A Neocon Admits the Plan to Bomb Iran

Exclusive: The neocon Washington Post, which wants to kill the talks aimed at constraining Iran’s nuclear program, allowed a contrary opinion of sorts onto its pages a neocon who also wants to collapse the talks but is honest enough to say that the follow-up will be a U.S. war on Iran, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Not exactly known for truthfulness, U.S. neocons have been trying to reassure the American people that sinking a negotiated deal with Iran to limit its nuclear program would be a painless proposition, but at least one prominent neocon, Joshua Muravchik, acknowledges that the alternative will be war and he likes the idea.

On Sunday, the neocon Washington Post allowed Muravchik to use its opinion section to advocate for an aggressive war against Iran essentially a perpetual U.S. bombing campaign against the country despite the fact that aggressive war is a violation of international law, condemned by the post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal  as “the supreme international crime.”

Neoconservative theorist Joshua Muravchik. (Photo credit: Joshua Muravchik)

Neoconservative theorist Joshua Muravchik. (Photo credit: Joshua Muravchik)

Given that the Post is very restrictive in the op-ed pieces that it prints, it is revealing that advocacy for an unprovoked bombing campaign against Iran is considered within the realm of acceptable opinion. But the truth is that the only difference between Muravchik’s view and the Post’s own editorial stance is that Muravchik lays out the almost certain consequences of sabotaging a diplomatic solution.

In his article headlined “War is the only way to stop Iran” in print editions and “War with Iran is probably our best option” online, Muravchik lets the bloody-thirsty neocon cat out of the bag as he agrees with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hysterical view of Iran but recognizes that killing international negotiations on limiting Iran’s nuclear program would leave open only one realistic option:

“What if force is the only way to block Iran from gaining nuclear weapons? That, in fact, is probably the reality. Sanctions may have induced Iran to enter negotiations, but they have not persuaded it to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons. Nor would the stiffer sanctions that Netanyahu advocates bring a different result.

“Does this mean that our only option is war? Yes, although an air campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would entail less need for boots on the ground than the war Obama is waging against the Islamic State, which poses far smaller a threat than Iran does. Wouldn’t destroying much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure merely delay its progress? Perhaps, but we can strike as often as necessary.”

Typical of the neocons, Muravchik foresees no problem with his endless bombing war against Iran, including the possibility that Iran, which Western intelligence agencies agree is not working on a bomb, might reverse its course if it faced repeated bombing assaults from the United States.

This neocon-advocated violation of international law also might further undermine hopes of curbing violence in the Middle East and establishing some form of meaningful order there and elsewhere. This neocon view that America can do whatever it wants to whomever it wants might actually push the rest of the world into a coalition against U.S. bullying that could provoke an existential escalation of violence with nuclear weapons coming into play.

Never Seeing Reality

Of course, neocons never foresee problems as they draw up these war plans at their think tanks and discuss them on their op-ed pages. Muravchik, by the way, is a fellow at the neocon-dominated School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins and the Washington Post’s editorial page is run by neocons Fred Hiatt and Jackson Diehl.

But, as U.S. officialdom and the American people should have learned from the Iraq War, neocon schemes often don’t play out quite as well in the real world not that the neocons seem to care about the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis or the nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers who died fighting in the neocons’ Iraq debacle.

For the neocons, their true guiding star is to enlist the U.S. military as the enforcers of Netanyahu’s strategic vision. If Netanyahu says that Iran not al-Qaeda and the Islamic State is the more serious threat then the neocons line up behind that agenda, which also happens to dovetail with the interests of Israel’s new ally, Saudi Arabia.

So, Americans hear lots of scary stories about Iran “gobbling up” its neighbors as Netanyahu described in his lecture to a joint session of the U.S. Congress this month even though Iran has not invaded any country for centuries and, indeed, was the target of a Saudi-backed invasion by Iraq in 1980.

Not only did Netanyahu’s wildly exaggerate the danger from Iran but he ignored the fact that Iran’s involvement in Iraq and Syria has come at the invitation of those governments to help fight the terrorists of al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front and the Islamic State. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Congress Cheers Netanyahu’s Hatred of Iran.”]

In other words, Iran is on the same side of those conflicts against Sunni terrorists as the United States is. But what we’re seeing now from Israel and the neocons is a determined effort to shift U.S. focus away from combating Sunni terrorists — some backed by Saudi Arabia — and toward essentially taking their side against Iran, Iraq and Syria.

That’s why the neocons are downplaying the atrocities of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State or for that matter the chopping off of heads by Israel’s Saudi friends while hyping every complaint they can about Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Secret Saudi Ties to Terrorism.”]

