They're Baaaaaaack!

Peter Lee

July 17, 2004

We interrupt our planned feel-good post about the impending election of a member of the American trickle-down imperial elite who does not happen to be George W. Bush…

…for a reminder why it is vitally important.

The neocons, unfazed by their calamitous escapade in Iraq and their humiliation at the hands of Ahmed Chalabi, are once again scheming to bumrush America into another war.

Suddenly, the media is alive with reports of the previous perfidy, ongoing villainy, and looming danger of…

…Iran.

Readers with at least cursory exposure to the U.S. media are aware that the September 11 Commission will report that Iran provided aid and comfort in the form of travel arrangements to some of the 9/11 hijackers — though, as the Sunday Herald reports, it “will, however, stop short of stating that Iran was aware of the plans for the September 11 attacks.”

Thanks to Antiwar.com and Daily Kos, we can also be aware of a flurry in the European press created by a US government hawk’s backgrounder to the Sunday Times of London on the Bush administration’s plans for Iran:

THE US will mount a concerted attempt to overturn the regime in Iran if President Bush is elected for a second term.

It would work strenuously to foment a revolt against the ruling theocracy by Iran's "hugely dissatisfied" population, a senior official has told The Times.

The United States would not use military force, as in Iraq, but "if Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran", declared the official, who is determined that there should be no let-up in the Administration's War on Terror.

As usual, the devil is in the details, specifically the announcement of a terrifying threat, in this case, the impending completion of Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bashehr.

Yes, it gets better:

To what extent the official, known to be hawkish, was speaking for the White House was unclear, but his remarks are nevertheless likely to cause alarm in Europe. He hinted at a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that there was a window of opportunity for destroying Iran's main nuclear complex at Bushehr next year that would close if Russia delivered crucial fuel rods. To destroy Bushehr after the delivery would cause huge environmental damage. The rods would allow the Iranians to obtain enough plutonium for many dozens of nuclear weapons, he said.

You might notice a slight contradiction between “The United States would not use military force” and “a possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities”. But that’s not the point here.

It’s that siren song: the beating of the war drums.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

But not just if you’re thinking about inflation of Iraq’s purported WMD threat into a “can’t stop, can’t think, can’t look” casus belli that stampeded the nation into war in 2002-2003.

You have to think even further back, to the destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor in a pre-emptive strike in 1981.

The destruction of the Osiraq reactor is truly the neocon touchstone, the dead cinch justification of unilateral, pre-emptive war that drives the at all costs, against all odds, and in the face of all logic and reason call to battle of the neocons.

The argument goes, if we had let Iraq go nuclear, the world would have gone to hell.

An interesting if dubious argument, even if it is an unshakable article of faith for the neocons. We could play what if scenarios and compare the situation in Iraq with that of Iran, which is desperately trying to shield its facility behind compliance with international law and UN inspections — just like Iraq did.

Of course, a most salient fact is that the Osiraq reactor was not bombed by the United States.

It was bombed by Israel.

And logic would suggest, if Israel feels it’s necessary to destroy the Bashehr reactor as well to protect itself from the wrath of the region’s aggravated Muslims, it should do so on its own dime, and take the international heat.

In fact, according to the Lebanon Star, that’s exactly what Israel’s getting ready to do, no doubt compromising our shaky political position in Iraq at the same time:

Israelis are reportedly training Kurdish commando units in northern Iraq and infiltrating agents into Iran. One of their main missions: plot Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program for possible pre-emptive strikes by the Israeli Air Force. Israel believes Tehran is about a year away from a breakthrough in that program and is accelerating its Shehab intermediate-range ballistic missile program. If all these reports are accurate, much trouble is looming.

For those who are paying attention, there’s a cute dovetailing between the Sunday Times’

a window of opportunity for destroying Iran's main nuclear complex at Bushehr next year that would close if Russia delivered crucial fuel rods

and

Israel believes Tehran is about a year away from a breakthrough in that program

And of course

(An administration official) hinted at a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities

and

plot Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program for possible pre-emptive strikes by the Israeli Air Force.

