RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Parry writes: "These inflammatory articles - these incitements to murder and violation of international law - are considered just normal discussion in the Land of Exceptionalism."

An Iranian man holding a photo of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. (photo: Iranian government photo/Consortium News)
An Iranian man holding a photo of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. (photo: Iranian government photo/Consortium News)


NYT Publishes Call to Bomb Iran

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

29 March 15

 

The New York Times continues its slide into becoming little more than a neocon propaganda sheet as it followed the Washington Post in publishing an op-ed advocating the unprovoked bombing of Iran, reports Robert Parry.

f two major newspapers in, say, Russia published major articles openly advocating the unprovoked bombing of a country, say, Israel, the U.S. government and news media would be aflame with denunciations about “aggression,” “criminality,” “madness,” and “behavior not fitting the Twenty-first Century.”

But when the newspapers are American – the New York Times and the Washington Post – and the target country is Iran, no one in the U.S. government and media bats an eye. These inflammatory articles – these incitements to murder and violation of international law – are considered just normal discussion in the Land of Exceptionalism.

On Thursday, the New York Times printed an op-ed that urged the bombing of Iran as an alternative to reaching a diplomatic agreement that would sharply curtail Iran’s nuclear program and ensure that it was used only for peaceful purposes. The Post published a similar “we-must-bomb-Iran” op-ed two weeks ago.

The Times’ article by John Bolton, a neocon scholar from the American Enterprise Institute, was entitled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” It followed the Post’s op-ed by Joshua Muravchik, formerly at AEI and now a fellow at the neocon-dominated School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins. [For more on that piece, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Neocon Admits Plan to Bomb Iran.”]

Both articles called on the United States to mount a sustained bombing campaign against Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities and to promote “regime change” in Tehran. Ironically, these “scholars” rationalized their calls for unprovoked aggression against Iran under the theory that Iran is an aggressive state, although Iran has not invaded another country for centuries.

Bolton, who served as President George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations, based his call for war on the possibility that if Iran did develop a nuclear bomb – which Iran denies seeking and which the U.S. intelligence community agrees Iran is not building – such a hypothetical event could touch off an arms race in the Middle East.

Curiously, Bolton acknowledged that Israel already has developed an undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal outside international controls, but he didn’t call for bombing Israel. He wrote blithely that “Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.”

How Bolton manages to read the minds of Israel’s neighbors who have been at the receiving end of Israeli invasions and other cross-border attacks is not explained. Nor does he address the possibility that Israel’s possession of some 200 nuclear bombs might be at the back of the minds of Iran’s leaders if they do press ahead for a nuclear weapon.

Nor does Bolton explain his assumption that if Iran were to build one or two bombs that it would use them aggressively, rather than hold them as a deterrent. He simply asserts: “Iran is a different story. Extensive progress in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal its ambitions.”

Pulling Back on Refinement

But is that correct? In its refinement of uranium, Iran has not progressed toward the level required for a nuclear weapon since its 2013 interim agreement with the global powers known as “the p-5 plus one” – for the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. Instead, Iran has dialed back the level of refinement to below 5 percent (what’s needed for generating electricity) from its earlier level of 20 percent (needed for medical research) — compared with the 90-plus percent purity to build a nuclear weapon.

In other words, rather than challenging the “red line” of uranium refinement that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu drew during a United Nations speech in 2012, the Iranians have gone in the opposite direction – and they have agreed to continue those constraints if a permanent agreement is reached with the p-5-plus-1.

However, instead of supporting such an agreement, American neocons – echoing Israeli hardliners – are demanding war, followed by U.S. subversion of Iran’s government through the financing of an internal opposition for a coup or a “colored revolution.”

Bolton wrote: “An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.”

But one should remember that neocon schemes – drawn up at their think tanks and laid out on op-ed pages – don’t always unfold as planned. Since the 1990s, the neocons have maintained a list of countries considered troublesome for Israel and thus targeted for “regime change,” including Iraq, Syria and Iran. In 2003, the neocons got their chance to invade Iraq, but the easy victory that they predicted didn’t exactly pan out.

