More Drums For Iran War

By Cernig

I'm becoming more and more certain that, despite the rhetoric about it being "a last resort", the Bush administration and the neocon WormTongues who formulate its foreign policy are gearing up for an attack on Iran.

In an editorial in the Washington Times yesterday, noted neocons Tom McInerney and Fred Gedrich set out the three point "plan" they think would deliver victory for their ideological delusions.

One, inform Iran that it must stop: (1) developing its nuclear program immediately and verifiably; (2) providing ordnance and training to Iraqi Shi'ite militias like the Mahdi Army, the Badr organization and others; (3) supporting foreign terror groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad; and (4) providing sanctuary to al Qaeda leaders and operatives. If Iran fails to cease these activities, the consequences will be selective U.S. air strikes on nuclear facilities and anything that supports them; IED factories; and the special navy, air force and ground force units of the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Two, encourage Iranian opposition and resistance groups and dissidents to combine efforts to peacefully change Iran's government. The time appears ripe. The regime doesn't allow 65 million citizens basic political rights and civil liberties or a free press. And poor governmental policies have created high unemployment and inflation. Additionally, the regime is resorting to a wave of repression against trade unionists, teachers, journalists, students and intellectuals. During the past four months, it reportedly arrested more than 1 million people and hanged and stoned several hundred of them to death.

Three, after congressional consultations, revoke the 1997 Clinton/Albright State Department decision to place the multiethnic Mujahidin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) on the United States terror list. The MEK is the largest, best organized, and most feared of all Iranian resistance groups and more than 50,000 members have been killed by the Islamic regime.

There's so much wrong with this plan that it's difficult to know where to start. Every sane analyst who has ventured an opinion has siad that attacking Iran would strengthen the current regime's position, not weaken it, as dissidents were swept away in a tide of nationalism. The entire premise that diplomacy is dead and bald demands 'or else' are the future of U.S. foreign policy lies behind the neocon and bush administration failure in Iraq and was counter-exampled by success in belatedly following the Clinton plan for dealing with North Korea's nuclear program. The MeK - far from being advocates of a "a secular, democratic, nuclear-free, and death penalty-free state" as described by McInnery and Gedrich - are a Marxist/Islamist terror group who did Saddam's bully-boy work, are the subject of a major trial for atrocities against the Iraqi people and believe that their true leader (the figurehead leader's husband) is the actual 12th Imam.

Then there's the simple fact that every single independent expert who has given an opinion says any attack on Iran would be an unmitigated disaster, with massive blowback throughout the region. Undaunted, the neocons have set about producing gerrymandered reports on any economic impact of such an attack mounting a media drive to push the fable that any such attack could be 'cost-free". As if.

But it seems that the neocons can full some of the Europeans all of the time. The British government has publicly said it would not support an attack on Iran, but now up steps the newest Tony Blair in the form of France's Nicolas Sarkozy, who knows that attacking Iran would be catastrophic but would go along with it if the alternative was the weakening of France's clout as a member of a still-select nuclear club. It seems a "Coalition of the Sorta-Willing" could yet again be cobbled together. Even if it only had two members, it gives a fig leaf cover to the charge of unilateral imperialist aggression.

And what of the Democrats? Wouldn't they refuse any authority for another ill-advised neocon adventure? Unfortunately, I find myself in agreement with Pat Robertson Buchanan on this one (Edit - yep, Kevin, they do blend at times) , much to my distaste.

"My guess would be that Barack Obama and Miss Hillary and the others would be in a state of paralysis," he stated, "because it might be a very popular initial move and elements of the Democratic Party would support. You take Joe Liberman, would cheer his head off."

"I think if you took polls of the American people, they would put Iran right up at the top of America's enemies list," Buchanan continued. "So I think in the Democratic Party, of course, you've got the -- with due respect, you've got the Israeli Lobby and Israel, and you've got the hardline like Lieberman, and you've got the Neoconservatives, and you've got a lot of evangelical Christians and others who think this is a real menace and you ought to hit them."..."I don't see politicians in this city standing up and saying, 'That was an outrageous thing to do, Mr. President.' ... I think the initial reaction would be 'the president's the leader and we're at war.'"

Which is the direct consequence of the Dems on the Hill trying to talk tough for polls while at the same time realizing the absolute lunacy of such talk. They could try advocating for the actual truth, maybe. Buchanan made his remarks on Joe Scarborough's show and the Smug One chipped in with something so obvious it's amazing to me that the Dem bigwigs haven't figured it out yet.

"No, the Democrats haven't learned anything. ... Their own base is upset because they won't stand up to George Bush. ... They not standing up to Bush on Iraq. ... They're afraid to be taking a stand because they don't want to be seen as weak on defense."

Yup. Which just makes them seem weak, period.