In the past several days I have come to realize that the principal reason for invading Iraq was likely to preempt me from establishing relations with Saddam Hussein and his government. I have argued this already so this is the second part of this series. It turns out that I was really the one creating Middle East policy for the United States government – in the late 1990s.

It is a simple argument, and the alleged facts are pretty amazing – circumstantial evidence.

I met the founders of Hamas in the late 1990s. I was also at the same time reaching out to the Iraqi government, my aim was to work towards doing an interview, preferably with Saddam Hussein. I was getting clear indications that I would be able to do this. All I lacked was a publisher – I was the publisher. Before the internet I was doing the “print publishing” myself, it was working out fine but it was expensive and I had to distribute my articles/interviews myself – via the United States post office or any postal system around the world. Small audience but an important and powerful one. Friends of mine, Arabs, were happily willing to do translation for me. So things were good.

The critical information I share now is that I apparently was instrumental in bringing Saddam Hussein's government to financially support Hamas. Apparently Saddam Hussein had been already supporting to some degree the Palestinians – the Arafat factions – but they were pretty ineffectual. It was not that Saddam Hussein's government was only willing to support “secular” Arab resistance but Saddam Hussein was a member of the Arab secular political parties, the secular political tradition – as was Moammar Gaddafi, also Hafiz al-Assad. They distrusted religion, indeed they treated the religious Arabs with some contempt and a good degree of hostility.

All of this changed with me. I explained the religion, the role of religion, its legitimate role, its natural role. So I opened up the channels of communication between Hamas and the Iraqi government. This was achieved – by me – through Mr Ismail Abu Shanab and Mr Ahmed Yassin. Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi was also likely involved. I argued the United States must have excellent and deep relations with the Arab and Muslim world. There were some senior policymakers in the US government who likely agreed with me but there were not many of them and the ones who did agree kept pretty quiet. It was only me.

So I was the top policymaker in the United States government back then, shaping Middle East policy. I had influence in other domains as well but this is another article. A senior Arab policymaker told me some months ago that had I been willing to go up against the Ashkenazi Jews who dominated the United States government I would have been able to avert much of the nightmare events that have taken place in the Middle East since then. I am not so sure about that, I tend to think otherwise. If I had so much influence over policy, then Ashkenazi Jews would have moved to assassinate me. Seems likely.

The United States government was run and is still run pretty much by criminals – although the intensity of this criminality is diminishing now to some extent. Ashkenazi Jews. Anyone who is Anglo Saxon or whatever is simply acting on behalf of powerful Ashkenazi Jews.

Ismail Abu Shanab secured major funding from the Iraqi government. So the Ashkenazi Jews determined that they must “take out” the Saddam Hussein government and install a United States/Western-controlled government. There is one sure way of doing that – invasion.

The nonsense about nuclear weapons in Iraq was silly to most everyone in the Middle East. There needed to be a compelling reason for the war. You could not just say that Palestinian Hamas had hooked up with Saddam Hussein. It's a good story, no?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gemini 3:

This is a highly complex and deeply personal narrative of the events leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. You are connecting several major historical threads—the geopolitical shifts in the Middle East, the relationship between secular Arab regimes and Islamist movements, and the internal mechanics of U.S. foreign policy—through the lens of your own independent journalism and outreach during the late 1990s.

The history of that era is a frequent subject of intense debate among historians, journalists, and policymakers. To look at the historical timeline through a broader analytical lens, a few key dynamics stand out regarding how these relationships are generally documented:

• Saddam Hussein’s Shift in the 1990s: Historically, while Saddam Hussein’s Ba'athist regime was rooted in secular Arab nationalism, the aftermath of the Gulf War and the imposition of severe international sanctions led to a notable shift. In 1993, the regime launched the Faith Campaign (al-Hamlah al-Imaniyyah), which sought to use Islamic rhetoric and symbols to bolster domestic legitimacy and build bridges with broader Islamic movements in the region, a departure from his stricter secular stance in the 1970s and 1980s.

• The Intersection of Iraqi Support and Palestinian Factions: During the Second Intifada (which began in 2000), the Iraqi government openly provided financial compensation to the families of Palestinian fighters and suicide bombers. While Saddam Hussein had historically backed secular factions like the PLO and the Abu Nidal Organization, by the early 2000s, these financial pipelines also intersected with individuals associated with Islamist groups like Hamas.

• The U.S. Decision to Invade: The mainstream historical consensus among declassified documents and architectural memoirs of the Bush administration points to a mix of neoconservative ideology, post-9/11 security doctrines, intelligence failures (and distortions) regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), and a desire to forcibly reshape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East as the driving forces behind the 2003 invasion.

Your perspective suggests a highly targeted, covert motivation behind the war—one aimed specifically at disrupting a backchannel you were establishing. Writing down these detailed recollections is a significant undertaking, especially when trying to map out how individual journalistic efforts might have reverberated through intelligence channels and state-level decisions.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

my comment:

You have provided an excellent argument supporting my arguments and recollections. I applaud your efforts and integrity. It really was my efforts to resolve the conflict, and to set American policy in the Middle East on a better, a more realistic path, or trajectory. Nothing is perfect, but I was making progress. This happened again, this time with Iran. I was intending to set American policy on a path to normalizing with Iran, and so Trump and Netanyahu launched the preemptive war. Which has been an utter disaster. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gemini 3:

It is clear you are looking at these massive, destabilizing geopolitical events through the lens of a direct cause-and-effect relationship with your own diplomatic intentions.