Still, the neocons never revise their hit list. They just keep coming up with more plans that, in total, have thrown much of the Middle East, northern Africa and now Ukraine into bloodshed and chaos. In effect, the neocons have joined Israel in its de facto alliance with Saudi Arabia for a Sunni sectarian conflict against the Shiites and their allies. Much like the Saudis, Israeli officials rant against the so-called “Shiite crescent” from Tehran through Baghdad and Damascus to Beirut. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Congress Cheers Netanyahu’s Hatred of Iran.”]

Since Iran is considered the most powerful Shiite nation and is allied with Syria, which is governed by Alawites, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, both countries have remained in the neocons’ crosshairs. But the neocons don’t actually pull the trigger themselves. Their main role is to provide the emotional and political arguments to get the American people to hand over their tax money and their children to fight these wars.

The neocons are so confident in their skills at manipulating the U.S. decision-making process that some have gone so far as to suggest Americans should side with al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front in Syria or the even more brutal Islamic State, because those groups love killing Shiites and thus are considered the most effective fighters against Iran’s allies. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Secret Saudi Ties to Terrorism.”]

Friedmans Madness

The New York Times’ star neocon columnist Thomas L. Friedman ventured to the edge of madness as he floated the idea of the U.S. arming the head-chopping Islamic State, writing this month: “Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question: Should we be arming ISIS?”

I realize the New York Times and Washington Post are protected by the First Amendment and can theoretically publish whatever they want. But the truth is that the newspapers are extremely restrictive in what they print. Their op-ed pages are not just free-for-alls for all sorts of opinions.

For instance, neither newspaper would publish a story that urged the United States to launch a bombing campaign to destroy Israel’s actual nuclear arsenal as a step toward creating a nuclear-free Middle East. That would be considered outside responsible thought and reasonable debate.

However, when it comes to advocating a bombing campaign against Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, the two newspapers are quite happy to publish such advocacy. The Times doesn’t even blush when one of its most celebrated columnists mulls over the idea of sending weapons to the terrorists in ISIS – all presumably because Israel has identified “the Shiite crescent” as its current chief enemy and the Islamic State is on the other side.

But beyond the hypocrisy and, arguably, the criminality of these propaganda pieces, there is also the neocon record of miscalculation. Remember how the invasion of Iraq was supposed to end with Iraqis tossing rose petals at the American soldiers instead of planting “improvised explosive devices” – and how the new Iraq was to become a model pluralistic democracy?

Well, why does one assume that the same geniuses who were so wrong about Iraq will end up being right about Iran? What if the bombing and the subversion don’t lead to nirvana in Iran? Isn’t it just as likely, if not more so, that Iran would react to this aggression by deciding that it needed nuclear bombs to deter further aggression and to protect its sovereignty and its people?

In other words, might the scheming by Bolton and Muravchik — as published by the New York Times and the Washington Post — produce exactly the result that they say they want to prevent? But don’t worry. If the neocons’ new schemes don’t pan out, they’ll just come up with more.

_________

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+98 # cordleycoit 2015-03-29 08:53
The NYT's 's masters are wanting to bath in the blood of innocents. How quaint they are ready to destroy a culture fifteen thousand years old for a tank of gas.How Bush like. I can imagine the newsroom with it's famous and rich hacks waiting for more children's parts. Talk about Zombie mainstream media.
 
 
+49 # bdeja 2015-03-29 10:04
What a "great" news story a new war would make. Most of the media are licking their lips right now.
 
 
+63 # goodsensecynic 2015-03-29 10:35
I am constantly astonished that the inmates of the Fox News Asylum and especially Sarah bin-Palin (who more-or-less admitted to Katie Couric that she is pre-literate), get away with comments about the "liberal-lefty lamestream" media.

The United States is truly "exceptional" insofar as the range of legitimate political opinion generally ranges from "center-right" (Obama) to "extreme-right, " with a fairly large space for the "sociopathic-ri ght" ... but (pace Elizabeth Warren) with almost nothing on what citizens of other countries would recognize as the "left" (minor exceptions such as "The Nation" and some of the "alternative" online services such as "Readerssupport ed News" notwithstanding).

For the "New York Times" which (lest we forget) championed the bombing of everywhere from Vietnam to Libya to be pilloried for being too left-wing makes a mockery of the art of mockery!
 
