I think it's narrow thinking to paint the plan for Middle East destruction primarily upon Israel. One can find quotes to substantiate just about ANY theory. Plus, in a manner akin to that which had Bush demanding that Intelligence find evidence that could fix a case FOR war, Mr. Harrington's quotes may fit into a similar calculus.
The following FAR more nuanced analysis comes from Gareth Porter's article published yesterday (on C.D):
"Although it has been almost a rigid rule that pundits must ascribe U.S. fealty to its Saudi alliance to oil interests, oil is far from the top of the list of U.S interests today. More important to our national security state is the interest of the Pentagon and the military services to protect the military bases they have in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE. Their need to preserve those alliance relationships is intensified by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) cornucopia of military contracts for U.S. arms manufacturers that assures enormous profits will continue to flow for the foreseeable future. One estimate of the total at stake for the Pentagon and its private allies in military relationships with the GCC is $100 billion to $150 billion over two decades."
I take it as the mark of a primitive intelligence to seek and find one primary causative agency behind any major phenomenon.
It would be FAR more honest and accurate to paint Israel as a powerful player, one of the poker players at the Big Table.
But to leave out the role of Big Banks and the desire to maintain U.S. hegemonic control over the PETRO-DOLLAR as standard (of and for) global currency; and to leave out the MIC requiring wars for its own raison d'etre; and leave out the habit for imperialism that's always the chief practice of any empire; and leave out the oil... all to make a case that rests mostly on Israel is very short-sighted AND prejudicial.