Neocons Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes

  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Dec 06, 2011 1:49 PM GMT
    American Enterprise Institute Admits The Problem With Iran Is Not That It Would Use Nukes

    December 02, 2011 3:13 pm ET — MJ Rosenberg

    Suddenly the struggle to stop Iran is not about saving Israel from nuclear annihilation. After a decade of scare-mongering about the second coming of Nazi Germany, the Iran hawks are admitting that they have other reasons for wanting to take out Iran, and saving Israeli lives may not be one of them. Suddenly the neoconservatives have discovered the concept of truth-telling, although, no doubt, the shift will be ephemeral.

    The shift in the rationale for war was kicked off this week when Danielle Pletka, head of the American Enterprise Institute's (AEI) foreign policy shop and one of the most prominent neoconservatives in Washington, explained what the current obsession with Iran's nuclear program is all about:

    "The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it's Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don't do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn't getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." ... And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem."

    ...

    If you didn't know any better, you might ask why ... [ is ] AEI is still hell-bent on war ... If its determination to stop Iran is not about defending Israel from an "existential threat," what is it truly about? ... It is about preserving the regional balance of power, which means ensuring that Israel remains the region's military powerhouse, with Saudi Arabia playing a supporting role. That requires overthrowing the Iranian regime and replacing it with one that will do our bidding (like the Shah) and will not, in any way, prevent Israel from operating with a free reign throughout the region.

    This goal can only be achieved through outside intervention (war) because virtually the entire Iranian population — from the hardliners in the reactionary regime to reformists in the Green Movement working for a more open society — are united in support of Iran's right to develop its nuclear potential and to be free of outside interference. What the neoconservatives want is a pliant government in Tehran, just like we used to have, and the only way to achieve this, they believe, is through war.

    full story: http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201112020008

    History is about to repeat itself, just like the CIA overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953:

    "The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[3]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project.[4] The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one [ read: DICTATORSHIP ] who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[5]"

    source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2011 5:34 PM GMT
    A nuclear Iran could be a good thing, as it would force Israel closer to coming off its fence of ambiguity and making its deterrent capability known.

    It would also force the West (and especially the USA) to disengage its imperial policies toward the Middle East and turn to renewable energy as well as developing its own NG, clean coal, and shale deposits as an interim.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2011 7:31 PM GMT
    Pouncer saidYou seem to love the idea of Israel's (and our) common ruin, as usual.


    My position toward the Middle East is "observant, but disengaged".

    Disengage from the oil trade and not needing to worry at some point if oil gets denominated in Yuan or Rubles or Euros, with the USA becoming a net energy exporter through the use of advanced solar, thermonuclear, and local fossil fuel (coal, shale, methane clathrates, Bakken oil, etc.)

    And then sit back and see how the region handles itself, with our own nuclear deterrent aimed squarely down the centre of Mecca, Qom, Tehran, Riyadh, Islamabad, Damascus, and wherever else the combination of tin pot dictatorships and batshit insane Islamist theocrats looking to develop nukes live.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2011 8:17 PM GMT
    Nah. I'm just one of those reactionary, nationalistic types who have a staggering level of disbelief in humanity's ability to ever coalesce under a "one world government".

    It may happen, but I'll guarantee that it will not last a single generation (i.e. not even lasting as long as the Soviet Union).

    Too many crazy fuckers out there with wildly divergent ideas on how to run their own affairs.