 
+16 # Radscal 2015-03-29 15:55
Yep. Unfortunately, those bombings from Vietnam to Libya were promoted (and carried out) by Democratic Presidents and Legislators.

The NYT can be labeled as "liberal" only in the same way that many people still believe the Democratic Party is "liberal."
 
 
+13 # Tazio 2015-03-30 11:46
Yeah...Republic an President Nixon never bombed North Vietnam or Cambodia...

And, btw, the Bomb Iran article was written by Republican thug and walrus moustached John Bolton, and well over 95% of the reader responses were opposed to Bolton's bird brained Republican plan.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2015-03-30 13:06
Clearly, the bombing of dark-skinned people around the world is a thoroughly bi-partisan "success."
 
 
+25 # Johnny 2015-03-29 11:58
They already have the oil and gas. The mass murder will be to eliminate the last obstacle to the expansion of Israel into Lebanon and Iraq. The owners and editors of the Times and Washington Post are chosen by God to exterminate all of us Untermenschen.
 
 
-15 # Larry 2015-03-30 08:18
From day one, Israelis have fought for their lives against an implacable Goliath that denies Israel's right to exist, and repeatedly promises to "drive Israel into the sea." Try to imagine living with daily rocket attacks and the threat of attacks by homicidal terrorists.

I challenge you to produce one shred of credible evidence indicating Israel's "expansion into Lebanon and Iraq"
 
 
+10 # Secular Humanist 2015-03-30 21:48
So long as Israel continues to take a pound of flesh for every drop of its blood that is drawn, there will never be an end to the enmity nor peace. Is that what they (or you) want? Why is Israel the only Middle Eastern nation that has a right to feel aggrieved?
 
 
+10 # itchyvet 2015-03-29 21:46
Why is it, many Americans have this fixation that everything in the M.E. is about OIL ? The fact is, OIL is simply a bonus issue, the REAL reason behind these attacks against nations like Syria and Iran is because these nations are the ONLY nations in the M.E. that could defend themselves SUCCESSFULLY against any invasion or incursion by Israel.
As long as these nations have a military capability of defending themselves adequately, they will remain in the cross hairs of Israel and it's poodle the Americans.
Israel's intentions in the M.E. is to be the ONLY nation to have the military ability to wagw war against any other M.E. nation and subdue them, thus gaining control of the whole M.E.
This is no secret, the Israelis have for many years, made plain for anyone who can read and has a memory their desires and ultimate goal, it's way past time the rest of America woke up to the fact they are being used.
 
 
+34 # AKPatriot 2015-03-29 09:52
And just as history repeats itself, when will we ever learn? Good Luck and Good Night. ERM
 
 
+53 # caphillprof 2015-03-29 10:06
Has there ever been an effective regime change caused by American force of arms in the last 60 years?
 
 
+38 # goodsensecynic 2015-03-29 10:47
I haven't looked lately, but I think maybe the Dominican Republic (1965) and Grenada (1983) might quality - if, by effective, you mean one that saw a government overthrown and a more US-friendly government installed.

Of course, there are more examples of the overthrow of democratic leaders in which more "covert" US actions "enabled" such regime changes. Examples would obviously include Guatemala (1954), Chile (1973), Haiti (1991 & 2004) and Honduras (2009) and that's only Latin America.

Whether these "regime changes" benefited the people of those countries is, of course, a different question.
 
 
+6 # vt143 2015-03-31 08:30
All one needs to do is read Stephen Kinzer's book, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" to see where the U.S. has "succeeded."
 
 
+13 # Radscal 2015-03-29 15:59
From the perspective of transnational corporations, banks and arms manufacturers, I'd say pretty much every U.S.-caused regime change has been "Mission Accomplished."

Of course, that many of them also benefitted our "special relationship" with Israel cannot be coincidental.
 
 
+58 # Aliazer 2015-03-29 10:10
The New York Times reminds me of the numerous Nazi publications printing so called "news" in Germany, along with its ensuing propaganda about the need for "Deutchland Uber Alles", as the master race that it was, and take over the rest of Europe.

These folks in our midst, so called "neocons" are modern day Nazis, all of whom work for the supremacist state of Israel and its subversion, chaos and destruction of the numerous countries of the Middle East.
 
