different factions and all of the different parties in the Palestinian factions, including Gaza and the West Bank, the reconciliation that was overseen by China, specifically and most importantly between Fatah and Hamas. This was done in China, the reconciliation.

They're dealing with them as a political entity, a real existing political entity that has to be dealt with, that has to be recognized, that has to be negotiated with, and not pretending that Hamas doesn't have some kind of a future in the Gaza Strip. And that if there's going to be a future, a political future in the Gaza Strip, it has to include Hamas, and that eliminating them isn't an option, but co opting them perhaps into a sort of unity government, a coalition government of the other varying various factions in Gaza, that's a potential a realistic real world solution to the situation politically. Now continuing, Israel Israel can degrade Hamas' capabilities and kill their leaders, but without a route towards a credible political solution, Palestinian militancy will persist. This is essentially what I said recently, which is that if you want the resist if if you want the resistance to occupation to end, then you have to end the occupation. This is just logical.

If you want to resolve the issue of Hamas so called militancy, then you have to resolve the issue that's driving that militancy. The the the the reason for that militancy has to be addressed, is obviously the occupation. Now continuing with the article, unfortunately, there's no sign of such a solution, meaning in Washington and in Tel Aviv. Netanyahu's apparent plan moving forward is the indefinite military occupation of the enclave, meaning Gaza. And Israel's parliament recently passed a motion with overwhelming support rejecting Palestinian statehood, even if it is part of a negotiated settlement with Israel.

This is a recipe for endless violence, they say. Correctly. The translation here is that Netanyahu, and by extension, Zionism itself is bad for business, and it's against American interests, against US interests, which of course means when they when when the author here says US interests, what they mean is that it's going against the interests of the faction of the OCGFC represented by the Cato Institute, who the author works for. Meanwhile, the carnage Washington is subsidizing in Gaza is seriously damaging America's global standing. As many feared, in the wake of the October 7 Hamas attack, the war has gone well beyond prevention and self defense, drawing analogies to The US response to nine eleven.

Israel's campaign is also planting the seeds of future turmoil by killing thousands of innocent civilians, crippling Gaza's infrastructure, and producing a famine. The effects of this war will plague Gaza for generations, and Washington's involvement most critically, the provision of the weapons responsible for much of the killing makes a mockery of The US claim to lead a, quote liberal or rules based international order. Essentially, myth of America, the the myth of so called Western civilization is going to perish in the rubble of Gaza, is something I have said many times. The author is saying that the that the consequences of the evaporation of this myth, this myth about America, this myth about Western civilization is increasingly isolating The United States in The Middle East, and in fact globally, and it's diminishing their influence and worse, it's turning The US itself into a liability and a source of strife in the Middle East. In other words, The US is a threat to US interests.

The US now itself is a threat to so called US interests because, as I say, when you're talking about US interests, what you're talking about is the interest a faction of the power structure within the power structure. So the when you talk about The US, you're talking about Washington and the neocons and politicians and so on, they are threat to the interests of a faction within the power structure. Because it's always been the case, of course, that The US is a liability and a source of strife in The Middle East. That's always been the case. But the change now is that they're acknowledging this fact, and they're realizing that it is detrimental.

But why is it detrimental now? It can be only be detrimental now, and the only reason that they care about it now, because it's always been the case, as I said, they've always been a destabilizing they've always had a destabilizing a deliberately destabilizing policy in The Middle East via their support for Israel. But now, it's detrimental because other players have emerged on the stage. Other players have emerged on the scene. Other influences are on the scene in The Middle East.

There's China, there's Russia, and there's the Khaleed. There's The Gulf. There's UAE and Saudi Arabia. There's the BRICS nations. As long as there was no viable counterbalance to American power, to US power, to US influence, as long as there was no counterbalance, then no one cared what the regional perception was of America.

It didn't matter that that the whole region, that the Arab world, that the Middle East, and in fact the entirety of the global South has for years, for decades, seen The United States, as a menace. That didn't matter because the Global South, the Middle East, the Arab countries had nowhere else to turn. So that's changed now. With the emergence of these alternative power players, these alternative spheres of influence, say, it suddenly matters. It suddenly matters what the region thinks about America because nations have a choice now.

That they they they haven't had a choice, really with regards to their relationship with The United States. They haven't had a choice for over thirty years. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there's been it's been a unipolar world. The fact that they're even that they even care about how The United States is being perceived in The Middle East shows you that a multipolar world, to one extent or another, has already emerged, has already been established. Now continuing with the article, finally, there is a growing chance of regional escalation and deeper direct US involvement.

The war has already set off a wave of regional escalation from Lebanon to Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and between Israel and Iran directly. And, of course, now even between Israel and the Houthis directly. Israel and Hezbollah are especially close, this is what the article says, are especially close to a devastating war. Personally, I doubt that, but this is the the claim and this is the fear. And it is it is certainly a possibility.

