Blogs » Paradigm Shifter » NeoCons Planning Attack on Iran


Neoconservatives are nothing if not slimy, and it appears they're think-tanking the country into another unprovoked war. This time, neocon brain fart (do you smell mustard gas?), The Brooking Institute, issued a report in June 2009, entitled "Which Path to Persia? - Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran". Contained in the paper are cases—if not outright endorsements—for using provocation to create an artificial, publicly-supported justification for airstrikes against Iran. In the context of providing "diplomatic" justifications for an airstrike, the report says (p.84-85):
"The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)"
This sounds eerily like the Gulf of Tonkin model of war justification, doesn't it? While the Vietnam-era players may not still be calling the plays, it's clear there is a playbook. Declassified documents tell us that Operation Northwoods, a plan to stage false-flag attacks to justify an attack on Cuba in 1962, made its way up to the Oval Office before being rejected by Kennedy. This is both an indictment of the way psychopaths in government think and of the things they get away with at the expense of the truth. It's been said that "war is the health of the state", but it doesn't say anything about its mental health. If it sounds like the Iran War sabers are rattling a familiar tune, it's because you just heard that song nine years ago in the run-up to the Iraq War. (It's just too bad the general public has tin ears.) It's also no coincidence that the public is being puppeteered by the same neoconmen that stink-tanked ways to relieve Iraqi children of their lives & limbs — Cheney-Rumsfeld cohorts like Bill Kristol (PNAC) and Robert Kagan (PNAC, Brookings). Back in September 2000, a group of these prominent chickenhawk neocons named Project For A New American Century (PNAC) released a paper, entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which states four main goals:
1) defend the American homeland;
2) fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
3) perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
4) transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
Further in, when discussing how to enact these goals, it says (p.51):
"[T]he process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
I won't belabor these points any further other than to ask:
Is it fair to say this group of neocons understands how public opinion works? What else could YOU say about them? Comment below.