Podhoretz is a Punk
That’s something a (rather knowledgeable) child might say of the crackpot neocon who was afforded a full page op-ed in one of America’s (formerly) most respected papers -- and quite appropriately considering Norman’s thought processes seem to mirror a child’s impulsive actions, reflexive bullying, and irrational logic.
But is he wrong?
Of course he is, and yet, not so long ago, nearly half of all Americans agreed that a preemptive strike on Iran would be desirable.
In April 2006, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed that "despite Iraq, Americans don't reject strikes against a nuclear Iran. By 48%-42%, the public says U.S. should join coalition to attack Iran's nuclear capability if Tehran approaches development of a weapon."
Are there that many punks in our great nation?
Now this is a year later and the 06 elections as well as more recent polls regarding our occupation of Iraq have certainly indicated that Americans are fed up with this crap.
But what would it take to swing them back the other way? How much effort would it take for the administration and it’s minions to convince the public that "Tehran [is approaching] development of a [nuclear] weapon"?
Sure, you and I would know better, but then again, we were blogging about the administration’s Iraq lies (Aluminum Tubes, Yellowcake, Mobile weapons labs, etc.) long before the administration successfully used them to take the nation to war. Most people simply don’t pay that much attention unless they're the ones with the guns in their hands and shrapnel in their ass.
Even a year ago, 48% was an astounding and disturbing number. Why hadn’t they learned their lesson by then when it was so painfully clear that we'd been had?
Were 48% of the American people smoking crack? Seriously.
Unfortunately, it probably won’t be that difficult to persuade just enough of the populace into following the neocabal into Iran. They have a simple formula that will allow them to take us wherever they want. It goes like this...
1) Provoke a chosen target nation
2) Use their response to our provocation to warrant further provocation
3) Let the cycle continue until the ‘military option’ is viable enough for the neocons to execute without the 'opposition party' building sufficient spine to offset their flag-draped cry for war.
For example, around the same time that the above poll was released, the Iranians were responding to our provocation...
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, "We want nuclear technology for peace and progress of nations, and if some believe that they can prevent us with psychological warfare and resolutions, they are mistaken."
And...
As US officials were pressuring the UN to bring down the hammer on Iran, Iran "vowed...to defy any United Nations Security Council resolution on its nuclear activities on the eve of a major report by atomic inspectors on the status of its nuclear program." Javad Zarif, the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations said, "Iran would consider illegitimate any Council resolution calling on Iran to stop uranium enrichment that invoked the so-called Chapter 7 clause, which could open the door to penalties and possibly to military action."
In the meantime, the administration was in the midst of refusing any meaningful dialogue with so-called ‘rogue’ states -- the incredulous sponsors of terror -- offering only a one-finger salute as consolation.
In the administration's mind, there was nothing to talk about.
As Dick Cheney once put it, "We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it." And what greater evil could there be than a member of the frightful 'Axis of Evil'?
For Iran, it seemed, this was a title well-deserved. According to U.N. ambassador John Bolton as reported on ABC News' Nightline:
"Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. It funds groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad. Imagine what would happen, if the Iranians obtained a nuclear weapon and gave it to Hezbollah. You don't want to contemplate the consequences."
To boot, unlike Iraq, Iran actually was a likely aid to Al Qaeda:
"US intelligence officials, already focused on Iran's potential for building nuclear weapons, are struggling to solve a more immediate mystery: the murky relationship between the new Tehran leadership and the contingent of Al Qaeda leaders residing in the country. Some officials, citing evidence from highly classified satellite feeds and electronic eavesdropping, believe the Iranian regime is playing host to much of Al Qaeda's remaining brain trust and allowing the senior operatives freedom to communicate and help plan the terrorist network's operations."
And that aid might likely have been given to demon-spawn al-Zarqawi himself.
In one of the many attempts to link Iraq to Al Qaeda, Colin Powell asserted that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the "missing link" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. However, extensive information obtained from individuals close to al-Zarqawi, showed no links to Iraq, but extensive links to Iran.
To illustrate, 40 al Qaeda members fled from Afghanistan into Iran, and then tried to get to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, U.A.E. and Australia (All American allies) -- but not Iraq. Also, Al-Zarqawi was in Iran in April 2002, where he plotted terrorist attacks against a Jewish target in Germany.
Heck, according to the Bush administration, Iran is so nasty it warranted consideration, and some say authorization, to use our own nuclear weapons to teach them a lesson (but apparantly not about the 'appropriate' use of nuclear weapons). But that's the way it is when you're dealing with the "largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world!"
Even when the administration began considering diplomacy, negotiations could NOT have anything to do with Iran nukes.
ABC World News Tonight reported that on "the same day that the US is essentially calling Iran public enemy number one, US officials are also saying they're willing to accept Iran's offer to talk." However, the White House "stresses these talks would be limited to improvised explosive devices and others involving Iraq. In other words, no direct talks about Iran's nuclear program." -- you know, the stuff that actually matters most to our national security.
That dismissal -- yet another provocation -- gave birth to this reaction...
An Iranian official then stepped forward, threatening the US with "harm and pain" for seeking to prevent the development of its nuclear program at the United Nations. They warned that UN sanctions would escalate the ongoing crisis "beyond Europe's control". They also rebutted a U.N. Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment or face possible sanctions by warning that they would begin hiding their nuclear program and transferring their nuclear know-how to other regional countries if the West takes any "harsh measures" against it.
