Jonathan Bowden joins Richard to discuss the prospect of Iran attaining a nuclear weapon and the new geopolitical reality that would unfold as a result.

Srdja Trifkovic offers a policy solution that's far too rational and wise ever to be taken seriously in Foggy Bottom: 

Our creative yet effective policy of “confronting and undermining” should start with an opening to Damascus. The rationale is implied in the New York Times’ front-page feature, “Syria’s Solidarity With Islamists Ends at Home” (Saturday, September 4). It had supported Islamist groups abroad and tolerated greater role for religion at home, we are told, but it has recently reversed course, “moving forcefully to curb the influence of Muslim conservatives in public life.” The government has asked imams for recordings of their Friday sermons and started to strictly monitor religious schools. In recent weeks more than 1,000 teachers who wear the face veil were transferred to administrative duties. According to the Times,

The crackdown, which began in 2008 but has gathered steam this summer, is an effort by President Bashar al-Assad to reassert Syria‘s traditional secularism in the face of rising threats from radical groups in the region, Syrian officials say. The policy amounts to a sharp reversal for Syria, which for years tolerated the rise of the conservatives. And it sets the government on the seemingly contradictory path of moving against political Islamists at home, while supporting movements like Hamas and Hezbollah abroad. Syrian officials are adamant that the shifts stem from alarming domestic trends, and do not affect support for those groups, allies in their struggle against Israel.

“Alarming domestic trends” cannot but affect Syria’s relations with those movements and their primary external backer. Assad’s connection with Iran can and should be broken. It is neither natural nor inevitable. He is a secularist, whereas Ahmadinejad is a millenarian Islamic visionary. He is an Alawite, whereas Hizbullah and their Iranian paymasters are “Twelver” Shiites. He is an Arab, and therefore unlikely to be indifferent to the implications of Iran’s desire to project its power and influence across the Fertile Crescent and all the way to the Mediterranean. If Assad can be won over to the idea of a peace treaty with Israel, in return for Washington’s recognition of the legitimacy of his regime, a key link in Iran’s strategic design will have been broken. Hizbullah cannot function effectively if the lifeline from Damascus is severed.

Syria presents a diplomatic realist with many creative possibilities. Assad is obviously nervous about the Islamist menace, and probably keen to make a deal if he is then left in peace at home. The Syrians’ true mood is evident in the Golan Heights, taken by Israel in 1967 and held ever since: for many years now there have been no skirmishes, infiltrations, or rocket firings—nothing. It is one of the most peaceful boundaries in the Middle East. It is at least possible—I’d say probable—that Bashir is ready to sign a peace treaty with Israel, and let it keep some parts of Golan “on lease” (99 years, say) if Syria is openly removed from Washington’s list of “rogue states” that may be in need of a touch of color-coded revolution. Engaging Syria is one way to deplete Iran’s regional assets indirectly. If Assad can be won over to the idea of a peace treaty with Israel, in return for Washington’s recognition of the legitimacy of his regime, a key link in Iran’s strategic design will have been broken.

On the credit side Syria had never been guilty of a terrorist outrage such as Lockerbie, yet Libya’s Gaddafi, having done his penance, is deemed clubbable. In the aftermath of 9-11 Damascus passed on to the United States hundreds of files on Al Qaeda and other anti-Western terrorist individuals and movements throughout the Middle East, many of which targeted Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others besides the United States. Syria has the potential to become America’s more useful partner in the “War on Terror” than a “friend” like Saudi Arabia has ever been—or could ever be.

We're now witnessing the embarrassing implosion of the über-hawks in the conservative movement: John Bolton is apparently considering a presidential run on a "Bomb Iran" platform:  

Not shy about his position on a wide range of issues, would this critic-in-chief consider a run for commander-in-chief in 2012? Bolton didn’t reject the idea out of hand.