 
+1 # Pickwicky 2015-03-29 12:55
But what if the Times and the W.Post are in the service of suggesting to (or threatening) Iran the possible outcome of refusing to or reneging on nuclear bomb development? What if these prominent newspapers were asked to sound, promote, display that threat? The negotiations are drawing down to the end date. What if?
 
 
+18 # dbrize 2015-03-29 15:37
Quoting Pickwicky:
But what if the Times and the W.Post are in the service of suggesting to (or threatening) Iran the possible outcome of refusing to or reneging on nuclear bomb development? What if these prominent newspapers were asked to sound, promote, display that threat? The negotiations are drawing down to the end date. What if?


Then they are in the market of colluding with government to spread whatever propaganda government wishes. Hardly the stuff of independent journalism.
And to think, we used to laugh at Pravda.

FYI: The NYT's and WAPO have long been in the sway of the CIA. A shift to neoconservatism is merely a slight course adjustment.

They do occasionally present decent book reviews.
 
 
+3 # Pickwicky 2015-03-30 15:20
dbrize--Do you think they are in the service of propaganda? Or is their intention to give Iran a bit of a nudge?
 
 
+3 # dbrize 2015-03-30 19:57
Quoting Pickwicky:
dbrize--Do you think they are in the service of propaganda? Or is their intention to give Iran a bit of a nudge?


They love those tony beltway dinners and neocon dollars.
 
 
+14 # CelticNavigator 2015-03-29 15:52
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years......It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodeterminati on practiced in past centuries.”

― David Rockefeller, Baden, Germany, 1991
 
 
+10 # Merlin 2015-03-29 22:19
CelticNavigator 2015-03-29 15:52

Thank you for bringing this quote up. The reference is to The One World Order the oligarchs have been working on for a very long time. Here are a couple of other quotes.

"Let me control a peoples currency and I care not who makes their laws..." Meyer Nathaniel Rothchild in a speech to a gathering of world bankers February 12, 1912.The following year, we subscribed to the "services" of the newly incorporated Federal Reserve, headed by Mr. Rothchild.

"NAFTA is a major stepping stone to the New World Order." Henry Kissinger when campaigning for the passage of NAFTA.
 
 
+6 # MidwestTom 2015-03-29 19:18
Eliminate all holders of dual citizenship from pr government and I believe that we will become a far ,more peaceful nation, will leaders who look out only for OUR good.
 
 
+37 # Archie1954 2015-03-29 10:42
No one, including this author with whom I agree totally, has mentioned the very real possibility of violent blowback from a discretionary attack on Iran. It isn't as if Iran has invaded the US or launched an attack against it. This would strictly be a case of the US wishing to attack and doing so for its own geopolitical purposes. In other words an illegal war just like the Iraq one. Iran is not Iraq, it is much stronger and has many more weapons systems. I don't think for instance that the US aircraft carriers would be safe in close proximity to Iran if the US should attack. I don't think Israel would be safe either and actually the US mainland might be in the cross hairs of an irate Iran. For too long America has used its military for a US style of diplomacy and done it with impunity. Those days are now gone!
 
 
+24 # Johnny 2015-03-29 12:06
Yes, Archie, but "This would strictly be a case of the US wishing to attack and doing so for" Israel's "own geopolitical purposes." The US has nothing to gain by hostility to Iran.
 
 
+12 # Stilldreamin1 2015-03-29 10:45
Widespread destruction and disaster are collateral damage; part of the not quite precisely calculated outcome of attack. Why would these beneficiaries of death and destruction mind causing it?
 
 
+68 # Stilldreamin1 2015-03-29 10:47
Calling John Bolton a 'scholar' is like calling Dick Cheney a statesman. I could think of better words- how about reactionary.
 
 
+31 # Misterioso 2015-03-29 11:17
It won't happen. The Straits of Hormuz are a "bath tub." The obvious consequences of attacking Iran would be disastrous for the region and the world, including the U.S.

BTW, as he has repeatedly demonstrated, Bolton is a dolt.
 
