Switching Focus from Iraq to Iran

Exclusive: President Barack Obama’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is a blow to the neocons who had long dreamt of permanent military bases. But the neocons are now trying to spin the Iraq disaster into another excuse to confront Iran, writes Ray McGovern.

By Ray McGovern

You might think that by now I would be so used to infuriating neocon drivel that, to preserve my own sanity, I would avoid looking at the Washington Post or at least its editorial pages.

I have tried. But it seems that after almost a half century in Washington, and particularly after the recent rash of “wars of choice,” it is simply not possible. One has to keep an eye on what bloody mischief the neocons are devising.

The Post’s lead editorial on Sunday is ostensibly about Iraq and blaming President Barack Obama if things get worse after U.S. troops leave in December. But these days Iran is the main concern of the neocons who infect that editorial page.

In the wake of Obama’s withdrawal announcement on Friday, the Post’s neocon editors are worried that:

“Mr. Obama’s decision to carry out a complete withdrawal [of troops from Iraq] sharply increases the risk that … Iran will be handed a crucial strategic advantage in its regional cold war with the United States; and that a potentially invaluable U.S. alliance with an emerging Iraqi democracy will wither.”

The bugaboo of Iran is raised no less than six times in the five-paragraph editorial. One is prompted to ask an innocent question: Which country did the neocons think would profit if Saddam Hussein, Iran’s archrival, were removed and his army destroyed?

America’s neocons apparently hoped that Israel would be the beneficiary, with a U.S.-occupied Iraq serving as a land-based aircraft carrier for applying military pressure on neighboring Iran and Syria. But you don’t start a war on hope.

That Iran would almost surely benefit the most from the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a no-brainer. And that is precisely why, before the attack on Iraq, Israeli leaders were insisting “we do Iran first.”

But the U.S. neocons thought they knew better and that sequencing Iraq before Iran would be an easier sell with the American people. After all, they had already been trained to hate Iraq’s Saddam Hussein because of the first Persian Gulf War in 1990-91. In the early part of the last decade, Iran’s leaders were a much more amorphous target.

The neocons also thought the conquest of Iraq would be easy with American military might crushing not only the Iraqi military but the country’s will to fight. “Shock and awe” would pave the way to a “cakewalk.”

In 2003, the joke circulating in neocon-dominated Washington was whether the next U.S. target should be Iran or Syria with the punch-line: “Real men go to Tehran.”

Also, the neocons’ top allies in the Bush administration – Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld – understood Bush’s personal animus toward Hussein. Bush once called Hussein “the guy that tried to kill my dad.” Cheney and Rumsfeld knew an open door when they saw one. Bush, an impressionable fundamentalist Christian-Zionist, was bereft of strategic understanding.

However, eight-plus years later – with nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers dead and about $1 trillion spent, with Iraq torn by sectarian and political violence and with the Iraqi government essentially ushering the U.S. forces out by refusing to extend immunity from Iraqi laws for any U.S. troops who would remain – the neocons must finally face the hard truth: their grandiose scheme was a flop.

Chicken Hawks

It is not only American soldiers who will be coming home from an immoral, illegal and ill-thought-out war. The chickens, too, are coming home to roost. And, without admitting they were really dumb, the neocon chicken hawks are inadvertently admitting soto voce, that they didn’t have a strategic clue.

And they still don’t. It is a safe bet that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud associates are admonishing the neocons who still hold great sway in Official Washington: “See? We told you we should have done Iran first. But it’s not too late.

“Now we have another compelling reason to put the ‘military option’ on Iran right in the middle of the table — and, finally, exercise that option. Or you can go down in history as a bunch of wimps.”

The new compelling reason for war is that Iran’s influence in the region has zoomed in this zero-sum game between “evil” Tehran and the Tel Aviv-Washington “axis of good.” In the words of this Sunday’s Post, “Iran will be handed a crucial strategic advantage,” ironically, because of the disaster in Iraq.

So, there’s no time to waste. To warn still-gullible Americans about the dangers of Iran’s new strategic advantage, it’s imperative to enlist the neocons in the U.S. news media, those running the foreign policy shops for the leading Republican candidates, and the neocon holdovers inside the Obama administration.

Time, also, to revive the specter of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Let’s see if neocon favorite CIA Director David Petraeus can twist enough arms of his subordinates to reverse the unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Iran stopped work on a nuclear weapon in 2003.

Petraeus has always risen to the occasion when the neocons have wanted to accuse Iran of meddling in Iraq — evidence or no evidence. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Petraeus’s CIA Steers Obama on Policy.”]

Let’s have him issue warnings about the possibility that Iran will take potshots at U.S. troops as they leave.

