Reading Seymour Hersh’s recent
article in the New Yorker, it seems that the neocons are up to their same old games again. The C.I.A. says that they found no evidence of a secret nuclear weapons program in Iran and the White House has offhandedly dismissed their findings. They even have a new "curveball," an Israeli spy that might or might not exist. The White House is using their fantasy "intelligence" and casting aside the stuff that doesn’t fit into their preconceived notions. It’s Déjà vu all over again.
It is hard for me to understand why these folks are still willing to jump so quickly to the "military option." If the Iraq war was going good and Afghanistan was secure, I could at least summon the brain activity that maybe, possibly would allow me to understand why they would believe such a thing- but that is not the case. Both of those places are in shambles and the invasions have done nothing but further radicalize the area, not to mention give Iran much more influence in the region.
If I didn’t know any better I would think that the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was in charge of US Middle East policy. Iran and Iraq, once bitter enemies, are now friends. Iraq also just kissed and made up with former foe, and backer of Iran in the Iran/Iraq war, Syria. The spiritual head of Iraq’s majority Shi'a population, Grand Ayatollah Sistani, is Iranian. Muqtada al Sadr is wildly popular, especially with the poor, and he wants an Iranian style Shi'a lead theocracy in Iraq (although he claims independent from Iran). Talk about a backfire in policy aims.
So some in the White House are panicking, and for once they might be right. People are talking about the US making
deals with Sunni insurgency groups in hopes of limiting Iran's influence in Iraq. Early
reports on the Iraq Study Group indicate that they will suggest direct talks with both Iran and Syria- something the White House has been more than reluctant to do.
I think we should officially announce that the neoconservative agenda has failed. It will be remembered as an embarrassingly naive world view, a group of people desperate to be called heroes in a global clash of civilizations. Too bad for them (and the hundreds of thousands of people they killed) it was all in their heads.
My gut tells me that there is no way this group of "leaders" would be dumb enough to invade Iran, but their words and past actions make it clear they don't acknowledge, let alone learn, from past mistakes. Ironically, we may not invade Iran because we need them to help us control our last invasion. The "Bush Doctrine" sure does work in mysterious ways. Tragically, it always seems to leave a pile of dead bodies in its wake.
Graeme Anfinson
-
Graeme commented at 1:17 AM~
Hmmm. I posted this on Tuesday my time. It looks as though you are an hour behind me. I don't know if that is fixable. Sorry, I will remember that next time.
-
commented at 5:50 AM~
Great post, Graeme. And welcome! Now it's starting to feel like a real par-tay.
I look forward to hanging out in your corner of the room with my beer and opinions. Right now, though, I have to go write 10,000 words. National Novel Writing month ends in exactly 2 days, 16 hours, 12 minutes and 8 seconds... no, 7. No, 6, 5....
-
Graeme commented at 9:16 AM~
Thanks Kay. 10,000 words, ouch. Good luck.
-
Frank Partisan commented at 7:19 PM~
Israel opposes attacking Iran, because Russia and China, will ask for a settlement for Palestinians, as a condition of support.
Bush is dead serious about attacking Iran. I think it's beyond the neocons.
-
Graeme commented at 9:13 PM~
Bush amazes me. He talks like his foreign policy is going perfect and as planned.
I have heard people say that Condi and Bob Gates are going to be the voice of reason in the White House, the supposed realists. An Iran/contra guy and the person that was in charge of national security during 9/11, we are in trouble.
-
Frank Partisan commented at 8:42 AM~
Gates wanted to bomb Nicaragua in the 80s.
-
Frederick commented at 10:50 AM~
-
Frederick commented at 10:53 AM~
You want to hear a funny?
As I've mentioned previously, a state of war exists between the United States and the governments of Iran and Syria, and that the question before us now is whether or not we chose to acknowledge this state of war that our adversaries have instigated...
-
commented at 6:34 PM~
Sweet digs Graeme! I dont know these people YET but your friends are my friends. Par tay indeed!!! Get out your tostitoes.
So you will be over here Tuesdays? very cool.
yes I do think its time to play TAPS for PNAC In The Park and put the bitch to BED. Failed.
It failed at "hello".
Fred's hilarious isn't he?
Dont forget to link this blog at TBR using our proprietary "lazy ass add yourself" linkage module. Nothing personal. We just dont stay very on top of things.
-
sumo commented at 3:04 AM~
Ya done good Graeme as usual. It's a really good feeling to be asked to be a member of another blog eh? Just do what you've always done...be yourself and they'll be glad they invited you. If it is okay I'll tag along with you on Tuesdays to see what you are up to.
-
Frederick commented at 3:05 AM~
Well, it's a Dark Comedy...this life.
-
Craig Bardo commented at 6:03 AM~
As we've seen from the State Department, there are career liberals in the C.I.A. with a political agenda that is at odds with the administration they are supposed to serve. Notwithstanding their recent celebrated incompetence, what I find more fascinating is the left's recent embrace of the spy agency I used to rail against in my liberal days a mere 12 years ago.
-
troutsky commented at 9:43 PM~
Im following graeme. So, CB, your a convert? What was the final straw that pushed you to the dark side? Just kidding, but still curious.
-
Graeme commented at 10:25 PM~
I don't know if pointing out that the CIA doesn't believe that Iran has a nuclear program qualifies as an "embrace." I would say it says something about how detached the White House is from reality.
-
Graeme commented at 10:26 PM~
nuclear weapons program, i mean