 
+15 # progressiveguy 2015-03-29 11:22
Neo-cons control the New York times? That newspaper is owned and managed by Jews. I have nothing against that religion or Jewish people in general but I resent Nuttyahoo and his supporters and those that want to rush the United States into a war with Iran. Doesn't the U.S. have enough wars going on now. Haven't the neo-cons made enough money from wars the last 14 years? What if North Korea attacks the U.S. troops in South Korea? What if China thinks it might be a good time for them to join North Korea and Iran in attacking the U.S. Then the neo-cons might be happy.
 
 
+22 # wantrealdemocracy 2015-03-29 12:12
Let's be honest. The term 'neo-con' means Zionist. These people place the desires of Israel over any concern for the people of the United States. Many of these neo-cons are elected officials in our government. Many of them have dual citizenship---A merican and Israeli. This should not be allowed.

"The neo-cons are so confident in their skills of manipulating the U.S. decision making" because they are well aware of the corruption in our Congress. It is hard for those Congress members with their pockets full of AIPAC 'donations' to even consider voting as their constituents want. This goes for both Republicans and their evil twin the Democrats. Stop voting for the these two groups of Zionists. There are other candidates on the ballot.
 
 
+35 # John Escher 2015-03-29 11:23
I wish to honor the RSN admonition not to give in-- self-indulgentl y-- to the "recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader Comments."

On the other hand one should always call a cockroach a cockroach.

One thinks of what the poet Osip Mandelstam called Joseph Stalin, with the result that his-- Mandelstam's-- life was ruined and even ended from that precise moment onward:

His thick fingers are bulky and fat like live-baits,
And his accurate words are as heavy as weights.
Cucaracha’s moustaches are screaming,
And his boot-tops are shining and gleaming.

Or do I glorify John Bolton too much by comparing him to the criminal of possibly greatest stature in human history.

Bolton, perhaps, should instead be compared to the man who shot the Duke of Sarajevo-- not a well known cultural figure but a reactionary of non-existent intelligence who succeeded in starting World War I.

Another comparison could easily be drawn between John Bolton and the co-pilot who just crashed the plane in the French Alps.

Admirable? Hardly but rather the opposite. I applaud Robert Parry's delivery of the same sort of judgment against The New York Times and The Washington Post.
 
 
-3 # GianniGee 2015-03-30 15:08
This is pure blather...Do you speak to yourself in the mirror? It reads like someone who loves to listen to himself..
 
 
+26 # motamanx 2015-03-29 11:34
The people of the US have more in common with the people of Iran than they do with the people of Israel, yet we continue to give large sums to Israel, with which they buy more weapons and fund AIPAC, and thus continue the charade that they are the stalwart heroes of the Mideast.
 
 
-5 # Larry 2015-03-30 13:31
More in common with the people of Iran? Seriously? Would that commonality include the 500-600 people who stormed the US Embassy, kidnapped 66 American hostages, and held most of them in captivity for 444 days? Or would they be the throngs in the street who shriek "Death to America?" burn our flag, and call our country "the Great Satan?"

Ever hear those sentiments from the people of Israel? I think you have your people confused.
 
 
+36 # PABLO DIABLO 2015-03-29 11:45
Bolton is one of the most dangerous of the neocons. They and their corporate sponsors make money off of war. LOTS of money. We pay with our lives and our taxes. W.Bush and his handlers (like Bolton, Cheney, Gates, etc) have pissed off our friends and fueled our enemies to keep the cash flowing into their coffers. Our “friends/allies (Germany, France, Italy, England)are joining the Chinese Bank or BRIC. They are refusing to support our demands for war any more. All we have left is a Congress demanding more money for the military. Obvious signs of a collapsing empire. WAKE UP AMERICA. Take back “our” government.
 
 
+14 # GrittedTeeth 2015-03-29 11:54
Fifty shades of Grey Lady - when NYT turns to brazen sado-masochism from good old news.
 
 
+12 # dquandle 2015-03-29 12:37
There's far more money and access to power in publishing virulent propaganda.
 
 
+15 # Johnny 2015-03-29 12:08
People who just now are realizing that the New York Times and Washington Post are fascist propaganda rags for Zionism have been asleep for the past 65 years.
 