Muravchik favors this reversal of priorities and doesn’t seem to care that a U.S. bombing campaign against Iran would have a destructive impact on Iran’s ability to blunt the advances of the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda. The neocons also have been hot for bombing Syria’s military, which along with Iran represents the greatest bulwark against the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

The neocons and Netanyahu seem quite complacent about the prospect of the Islamic State or Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front hoisting their black flags over Damascus or even Baghdad. Yet, such a move would almost surely force the U.S. president whether Barack Obama or his successor to return to a ground war in the Middle East at enormous cost to the American people.

The obvious alternative to this truly frightening scenario is to complete the international negotiations requiring Iran to accept intrusive inspections to ensure that its nuclear program remains peaceful and then work with Iran on areas of mutual interests, such as rolling back the advances of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq and Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front in Syria.

This more rational approach holds out the prospect of achieving some stability in Iraq and if accompanied by realistic negotiations between Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad and his political opponents reducing the bloodletting in Syria if not ending it.

That pragmatic solution could well be the best result both for the people of the region and for U.S. national interests. But none of that would please Netanyahu and the neocons.

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.

image_pdfimage_print

34 comments for “A Neocon Admits the Plan to Bomb Iran

  1. Lyle Courtsal
    March 29, 2015 at 3:15 am

    Now Iran with all that light crude is the next e istential threat, not Israels 300-400 nukes, and all those other illegal weapons it illegally uses on civilians. C’mon sheep, the problem is Israels outsize and illegal nuclear arsenal and mindless criminal aggression, not Iran. The criminal psycho rightwing in the US is just looking for an excuse to invade and steal all that oil, just like Iraq. The game, as always,is lying for dollars.

  2. Gregg
    March 23, 2015 at 9:36 am

    “which Western intelligence agencies agree is not working on a bomb” is bs, pure and simple. That agreement does not exist, and ignoring a well-armed adversary that daily states its desire and intention to kill you is a ridiculous expectation. I hate war, and the constant threat of it is the scariest of things. I also cannot stand neocons, as people like Dick Cheney and the Texas oil idiots are the scourge of our country, but don’t confuse those issues with somehow casting the Iranians as not being a threat that very well might have to be dealt with forcefully. Many humans are bad at the core and when some of those are pointing a gun, either already loaded or soon to be, sometimes it just makes sense to shoot first.

  3. Ron Williams
    March 20, 2015 at 8:57 am

    I remember once working for a Bank that wanted to increase their assets and income stream. It was mostly a Commercial Loan bank so they decided to start a Consumer Loan Division. They essentially gave any and everyone a car loan. The mortgage lenders of 2000’s would be proud. While the Consumer Loan division’s income stream increased dramatically, so did the delinquency. So then it became a test of wills. The people that paid the dearest were the low level collection clerks. As the delinquency grew, the more heads would roll. Just the “little people” paid with their jobs, increasing hours, and haranguing by the bosses to “do a better job”

    This is the same thing happening on a much larger level. The bosses get richer while the peons die.

  4. D505
    March 19, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    “The only thing we learn from history is we don’t learn from history.” (paraphrasing Hegel)

    “Some folks can learn by being told, others by peeing on the electric fence.” (paraphrasing Will Rogers)

    Humanity is starting to appear as one of those species that overran its ability to survive via overpopulation and scrabbling for resources.

  5. Peter Loeb
    March 18, 2015 at 5:47 am

    “SERIOUS NEGOTIATIONS”

    In the past I have made the following points in slightly greater length so they are only
    referred to briefly here.

    1) The US/West is not how engaged in “serious negotiations” (Kerry’s terms) which translate
    “terms of complete surrender of Iran to our points and no surrender by the US/West on
    any substantive matters.

    2. Only when Israel (and the West) are held to the same limitations (not only signed
    but ratified in accordance with each nation’s binding processes) can any agreement
    be meaningful. That means among other things complete disarmament of Israel
    and all nuclear sites and sites for the production of WMD’s under(UN) IAEA random and
    continuing inspection. (The US and Israel have already voted in opposition to any such
    matters as being “biased” etc. in the UN General Assembly of 2014.) Israel with US support
    is the primary threat to peace.

    3. Provocation of aggression is is against international law. It is particularly “cheap” when
    proposed by a nation to be carried out by another sovereign nation. Perhaps Israel
    signed the UN Charter without even reading it.

    4. As we all know, no US or Western political leader is considering the reduction of any
    sanctions. In fact, the reverse is under discussion.

    5. The constant aggression and crimes of humanity by Israel are repeated daily. This is of
    little significance unless your house is demolished and your family is murdered. Brevity prohibits any detailed discussion here. There are plenty of sources available.