“[I]t is a very great honor that anybody would even think of asking. I’m obviously not a politician. I’ve never run for any federal elective office at all and, you know, it is something that would obviously require a great deal of effort,” he said. “What I do think, though, and what concerns me, is the lack of focus generally in the national debate about national security issues. Now, I understand the economy is in a ditch and people are concerned about it, but our adversaries overseas are not going to wait for us to get our economic house in order.”

When pressed as to whether that means he would consider a run, Bolton seemed to suggest that he might do it, at the very least to help put national security issues at the top of the debate agenda.

“In the sense that I want to make sure that not only in the Republican Party, but in the body politic as a whole, people are aware of threats that remain to the United States. You know, as somebody who writes op-eds and appears on the television, I appreciate as well as anybody that…there is a limit to what that accomplishes,” he said. “Whereas, some governor from some state in the middle of the country announces for president they get enormous coverage even if their views are utterly uninformed on major issues.”

When pressed a third time about running, he said that while “he is not going to do anything foolish,” he added, “you know, I see how the media works…you have to take that into account.”

Again, not a no.

ht: TAC 

Arnaud de Borchgrave, the son of a Belgian count who became a legendary Cold War journalist at UPI, Newsweek, and the Washington Times, and who has recently morphed into a Terror Warrior, has penned a fascinating column for UPI that raises the real possibility of an Israeli, or joint U.S.-Israeli, attack on Iran in the coming weeks. Borchgrave relies on the intel of American Conservative and Antiwar.com columnist Philip Giraldi, intel which Giraldi looks at with horror and Borchgrave, with anticipation.

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, he wrote, had tasked the Strategic Command with drawing up a contingency plan in response to another Sept. 11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan was for a large-scale air assault on Iran (never mind if Iran wasn't involved) employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. More than 450 major strategic targets were listed in the plan -- evidently leaked to Giraldi by "appalled" senior U.S. Air Force officers.

I’m extremely wary of “9/11 Truth” theories, though, I must admit, information like this reminds one of the fact that Pentagon and Military Industrial Complex Big Boys can expedite their plans with false flag operations…  though, thankfully, no such incident occurred.

If Israel has decided to strike against what most Israelis see as an existential threat, it would presumably wait until the U.S. Congress' return from vacation Sept. 10. A resolution (HR 1553) is winding its way through Congress that endorses an Israeli attack on Iran, which, writes Giraldi, "would be going to war by proxy as the U.S. would almost immediately be drawn into conflict when Tehran retaliates."

Leading neo-conservatives pooh-pooh Iran's asymmetrical retaliatory capabilities as overblown anti-Israeli rhetoric. Reuel Marc Gerecht, a neo-con commentator, predicts Iran's response would be minimal and recommends Israel attack Iran to "rock the system" to make the regime "lose face" and suffer a military defeat from which its recovery would be doubtful.

This reporter first began covering Iran in August 1953 when the shah fled a revolutionary upheaval (returning 10 days later after a military crackdown and covert CIA assistance).

There is little doubt that an Israeli attack on Iran would trigger mayhem up and down the Persian Gulf and trigger a third war that would be yet another force multiplier for the U.S. deficit: Federal spending is now at $3.6 trillion; the national debt, $13.4 trillion; cost per citizen $43,000; cost per taxpayer $120,000. Check the debt clock online -- in real time.

Borchgrave seconds my contention that the neocons sincerely believe in their rosy scenarios. In Iraq, we were to be greeted as liberators and the whole operation was to be an inexpensive, perhaps even profitable, foray. The myth of Iran is that Jerusalem and/or Washington could launch a surgical, limited attack that would prevent the “Second Holocaust” and not spill over into an international conflict. Borchgrave’s passing mention of a “third world war” and the coming bankruptcy of the U.S. Treasury indicates that he’s not so deceived. Sad to say, reports of Cheney’s “large-scale air-assault” plan for Iran reveal that there are many in Washington for whom World War III is devoutly to be wished.

