Iran's Worrisome Behavior

Highly disturbing:

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108863958866752327,00.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

What’s Iran Up To?
July 1, 2004; Page A14

That’s what U.S. authorities wondered as they expelled two security guards at the Iranian mission to the United Nations last weekend, after the mission was warned repeatedly against permitting its employees to videotape the Statue of Liberty, the subway, bridges and other New York landmarks.

For a dismaying answer, consider the statement made two weeks ago in Tehran by one Hassan Abassi, head of the Revolutionary Guards’ Center for Doctrinaire Affairs of National Security Outside Iran’s Borders. (Quite the job description.) “We will map 29 sensitive sites in the United States and give the information to all international terror organizations,” the New York Sun quotes Mr. Abassi as saying.

In a June 17 report, Memri – the Middle East Media Research Institute – reports a nearly identical statement by Mr. Abassi about compiling a target list of “29 sensitive sites.” And also: “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization.”

That strategy would certainly explain its all-out sprint to develop nuclear weapons, which Iran could possess in about a year unless the West acts to stop it. Also relevant is Tehran’s recent announcement that it has allocated $1 billion to resume developing long-range missile systems that can reach targets in Europe and the U.S. Then there’s the 9/11 Commission’s disclosure last month of Iran-al Qaeda links.

All of which suggests that maybe it’s time for U.S. policy to more forcefully and directly support democrats in Iran who want to liberate their country from this terror-sponsoring regime.

Here’s the link to the MEMRI translation:

OK let?s look at who is calling for the invasion of Iran:

Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

How would you describe this organisation?

It is a highly partisan lobby group. Not a “non-profit, research institute” as it claims to be.

It is highly anti-Arabic, anti-Persian and anti-Islamic but is advocating highly pro-Israeli policies and positions.

Are you going to base your decision for going to war (a fairly serious action!) on such highly biased advice?

Invading Iran would be very hard militarily. Unlike Iraq it is a mountainous country. Any technological advantage of mechanized warfare is going to be minimized. Thus it is largely going to have to be foot soldiers doing most of the grunt work (i.e. dying).

If the Israelis have a problem with Iran let them sort it out themselves

In fact lets see if one of the authors of the Middle East Media Research Institute (or for that matter any other pro-war lobby group) is anywhere near the front line fighting and dying for the causes they profess.

A lot of people in history have died because of calls for war from the pulpits of churches, mosques etc or more recently the media and academia. Those that make the appeals for war are never the ones who end up doing the bleeding. If armchair generals want to fight, fine just don?t be manipulating other to fight and die for them.

Ayelet Savyon (i.e. the author of the memri article) also writes for this publication:

http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/story/opinion20030326.html

But the other opinion writes illustrate the their position best.

In their own word (from the article below):

“they (i.e. neo-con) have not lost the war for Bush’s mind”

“Bush has adhered to the twin neoconservative themes of promoting democracy abroad and aggressively using U.S. military power.”

“Ariel Sharon, an ally of the neocons.”

Lets see if the neocons are winning the war for bush’s mind and the neo-cons are Ariel Sharon’s allies who is Bush “aggressively using U.S. military power” for again?

“The truth is that, currently, the neocons are the only ones with any ideas in the administration”

Does this mean that only the interests of neo-cons are represented?

“Their main targets in a Bush second term: Syria and Iran.”

There you have it!

“If Bush remains president, the neoconservative moment isn’t over. It has just begun.”

Comrades let the coup de tare, I mean revolution begin!

http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/story/opinion20040629c.html

Neocons still in control

BY JACOB HEILBRUNN LA Times June 28, 2004
Neoconservatism is finished. According to the conventional wisdom, the Pentagon’s top neocons – Paul D. Wolfowitz, Douglas J. Feith and William J. Luti – have been discredited by the insurgency in Iraq, Abu Ghraib and growing public discontent with the war. The United Nations has been invited back – begged, really – while the organization’s chief opponent, Richard Perle, has been marginalized. The exposure of Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi as a charlatan, and possibly as an Iranian spy, has delivered the knockout punch. The neocons have lost President Bush’s confidence, it seems, and will be abandoned if he wins a second term.

That’s the way the story goes, anyway. It is widely believed and easy to understand, but it is wrong.

Bush won’t bail out of Iraq

Although it is certainly true that the neoconservatives have had to beat a number of tactical retreats, they have not lost the war for Bush’s mind. Quite the contrary; that’s just wishful thinking by their enemies on both the left and right.

For one thing, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have made no fundamental revisions in foreign policy. Sure, they’ve made a few modest concessions to Europe and the United Nations on Iraq. But the basics remain unchanged: Bush isn’t bailing out of Iraq, and more than 100,000 U.S. troops will remain there for at least another year.

Rather than tone down his rhetoric, Bush has adhered to the twin neoconservative themes of promoting democracy abroad and aggressively using U.S. military power. Nor has Bush wavered in his support of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, an ally of the neocons. Bush has insisted that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat be sidelined, slapped sanctions on Syria and pushed to isolate Iran. Is this moving away from neoconservatism?

No doubt neoconservatives have been put on the defensive in recent months. When I met Feith, the undersecretary of Defense for policy, for an interview recently, he stated that his critics ``are being shabby with the facts, cherry-picking evidence – doing things they’re accusing us of.‘’

But Feith was adamant in saying that the neoconservatives had not been sidelined. They remain influential, he said, and will remain so as long as ideas remain important in the administration. ``Bush is not some empty vessel that we’re pouring this stuff into. He’s (been) underestimated the way critics underestimated Reagan.‘’

The truth is that, currently, the neocons are the only ones with any ideas in the administration. Secretary of State Colin Powell bridles at any drafts from his speechwriters that he considers too theoretical. Feith, by contrast, filled his office with neocon intellectuals.

So far, no neoconservative has been thrown overboard. Despite charges that his homemade intelligence network at the Pentagon relied on bogus intelligence from Chalabi, Feith remains firmly in place at the Defense Department. David Wurmser, the architect of the pro-Chalabi strategy, is Cheney’s Middle East advisor now. Mark Lagon, a neoconservative who worked for Jeane Kirkpatrick, has been promoted at the State Department. Several younger neocons remain embedded in other agencies.

If Bush loses the election, a bloodbath will ensue; neoconservatives will be cannibalized by traditional conservatives and by their rivals at the State Department and elsewhere. But if Bush wins and the GOP retains its Senate majority, they will continue to rise. Neoconservative pit bull John Bolton, an undersecretary of State, might well head the CIA. Their main targets in a Bush second term: Syria and Iran.

Irving Kristol, the godfather of the neoconservatives, recently wrote in the Weekly Standard that neoconservatism is ‘‘enjoying a second life’’ under Bush. Foes on the right and left may be eager to bury, not praise, the neoconservatives, but the obsequies are entirely premature. If Bush remains president, the neoconservative moment isn’t over. It has just begun.