    —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA USA

  6. Peter Loeb
    March 18, 2015 at 5:46 am

    “SERIOUS NEGOTIATIONS”

    In the past I have made the following points in slightly greater length so they are only
    referred to briefly here.

    1) The US/West is not how engaged in “serious negotiations” (Kerry’s terms) which translate
    “terms of complete surrender of Iran to our points and no surrender by the US/West on
    any substantive matters.

    2. Only when Israel (and the West) are held to the same limitations (not only signed
    but ratified in accordance with each nation’s binding processes) can any agreement
    be meaningful. That means among other things complete disarmament of Israel
    and all nuclear sites and sites for the production of WMD’s under(UN) IAEA random and
    continuing inspection. (The US and Israel have already voted in opposition to any such
    matters as being “biased” etc. in the UN General Assembly of 2014.) Israel with US support
    is the primary threat to peace.

    3. Provocation of aggression is is against international law. It is particularly “cheap” when
    proposed by a nation to be carried out by another sovereign nation. Perhaps Israel
    signed the UN Charter without even reading it.

    4. As we all know, no US or Western political leader is considering the reduction of any
    sanctions. In fact, the reverse is under discussion.

    5. The constant aggression and crimes of humanity by Israel are repeated daily. This is of
    little significance unless your house is demolished and your family is murdered. Brevity prohibits any detailed discussion here. There are plenty of sources available.

    —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA USA

  7. Kozmo
    March 18, 2015 at 1:48 am

    There is so much wrong with this idea — not just morally and legally, but militarily and strategically. The strange notion that the US is free to simply bomb or rocket Iran whenever it wants and with impunity is ludicrous. There is no sovereign state on earth that would tolerate this without resistance. And Iran may be a very modest conventional military power, but its ability to wage asymmetrical warfare is huge. Even if we ignore the international repercussions of launching ANOTHER unprovoked war of aggression, and the way our “good pals” the Saudis (who have tangible connections to 9-11, unlike Iran or Iraq or Syria) are moving ahead with their own nuclear plans (so when do we impose sanctions on them?), the Iranians have ways to make any war with the Americans very bloody and expensive. For one thing, they are not stupid. They’ve been forced to plan for this contingency for years. They will attempt to shut down our ability to attack them by flooding the airspace with cheap missiles and take out some capital Navy ships, shoot down some fancy airplanes, block or threaten the oil shipments of the Persian Gulf, and possibly lob missiles at targets in the Gulf states, Afghanistan, maybe even Israel (the Dimona nuclear base facing a barrage of Iranian missiles? not at all improbable). Iranian commando or suicide squads could be already in place in the US, ready to paralyze the “homefront” with acts of sabotage or terror. American assets across the globe could come under attack. And any attempt to invade and occupy Iran, which would be essential to actually overthrowing the government there, would not be feasible with the all-volunteer Army, which was stretched to the breaking point by a much smaller commitment in Iraq. Iran is leagues larger, more populous, and more energized to resist an alien invader. It would be Vietnam redux.

    Moreover, any attack on Iran is almost guaranteed to create a nuclear weapons program overnight, since it is obvious that only a nuclear deterrent would be a guarantee against an American attack. Even the neo-cons don’t seem to be willing to sacrifice a major American city, or even simply just a carrier group, in order to strike Iran’s nuclear energy centers.

    • nexusxyz
      March 21, 2015 at 10:02 pm

      You are spot on. The Iranians have made it clear what their military doctrine is. It is one of asymmetry. The Iranians know they cannot win a conventional conflict and so will not fight that way. Everything they do will be designed, as you say, to make any attack as costly as possible to the attacker(s) from both a military and economic perspective.

      There is no way the US could invade Iran. Even with full mobilisation and conscription. Just bombing, if they don’t’ lose half their jets via S400 and Antey-2500 missile systems , would simply create a long run and festering conflict.

      Iran signed (2008) a mutual defence pact with both Russia and China as I understand.

  8. dave johnson
    March 17, 2015 at 11:25 pm

    Hillary Clinton is the candidate of the neocon billionaire Haim Saban who made his fortune from schlock children’s TV programs. Jeb Bush is the candidate of neocon billionaire Sheldon Adelson who made his fortune from fleecing drunk tourists in his Las Vegas casinos. What a choice! The neocons should be reminded of the words of the Scottish poet Robert Burns. “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.” In August 1914 the Imperial German elite believed they would be in Paris and home in time to bring in the autumn harvest. Four and a half years later four great empires were history- the German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires- and the world was on its way to a second world war 20 years later. If America attacks Iran. Russia and China will eventually be drawn in and we will have World War Three. I’m not religious but God save us all.