And, oh yeah, let’s get him to provide the kind of “intelligence” that will turn a cockamamie plot about Iran supporting an assassination attempt on the Saudi ambassador from admittedly “implausible” status to that of plausible — well, plausible enough for the neocons who dominate the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM). [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Petraeus’s CIA Fuels Iran Murder Plot.”]

Chalabi Made Us Do It

Speaking of which: One of the Post’smost prominent neocon columnists, David Ignatius, sought out the neocons’ beloved charlatan Iraq War propagandist Ahmed Chalabi, whom Ignatius describes as “the most effective lobbyist in favor of the 2003 U.S. invasion.”

Ahmed Chalabi

“You will not be surprised,” wrote Ignatius, “that Chalabi offered no apologies for a war that cost many thousands of American and Iraqi lives and more than a trillion dollars.  Quite the contrary, he lauded the United States for its role in overthrowing Saddam Hussein,” though he criticized the follow-through of the occupation.

Ignatius, too, raised the obligatory specter of Iran, asking Chalabi about reports that he has become “an overly enthusiastic supporter of Iran.” The slippery Chalabi replied that he favored good relations with Iran and “wanted Iraq and Iran to be ‘a meeting ground rather than a battle ground.’”

Is Ignatius, at this late stage in the U.S. history with Chalabi, not yet aware that he tends to play both ends … and then goes with the side that appears to be winning?

Ignatius wants us to believe that the mess in Iraq was pretty much all Chalabi’s fault, ignoring the painful reality that Chalabi could have accomplished zilch if not for the neocon-dominated FCM that eagerly promoted his self-serving lies.

Many of the Iraqi “walk-ins” who lied to U.S. intelligence and the FCM about Saddam Hussein’s supposed WMD and alleged ties to al-Qaeda had been scripted beforehand by Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress.

Knowing Chalabi (all too well), Ignatius says it should come as no surprise that Chalabi remains adamantly unapologetic for the war on Iraq. But why should Chalabi be subjected to any accountability when almost none of his willing collaborators in the press have been?

Chalabi may have been, as Ignatius claims, “the secret instigator of the Iraq war.” Even so, he would have accomplished little without a mountain of intentional gullibility at the Washington Post and other top U.S. news outlets, a pattern that continues to this day.

Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as an Army infantry/intelligence officer and then a CIA analyst for a total of 30 years and is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

 

 

 

Share this Article:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Technorati
  • email

12 comments on “Switching Focus from Iraq to Iran

  1. charles sereno on said:

    Sir: Please take it as a high compliment that the only point I am in disagreement with is your trivial typo “SOTO” voce. I imagine you are a person (like Noam Chomsky) capable of speaking ad lib in perfectly grammatical prose. Keep up the good work.

  2. Pingback: US Withdrawal From Iraq: Good for America, or Good for Iran? – Huffington Post (blog)

  3. rosemerry on said:

    A great post from Ray. I saw an interview with James Woolsey, former CIA chief, full of inflammatory rhetoric on the danger of Iran. It seems that with the USA and all its “intelligence” gathering, evidence is the one thing they refuse to take into account.

  4. Hillary on said:

    The business of the US is “War”.

    Elections in the US are won by the Politicians with the bigest war chest.

    US politicians are controlled by AIPAC.

  5. “However, eight-plus years later – with nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers dead and about $1 trillion spent, with Iraq torn by sectarian and political violence and with the Iraqi government essentially ushering the U.S. forces out by refusing to extend immunity from Iraqi laws for any U.S. troops who would remain – the neocons must finally face the hard truth: their grandiose scheme was a flop.”
    A total flop. You said it. Not only the neocon plan turns out to be a total disaster for the people of Iraq including dead and wounded US soldiers , but their long term plan against China and Russia’s interest for oil. The fact that they have access to Iraqi oil based on the realistic assumption that Iran ordered SCIRI and the Dawa Party to offer lucrative contracts given that the US and UK are hostile to Iran’s nuclear program, with no proof that it’s being developed for military use.

    Neocon dimwits who thought that regime change in Baghdad would be a plus for the Washington-London axis against Beijing and Moscow economic interests, only to see the status quo when it comes to the Great Game after wasting American blood and treasure.

    Why are those neoconservative warmongering lying idiots still called to give their “analysis” on matters of foreign policy when they have already been discredited with their bullshit claims on Iraq nine years ago ?

    • Hillary on said:

      Why are those neoconservative warmongering lying idiots still called to give their “analysis” on matters of foreign policy when they have already been discredited with their bullshit claims on Iraq nine years ago ?

      Allow me to suggest the big reason why.

      The US Foreign Policy is predicated on “What is best to PROTECT Israel”.

      To have a career in the corridors of power or in the MSM in the US being a Crypto Jew or an avid Zionist openly or secretly is key to success.

