Even with the media support required to sustain hate in plain sight, today�s background chatter suggests that those worried about U.S. national security are at work in the shadows to counter the influence of the Israel lobby.

If so, that is good news -- for the United States.

When Israeli-American writer Jeff Goldberg appeared again in the news, you knew psy-ops were underway. In March 2002, Goldberg published in The New Yorker a lengthy story alleging an alliance between the religious jihadists of Al Qaeda and the secular Baathists of Iraq.

Though a nonsensical premise, his account made such an alliance appear plausible to a public lacking in knowledge of the Middle East. Goldberg�s storyline made it easier for Saddam Hussein to be portrayed as both an Evil Doer and a threat to the U.S.

Goldberg�s collaborator was James Woolsey, a former Director of the CIA and an avid Zionist. Woolsey assured us that Iraqi intelligence officials met in Prague with Al Qaeda. By association, his stature in intelligence lent credibility to phony intelligence fixed around an Israeli agenda.

Goldberg reemerged in July to promote Evil Doer status for Iran. Writing in the July 22nd issue of The Atlantic, he argued the Israeli case for bombing Iran and urged that the U.S. again join the fray. No one in mainstream media mentioned his earlier manipulation.

Based on the consistency of his �journalism,� it came as no surprise to see Goldberg reemerge just in time for the ninth anniversary of 911. Aided by an array of false intelligence reported by a complicit media, that murderous provocation helped persuade the U.S. to invade Iraq to remove Evil Doer Saddam Hussein.

That March 2003 agenda was first promoted in 1996 in A Clean Break, a strategy paper written for Benjamin Netanyahu by an Israeli-American team led by Richard Perle. This Jewish-Zionist operative re-emerged in July 2001 to chair the Pentagon�s Defense Policy Board where he was joined by Woolsey and others supportive of this Israeli agenda.

Advancing the narrative

Fast-forward to September 2010 and we find Goldberg back at work promoting his interview with Fidel Castro. Emerging fact patterns suggest it came as no surprise to our national security apparatus that the theme of this latest well-timed Goldberg article was the Cuban leader�s concern that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is �anti-Semitic.�

The timing of this report came as a surprise to those aware that Castro has long been critical of Israel�s treatment of the Palestinians.

Goldberg reports he was �summoned� to Havana to discuss Castro�s fears of a global nuclear war. After conceding in the interview that the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis �wasn�t worth it,� Castro turned to a theme of topical importance to Tel Aviv, insisting that the Iranian government must understand that Jews �were expelled from their land, persecuted and mistreated all over the world.�

Knowing Cuba�s pre-revolution alliance with Meyer Lansky and other kingpins in Jewish organized crime, one must wonder if this �journalist� was dispatched to commence negotiations for gambling concessions as a means to fill the Castro government�s depleted coffers.

The recent relaxation of restrictions on travel to Cuba may signal a pending return to Cuba�s �glory days� as a nearby haven for organized crime.

Castro�s well-timed comments about persecuted Jews may have been a signal that Cuba is again open for business -- any business. At the very least, his comments were like a healing balm to nationalist Zionist settlers who have plans to construct another 19,000 home in the West Bank.

So much for those who seek to quell Israel�s long-running land dispute with the Palestinians in order to keep peace talks on track.

Within two days of the release of the Goldberg interview, vandals in Sacramento, California used a swastika to deface an image of Israeli basketball star Omri Casspi. The identity of the vandals has not been confirmed.

This much has been confirmed: timing is everything when seeking to sustain a storyline. Casting Castro as pro-Israeli was a stroke of genius.

Here�s where it starts of get interesting as Americans wake up to find themselves unwitting combatants in the first real Information Age War. When waging modern-day warfare in the shared field of consciousness, media is routinely deployed to displace facts with false beliefs.

Thus the need for substantial and sustained influence in that domain by those determined to shape the political narrative. No one does that better than those who induced the world�s greatest super power to wage a war on their behalf.

Recent developments suggest that the dynamics may be shifting in the �field� where political narratives are advanced and where today�s wars are either won or lost. That field is the shared field of consciousness where consensus beliefs are created and sustained.

In news reported from the Middle East on September 10, Washington took a surprising stance in support of Iranian claims that Tehran was not building a new uranium enrichment facility. That statement came after an Iranian dissident group, in a well-timed release, charged that Iran had a new secret nuclear site 120 kilometers north of Tehran.

That disclaimer preempted a lead editorial in The New York Times published in the U.S. later that same day -- just before the ninth anniversary of 911. That editorial sought to give credence to a report that had already been dismissed as not credible.

Was this an example of U.S. national security attempting to reclaim the narrative? Does this signal a new aggressiveness by the U.S. in waging field-based warfare against those whose successful deceptions led us to war in the Middle East?

Two days prior, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech stating �there may not be another chance� for Mideast peace. That statement came the same day that a senior Palestinian negotiator confirmed they would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Clinton said nothing.

Could these developments signal a crack in the Zionist agenda that has shaped U.S. foreign policy for more than six decades? Are Zionists losing their chokehold on the White House?

If so, will the Israel lobby again rally Congress to Israel�s defense?

Will we see another �unbreakable bond� resolution urging that U.S. interests continue to take second place to Tel Aviv�s agenda for the region?

Will the national security interests of the U.S. prevail or will Zionist goals again triumph?

Timing is everything

While these events were unfolding, The New York Times continued to stoke the controversy surrounding �International Burn A Koran Day.�

The nation�s �newspaper of record� conceded that this well-timed controversy began with local coverage by The Gainesville Sun (owned by The New York Times) when pastor Terry Jones posted a sign outside his small church that read �Islam is of the devil.�

By August 26^th, The Times was prepared to publish a major article on Jones and the anti-Islam views of his 50-member congregation. By September 9^th, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was prepared to say with confidence that Zionists were responsible for the Jones plan to burn a Koran on 911.

In a fortuitous case of timing, recordings played in a federal courtroom on September 8^th showed how a government informer induced a 2009 synagogue bomb plot in New York. The recordings made it clear that those on trial as �homegrown terrorists bent on jihad� were not even modestly well versed in Islam. To make a plausible case for later use in the courtroom, the informer prompted comments consistent with the hate-mongering motivation at the heart of the prosecution�s case.

Do these small chinks in the Zionist armor suggest that Israeli dominance of U.S. foreign policy may be drawing to a close?

Next: A look at the recurring use of pliable and reliable assets to advance a narrative.