Since America has not enhanced its long-term interests through these policies the question is 'who is the real beneficiary?' Is President George W. Bush his own man or is there someone else pulling his strings? Is it puppeteers Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld? Karl Rove and Condoleezza Rice? Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle? Big Oil or old-time religion? Do they all have a common worldview, philosophy or a common agenda to promote? What is the common thread between them? 

One common factor among the Neocons that seems to stands out is Leo Strauss, a Jewish political philosopher-king who taught the works of Plato, Nietzsche and Hobbes for two decades at the University of Chicago. According to his profile published in the Executive Intelligence Review in March 2003 Strauss is seen as the "Fascist Godfather of the Neo-Cons." In its September/October 2003 issue, Adbuster Magazine notes of Leo Strauss that he believed in the efficacy and usefulness of "noble lies" in politics to keep the uncomprehending masses in line; that the strong are fit to rule; the weak ought, in turn, to be ruled; that it is important and necessary for political entities to use force and fraud to prosper; and that "nationalism requires an external threat - and if one cannot be found, it must be manufactured." Strauss, the article notes, "produced a small army of devoted pupils who have greatly influenced the thinking of neo-conservatives."

Many of the major players who have ascended to the pinnacle of power under the presidency of George Bush are admirers of Leo Strauss and as such they have brought Straussian ideals with them. Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense tops the list. Other Straussians in or around the administration include Abram Shulsky, director of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, Bill Kristol (son of Irving Kristol, one of the first neo-cons) the editor of Rupert Murdoch's the weekly Standard. Other powerful "insiders" of PNAC who have a lock on policy making in the Bush administration include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Eliot Abrams, Dov Zakheim, John Bolton, Richard Perle, and James Woolsey, former CIA director. Adbuster Magazine further notes that many of the major players who are occupying the White House are also descendants of the Jewish-American New York intellectuals who veered from the radical left (anti-Stalinist Trotskyism of the 1920s and '30s) to the radical right (hence the "neo"). In between, they were allies of McCarthy in the fight against communism, and later joined the Reagan administration. 

These ideologues and power-politicians have enshrined the central tenets of Straussian creed in the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America," the official policy of the U.S. administration published in September 2002. It is virtually identical to various white papers of the PNAC and to the 1981 policy proposal of Ariel Sharon to reorganize the balance of power in the Middle East through change of regimes. 

We know that barely one week after September 11 2001, the hawks around Donald Rumsfeld urged the president to tackle Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and go after Hizbollah, Syria and Iran. As the Financial Times in its issue of November 4, 2003 reports they defined "a threat to Israel is a threat to the United States. Under the guise of the war on terror, their argument went, America should identify its interests with those of Israel - or, to be more precise, with the way the current leadership in Israel defines those interests." 

In his book The Samson Option, Seymour Hersh spells out Sharon's master plan for changing regimes in the Arab world. He notes that, "in the early fall of 1981 Sharon called for Israel to broaden its national security interest 'to include beyond Middle East and Red Sea, states like Turkey, Iran and Pakistan, and regions such as the Persian Gulf and central and northern Africa.' Sharon was telling his nation that Israel's national security now depends on its ability to influence events in a huge area that stretches from Kenya in the south to Turkey, and from Mauritania in the west to Pakistan." Who is better suited to bring about these changes than the United States?

It seems that the tragic events of 9/11 gave a context and a permit to these neo-cons a free rein to unleash their foreign/military campaigns as outlined in one of PNAC's major reports, written in 2000. In unleashing these campaigns the Neocons have taken the first step in the most radical reshaping of the Middle East since the First World War. In doing so they knew that, "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." To sustain their campaigns the neocons continue to utilize fear and hyped patriotism and a permanent war on terrorism as the basis for their policy agenda. The main objective of this policy, at this juncture, has uncanny resemblance to the Israeli agenda as spelled out in Sharon's master plan - regime change in Arab world and de-fang Pakistan and Iran. After bringing about regime changes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and cornering Pakistan, the next critical move of the Bush administration for reorganizing the balance of power in the Middle East seems to be directed against Iran and Syria. Syria and Iran are the two remaining countries that stand in the way of Israeli hegemony in the area. 