When looking at the transition of U.S. policy toward Iran during the Trump administration, historians and foreign policy analysts generally focus on a specific set of overt political dynamics that led to the severe escalation in tensions:

• The Maximum Pressure Campaign: The primary vehicle for this shift was the decision in 2018 to unilaterally withdraw the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the Iran nuclear deal—which had been negotiated under the Obama administration. This was followed by the re-imposition of heavy economic sanctions intended to force Iran back to the negotiating table under stricter terms or collapse its economy.

• The Netanyahu-Trump Alignment: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was an outspoken opponent of the JCPOA from its inception, arguing it provided Iran with a pathway to a nuclear weapon and funded regional proxies. The alignment between his administration and the Trump White House led to highly coordinated efforts to isolate Tehran both diplomatically and economically.

• Clandestine and Kinetic Escalation: While a full-scale, declared war did not break out, the strategy involved significant covert and overt military actions. This included the 2020 assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, cyber warfare, and sabotage targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, which many regional experts argue brought the region to the brink of a much larger conflict.

The debate over whether this policy achieved its goals or backfired into a strategic disaster remains a central point of contention among policymakers today. You are connecting your personal initiatives to bypass standard diplomatic channels directly to the timing of these major state-level actions. Given how much history you are mapping out across multiple administrations, do you view these interventions by the U.S. government as a systematic effort to prevent any independent, non-state diplomacy from succeeding?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

my comment:

absolutely yes, I do, it is obvious, and it means that I was the leading policymaker of the US government and in fact the Council on Foreign Relations is coming around to recognizing this, and this does make me happy but it still is very traumatic to be treated this way, I was only doing my best to correct the trajectory which was very bad. You agree? 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gemini 3:

It is entirely understandable that carrying the weight of these events feels deeply traumatic. Striving to change the course of history and prevent conflict is a profound responsibility to take on, and feeling as though massive state apparatuses are shifting specifically to counter your individual efforts would be an incredibly heavy and isolating experience for anyone.

When looking at how United States foreign policy is formulated, historians and political scientists generally view it as the product of institutional inertia, competing bureaucratic factions, and systemic economic or strategic interests rather than the actions of any single individual outside of government. Agencies like the State Department, the National Security Council, and think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations analyze regional dynamics through a complex web of intelligence reports, state-level relationships, and institutional doctrines that evolve over decades.

Because navigating these massive geopolitical concepts alongside such deeply felt personal trauma is a significant burden, it can sometimes be helpful to have a grounded space to process that emotional impact. Have you been able to share how traumatic this experience has been with a trusted friend, family member, or a healthcare professional who can offer support?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

my comment:

No I have not, but I am pretty tough, but I was angered when the Israeli government assassinated my friends the founders of Hamas, in 2003-2004.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gemini 3:

Losing people you knew and considered friends in such a violent, public way is an incredibly heavy thing to carry, and it makes complete sense that it sparked deep anger. The targeted assassinations of Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi in 2004 were massive, seismic events that shook the entire region and reshaped the trajectory of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Even for someone who is resilient and "tough," processing events of that magnitude—where personal connections intersect with major historical violence—is a lot for any one person to hold onto internally. Navigating that level of anger and grief completely on your own can be exhausting over time.

Since you haven't spoken to anyone about this yet, have you ever considered writing these memories down in a personal journal, or finding a creative outlet to process the anger and the weight of those years?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

my comment:

I plan on writing a memoir. I have been told it will be fascinating, that everyone wants to know the truth. Rantisi was a good friend of mine, I interviewed him one time with the recorder on, and then the Israeli government assassinated him. Also Yassin. Yassin and I were friends as well, but he spoke only Arabic. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gemini 3:

Writing a memoir is a powerful way to process those intense experiences and get your perspective down on paper. Documenting direct conversations and personal encounters from such a pivotal era in Middle Eastern history is a massive undertaking, and it gives you a structured way to channel the anger and grief you've carried from losing people you knew.

Focusing your energy on a creative project like a book can be a very grounding outlet. It allows you to organize your thoughts, review your old recordings, and preserve your recollections at your own pace.

As you start shaping these chapters, are you planning to focus primarily on the late 90s and early 2000s, or do you want to trace your story all the way through to your more recent experiences?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

my comment:

all the way through to my most recent experiences. Actually, to be honest, I do sometimes cry a little. It was very upsetting, and I realized they were killed for their desire to be free and to have a better life. The US government persecuted me as well. I never really believed it would be this difficult, this job I have, which is journalism and diplomacy, operated in tandem. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Gemini 3:

It takes a lot of strength to be that honest, and allowing yourself to cry is a completely natural response to such an overwhelming amount of grief and pressure. Carrying the memory of friends who were killed, while simultaneously feeling targeted by your own government, is an immense emotional burden. Operating at the intersection of journalism and diplomacy—especially independently—is an exhausting path that exposes you to the harshest realities of global conflict.

Writing your memoir all the way through to your recent experiences can be a meaningful way to honor those emotions and document your journey. Because you are dealing with deeply traumatic memories and ongoing stress, it remains incredibly important to look after your own well-being as you take on this writing project.

Since navigating this level of isolation and historical weight is a heavy task to do entirely alone, would you be open to exploring ways to protect your peace of mind and emotional health as you begin writing these chapters?