Israel, Iran And The New Neocons (VIDEO)

From the American News Project:

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.

Watch the video:

Comments

[watermelon]

This story should be enough to convince voters NOT to vote for McCain. Barack Obama is the clear choice. Do this for your kids and grandkids.

[PurplePhase]

For the sake of our country, for the sake of America, we must ignore and put neocons, particularly pro Israeli neocons such as Joe Lieberman, Richard Perl, John Bolton, Bill Kristol, Judith Miller, Paul Wolfowitz, Thomas "Friedman Unit" Friedman and others out of the limelight and out of their circle of influence.

Those individuals and others only brought harm to our country and want us to fight Israel's wars based on their war mongering ideologies.

[getoffmedz]

dead on

[Swerinjer]

the reporter is kind of a puss. he should be more aggressive.

[Guynemer]

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/transcript-of-director-haydens-interview-on-meet-the-press.html

GEN. HAYDEN: Personal belief? Yes. It's hard for me to explain. And, you know, this is not court of law stuff. This is, this is, you know, in terms of beyond all reasonable doubt, this is, this is Mike Hayden looking at the body of evidence. OK. Why would the Iranians be willing to pay the international tariff they appear willing to pay for what they're doing now if they did not have, at a minimum, at a minimum, if they did not have the desire to keep the option open to, to develop a nuclear weapon and perhaps even more so, that they've already decided to do that? It's very difficult for us to judge intent, and so we have to work back from actions. Why the continuing production of fissile material, and Natanz? They say it's for civilian purposes, and yet the, the planet, the globe, states around the world have offered them fissile material under controls so they can have their, their, their civilian nuclear program. But the Iranians have rejected that. I mean, when you start looking at that, and you get, not just the United States, but you get the U.N. Security Council imposing sanctions on them, why would they go through that if it were not to develop the technology that would allow them to create fissile material not under international control?

[CTPatriot]

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT) and as such has every right to produce their own fissile material. To force them into buying that material from other countries is to violate the treaty and force them into a position of dependence on and control by other countries. It should be easy to understand why Iran would reject such a proposal just as the US would if someone tried to impose such restrictions on us.

Meanwhile, Israel is not a signatory to the NNPT yet they possess several hundred nuclear weapons in violation of international law.

The CIA has stated that Iran stopped working on their nuclear arms program in 2003. The IAEA appears to back that up with their inspections.

So why is it REALLY that the neocons are so eager to bomb bomb Iran? We certainly know that none of the reasons given for attacking Iraq were the real ones. A careful study of neocon literature along with our actions in Iraq make it apparent that the war was about OIL as a weapon of control and "full spectrum dominance". Perhaps Iranian oil stands in the way of our achieving that.

[Guynemer]

A few Quotes from Senator Obama:

"[Iran's nucler program is] an extraordinarily grave situation,"

"[the world must send] a clear message to Iran to end its illicit nuclear program."

[Guynemer]

A quote from (Ret) Adm Fallon:

"I don't believe for a second President Bush wants a war with Iran."



A few Quotes from Senator Obama:

"[Iran's nucler program is] an extraordinarily grave situation,"

"[the world must send] a clear message to Iran to end its illicit nuclear program."

"A nuclear Iran would be a game-changing situation not just in the Middle East but around the world."

"I will take no options ("no options" is code word for conventional or nuclear first strike) off the table in dealing with this potential Iranian threat,"

[AdamWykle]

Why are we friends with a state that counters 60 years of our foreign policy and international laws and continues to usurp, supress, deny, destroy, and systematically oppress their natural inhabitants?

We should galvanize against them like we did with South Africa. They need to abide by international law before they entirely homogenize the United Nations and every treaty that keeps this world out of harm.

[druidlady42]

Just what Jimmy Carter has so clearly noted in "Peace, Not Apartheid", and we know how he has been treated by the Bush administration!