The US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, c q Brown, recently warned both that Iran would likely, provide considerable help to Hezbollah, which has a huge, arsenal of missiles that can penetrate deep into Israel, and that US forces in the region could be pulled into that conflict, which is really the only incentive or the motivation that Netanyahu has for trying to provoke a war with Lebanon, a war with Hezbollah. It's his hope that that would force The United States to become directly involved. The the risks of regional war and direct US involvement will remain elevated as long as Israel campaign in Gaza continues. The unspoken part here, but which you can deduce both from just common sense and if you have any knowledge of the history of the region, if you're at all familiar with the Middle East over the last few decades, but also from the article itself, what he's not saying, but what he is implying is that the faction within The US power structure that are supporting this policy, since he he he attributed this entire catastrophe to Washington or rather the the consequences of the Gaza War. He's attributing all of that to Washington, to Washington's policy.

So the factions that are supporting this or the faction that's supporting all of this, namely the military industrial complex and the political factions that are aligned with it, the private sector factions that are aligned or that that profit and and their revenues are driven through the military industrial complex, and then the political factions that represent that private sector faction, they're keen on escalating and spreading conflict in The Middle East because, of course, they are. That's how they've always pursued policy, that's how they've always pursued profits. And what he's saying is that this faction, therefore, poses a serious threat to the interests of those other factions in the power structure of The United States or what we can say actually the global power structure, global private sector power structure that are not tied to the military industrial complex, that are not reliant upon the military industrial complex. In other words, he's drawing attention to the competing interests, which I've talked about, the competing interests of different factions of the owners and controllers of global financialized capital, and he's equating the interests of the more global minded, the broader OCGFC, as representing the true interests of The United States.

And by implication, he's saying that the military industrial complex and the neocons who represent the military industrial complex politically, he's saying that they are a menace. He's saying that they are a threat to US interests. In other words, to the prioritized interests of the more important faction of the OCGFC. Now continuing with the article, just a little bit more to go. Short of direct military intervention, The US has cast its full weight or the full weight of its political, economic, and military might behind Israel By casting multiple vetoes at the UN Security Council approving more than 100 arms transfers worth $41,000,000,000 and passing roughly $15,000,000,000 in additional military aid and overseeing a massive US military buildup in The Middle East, the Biden administration has placed The US at the center of Israel's war in Gaza.

This is fundamentally must be understood to be money that's being funneled, taxpayer money, American taxpayer money that's being funneled from the pockets of taxpayers into the defense and weapon sectors of the American economy, the private sector private sector business. It's moving public money into the private sector through the military industrial complex. American foreign policy, he says, in The Middle East has been dysfunctional for decades. This is an this is an important paragraph, I think. American foreign policy in The Middle East has been dysfunctional for decades, and the imbalanced relationship between The US and Israel is at the core of that flawed regional strategy.

Washington's reflexive embrace of Israel has impaired its ability to think clearly about the Middle East, a region of limited strategic importance to The US given America's energy independence. At a time that at a time when The US finds itself overextended abroad and facing serious political and economic troubles at home, Washington is following Israel deeper into the abyss. Okay. This is key. He's saying that the traditional role of Israel, has been more or less obsolete since the fracking revolution in the UN The United States energy sector, which turned The US into a net exporter of energy rather than being a net importer of energy.

And it's no longer in American interests to pursue strategic instability in The Middle East to retain control over oil and gas resources. And The Middle East can better serve global economic interests if it is stable and peaceful. Because previously, their only real interest in The Middle East was the oil. Now they have oil. Now they have gas.

Now The United States doesn't need to control the oil and gas in The Middle East because they're energy independent. So now The Middle East can serve other economic interests like what I've talked about in the past. This other global faction of the OCGFC that have interest in multiple sectors, multiple industrial sectors, multiple economic sectors, and so on. So continuing, is there any, sliver of hope? After Biden dropped out of the presidential race, Kamala Harris is now the Democratic forerunner or front runner, and has an opportunity to change course on Israel and Gaza.

Although Harris has urged Israel to do more to address the immense scale of suffering in Gaza, which of course they caused, she has remained steadfast in her backing of Israel much like Biden. Rhetoric devoid of a policy change is not enough. Moreover, a Trump victory would likely offer no respite given his strong support for Tel Aviv and comments that he made comments that he said when he said that he would let Israel, quote unquote, finish the job in Gaza. Now, frankly, I would consider this this paragraph as a dismissal of both the Republican and the Democratic candidates for the presidency. And as such, it's an implicit way of saying, in my opinion, that no solution will be coming from Washington.

This is the position, basically, that they can't say outright, but what what they're implying, the Cato Institute, is implying that no solution will come from Washington. Essentially, they're advocating, without saying it explicitly, that the whole issue needs to be moved out of American jurisdiction. That's what that paragraph says. Continuing the though the future of the White House is uncertain, it should be abundantly clear this is the ending paragraph. It should be abundantly clear, to all that by continuing to subsidize Israel's war in Gaza, The US is setting up itself and setting up the Middle East for disaster.