I don't know what to make of John Bolton's recent announcement of an August 21 "deadline" for Israel and/or America to strike Iran's Bushehr nuclear power reactor. First off, as Joshua Keating notes at Foreign Policy, “according to Bolton, right now is always the best time to attack Iran.”

In July 2009, he said that Israel would likely attack by the end of last year. In June 2008, he said it would have be before the end of the Bush administration. Way back in 2007, he was saying that "time is limited."

Bolton doesn't actually think that Israel will attack Iran this week, and believes that they have "lost this opportunity," but something tells me this isn't the last time that Bolton will give the Israelis an extension on their deadline.

No doubt.

And there’s more reason to discount Bolton and his pronouncements. Since the inauguration -- perhaps even since the 2007 NIE report on Iran -- the neocons and their frontmen have been marginalized and demoted. "Regime Change" was out, replaced by schemes that were no less interventionist but more palatable to the high-minded Soros crowd -- the "Green Revolution," which self-righteous liberals watched unfold over Twitter last spring, being the most obvious example. Bolton is, thankfully, far from power and influence at the moment, and his "deadline" might amount to no more than a mad man howling in the woods.

And an attack is still extremely difficult politically. Though there has been significantly more media chatter about Iran over the past three months, there is simply no popular mandate for action and there has been nothing like the White House-led, coordinated war rollout that we saw in 2003. Any U.S. attack would be a traumatic shock to the American public, and my guess is that, much like Washington’s other two Middle East wars, such a campaign would be highly unpopular with everyone except the neocon/neoliberal wonks living in the Beltway.

Unfortunately, none of this means that an attack isn’t in the cards.

The thing that Bolton -- and everyone else who supports confronting Iran over its nuclear ambitions -- rarely puts into words is what he expects to happen exactly after Iran’s nuclear reactor is "taken out." The neocons are famous for their rosy scenarios ("We'll be greeted as liberators!"), which they, no doubt, sincerely believe in. One senses that they think Washington and/or Jerusalem could pull off another "Operation Opera" that would quickly accomplished its goal and be soon forgotten. America’s benign hegemony could be reasserted on the cheap.

But at some level, even the neocons must recognize that Iran is a completely different ballgame. There is no possible way that Tehran would allow an attack to take place -- even a targeted, limited one aimed solely at Bushehr -- without a full-scale, extreme prejudice retaliation.  Bolton & Co. always talk about the “Second Holocaust” that shall inexorably occur “if Iran gets the Bomb,” but then fail to mention the kind of damage Tehran could inflict on Tel-Aviv and the bunched-up American military bases in Iraq with conventional weapons. In 2009, the commander in chief of Revolutionary Guards stated flatly, “Today, the Islamic Republic of Iran has missiles with the range of 2,000 km (1,250 miles), and based on that all Israeli land including that regime's nuclear facilities are in the range of our missile capabilities.”

Do Bolton and people like him understand whom they’re dealing with?

Former Israeli prison guard Jeffrey Goldberg has written an assessment in The Atlantic on the odds of Israel or the US bombing Iran.  The most interesting part is the discussion about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s father and the influence that the old man has over the son.

To understand why Netanyahu possesses this deep sense—and why his understanding of Jewish history might lead him to attack Iran, even over Obama’s objections—it is necessary to understand Ben-Zion Netanyahu, his 100-year-old father.

BEN-ZION NETANYAHU—his first name means “son of Zion”—is the world’s foremost historian of the Spanish Inquisition and a onetime secretary to Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of the intractable, “revisionist” branch of Zionism. He is father to a tragic Israeli hero, Yonatan Netanyahu, who died while freeing the Jewish hostages at Entebbe in 1976; and also father to Benjamin, who strives for greatness in his father’s eyes but has, on occasion, disappointed him, notably when he acquiesced, in his first term as prime minister in the late 1990s, to American pressure and withdrew Israeli forces from much of the West Bank city of Hebron, Judaism’s second-holiest city. Benjamin Netanyahu is not known in most quarters for his pliability on matters concerning Palestinians, though he has been trying lately to meet at least some of Barack Obama’s demands that he move the peace process forward.