[AdamWykle]

How do we allow an immature and aggressive garrison theocracy that practices brutal colonialism, apartheid and occupation and is in violation of countless international laws to maintain its possession of undocumented nuclear weapons without joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Iran on the other hand, is an NPT signatory and has every right to produce nuclear power for peaceful purposes. This administration is willing to go against its own NIE report that stated Iran WAS NO THREAT.

[Guynemer]

"[Iran poses] an extraordinarily grave situation,"
"[the world must send] a clear message to Iran to end its illicit nuclear program."
Senator Obama, July 2008

[scooperss]

Goes to show there's sellouts on both side of the political spectrum.

[nachlawi]

haha please, and i suppose iran is the anti-thesis of a theocracy in your view? your views are so hypocritical and so typical of classical white post-colonial guilt and cultural relativism syndrome. i guess i'll remind you that the regime in teheran publicly executes gay people. is that a practice you condone? i'm not trying to be an apologist but i think that's much worse than the israeli government's actions (many of which i don't condone) but for the most part are more less necessary considering they are directed against countries and terrorist groups that have still refused to accept the existence of the state of israel in the middle east. and are still actively seeking it's destruction. how many times did israel start threatening iran, again before 2005?

i'd love to hear your praises for the leaders of hama also.

[jollyelle]

Editors................Front and center for this important piece.............please!!

[Yasir]

The deposition of controlled opposition should be the mission of the noncontrolled composition.

[ErikW65]

Kristol's unease at answering the reporter's question proves again he's really an intellectual lightweight in way up over his head. Bolton is simply a lunatic.

[cmj1981]

Iran couldn't block the straight of Hormuz, because it's controlled by the U.S. Navy. Considering that we have a carrier battle group in the straight, it's literally laughable when Iran makes that threat. We could sink their entire Navy before it even left port.

[ErikW65]

Iran could bomb those US ships from land. That'd block the Strait. I think you're being overconfident.

[Hirnlego]

The worst (and real) threats are actually from USA/Israel.

[AzRealProgressive]

Wrong.

[RRK70]

Just the threat of disrupting regional oil shipments would be enough to tank the US economy considering the state it is in. Just having Iran place an oil embargo on the US would be more potent than any military action. Any incident that precipitates such an Iranian move might also likely be supported by other Arab nations, and possibly Venezuela as well. That's not to mention what they could do covertly, or overtly in Afghanistan or Iraq from a military standpoint..

Sure hope people don't have a long drive to work. Then again, a lot of people might not have jobs to drive to if gas goes up to $200 a barrel or more.

Von Clauswitz stated that war is a continuation of policy by other means, but what the neocons seem to miss is the fact that it is an extension, not a REPLACEMENT for policy (diplomacy). The idea that American military hegemony is so great that diplomacy is no longer needed is pure hubris, and dangerous to American interests.

[AzRealProgressive]

This must be derived from your vast international and military experience. You quote an old military axiom, yet fail in its context. Diplomacy has always been the first option.

[oxford]

Nice Post.

[Dawud]

Even this story puts out some rubbish. It says that Iran's intentions are clear regarding their hope to get nukes.

Actually, there is zero proof that they are heading towards getting nukes, and there leadership has stated that it has no desire for nukes.

We are so used to our President lying that we naturally assume that Iran has a diabolic scheme and must be lying as well!

[druidlady42]

Come on, HuffPost! Please don't relegate this story to the BOTTOM of your pages so quickly! This story needs to be kept front and center for a long time to get vital information into the public consciousness! What people DON'T know about the neocons, especially before this election, CAN hurt us all!

[blaising]

Are "neocons" those guys with no necks, sloped shoulders, facial hair, and flag pins?? I thought so.

Nothing wrong with a neocon that a few inches more height wouldn't cure.

"We're going to prevail and we will win and it'll be one of the best things that's happened to America and the world in a long time 'cause it'll reverberate throughout the Middle East."

--John McCain on the Iraq war, "Meet the Press" interview, March 3, 2003

[NealHib]

It's due to a lack of spine.