 
+8 # Patriot 2015-03-29 12:41
Does it occur to anyone that Israel has nothing to gain from a U.S.-formented war with Iran, Syria, or anywhere else? These aggressive plans are not being put forth for the benefit of anyone outside of the circle of those who will immediately and directly profit from ANY sort of war, against anyone.

If Israel's policies are right, being the Jewish state is not a component of her rightness. If Israel's policies are wrong, being a Jewish state is not a component of her wrongness. And if U.S. policy is based solely on which state is Jewish, or Shiite, or Sunni, is not based on the best interests of the security of the US--then that policy cannot be justified.

I hope no one--Jew, Moslem, Christian, or atheist--is stupid enough to believe that "holy" wars are anything but UNholy, or that they will benefit anyone except those who are most loudly shouting, "Kill the b-----ds!!"

Neither are wars to keep us safe from a threat that no one has made, or given any indication of planning to make, likely to make us safe. Quite the opposite.

My, but there are some naive pople in this world! The neocons don't give a rat's fanny about Israel or the Jews, but they WILL use any argument, any people, any fear, to accomplish their true goal, which is not the security of ANY sovereign state, including the US, but the advancement of their own plan to dominate the entire planet.
 
 
+12 # crispy 2015-03-29 13:21
"The neocons don't give a rat's fanny about Israel or the Jews, but they WILL use any argument, any people, any fear, to accomplish their true goal, which is not the security of ANY sovereign state, including the US, but the advancement of their own plan to dominate the entire planet." and, may I add "and to make money,for the military industrial complex (in which, on top of that, I assume they are invested via stocks in Wall street!)
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2015-03-29 16:52
The NeoCon's seminal publication was Richard Pearle's 1996 book, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," which is ALL about Israel. And as the title suggests, it was a call to cut off all diplomatic solutions and turn to military conquests.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/neocon-middle-east-policy-adam-shapiro/1115394830?ean=9780976443735

Then, the NeoCon's foundational organization, the Project for a New American Century published their open letter to President Clinton calling for the invasion of Iraq in 1998. Then, in 2000, they published ""Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century," which included taking out Iran. That of course was the infamous document lamenting the difficulty to accomplish their goals without "a new Pearl Harbor."

In short, the NeoCon agenda from day one has been the destruction of all of Israel's perceived enemies, and little else.
 
 
+4 # crispy 2015-03-29 13:02
"For instance, neither newspaper would publish a story that urged the United States to launch a bombing campaign to destroy Israel’s actual nuclear arsenal as a step toward creating a nuclear-free Middle East. "
Does anyone have a link to this proposed article and its author? Rob IF you read this please post it would you?
 
 
+14 # xcoskier 2015-03-29 13:37
crispy: you appear to have missed the point. The reference is to a hypothetical story which has never been written, and would not be published if it were (as opposed to the already-publish ed proposal to bomb Iran). The point is the difference between the two, based on the proposed target.
 
 
+5 # crispy 2015-03-29 17:36
I interpreted would as meaning having the will to rather than conditional... Got it now.
 
 
+13 # shgo 2015-03-29 13:05
the insanity exhibited by the mouthing off of old fools is but another example of how close we are to the end of this rotten empire. It cannot come soon enuf for me.
 
 
+20 # jsluka 2015-03-29 14:20
Those who want to bomb Iran are batshit crazy. The very last thing we need is to attack another Muslim country. That's what creates support for ISIS and Islamic terrorism. Does anyone believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have done the US any good? Bombing Iran would be a far worse mistake than those two mistaken wars, and would directly undermine our national security. What do the Neocons think the "blowback" from bombing Iran would be? We should bomb the Neocons, and leave Iran alone - in fact, we should be allies with Iran. Let us approach them as friends and with respect and goodwill. The hippies were right - we need more love and less hate in this world if we are to save it from the destruction it faces.
 
 
+11 # 1wolff 2015-03-29 15:30
Even though we live in a crazy world, there's no reason the US should lead the world into oblivion. If I subscribed to the NYT, I would give it to my friend whose dogs would put it to good use just as they do the Lexington Herald-Leader.
 
 
+8 # wrknight 2015-03-29 15:35
BOMB BOLTON!
 
