Analyzing the Connection Between the Neo-con Right, Israel & Iran

Since the Bush administration literally took power back in 2000 we have seen an increase in both ego maniacal neo-conservatives such as Richard Pearle, Duncan Keith, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, etc. and the saber rattling which in one case – Iraq – has turned into an abyss of chaos which includes unprecedented monetary sacrifice and most important, the life’s of over 4,000 men and women of our armed services. But the neo-cons have a new target in sight, and they have been honing in on them for some time now – of course I am referring to none other then Iran – which continues to appear as being the “next country on the list” for the fringe right in Washington.

Before we get into the meat and potatoes of this look at the connection between the neo-con right wing here in America and Israel and the ratcheted up sabre rattling of Iran, let me first get a couple of things out there.

1. I fully recognize that Iran, and more specifically their current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are not the “good guys”, or “scapegoats” per se. The current leadership in Iran has acted egregious, irresponsible and at times utterly despicable on a number of occasions. I do not carry the belief that they are simply the victims of anything besides their (and by their I am referring to Ahmadinejad) actions.
2. This piece is more about illustrating the perverted agenda of the neo-conservative right in regards to their foreign policy, which can be summed up fairly accurately by using the analogy “throwing gas on the fire.”

OK, now that we’ve gotten that out of the way we can begin.

Earlier today David Hutchins of the American News Project put together a piece focusing specifically, and in depth on the relationship between the neo-conservative right in Washington and factions of the Israeli government regarding their agenda in dealing with Iran:

“Washington’s neocons are alive and well, advising both John McCain and President Bush. Now many are saying Bush should permit Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities after Election Day before the new president takes office. ANP investigates as we chase down John Bolton, Bill Kristol and Frank Gaffney to see how far ahead these hawks are thinking. And a new report says the whole plan could backfire.”

Accompanying the article above is an in depth report focusing on this connection. I have gone ahead and attached the video below – one which I strongly recommend you view, especially if you feel strongly one way or the other on this specific issue:

You may have noticed in the above explanation of the report that Hutchins mentions a “new report that says the whole plan could backfire.” He is referring to a newly released analysis conducted by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security which was subsequently highlighted in an article which ran in the Washington Post.

The studies finding show that an attack, or “strike” against Iran’s nuclear facilities would only delay their progress towards successfully manufacturing atomic weaponry, it would not - under any circumstance – completely thwart Iran’s efforts or ability to continue on the path they currently are on:

“The analysis by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security found that Iran’s uranium facilities are too widely dispersed and protected — and, in some cases, concealed too well — to be effectively destroyed by warplanes. And any damage to the country’s nuclear program could be quickly repaired.

The core of Iran’s program is its huge uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, where thousands of machines called centrifuges create the uranium fuel used in making nuclear energy. Although Iran says its efforts are intended for peaceful energy purposes, its stocks of enriched uranium could be used to build nuclear weapons.

Despite heavy fortification, the subterranean Natanz plant could be heavily damaged in an airstrike using bunker-busting bombs or missiles. But the centrifuges could be replaced rapidly, perhaps in hidden underground facilities, the ISIS report said. Iran is known to have constructed bunkers inside mountain tunnels near Natanz and other major nuclear sites.

According to Albright, an Israeli or U.S. attack would result in broader popular support for Iran’s ruling clerics and could lead Tehran to sever ties with the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

“Iran would likely launch a ‘crash’ program to quickly obtain nuclear weapons,” Albright said in an interview. “An attack would likely leave Iran angry, more nationalistic, fed up with international inspectors and nonproliferation treaties, and more determined than ever to obtain nuclear weapons.”

Will this stop John Bolton’s appearances on FOX where he stumbles and bumbles endlessly about the need for military action against Iran now, or will this study be taken into account by William Kristol before he writes his next “attack, attack, attack” op-ed? The answer simply put is no it won’t.

In all reality I don’t think anything or anyone could change the minds of neo-cons like Bolton and Kristol – and that folks is what makes them neo-cons opposed to just “tough minded”. They refuse to use facts and rational discourse – they have their minds set on one thing, military action, and once they find their next target nothing can change their tact. This was evident in both the run up, all the way through to the debate present day over the U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Sad, scary, and just another reason to get off your behinds and vote for Barack Obama in November. Because (and I know this might sound off base, but in all reality it isn’t) if you though Bush was war hungry, McCain will really knock your socks off.

Technorati Tags: American News Project, ANP, backfire, Frank Gaffney, iran, Iraq war, Israel, john bolton, Neo Conservative, Neo-Con, Neoconservatives, nuclear weapons, Politics News, pre-emptive war, video, Warwire, William Kristol