"Military action against Iran will not end our program," [Tehran's top nuclear negotiator] Larijani said at a conference on the energy program. "If you take harsh measures, we will hide this program. If you use the language of force, you should not expect us to act transparently."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice immediately shot back, saying Iran's statements were further isolating it from the international community. "Iranians can threaten, but they are deepening their own isolation," she said in Athens.
See how this continues to heat up. We provoke. They react. Then we use that reaction as cause for further castigation, humiliation and provocation. Step1), Step2), Step3). That’s the punk way. But wait, there’s more...
The United States has not threatened military action and has said it is pursuing diplomatic options. But President Bush has said all options, including military force, remain on the table.
[Iran's top nuclear negotiator] Larijani's comments came a day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boldly predicted the Security Council would not impose sanctions and warned he was thinking about dropping out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
On Tuesday, Larijani said flatly that Iran would not abide by Friday's deadline to suspend enrichment, and would halt all cooperation with the IAEA and pull out of the treaty if sanctions were imposed.
"If you take the first step wrong, the wrong trend will continue. We welcome any logical proposal to resolve the issue. They just need to say why should we suspend," Larijani said.
And regarding the transfer of nuclear technology...
"Iran's nuclear capability is one example of various scientific capabilities in the country. ... The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer the experience, knowledge and technology of its scientists," Khamenei told al-Bashir.
Such a transfer of technology would be legal as long as it is between signatory-states to the nonproliferation treaty, and as long as the IAEA was informed.
Outrageous! Transferring atomic secrets? No doubt the Bush administration will call for a dose of MOABs to keep them in line.
MAybe. Maybe not.
Let's remember how Iran received much of this nuclear technology -- the same technology that neoconservatives now use as evidence for a strike on Iran? Remember A. Q. Khan?
Pakistani Nuclear Scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, also known as the ‘Father of the Islamic Bomb’, "put together a smuggling network suspected of operating for at least 15 years. In a televised confession Feb. 4, Khan admitted selling nuclear technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea."
That includes the two members of the ‘Axis of Evil that are NOT Iraq for those taking notes.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf insists Khan acted without the knowledge of top security or government officials. Most experts consider that claim laughable.
Musharraf immediately pardoned the 67-year-old scientist, calling him a hero for his services to the country, and let him keep the fortune he amassed from smuggling. He also prevented Khan from being interviewed by IAEA inspectors or U.S. officials.
Atomic secrets and technology? Pardoned? Hero? Preotected? Whoa... we are going to clobber these guys!! After all, "Bush has... spent his entire two terms in office talking tough about countries and dictators that conceal weapons of mass destruction and even tougher on individuals who supply rogue nations and terrorists with the means to build WMDs. For all intents and purposes, Pakistan and Musharraf fit that description."
Uh, oh. Wait a minute. Guess we spoke too soon...
U.S. President George W. Bush accepted Musharraf's handling of the matter in return for information about the type of technology smuggled, as well as assurances that Khan would be put out of business, says Gary Samore, who advised Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, on non-proliferation issues.
That’s right. Bush gave Musharraf a pass -- a big, BIG pass even though "most experts consider [Musharraf's] claim [of government innocence] laughable" -- mostly because the logistics involved in such a transfer of nuclear technology would be impossible without the Pakistani government’s knowledge.
But the worst part about this is that the nuclear smuggling ring was able to operate because of the "U.S. government turning a blind eye to nuclear proliferation from an ally — Pakistan — and an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that failed to investigate troubling early warning signs."
Seems Dick Cheney knew about all this for a very long time:
In 1989, the year Khan first started selling nuclear secrets on the black-market; Richard Barlow, a young intelligence analyst working for the Pentagon prepared a shocking report for Cheney, who was then working as Secretary of Defense under the first President Bush administration: Pakistan built an atomic bomb and was selling its nuclear equipment to countries the U.S. said was sponsoring terrorism.
Note: Barlow’s findings were reported in a January 2002 story in the magazine Mother Jones: "This was not a failure of intelligence," Barlow told Mother Jones. "The intelligence was in the system."
So Iran (among others), the "largest state sponsor of terrorism" in the entire world according to the Bush ministration, had a major boost in their nuclear aspirations largely because of the ‘blind eye’ afforded them by the Bush administration. Unfortunately, it was neither the first nor the last blind eye blind eye this administration would have.
And then, in June of 2006, the Bush Administration did something for which they ripped the Clinton administration for doing with North Korea.
Bush gives Iran nuclear technology.
A package of incentives presented Tuesday to Iran includes a provision for the United States to supply Tehran with some nuclear technology if it stops enriching uranium — a major concession by Washington, diplomats said.
The offer was part of a series of rewards offered to Tehran by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, according to the diplomats, who were familiar with the proposals and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were disclosing confidential details of the offer.
The Bush Administration dipped its hand into diplomacy? Something’s wrong here. They don't know what 'diplomacy' is. They believe only in force, and if they're foregoing that force and opting for negotiations, you know something is wrong.
My theory is that they're setting Iran up for force.
It's the old ‘set 'em up and knock 'em down’ technique. (Recall that it was Reagan and Bush Sr. who built the Taliban and Osama bin Laden even as they ware selling weapons illegally to Iran in order to support South American terrorists.)
So there you have it. Punk Podhoretz isn’t so stupid after all. He’s just evil, but he and the administration know exactly what they're doing. They know that the more they pound their views into the public ‘debate’ (e.g. through the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, Fox News, etc.), the more desensitized the public becomes to it and the less shocked they are at such proposals. Follow that up with 1) we provoke, 2) they react, 3) we use their reaction against them, and voila...
...Operation Iranian Freedom
Who’s the punk now?