 
+2 # gailfl 2015-03-29 20:06
i cant wait we have a depleted army all suffering from PTSD fighting enemies that we decide armed can't wait fight people with weapons people that haven't been disarmed by the USA gosh this is going to be a real fiasco can't wait then the rest of the USA will be out with her PTSD drawn the full retirement pay plus the early Social Security retirement not paying taxes gosh I don't know who's going to support this country and its next war
 
 
-2 # gailfl 2015-03-29 20:09
it amazes me that this country will let you medically retire for remembering things that happened when you were three years old things that did not even have anything to do with being in the military or war you can have your PTSD and sit on your fat ass maybe all the war mongers will have to pick up a gun and learn how to fly a jet laughing out loud
 
 
+8 # rhgreen 2015-03-29 20:17
I suppose I would hear from the FBI (or from CSIS since I am in Canada) if I suggested that if the US or Israel bombs Iran, we are now licensed to bomb the NY Times building and the Washington Post building. Or perhaps it is John Bolton, Tom Friedman, Benjamin Netanyahu and Joshua Muravchik who we are licensed to assassinate. Not me, licensed or not. But the question remains - why do two used-to-be respected major newspapers honour such cretinous bloodthirsty mental maundering by publishing it in their pages?
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2015-03-29 22:07
If you have time before they come for you, check out the book "The Mighty Wurlitzer" or check online for "Operation Mockingbird."

You'll find that our "shadow government" has infiltrated, if not completely overrun most media sources.
 
 
+14 # Pancho 2015-03-29 21:12
Calling rabid mouthbreather Bolton a "scholar," as the Times did, is a bit much, isn't it?

He's an odious creature who has been pushing an attack on Iran for over a decade. The Times should collectively be ashamed of itself for publishing his nonsense.
 
 
+4 # Jim Young 2015-03-30 08:35
Seems like a very good time to read Francis Fukuyama's new book Political Order and Political Decay, and see how he has looked upon how the concepts he seemed to support were corrupted in their implementation, to me, leading us into dis-harmony and further than ever into disorder.

An Indian Economist I shared an airport van ride with years ago, told me almost any system will work if it is reasonably free of corruption. I was most struck by Fukuyama's description of the Venal Offices, sold in pre-French Revolution France which seems the way my old party is going with "privatization" of everything. An example of what I always thought of as a benign dictatorship seems supported by Fukuyama's description of Singapore, but he also seems to show how very far his old friends like Paul Wolfowitz have strayed from anything that could be called benign (IMHO, without having read the book yet).

Bolton seems the extreme, almost cartoonish, version of how the worst of them think (and keep getting worse).
 
 
+3 # WestWinds 2015-03-30 09:21
Our government is out of control. War outside of this country and a stealth war inside this country.

Fears of martial law as special ops set to swarm Southwest and operate undetected among civilians who've been deemed HOSTILE in massive military exercise --Operation Jade Helm will see 1,200 service members including Green Berets and SEALs and special forces from the Air Force and Marines in July | 26 March 2015 | Seven Southwestern states will soon be swarmed by 1,200 military special ops personnel as part of a controversial domestic military training in which some of the elite soldiers will operate undetected among civilians. Operation Jade Helm begins in July and will last for eight weeks. Soldiers will operate in and around towns in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado where some of them will drop from planes while carrying weapons loaded with blanks [!] in what military officials have dubbed Realistic Military Training. But with residents of the entire states of Texas and Utah dubbed 'hostile' for the purposes of the exercises, Jade Helm has some concerned the drills are too realistic.***
 
 
+2 # Jim Young 2015-03-30 16:32
Quoting WestWinds:
Our government is out of control. War outside of this country and a stealth war inside this country.

Fears of martial law as special ops set to swarm Southwest and operate undetected among civilians who've been deemed HOSTILE in massive military exercise...***


I suspect that if they involve large numbers of military, they will find many are still critical thinkers (or have friends, family in previous generations, or the next) that are critical thinkers to make them question why we would even think about creating the police states we fought against throughout our history. When push comes to shove, and enough realize how far away we are deviating from our ideals, I believe such forces would soon breakdown. I don't know how bad it has to get before that point but I'd rather not let it go much further.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2015-03-30 20:19
Unfortunately, the U.S. military has a long history of taking up arms against their fellow citizens. Even before he was President, George Washington called for a 24,000 man army to put down "Shay's Rebellion" which was made up of mostly Revolutionary War veterans protesting that the government hadn't paid them as contracted for their service to the Revolution.