“Always in the back of Bibi’s mind is Ben-Zion,” one of the prime minister’s friends told me. “He worries that his father will think he is weak.”Ben-Zion Netanyahu’s most important work, The Origins of the Inquisition in 15th-Century Spain, upended the scholarly consensus on the roots of that bleak chapter in Jewish history. He argued that Spanish hatred of Jews was spurred by the principle of limpieza de sangre, or the purity of blood; it was proto-Nazi thought, in other words, not mere theology, that motivated the Inquisition. Ben-Zion also argued that the Inquisition corresponds to the axiom that anti-Semitic persecution is preceded, in all cases, by carefully scripted and lengthy dehumanization campaigns meant to ensure the efficient eventual elimination of Jews. To him, the lessons of Jewish history are plain and insistent.

Ben-Zion, by all accounts, was worshipped by his sons in their childhood, and today, the 60-year-old Benjamin, who has been known to act in charmless ways, conspicuously upholds the Fifth Commandment when discussing his father. At a party marking Ben-Zion’s 100th birthday, held this past March at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem, before an assembly that included the president of Israel, Shimon Peres, Benjamin credited his father with forecasting the Shoah and, in the early 1990s, predicting that “Muslim extremists would try to bring down the Twin Towers in New York.” But he also told stories in a warmer and more personal vein, describing a loving father who, though a grim and forbidding figure to outsiders, enjoys cowboy movies and played soccer with his sons.

After a brief debate between Ben-Zion and another prominent academic about competing interpretations of the Inquisition—“It is an unusual 100th-birthday commemoration when a debate about the Inquisition breaks out,” said Menachem Begin’s son, Benny, who is a minister-without-portfolio in Netanyahu’s cabinet—Ben-Zion rose to make valedictory remarks. His speech, unlike his son’s, was succinct, devoid of sentiment, and strikingly unambiguous.

“Our party this evening compels me to speak of recent comments made about the continued existence of the nation of Israel and the new threats by its enemies depicting its upcoming destruction,” Ben-Zion began. “From the Iranian side, we hear pledges that soon—in a matter of days, even—the Zionist movement will be put to an end and there will be no more Zionists in the world. One is supposed to conclude from this that the Jews of the Land of Israel will be annihilated, while the Jews of America, whose leaders refuse to pressure Iran, are being told in a hinted fashion that the annihilation of the Jews will not include them.”

He went on, “The Jewish people are making their position clear and putting faith in their military power. The nation of Israel is showing the world today how a state should behave when it stands before an existential threat: by looking danger in the eye and calmly considering what should be done and what can be done. And to be ready to enter the fray at the moment there is a reasonable chance of success.”

Many people in Likud Party circles have told me that those who discount Ben-Zion’s influence on his son do so at their peril. “This was the father giving his son history’s marching orders,” one of the attendees told me. “I watched Bibi while his father spoke. He was completely absorbed.” (One of Netanyahu’s Knesset allies told me, indelicately, though perhaps not inaccurately, that the chance for movement toward the creation of an independent Palestinian state will come only after Ben-Zion’s death. “Bibi could not withdraw from more of Judea and Samaria”—the biblical names for the West Bank—“and still look into his father’s eyes.”)

Of course, many of us are frightened when we hear that Muslims see geo-politics from a religious perspective, and rightfully so.  Israel, on the other hand, is presented to us as a secular, modern state which only desires peace.  The more one reads about it, the more we see that this is not the case.

I don’t have Ben-Zion’s historical background, but looking at the rampant miscegenation that went on in Latin America makes it hard for me to believe that 15th century Spaniards decided to oppress the Jews because they were worried about “purity of blood.”  Like the nefarious and irrational motives assigned to Muslims, is this simply another case of projection?

