Posted on 12/01/2005 11:10:12 PM PST by F14 Pilot
The best-case scenario for the Bush administration in Iraq now is a modicum of stability under a Shi'ite-dominated regime more loyal to Tehran than Washington. In the January 2005 elections, voters trounced the US proxies, the secular Shi'ites of Iyad Allawi's CIA-groomed Iraqi National Accord, in favor of the Tehran-backed radical Shi'ites of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. So "regime change" in Iran is now necessary for the US to maintain effective control over Iraq as well. But how, given that Bush has already got his hands more than full with an increasingly unpopular quagmire? The answer is obvious: US imperialism's regional pit-bull, Israel. From the Jerusalem Post, Nov. 30:
Military Intelligence Chief Aharon Ze'evi Farkash said [Nov. 30] that after March, Israel must be prepared to use means other than diplomacy to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program...
Farkash would not detail other options, but sources on the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, which Farkash was addressing Wednesday said it was clear that Israel would have to consider taking military action against Iran.
"In my years here, seeing the data I have seen, I feel it is clear that Iran has passed the point of no return," said committee chairman Yuval Steinitz (Likud). "It is accurate to say that unless Iran encounters a major interference, it will have a functioning nuclear arsenal within one or two years."
Iran has produced 45 tons of UF- 6 gas that is used in the centrifuge process for producing enriched uranium for nuclear weapons, said Steinitz.
"If by the end of March 2006 the international community will have failed to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program, diplomatic efforts will be pointless," said Farkash. "Iran has the upper hand in negotiations with the international community.
In order to deflect international attention from its weapons program, Iran has been encouraging Hizbullah to step up attacks on Israel, said Farkash, noting that the recent Hizbullah attacks along Israel's northern border were instigated by Syria and Iran.
"The latest flare up in the north was a strategic plan by Hizbullah," Farkash said.
The story also noted that Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz denied that Israel was considering attacking Iran. He seems to (whether wittingly or not) be playing a game of good-cop/bad-cop with the bellicose Farkash.
There are several such games going on here. Israel itself is playing Bad Cop for Washington. Bush is restrained by politics from openly threatening aggression against Iran right now, so good thing Farkash is so obliging. And as veteran journalist Doug Ireland recently noted on his blog, at least some of the Iran intelligence Israel is relying on here originated in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. This is the leak which resulted in the indictment of two AIPAC staffers (whose arrests garnered much more media coverage than the actual content of what was leaked). So the Justice Department played Bad Cop with Israel (mostly for US domestic consumption) even while elements of the Pentagon were throwing the Israelis a wink.
The function of a system is what it does. None of this is to imply that Farkash does not really want to bomb Iraq, or that the prosecutors in the AIPAC scandal didn't really want to bring indictments. Israel is not a US puppet—it is a proxy, which performs its work with ostensible independence. Which makes the strategem all the more effective.
Of course, if Israel takes the bait and once again does Uncle Sam's dirty work, the worst of the backlash will be conveniently deflected from the US—not only to Israel, but to Jews all over the world. Will the Jews ever wake up?
Can it with your antisemite smears, you crackpot. You're like Jesse Jackson or Maxine Waters who call anyone a "racist" who doesn't agree with them. It's an old liberal trick - smear your opponent as a racist or bigot. Won't work though. Bush isn't going to invade Iran - he's got his Iraq ambassador talking turkey with the mullahs right now, to try and get them to squelch the "insurgents" in Iraq. That doesn't make him an antisemite
Too bad...so sad...
Hey man...I'm all FOR war with Iran...AND Syria
Like I said...you'll see an air strike from isreal long before you'll see an American boot on the ground...
But you'll cry about that too...cant have them pesky jews defend themselves...might cost you a buck a gallon more for your WHAmbulance
BTW..IDIOT...gas is 1.90 here....where's my big ole Iraq war "tax" now?...
