The horrors deliverable by Israel that might come next
Debate continues about how sustainable the United States’ model of global leadership remains, which took shape when Washington emerged as arguably the single superpower after World War II. This role was initially challenged during the Korean War, resulting in a stalemate involving China and a Ceasefire Agreement that still holds. Later, the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, despite the earlier disastrous Vietnam conflict, confirmed America’s military, political, and financial dominance. This supremacy was underscored in various policy documents, including the 1990 framework later published in 2000 as Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century: a Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The policy’s final form was shaped by the “Wolfowitz Doctrine,” a term describing national defense guidance formulated while Paul Wolfowitz served as Associate Secretary of Defense under Vice President Dick Cheney. This doctrine refers informally to the US Department of Defense’s Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) covering 1994-9, first issued February 18, 1992.
Serving as the first post-Cold War DPG after the Gulf War’s conclusion, the draft labeled the US the world’s sole superpower and stressed that stopping the rise or return of any global or regional challenger was paramount. This aim included preventing hostile entities from dominating resource-rich or strategic areas that might spawn alternative power hubs. The document insisted that the US Military must be strong enough to deter rivals and retain the unilateral capacity to act if needed. The PNAC statement pushed for ongoing American global leadership, supporting preemptive military actions against foes when deemed necessary.
The Project’s Statement of Principles from June 1997 detailed that “…America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests… We need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.”
This declaration was endorsed by figures such as Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Zalmay Khalilzad, Donald Rumsfeld, Peter Rodman, Elliot Abrams, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Aaron Friedberg, Donald Kagan, I Lewis Libby, and Norman Podhoretz, among others. Later seen as especially “Israel friendly,” it, combined with the growing clout of the US Israeli Lobby, justified U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts over subsequent decades. It could be argued that Israel’s interactions with neighbors and much of the globe have been strongly influenced by numerous Jewish and Israel-first participants shaping Washington’s aggressive posture—leading to engagements, such as those involving Iran, that might otherwise have been avoidable.
What stands out today is how these policies, intended to ensure American military supremacy and justify interventionism, seem embedded in the Trump administration — particularly in the thinking of President Donald J Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. What has gone wrong as the U.S. appears to falter on many fronts by choosing confrontation over diplomacy? Possibly, these failures stem from using a doctrine rooted in a 1991 worldview, unsuitable for current realities, measuring strength and weakness differently. Trump and Hegseth might be seen as relics of an extinct era, while the nation they have mistreated threatens decline. The pressing question remains: “After the US falls, who will be there to pick up the pieces?”
It is reasonable to assume that America’s most protected ally, Israel, which would become one of the world’s most reviled states alongside the US, might suffer a similar fate. Israel has openly vowed to use its nuclear arsenal to take much of the world down if it faces destruction—the so-called Samson Option. It possesses several hundred atomic warheads and rockets capable of targeting any direction, launching from its submarines. Numerous European capitals would likely be within range of Israeli strikes. Former Defense Minister Moshe Dayan once warned: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” While some Israeli leaders may try to prevent such destruction, those in control can and will drag the world down as Israel falls. Before that dark chapter unfolds, millions of Jewish “refugees” could surge into the US and Europe, demanding new homelands analogous to the ones created in Palestine, likely carrying nuclear weapons as “insurance.”
Reports also suggest Israel is developing a biological weapons program designed for “ethnic targeting,” meaning it would selectively kill people based on DNA or ethnic traits—presumably aimed at the Arab majority while sparing those with Jewish characteristics. This approach may make it easier to “mow the lawn” of unwelcome foreigners, echoing past Israeli actions in Gaza and Lebanon.
Israel’s strategy may rely on creating confusion through false flag operations intended to push Americans and Europeans into backing pro-Israel policies detrimental to their interests, while employing a “Palestinian option” to suppress and eventually destroy opposition to its goal of “global dominance.” This involves seizing others’ lands and systematically exterminating populations, potentially using biological weapons. Many educated Israelis are already emigrating, relocating to exclusive Jewish enclaves in places like Crete, Greece, and South America. Local populations often protest the newcomers’ mistreatment, yet governments frequently succumb to Zionist influence, enabling this dynamic.
The US has witnessed this phenomenon in Orthodox Jewish communities across New York, New Jersey, and elsewhere, where religious restrictions govern resident and visitor conduct. If Israel collapses in what was once Palestine, millions of immigrants could enter the US freely, supported by a Congress that decorates Capitol Hill offices with Israeli flags. Lawmakers and officials may overlook the tendency among Israeli Jews to consider the other 90% of any society—such as Palestinians—as subhuman. Florida Congressman Brian Mast, who wears an Israeli army uniform in his Congressional office, declared: “there is no such thing as innocent Palestinians”! Mast’s perspective aligns with many Israeli Jews, of whom 90% reportedly support the extermination of Muslims and Christians.
What lies ahead? John Gehan has offered insight into the future consequences posed by Israeli emigrants following their genocidal campaign to forge Greater (Eretz) Israel—whether it ends in failure or collapse: “Essentially what we’ll have are at least hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of psychotically racist terrorists entering the USA. These are ethnically obsessed monsters who don’t consider anyone outside of their pernicious tribe to be human. They’ll have weapons at their disposal and a cemented nationwide network to commit mass murder. Maybe some of these crazies will seek shelter in Europe or Canada or Argentina, etc. But many will choose the USA as a redoubt. At best, murders and acts of terror will spike dramatically in this country. Israeli Zionists are genocidal psychopaths. As we have all seen.”
For a deeper understanding of these developments and their root causes, Major General Tamir Hayman, head of one of Israel’s leading think tanks, has explained in an article further analyzed by the Quincy Institute the harsh truth about Israel’s new national security doctrine: Hayman highlights how “The United States is a ‘declining power’ and, given its ongoing social and political shifts, will soon abandon Israel in any event. This is compelling Israel to move toward greater self-reliance in order to avoid ‘excessive dependence’ on the US since it ‘exposes Israel to the influence of a progressive American value system that is incompatible with Israel’s Jewish character.’ He concludes: ‘Severing ties with the United States is therefore not only inevitable, but essential to Israel’s independence and the resilience of its Jewish national identity.’” Why so? “Because of the Primacy of Jewish Identity over Democracy: The state’s Jewish identity takes precedence over its democratic system of government.” This priority supersedes the constitutional rights of any other nation where Jews may settle!
Consequently, Americans and many others face a troubling future shaped by an Israel whose leaders, including Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon, have often boasted about controlling “America.” Now Israel claims it has extracted its due and will discard the US donor once exhausted. The vision is the demise of conventional nations striving for decent governance, replaced by an ethnoreligious state equipped with nuclear and biological weapons, embarking on exterminations already underway across the Middle East. Mazel Tov to y’all!
Original article: www.unz.com
About the Author