Gerald Celente was on fire in this interview with Alex Jones. 

Part 3, part 4 (ht: LRC)

The common themes of Mark Hackard’s informative articles are that the US elites oppose the spirit of the East due to liberal ideology and old school national interests. The former argument I agree with; the latter, on the other hand, seems to imply that those ruling America actually care about its citizens, or at least those which happen to be corporate shareholders. One will search in vain for a “rational”-that is, economic-reason for the Iraq War, which couldn’t be paid for if you stole all the country’s oil for a hundred years.  As for the petroleum companies, The Israel Lobby revealed that they have actually traditionally opposed a bellicose foreign policy in the Middle East, preferring to peacefully conduct business with whoever happens to be in power

Now the website thinkprogress.org puts forth evidence that Big Oil has been lobbying against sanctions on Iran.

The recent revelations about BP’s alleged rolein pressing for the release of convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi in order to secure valuable oil concessions in Libya provides a potent reminder of the influence oil companies and other major corporations exert over foreign policy.  New evidence uncovered by ThinkProgress shows that America’s own oil giants are also trying to shape U.S. foreign policy to protect or enhance their own profits, even if it puts American security at risk.

Lobbying disclosure forms filed with the Senate this week show that the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and Halliburton lobbied the House, Senate, and various executive branch agencies on the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act during the first half of the year as the bill was being debated in the Senate.

Big Oil’s interest in weakening the law is obvious.  Among other things, the new law, signed by President Obama on July 1, imposes significant new sanctions on individuals and corporations “that directly and significantly contribute to Iran’s ability to develop petroleum resources” and that sell more than $200,000 in fuel or other refined petroleum products to Iran.  The new sanctions are important because “although Iran is the second-largest oil producer in the world, it lacks refining capacity and relies on foreign suppliers for nearly 5 million gallons of gasoline a day.”  In addition, the country’s energy industry is “a huge source of revenue for the Iranian government and a stronghold of the increasingly powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps,” which “oversees Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.”…

• ExxonMobil, which spent $2.5 million on lobbying last quarter, currently enjoys $4.9 billion in revenues from federal oil and gas leases and sold fuel additives to Iran until 2006.
• Shell, which spent $4 million on lobbying last quarter, has $11.9 billion in revenues and benefits from the U.S. government, a wide variety of business relationships with Iran, and is alleged to be in violation of the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act—the very law amended by the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act.
• ConocoPhillips, which spent $5.5 million lobbying last quarter, accrues $1.7 billion in revenue from federal grants and oil and gas leases and still actively profits from selling gasoline to Iranvia Lukoil, in which it holds a minority stake.
• Halliburton has a whopping $27.1 billion in government contracts and, until 2007, provided oil and gas drilling services to Iran through a foreign subsidiary…

The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act passed the House 412-12 and the Senate 99-0, so it’s not surprising that Big Oil’s activities in Iran are not very popular. 

Think about that for a moment. The bill passed the Senate 99-0, despite only opposition from big business. There goes the myth of plutocracy.

Not that oil companies are angels; as the article reveals they lobby for subsidies just as hard as they fight for the opening up of foreign markets. In both cases they’re looking out for their interests, as is to be expected. Sometimes this is a good thing (trying to remove sanctions) and sometimes bad (looking for taxpayer funding).

Think Progress wants us to believe that we’re just lucky to have such an altruistic government. A full 100% of the Senate and 97% of the House was able to resist oil company lobbying to instead look out for the national interests and protect us from the menace of Iran. How fortunate we are to have such selfless public servants in office! 