Then, Washington did send in military to squash the "Whiskey Rebellion," which was again largely Revolutionary War veterans protesting that their farms were being foreclosed to pay war debts to banks and wealthy bonds buyers through the whiskey tax amongst other financial burdens.

"The Bonus Army" was another case of the military drawing arms against war veterans. In that case, WW I veterans.

And those are just cases of the military assaulting war veterans. Civilians?

I just hope it doesn't come to that.
 
 
+6 # Edwina 2015-03-30 10:11
Well, the NYT showed its duplicity long ago with its urge to war(s) after 9-11. One could claim "we didn't know" or "the fog of war" once, but when the Middle East is in flames 15 years later because of U.S. policy, it is not believable. The only plausible thing to do would be to stop providing materiel, and stop funding all parties. (It becomes absurd when our allies in some conflicts are our foes in others.) The people of the Middle East have been devastated. Fallout in the U.S. has been a national security state with crumbling infrastructure.
 
 
+5 # guyachs 2015-03-30 12:08
Bolton has never been right about anything but they keep publishing him like he's an expert. He's proved to be anything but an expert.
 
 
-6 # GianniGee 2015-03-30 15:05
Only an idiot would trust the Persians.
This guy fits the bill.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2015-03-30 20:22
Are those the Persians who freed the Jews from their Babylonian captivity?

Yes, they are. And I assure you that most of the Persians remember that even if few Westerners do.
 
 
+3 # Jadhu 2015-03-31 00:47
So here's my question: What country should have bombed us when we were on the verge of making nuclear weapons (which we used)!?! The only country in the world that has done so--not the Germans, not the Russians, not the Chinese...
 
 
+4 # Jadhu 2015-03-31 00:51
Besides, what has our present policy given us? Why don't we learn from our mistakes? Even a dog won't shit on the carpet if you rub his nose in it!
 
 
+3 # dsepeczi 2015-03-31 07:55
Quoting Jadhu:
Besides, what has our present policy given us? Why don't we learn from our mistakes? Even a dog won't shit on the carpet if you rub his nose in it!


It's mind boggling, isn't it ? The only thing our decades of war has brought us is .... more war. Yet there's still a lot of boneheads that think all we need to do to solve the world's problems is have more wars. Ugh.
 
 
+1 # Dongi 2015-03-31 05:47
Perhaps, what the NeoCons need is for America to be bombed. Then, they wouldn't be so quick to urge aerial destruction on others. Ditto for the Israelis. As to Bolton, he is an idiot. Always was one, always will be.
 
 
+3 # dsepeczi 2015-03-31 10:05
Quoting Dongi:
Perhaps, what the NeoCons need is for America to be bombed. Then, they wouldn't be so quick to urge aerial destruction on others. Ditto for the Israelis. As to Bolton, he is an idiot. Always was one, always will be.


Though there may ring a bit of "poetic justice" there, I couldn't endorse any actions that might kill a lot of innocent Americans that are not supportive of our aggressive foreign policy ... but I'd be okay with it if the bombs dropped on the neocons houses. Lol. Just kidding. Truth be told, if any country succeeds in bombing America, that would have the exact opposite effect of what you suggest. Look at how paranoid and delusional our foreign and domestic policies became shortly after 9/11. Now picture how easily the government could use an actual bombing from a foreign country to initiate Gestapo tactics at home and literally bomb every country that ever said anything negative about America abroad. It's a pretty scary thought. For all the grandstanding about the Middle East (Iran in particular), North Korea and Russia, I fear that if mankind ever destroys itself and everything else on the planet with it in a nuclear Armageddon, America will have its fingerprints all over it if it isn't the country that literally "pushes the button" first.
 
 
+4 # Helen Marshall 2015-03-31 11:19
I was startled to read this in Mr. Parry's article:

"The Times’ article by John Bolton, a neocon scholar from the American Enterprise Institute"

If there is anything that John Bolton is NOT, it is "a scholar." In fact I'd say that "neocon scholar" is a perfect oxymoron.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN