Neocon Strategy: The Military Solution Against Iran is The Final Solution

[Purveyor]

Did anyone actually read the study, released to RawStory.com, that lends legitimacy to the idea that Bush can take out Iran's nuclear capability with massive air attacks? It was like something out of Dr. Strangelove. It also fits seamlessly into the fabric of White House rhetoric and takes neocon ideology to its inevitable conclusion.

"U.S. policy is regime change by political means and prevention of nuclear weapons acquisition by all means," write Dr. Dan Plesch and Martin Butcher, who have impressive resumes but offer superficial crackpot analysis. "By all means," is a euphemism. Translated into English, it means unilaterally launching war aimed at total destruction of Iran as a nation state (yes, nuclear weapons may be necessary). "By all means," also answers the inevitable, "Yeah, but then what?" question. After we bomb a nation of 70 million people into the stone age, we keep them permanently subjugated.

This is no exaggeration. Look at their own words:

Conventional Wisdom concerning any U.S. attack on Iran:

a) Any attack will be limited to suspect Weapons of Mass Destruction sites and associated defences.

b) Iran will then have options to retaliate ...<.>

c) This analysis is not convincing for the following reasons:

- Elementary military strategy requires the prevention of anticipated enemy counter-attacks. Iranian Air Force, Navy, Surface to Surface Missile and Air Defence systems would not be left intact. Although one option may be to leave regular Iranian armed forces intact and attack to destroy the regime including Revolutionary Guard, Basij and religious police. In this way regime change might be encouraged.

- President Bush will not again lay himself open to the charge of using too little force.

- U.S. policy is regime change by political means and prevention of nuclear weapons acquisition by all means. The only logic for restraint once war begins will be continued pressure on Iran to acquiesce to U.S. demands through intra-war deterrence.

- Long term prevention of Iranian WMD programmes may require regime change and the reduction of Iran to a weak or failed state, since all assumptions concerning attacks on WMD sites alone conclude that Iran would merely be held back a few years.

- U.S. military preparations and current operations against Iran indicate a full-spectrum approach to Iran rather than one confined to WMD sites alone.

"President Bush will not again lay himself open to the charge of using too little force," is a classic neocon perversion of history. No one ever charged Bush with using "too little force" in the invasion of Iraq or anywhere else. Rather, Bush failed to use a sufficient number of troops to impose order and control in Iraq. Four years later, our own troop strength is decimated, while Iran's remains intact.

---eoe---

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/neocon-strategy-the-mili_b_62630.html