Prominent lobbyist Perle: U.S. will attack Iran if it obtains nukes
Richard Perle, the man regarded by many as one of the architects of the Iraq war, has promised that the US will attack Iran if the Iranians continue with their nuclear programme.President George Bush will order an attack on Iran if it becomes clear to him that Iran is set to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities while he is still in office, Richard Perle told the Herzliya Conference on Sunday. Perle is close to the Bush administration, particularly to Vice President Richard Cheney.
Perle, who had promised that "future generations will write songs about us" if the US attacked Iraq, has now backed away from the invasion saying that if he new then what he knows now, he would not have supported the war.
The leading neoconservative and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute addressed the session on Iran's nuclear program. He said that the present policy of attempting to impose sanctions on Iran will not cause it to abandon its nuclear aspirations, and unless stopped the country will become a nuclear power.In an article called "Neo Culpa", Richard Perle declared that had he known how it would turn out, he would have been against it: "I think now I probably would have said: 'No, let's consider other strategies'."
However, being flat wrong about Iraq has not stopped Perle from promising that the US will intervene if Iran do not desist from enriching uranium. And it's a safe bet that Perle is only publicly saying what Cheney is saying in private.
As I reported before, Cheney has already turned down an offer from Iran that appeared to give the Americans all that they asked for:
Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.
Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.
When one couples these developments with Netanyahu's recent comments...
"I call on the world that did not stop the Holocaust to stop investing in Iran to prevent genocide," he said, recommending garnering international support to bring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to trial for genocide.... then it is safe to say that the Bush/Cheney administration have not lost their appetite for regime change.
Indeed, Netanyahu is openly taking of preparing the Israeli public for confrontation with Iran:
Both Perle and Netanyahu are dangerous extremists and, in most cases, they could be safely ignored. However, Bush and Cheney are every bit as extreme as Perle and Netanyahu. The build up of troops in Iraq and the moving of an additional carrier strike group to the region all suggest that Bush is moving towards confrontation with Iran.The hawkish Likud leader added: "Either it will stop the nuclear programme without the need for a military operation, or it could prepare for it. When we are talking about rallying public opinion on genocide, who will lead the charge if not us? No one will come defend the Jews if they do not defend themselves. This is the lesson of history."
Talking to journalists, Mr Netanyahu said he doubted that the "genocidal regime" of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "deterrable". This view was shared by Shmuel Bar, an Islamic specialist at the Herzliya centre, who said that the US and Iran were engaged in "very dangerous brinkmanship". He said that seen from Tehran, "the conspiracy theory goes that the US, with the UK and Israel, will take action to topple the Islamic regime, and that this has nothing to do with the nuclear issue."
Indeed, intelligence services are reporting that such a plan exists and will be implemented in early 2007.
It's madness. But this is what they are planning to do. Netanyahu and Perle are telling us the truth.The first two or three months of 2007 represent a dangerous opening for an escalation of war in the Middle East, as George W. Bush will be tempted to "double-down" his gamble in Iraq by joining with Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair to strike at Syria and Iran, intelligence sources say.
President Bush's goal would be to transcend the bloody quagmire bogging down U.S. forces in Iraq by achieving "regime change" in Syria and by destroying nuclear facilities in Iran, two blows intended to weaken Islamic militants in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
Bush will engulf the entire Middle East in flames. In doing so he will be finally carrying out the neo-con plan to ensure Israeli dominance of the region. It will not matter to them that chaos follows.
As I've previously noted, they have already formed an Office of Special Plans exactly as they did prior to the Iraq invasion.
We must never forget that we are dealing with ideologues here.
Like any group of permanent Washington revolutionaries fueled by visions of a righteous cause, the neocons long ago decided that criticism from the establishment isn't a reason for self-doubt but the surest sign that they're on the right track. But their confidence also comes from the curious fact that much of what could go awry with their plan will also serve to advance it. A full-scale confrontation between the United States and political Islam, they believe, is inevitable, so why not have it now, on our terms, rather than later, on theirs? Actually, there are plenty of good reasons not to purposely provoke a series of crises in the Middle East. But that's what the hawks are setting in motion, partly on the theory that the worse things get, the more their approach becomes the only plausible solution.
Bush has already made clear that he will not be deterred by Congress. There is only one course open now to stop this deluded man and his followers.
Impeach him.
Click title for full article.
tag: Iraq, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Ahmadinejad, Office of Special Plans, Bush, Cheney, Iran
2 comments:
There is no rational military option for delaying Iran’s nuclear program by military strikes. This is not Iraq; this time it will take more than a few hard-line neocons to start another war. There is no credible intelligence supporting imminent nuclear bomb capability by Iran and no appetite for military action in Congress or the Pentagon. Yes, the deployment of aircraft carriers and the appointment of a Navy Admiral to manage the Middle East Region sends a message to Iran that we are preparing for action, should it come; but it does not increase the Navy’s or Army’s enthusiasm for a war.
The Iranians have modern anti-ship missiles that are difficult for our Navy to defend against. If an attack on Iran were launched by the Navy or Air Force, the Iranians could effectively close the Gulf to shipping. Meanwhile, our Navy would have to stand far off shore, until most of Iran’s mobile missile batteries could be destroyed. Therefore, any US attack on Iran probably calls for boots-on-the-ground, which the US does not have to spare. Significant wars have NEVER been won mainly by air-power.
We are hearing that Iran’s economy in general and oil production especially, are in serious decline. Why would the US want to unite the Iranians against the US now by an unprovoked attack?
The neo-cons have long followed a Likud script that called for regime change in Iraq, Syria and Iran.
I agree with every single thing you say. It is an act of utter insanity. Although I disagree with your notion of boots on the ground. The US simply don't have enough men for that. That's why they're putting 21,500 more troops into Iraq. They will hit Iran from the air. The troops are to discourage an Iranian invasion of Iraq.
The Israelis are threatening to launch nuclear tipped missiles unless the US intervenes.
The neo-cons have always seen no essential difference between Israeli interests and US interests.
Same applies here. Their intention was always to nullify Israel's enemies.
Like yourself, I thought the disaster in Iraq had foiled that plan and that saner minds would have to prevail.
But the words of Perle and the deployment of carriers to the Gulf lead me to suspect that Bush is seeking to escalate this conflict.
Isn't that what he urged the Israelis to do during their ill fated war in Lebanon? It's what he does. He's a gambler who keeps doubling his bets every time he loses.
Post a Comment