In its May 9, 2003 issue, the Financial Times notes that Douglas Feith, a Straussian pro-Israeli "neo-con" and number three at the Pentagon as under secretary of defense for policy, and his fellow neocons "are working hard on the Bush agenda." The same article notes that, Douglas Feith is working closely with Reza Pahlavi, son of Iran's late Muhammad Reza Shah Pahalvi, to restore monarchy in Iran. To bring Reza Pehlavi under the protection of American forces in Iran would be like bringing Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Ahmad Chalabi in Iraq. In this eerie replay of the Iraqi campaign, Israel has cranked up a formidable array of pro-Israeli "neo-cons" to "run interference for it in Washington and to blacken the current government in Tehran."

As for Syria, an unrelenting Washington-sponsored campaign of vilification and demonization is already under way. The Syria Accountability Act, approved 33 to 2 by a House committee on October 8 seems to be the replaying of opening scene to the buildup of war in Iraq. 

To properly understand the Syria Accountability Act, one has to go back to a 1996 document, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," drafted by a team of advisers to Benjamin Netanyahu in his run for Prime Minister of Israel. The authors included current Bush advisers Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. "Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil," he wrote, calling for "striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper." Commenting on the recent Israeli air strike in Syria, Perle told the Washington Post that "it will help the peace process, adding that the United States itself might have to attack Syria." Only months ago we were told that the "road to peace in Jerusalem runs through Baghdad." Perhaps because the resistance to the US occupation in Iraq is getting tougher every day, we are now told that the twisted road to peace runs through Damascus. Another "noble lie" we presume.

It is not only the blatant lies that can be misled; doctored facts can be more misleading in worse manner than any lie ever could. For example all regional conflicts and freedom struggles by Chechens, Colombians, Palestinians, Moros, Kashmiris, and Iraqi resistance against US occupation have now been painted with the same brush and conveniently labeled as "terrorism." Prior to 9/11 these people were considered as "insurgents, rebels, guerillas, separatists, mujahadeens, freedom fighters, etc." By labeling these people as "terrorists" are we not using doctored facts to demonize them and mislead the world public opinion against their struggle? 

Manufacturing "noble lies" can be seen also in the 'Joint Declaration of the Jerusalem Summit' (Oct. 10-12, 2003) of international Zionists. It was attended, among others, by Richard Perle, Daniel Pipes, Ambassador Alan Keyes and hundreds of Evangelical Christians from the United States, representatives from Sweden, the EU Parliament, India, France, Slovenia, and Serbia. US Senator Sam Brownback spoke to the Summit by satellite emphasizing that Christian and Jewish synergy could accomplish much in the political realm, and that the Biblical road map would be the one that would emerge triumphant. In its declaration the Jerusalem Summit proclaimed that it is "the ideology of radical Islam which represents the third major totalitarian threat to civilization following Fascism and Communism." 

This declaration has a familiar echo of Straussian philosophy - "nationalism requires an external threat - and if one cannot be found, it must be manufactured." Using the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics, Islam and Muslims are being portrayed as the new enemy. By repeating this lie long enough these Neocons hope to convince the Americans and the world that it is in the interest of the United States to support the master plan as spelled out by Sharon. The majority of the Europeans are not buying this lie. As published on AFP's website on November 3, according to the latest "Eurobarometer" poll requested by European Union, some 59% of Europeans replied "yes" when asked whether or not Israel presents a threat to peace in the world. 

America should not let Israel define its interests. It is neither logical nor strategic. The expanding Israel/India/Evangelical Christians nexus supported by the Neocons in Washington is likely to prove catastrophic for America, the European Union, Muslim countries and the world at large. Once Israel achieves its uncontested hegemony in the Middle East; it may even pose a challenge to EU and American interests in the Muslim world and Africa. At a minimum, it would unmistakably fuel more resentment in the Muslim world against America, further strain transatlantic relations and could even paralyze the United Nations. Warning against the Washington Neocons and the PNAC agenda, Bernard Weiner has correctly noted that "the PNAC boys are dangerous ideologues playing with matches, and the U.S. is going to get burned even more in years to come, unless their hold on power is broken. The only way to accomplish this, given the present circumstances, is to defeat their boss at the polls in 2004, thus breaking the Hard Right momentum that has done, and is doing, such great damage to our reputation abroad and to our country internally, especially to our Constitution."