      The neocons sold Iraq on complete lies like WMD’s & a 9/11 connection

      Kristol & Wolfowitz claimed the US invasion would be welcomed with flowers & the MSM encouraged the rush to mayhem.

      Instead of these “traitors” being punished they are given free reign to promote a attack on Libya , Iran ,Syria ,Pakistan ,Yemen & more.

      The US is duped into being Israel’s poodle.

      • Weniger Gottquatsch on said:

        Agree that the Zionist influence on U.S. foreign policy is detrimental and downright evil.

        Disagree that anyone needs to “protect” Israel. From whom? The Zionist state is the most militarily powerful among its neighbors, brutally subdues its occupied territories, practices Apartheid on its Arab population, and possesses more than 100 nuclear bombs.

        The mere hint that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons is presented as a grave threat, though the possession of such power by Iran might help stabilize the region.

  6. Looks like the Neocons (via their mouthpieces like ‘Neocon John’ McCain) are at it again for Syria and Iran as well!:

    US Begins Huge Military Maneuvers Aimed at Iran

    http://america-hijacked.com/2011/10/17/us-begins-huge-military-maneuvers-aimed-at-iran/

    ‘Neocon John’ McCain raises prospect of military option in Syria (for Israel of course!)

    http://america-hijacked.com/2011/10/23/neocon-john-mccain-raises-prospect-of-military-option-in-syria/

  7. Pingback: Switching Focus from Iraq to Iran

  8. David Currie on said:

    The Zionist international bankers (NWO) are setting-up the world for WW-III, which was planned over 100 years ago, along with the first two world wars which went according to their plan. Albert Pike revealed the plan in his famous letter to the Italian Mazzini, who like Pike was a heavy in the secret societies controlled by the NWO bankers. Their plan for WW-III is to foment a war between the Zionist state of Israel and its supporters against the Moslem world and its supporters. My mother is Jewish, but I know that Israel is NOT a “Jewish state”, and that it was created by the House of Rothschild, which is at the very top of the NWO pyramid of power. The “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” was written by the House of Rothschild, which is the “learned elders of Zion”. Zionism is the worst enemy of honest, decent Jewish people, which is what most Jews are. Zionism is a psyop to hide behind Jewish people using the memory of the “holocaust” (although six million gassed is a lie), which the House of Rothschild intentionally caused to scare Jews to Palestine. Stalin and Hitler were set-up by the international bankers, as was Napolean, and they were all ‘removed’ when they stopped following their orders. The House of Rothschild and fellow Zionist bankers (NWO) have financed all sides in every war for over 200+ years, except when Lincoln wouldn’t accept their high-interest loans designed to enslave the USA financially. Instead Lincoln had the Treasury Department print ‘greenbacks’, which saved the country, but resulted in Lincoln being assassinated by the NWO (which is not “new”). JFK defied the NWO by issuing debt-free money to be used for the good of the country (the way it should be), so the NWO had John F. Kennedy killed too. Thomas Jefferson warned us that the international bankers (House of Rothschild – NWO) would ruin our country if we allowed them to control our money, and he has been proven right. Andrew Jackson fought against the international bankers his whole career, and it almost cost him his life several times. Since JFK none of our presidents has tried to stand-up to the NWO, and Ron Paul is the only congressperson who recognized the importance of ending the FED/IRS criminal racket, which is totally unconstitutional and was forced on our country illegally. Getting back to Iran: it appears that Iran will be the country which sparks WW-III, because Russia and China are likely to side with Iran, as will most of the Moslem countries, even the ones which are natural enemies (Sunni lead) like most Arab countries are. I think that is the reason they are installing radical Islamic regimes in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world. They want those countries to join their “clash of civilizations” against the Zionist controlled world. Attacking Iran will also likely cause the price of oil to go over $200 a barrel which will lead to $10 a gallon gas in the USA, financial collapse, and martial law. It will likely become illegal to say anything against Israel at that point, so I’m saying it now, and I’ll keep on saying it! As a Jew they can’t call me “anti-Semitic”, which is what they do whenever someone tells the truth about how the ZIonist bankers control the NWO. The fact is that the Zionist Jews are NOT “Semitic”, so the “anti-Semitic” slur is nonsense. The Palestinian people ARE “Semitic”, yet they get called “anti-Semitic” for saying anything bad about non-Semitic Israeli terrorists? That slur is a “psyop”, as is the “chosen people to the promised land” lie used to lure Jewish people to Palestine. Zionism is Jewish supremacism, and those Jews who side with the NWO deserve to be treated like the criminals they are!

    http://www.911missinglinks.com

    Salam~Shalom~Peace

  9. Pingback: Switching Focus from Iraq to Iran | The Global Realm

  10. Pingback: Fora da Ordem « Flor de Lótus