Those of us of a more cynical bent may be forgiven for suspecting that it’s far more likely that there’s actually another lobby out there having a countervailing effect, one that in the minds of Congressmen relegates the wishes of Big Oil and their paltry tens of millions spent a year  to a mere afterthought. If our representatives only cared about the wishes of BP and Exxon Mobile it would actually be an improvement-the interests of these corporations at least sometimes accidentally converge with those of the nation as a whole.

I suspect the same factors are behind policy towards Russia, which opposed the Iraq War and is trying to put the breaks on any kind of similar strike on Iran. To the extent that the US government cares about controlling oil and gas reserves it’s only to be in a better position to spread liberalism and defend Israel. 

Here’s an insane article from some madman at the American Spectator fantasizing about Israel striking Iran. The conclusion is below.

"We apparently have lost four F-15s and three F-16s, all to unknown causes.

"But that is not the worst. Al-Jazeera is already broadcasting reports from Iran. They are saying we haven't done any significant damage to any of the Iranian nuclear facilities, and only killed innocent civilians in towns and cities across Iran. Hizballah will soon launch everything they have in Lebanon at us. Gaza will erupt in missile launches."

Netanyahu closed his eyes briefly. "Avi, how soon can we expect the UN's condemnation, sanctions, and so forth?"

Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign minister, shrugged. "Probably later today. I have already received a note from Hillary Clinton condemning the attack. The Americans may sponsor a Security Council resolution condemning us. You can expect a call from Obama himself any minute."

"Will anyone stand with us?"

"No, Prime Minister, we are alone."

Poor Israel!  All they want to do is burn women and children alive and nobody will stand with them!

The paranoia is what’s frightening.  The US has used its veto power at the UN to shield Israel from sanctions 40 times since 1972.  And in the fantasies of Zionists America is getting ready to sponsor resolutions against Israel.  What would neo-cons advocate the Israelis do if the US actually took a balanced position on the Middle East?  Lob a nuke at the East coast?  The author of this article actually worked in the Pentagon! Lunatics like this, not "Islamo-fascism," should keep us up at night.  

It’s not fair to blame Israelis for the nuttiness of American neo-cons but it matters to us as this Jew worship is what passes for conservatism today and may inflame the world.  If the Republicans regain power in 2012, we may or may not see a repeal of Obamacare, tax cuts, lower spending, etc. but we’re guaranteed to see the US do Israel’s bidding (more so than now).  It’s not just another foreign country; it is the master of a movement ostensibly dedicated to defending of the West and therefore if not our enemy, at least a nation whose interests diverge from ours. 

The comments are almost as frightening.

Yes, guys, Yes, you are quite correct and, since BARAK INSANE OBAMA refused to reveal where the vast bulk of the contributions to his campaign came from, it's my guess that they came from ARAB nations.

FURTHER, I AM CALLING FOR THE IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT of THIS PRESIDENT and, the COMPLETE REMOVAL OF ALL OF HIS REGIME AND THE OVERTURNING OF EVERY PIECE OF LEGISLATION HE AND HIS REGIME HAVE FORCED THROUGH CONGRESS !! ---- JT ----

Oh yea, all that Arab money in politics.  It’s about time the Jews stopped being so passive and made their voices heard.

Of course Iran will use nuclear weapons against the US; at the first opportunity.

But of course!  Just remember all those wars Iran’s started in the last thousand years or so.

I happen to be one of those Christians who believes we will meet Jesus in the air...and if you belong to Him (saved by grace) you won't be here to for the yucky stuff. Because...first, there is now no condenation to those who are in Christ Jesus Rom 8:1 and lastly, the church is mentioned over and over in Rev. chpts 1-4. No more mention of the church after chpt 4. , and hell doesn't break loose until after chpt 4. However, like you, no matter where I am when those dreadful days begin, I know that Jesus Christ is on my side and I will not be ashamed of Him....

AND GOD BLESS ISRAEL!

This is one of the more reasonable ones.

Israeli intelligence has informed the U.S. press that Osama bin Laden has taken up residence in a country that Israel is interested in attacking.