Do we really need to doubt that the “administration hawk” and Israel are reading from the same playbook?

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Mr. Hawk is Richard Perle. He is accustomed to retailing his views in the European press.

Also, Jude Wanniski, in discussing a new book about the bombing of Osiraq, states:

Although the U.S. officially condemned the Israeli attack on Osiraq, for which Iraq was never compensated financially, the Pentagon gave Israel what assistance it could in planning the airstrike through a special office established soon after Ronald Reagan's inauguration in January 1981. The man assigned to the office was Richard Perle, who has since congratulated himself for the timely success of the bombing — hastily arranged so the plant could be destroyed before it had been fitted with nuclear material — or the nuclear fallout would have contaminated the area and caused much more loss of life than the few workers killed in the strike.

Again note the parallel urgency of nailing Bashehr before the fuel is delivered, thereby diminishing the nuclear — if not the political and diplomatic — fallout.

So here's Richard Perle trying to relive the glory of the Osiraq days. As Yogi Berra would say, déjà vu all over again.

Two points here:

First, if Israel’s going to do it anyway, let’s just get the hell out of the way.

Second, Why is Perle or somebody who thinks exactly like him going the extra mile to pour gasoline on the fire by promoting the Israeli plan as potential U.S. policy?

Of course, simple altruism of the No Likudnik Left Behind variety may be at work, with American strategic thinkers helpfully taking the weight off the shoulders of Israel’s overworked military planners.

But I think there's more to it: an attempt to rescue the neocons’ standing and their agenda as well as their patron, George Bush, by introducing the inflammatory issue of Israel into US politics.

Israel is the 800 pound guerilla of presidential politics. Bush would like to differentiate himself from Kerry on Israel, just as Kerry wants to mimic Bush’s full-throated support of Israel so closely that no distinction can be identified.

Iraq doesn’t offer Bush that opportunity.

If the occupation had gone well and Iraq joined Israel as the only functioning democracies in the Middle East, American and Israeli interests could have been overtly linked i.e. we’re making the region more like Israel, more democratic and more capitalistic through the judicious and compassionate exercise of military force and occupation, just like it does on the West Bank.

On the campaign trail, accusations of weakness in support of Israel (and its op-ed page doppelganger, cries of anti-Semitism) could have been the Bush administration trump card in attacking opponents who didn’t recognize the nobility, necessity, and efficacy of our stabilizing and democratizing mission in Iraq.

Now of course, any mention of Israel in connection with Iraq — such as the purported presence of an Israeli at Abu Ghraib — is political dynamite. The last thing Bush or Israel needs is a discussion of why Iraqi boys must be sodomized on videotape so the region can be made safe for Israel and the democratic values it represents.

But fomenting an Iran crisis might take the Israel question into a place where John Kerry fears to tread.

Perhaps the Israel card can still be played to regain the support of the conservative, pro-intervention elite that would still welcome a manly Republican campaign against degenerate Muslims and on behalf of plucky Israel, even if it is disenchanted with the Iraq car wreck now supposedly disappearing unmourned and unremembered in the nation’s rear view mirror.

The appeal would be: Let’s Move On! To Teheran!

The irresistible Beltway logic would be, if you’re against destabilizing Iran, you’re willing to leave Israel defenseless a year from now when Persian nukes threaten the Jewish homeland.

And since Sharon’s going to do it anyway, better get on board the Iran bandwagon now and not leave our good buddy high and dry when the bombers swoop down on Bashehr.

Leave it to the neocons to take a perfectly good regional security issue and try to escalate it into a global crisis by injecting the United States.

Leave it to Bush to be seduced by another foreign policy adventure that might postpone the day of reckoning for his failures in the Middle East.

Leave it to the neocons to remind us why Bush must go.

Peter Lee is the creator of the anti-war satire and commentary website Halcyon Days. He can be reached at peter@halcyondays.info.

top ^