When Iran was holding US hostages, Marc Rich was trading with Iran (Clinton pardoned Marc Rich as one of his final acts) Scooter Libby congratulated Marc Rich on his pardon; Scooter Libby served as lawyer for traitor Rich for years. But somehow I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of the Scooter Libby defenders at Freerepublic.
To prevent them from becoming a more formidable, unpredictable and irrational military power.
When Iran was holding US hostages...Jimmy carter was president...the most powerful man in the world...with the most powerful miltary in the world...
And he did squat...just another ineffetive liberal with high hopes and no ideals.
Nice try.
When Iran was holding US hostages, Marc Rich was trading with Iran (Clinton pardoned Marc Rich as one of his final acts) Scooter Libby congratulated Marc Rich on his pardon; Scooter Libby served as lawyer for traitor Rich for years. But somehow I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of the Scooter Libby defenders at Freerepublic.
oh...I almost forgot...how many more people till you get to kevin bacon?
4?
c'mon...you can DO it...
Absolutely nothing. It did not require an invasion to take out Osirek in Iraq. It did take an invasion to find out what happened to 605 abducted Kuwaitis, hundreds of missing Iranians, and hundreds of thousands of missing Iraqis, to force compliance with the Gulf War cease fire terms and so lift sanctions, and to end the Iraqi support of Abu Nidal, the PFLP, the UN fatcats, and a number of other scoundrels.
By the way, one of the ways we took out the Soviet Union was by saboutaging their moneymaking oil pipeline. The USSR did not simply collapse all by itself, though it finally did so after killing millions and creating famine around the globe. If it had been taken out sooner a lot more people would be alive today and Iraq never would have been a problem, nor Iran, nor Afghanistan, etc.
"That's what's going to happen."
Boy, I hope so...
Dear Mr. Buchanan,
You may recall that back in '79 Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian theocrats authorized "radical students" (one of whom may well have been the current MFWIC of Iran) to invade US territory (our embassy), and take US citizens hostage. Since that time the Iranians (and their surrogates) have been implicated in the suicide bombing of our Marines in Lebanon, hostage takings in Lebanon, the Pan Am/Lockerbie bombing, and (possibly) the Khobar Towers operation. I bring up these inconvenient historical tidbits to suggest that the Iranians have never shown any hesitancy attacking American citizens and American interests at times and places of their choosing. The Iranian radicals even backed down "Ronaldus Magnus" Reagan, a fact duly noted by Osama Bin Laden. What makes the Iranian theocracy particularly dangerous is that they believe that the "Will of Allah" (as interpreted by the senior Ayatollah) dictates and guides their decisions. Something which makes them infinitely less predictable than the leaders of the former Soviet Union, Kim Jong Il or Hugo Chavez, all of whom could/can be relied on to do what will preserve their personal power. The possession of nuclear weapons by a theocratic regime like Iraq is tantamount to selling WMDs to a Jim Jones or a David Koresh. It is both an intolerable and an unpredictable situation, that transcends any considerations of short term economic impact or partisan political consequence.
For the record, by definition I cannot be a "neocon". I am not a "used to be" liberal who still believes in an expansive Federal government on the domestic side, while supporting an aggressive foreign policy internationally.
but the question is what our government is doing to stop Iranian regime!
From the article:
"The function of a system is what it does. None of this is to imply that Farkash does not really want to bomb Iraq,"
The author seems a bit confused, wasn't his article about attacking Iran???
"...if you neocons get your war against Iran."
Excuse me? You make very little sense, especially the part about neo-cons is really stupid and bigoted.
If we nuke 'em, so be it, but it's not because of some "secret cabal of neo-cons".
No one really knows how this is all going to turn out, but so far the Bush team has been making all the right moves, and will probably do so with the "Iranian Crisis".
Proud to be a NEO-CON!
Iran's nuclear capability needs to be taken out! I doubt very much that any Israeli action against Iran will hurt the world's Jews. It's Israeli Jews acting weak that will hurt U.S. Jews because anti-Semites are sadistic bullies who can smell weakness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.