Attack Iran? A Neocon Wet Dream
Left-leaning websites are getting hysterical about the Bush Regime's
impending war against Iran. Is it possible that they are becoming
mouthpieces for Bush's 'rhetorical' war on Iran?
Why do these websites get so over-excited, almost orgiastic, in
predicting a middle-east apocalypse? It's more likely that Bush is
rattling his sabre in an attempt to scare Tehran. The Left are playing
into his hands.
Is the rhetoric threat or bluff? It's really not about the worry that
Iran will enrich a little bit of uranium. This is about the Bush Regime
wanting regime change.
It is also about the neocons' last stand, an final attempt to ensure
that Israel [armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons] remains the
dominant state in the Middle East. Attacking Iran is a neocon wet
dream. [1]
Bush Plays Poker with Olmert & Ahmadinejad
President Nixon, a very good poker player, once defined the art of
brinkmanship as persuading your opponent that you are insane and,
unless appeased by pledges of surrender, quite capable of blowing up
the planet.
By these robust standards George Bush is doing a moderately competent
job in suggesting that if balked by Iran on the matter of halting its
nuclear program, he'll dump a couple of nukes on that country's
relevant research sites, or tell Israel to do the job for him.
The Bush administration is capable of almost any folly, but is it
likely that it would bomb Iran's nuclear research labs? Would it really
prod Israel into taking on the job?
Israel, of course, has been making plenty of quite predictable hay out
of President Ahmadinejad's crack about how "the regime occupying
Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time."
Of course the let's-stay-calm types say it was just a stale old
one-liner from the Ayatollah Khomeini and please to note he used the
word "regime," not "Israel."
Plant that one in the graveyard of wimpy rationalizations. Along with
the recent "holocaust conference," it's probably the biggest leg up for
Israeli bond drives since the Yom Kippur war. Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert quotes it on an almost daily basis. [2]
The Ignorant Ideologues
The ignorant ideologues who brought us Iraq have learned nothing. They
are still reading from the same delusional neoconservative script.
So, with Iraq a bloody nightmare, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process
dead, Lebanon and Gaza on the brink of civil war, the entire Middle
East dangerously unstable, and America's standing in the Arab/Muslim
world at an all-time low, the Bush administration geniuses have come up
with another grand plan:
Demonize Iran, push it to the brink of war, strong-arm U.S. allies into
confronting it, and whip up sectarian hatred in the region.
By now, nothing that the Bush administration does in the Middle East
should come as a surprise. But its Iran gambit is so delusional that it
raises the question of whether Bush is in fact playing an inept game of
power politics, as I have suggested, or whether he is half-hoping to
provoke open conflict with Iran.
In a last desperate bid to save his disastrous presidency, does he
actually want to provoke a war with a country three times larger than
Iraq?
It's hard to believe, but then his whole reign is becoming increasingly
phantasmagorical. Unfortunately, this is one nightmare we're not going
to wake up from for two more years. [3]
Demonizing Ahmadinejad: The Tyrant of Tehran
It is striking how swiftly Washington is seeking to escalate its
confrontation with Iran. Its rhetoric has returned to the stridency
used when the US was accusing Saddam Hussein of hiding weapons of mass
destruction that threatened the world.
Iran is now being promoted as the new demon. It is supposedly behind
the provision of roadside bombs that have killed so many US and British
troops - though the technology involved in these simple but deadly
devices could generally be found in a garden shed.
The anti-Iranian tilt of the Bush administration has more to do with American than Iraqi politics.
A fresh target to blame for the fuck-up is being presented to the US
voter. Iran is portrayed as the hidden hand behind US failure in both
Iraq and in Lebanon.
The US media, gullible over WMD, is showing itself equally gullible over this exaggerated Iranian threat.
The Bush administration has always shown itself more interested in holding power in Washington than in Baghdad.
Whatever its failures on the battlefield, the Republicans were able to
retain the presidency and both Houses of Congress in 2004.
Confrontation with Iran, diverting attention from the fiasco in Iraq,
may be their best chance of holding the White House in 2008. [4]
Warmonger Bush [Volume III]
Attacking Iran would be a catastrophic mistake, even if all the
allegations now being made about Iranian actions in Iraq are true.
But it wouldn’t be the first catastrophic mistake this administration
has made, and there are indications that, at the very least, a powerful
faction in the administration is spoiling for a fight.
Before we get to the apparent war-mongering, let’s talk about the
basics. Are there people in Iran providing aid to factions in Iraq,
factions that sometimes kill Americans as well as other Iraqis? Yes,
probably.
But you can say the same about Saudi Arabia, which is believed to be a
major source of financial support for Sunni insurgents — and Sunnis,
not Iranian-backed Shiites, are still responsible for most American
combat deaths.
The Bush administration, however, with its close personal and financial
ties to the Saudis, has always downplayed Saudi connections to
America’s enemies.
It's almost impossible to believe that they’re really planning to
attack Iran, when it’s so obvious that another war would be a recipe
for even bigger disaster. But remember who’s calling the shots: Dick
Cheney thinks we’ve had “enormous successes” in Iraq. [5]
Bush on the Brink
Brinkmanship suits everyone's book. Ahmadinejad, facing serious
political problems, can posture about standing up to the Great Satan.
Olmert can say Ahmadinejad wants to finish off Israel and kill all the
Jews.
Bush sees Iran as a terrific way of changing the subject from the mess in Iraq and putting the Democrats on the spot.
The Democrats take the lead of their presidential hopefuls, who have no
intention of being corralled by the Republicans as simps of Holocaust
deniers who want to destroy Israel.
These days, to be a player, any candidate for the U.S. presidency has
to raise about $100 million, of which a large tranche will come from
American Jews. Barack Obama and John Edwards call for swift withdrawal
of U.S. forces from Iraq.
When it comes to Iran they roar in unison with Hillary Clinton that no
option can be left off the table. In other words, if it comes to it,
nuke 'em. [6]
[1]
Ed Strong
[2]
Alexander Cockburn
[3]
Gary Kamiya
[4]
Patrick Cockburn
[5]
Paul Krugman
[6]
Alexander Cockburn
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
