"The report warns that the next administration “might have little time and fewer options to deal with this threat.” It explores such strategies as blockading Iran’s gasoline imports, but it also says that “a military strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort.”
Its authors include Dennis Ross, top Mideast adviser to Mr. Obama, and former Senator Dan Coats, a McCain adviser.
Ashton Carter, a senior Pentagon official in the Clinton administration, wrote a paper for the Center for a New American Security, a prestigious bipartisan think tank, that asserts military action must be seen as only one component of a comprehensive strategy, “but it is an element of any true option.”
At a conference in September in Virginia sponsored by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “surrogates” for Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama insisted America must focus on preventing Iran from developing a bomb, not on allowing Iran to produce one and then deterring its use.
“John McCain won’t wait until after the fact,” declared the columnist Max Boot, from the McCain team. The Arizona senator has previously said risking military action may be better than living with an Iranian nuclear weapon (and to his regret jokingly sang a song about bomb, bomb, bombing Iran)." NY Times
What does this "new thing" amount to?
The Jacobin neocons have developed a more sophisticated "bi-partisan" approach to moving the United States to war against Iran.
Dennis Ross is a principle figure in an Israeli think-tank dedicated in its mission statement to the advancement of the interests of the Jewish People. When he took that position he was asked if it was seemly for a former US Ambassador who more or less ran the Peace Process as a guarantor of US neutrality to accept such a role. His reply was that he thought it was. After all, he said "they are my people." I suppose Palestinians could be forgiven for doubting that he was ever neutral.
Max Boot? This is a joke. This guy has built a career on saying and writing things like the Times quote above. I was on a panel with him once and remember all too well the extremity of his opinions.
The "Washington Institute for Near East Policy" is AIPAC’s wholly owned subsidiary. It exists to serve what it sees as Israel’s interests. It is one of a galaxy of AIPAC satellites in Washington. JINSA, BENS, AEI. The list is long.
Let us be clear. It is ISRAEL. ISRAEL. ISRAEL that would be threatened by Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon and delivery means. It is ISRAEL that does not believe in nuclear deterrence. You know, MAD (mutual assured destruction). MAD is the deterrent strategy that allowed the world to survive the Cold War, but it is not good enough for Israel. An Iranian nuclear threat to Europe or the US is so far away in time that it is not even a cloud seen on a far horizon.
The Israeli military knows that unless it uses nuclear weapons, it can not successfully attack Iran without US assistance. That is why the neocons are now trying to propagandize the American political parties and the American people into supporting a US war against Iran.
Iran is a state. Iran has "state Interests." Ahmadinajad does not control the Iranian Armed Forces. Ahmadinajad does not control the Iranian Armed Forces.
It is my considered opinion that Iran would not yield to a US air campaign. Such a campaign would be merely the "first round" in a long war, eventually involving a ground war in that huge country, but that would probably be a desired outcome for the neocons.
How many of you think that the US can not deal with Iran without war? How many? pl