Washington needs to end its bipartisan blank check support for Israel and extricate itself from this tragedy. Now this again echoes the global consensus. But also again, the author is essentially saying that the military industrial complex can no longer be allowed to dictate American policy, American foreign policy, specifically American policy towards Israel. Because the blank check to Israel is actually, as we know, is a blank check written with tax money and handed over to the weapons sector, the defense sector, to the tech sector, to the aerospace sector and so on. And this blank check being given to those sectors, those industrial sectors, those sectors of the economy is undermining the more varied business interests of the more significant faction of the OCGFC, which I think is represented not exclusively, but fairly comprehensively is represented by BlackRock.

The author is saying that the unconditional support for Israel needs to end, but he's saying that immediately after saying that neither presidential candidate is likely to end it. So in my opinion, this amounts to a warning. The author is is giving a warning to The US that they are insistently moving down a path to regional irrelevance, and that they will be replaced in The Middle East as the power players in the region. And I think that he's he's not only saying that they're that that is what's going to happen, but also saying that, the faction of the OCGFC that he and the, CATO Institute represent, are all in favor of that. Now a few things about Charles Koch.

For years, he and his brother funded conservative slash libertarian think tanks, most notably the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, as well as conservative media outlets like The Daily Caller. But their company, Coke Industries, is where things get a bit more interesting. Coke Industries has extensive connections in the Arab world because they focus a lot on energy. So they have many connections in The Middle East, in the Arab world. I'll give you just some bullet points.

Saudi Arabia, Coke Glitch dash Glitch. In 2014, Coke Industries acquired a majority stake in Glitch International, a Saudi Arabian company that provides equipment and services to the oil and gas industry. The acquisition expanded Coke's presence in The Middle East and strengthened its position in the oil and gas sector. Number two, Saudi Aramco. Coke Industries has a long standing relationship with Saudi Aramco, the state owned oil company of Saudi Arabia.

In 2017, Coke signed a memorandum of understanding with Aramco to explore potential collaboration in the areas of refining petrochemicals and fuel additives. Number three, Saudi Basic Industrial Corporation, SABIC. Coke Industries has partners has partnered with SABIC, a Saudi Arabian chemical company on several projects. In 2019, the two companies announced a joint venture to develop a new petrochemical complex in Saudi Arabia. Now The United Arab Emirates.

Number one, Coke methanol. Coke Industries operates a methanol production facility in Abu Dhabi through its subsidiary, Coke Methanol. The facility, which began operation in 2014, produces approximately 1,800,000 tons of methanol per year. And then the Emirates National Oil Company, Enoch. Koch Industries has partnered with Enoch, a UAE based oil and gas company, obviously, the state company, on several projects.

In 2018, the two companies signed an agreement to develop a new oil refinery in Dubai and now other Middle East countries, Qatar. Koch Industries has a presence in Qatar through its subsidiary, Koch Fertilizer, which operates a fertilizer production facility in Ras Laffan Industrial City. In Oman, Koch Industries has partnered with the Oman oil company to develop a new petrochemical complex in Oman. Kuwait, Koch Industries has a presence in Kuwait through its subsidiary Koch Chemical Technology Group, which provides engineering and consulting services to the oil and gas industry. Partnerships and investments.

Koch Industries has a strategic partnership with Mobadalla Investment Company, a sovereign wealth fund based in Abu Dhabi. The partnership focuses on investments in the energy and chemical sectors. Saudi Arabia's public investment fund, PIF. Coke Industries has reportedly held talks with PIF, Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund, to explore potential investment opportunities in The Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia. So given these connections and the fact that Charles Coke founded and funds the Cato Institute, and the author of this piece is with the Cato Institute, I would draw from this that, yes, the views expressed here represent the the views of the global fact global minded faction of the OCGFC.

They share the vision 2030 plan of Mohammed bin Salman and are interested in developing The Middle East as a as a hub of stability and prosperity. And for this plan, Israel, and more specifically Zionism, is an impediment to these plans for obvious reasons. It seems to me that they have abandoned any desire or any ambition to course correct The United States. They don't think that it's possible, and I think that they're not even interested in seeing The United States continue to have any sort of dominance, whether positive or negative dominance. I don't think that they want The United States to continue to be so dominant in the world, and they would rather see America become more isolated, become more withdrawn, and and and become more economically protectionist.

And the the the fact that these views are being expressed in Time Magazine, which as I said at the beginning, is one of the most mainstream media outlets available, I think this is very significant. This is the the the mainstreaming of the recognition of Washington's corruption, Washington's incompetence, and Washington's decreasing relevance, not just in The Middle East, but around the world.