  9. Leo Strauss
    March 16, 2015 at 11:19 pm

    Unfortunately the outcome of the 2016 presidential election CANNOT positively influence the chance of detente with Iran whatsoever. Everyone knows what will happen if a Republican wins, advisors like Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, and John Bolton will persuade the president that a military confrontation with Iran is not only necessary, but it will need to be the first action-item of the new president. If Hillary wins, she will move forward with war on Iran with just as much zeal, privately. The only difference between Hillary and a potential-GOP victor is that she would put on a fake notion of being publicly hesitant towards war with Iran.

  10. Andrew Nichols
    March 16, 2015 at 11:04 pm

    This plonkers editorial is a war crime for which german newsmen went to the gallows in 1946. Sick sick sick sick

    • nexusxyz
      March 21, 2015 at 9:44 pm

      There was an editorial in one of the Israeli newspapers recently where it was suggested Israel nuke both Iran and Germany….the loons are really out of control.

  11. Abe
    March 16, 2015 at 9:45 pm

    The neocons are behind the atrocities in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Ukraine. Half the time they downplay the atrocities perpetrated by their regime change agents, the other half of the time they rabidly accuse the very nations they are attempting to destroy. Without exception, they are warmongering profiteers.

  12. Ken Renner
    March 16, 2015 at 9:37 pm

    Those adept with the Googler can find that Mr. Muravchik is not attending his first rodeo. Heaven forbid. He was urging the US to launch a war against Iran a decade ago in an LA Times op/ed entitled “Bomb Iran.”

    Let’s see just how he did in his predictology back then. He argued our European allies would never agree to tough sanctions. He was wrong. He argued Russia and China would never allow sanctions against Iran. He was wrong. He insisted that war was the only alternative because negotiations would never make progress. He was wrong. He’s like Nostradamus in reverse.

    He actually was right on one thing. He said Iran wanted to become the regional power in the Mideast and he was right. The only reason they achieved that goal was our ill-conceived Iraqi war, for which Mr. Muravchik was a cheerleader. That war took out the Sunni government in Iraq that had acted as a counterweight to the ayatollahs and made Iran a regional hegemon. Heckuva job, Bushies.

    Old neocons like Muravchik never die. They don’t even have the decency to go away and be quiet. They just keep selling us the same stale propaganda.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/la-op-muravchik19nov19-story.html#page=1

  13. sulphurdunn
    March 16, 2015 at 7:56 pm

    I lack civil words to adequately express my contempt for Chickenhawk Neocon Sons of Bitches like Muravchik who set out Vietnam and have been waving war pompoms for profit ever since. There is something very sick and twisted about these putrid little fuckers. Please excuse my language.

  14. sam
    March 16, 2015 at 4:52 pm

    People don’t know or forget that the Israelis and Prime Minister Begin were supplying weapons to the Iranians in the early 1980’s during the Iraq and Iran conflict. Then the world wonders why the Iranian government doesn’t trust the west. Backed by the CIA in 1953, the U.S. overthrew a Democratic government of Iran and installed the dictator “Shah”. That was a nice way to radicalize anyone. Then the U.S. builds 23 military bases around Iran. The Iranians aren’t that stupid yo think they can get away with bombing anyone. They just want a piece of the pie and economic self determination.

  15. pablo Diablo
    March 16, 2015 at 3:55 pm

    The neocons and their corporate sponsors make money off of war. Lots of money. Get the neocons out of “our” government.
    Those who control the media, control the dialogue.
    Pump up fear to justify a militarized police state.
    Continuous cycle of problems distracts.
    Corporate control of government = corporate control of resources.
    Fascism at its finest.
    WAKE UP AMERICA.

  16. Robinea
    March 16, 2015 at 3:43 pm

    The destruction and dismemberment of Iraq was and is a great victory for the US Zionists and the militarists. Iraq’s crimes in their view were the same sins of the Iranians – using their tremendous oil wealth to develop their countries as independent, modern states with significant freedom to operate outside of US/Isreali dictates. It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear facilities. It has everything to do with the degree of scientific and social sophistication these nations had achieved. This is why the U.S. murdered or imprisoned hundreds of Iraqi scientists and intellectuals and why there has been a campaign of assassination against Iranian scientists. No US Administration will deviate from this project – even though it largely serves the hegemonic interests of Israel. There will be a US backed war against Iran in the near future. The goal – regime change and total destruction of Irans complex social and technological infrastructure – or in the biblical terms of Bibi – to make Iran a ‘howling wilderness where even the insects cannot survive…’ To see as a lesson to the rest of the resource rich world.
    The recent spectacle of our entire congress lifting its collective skirts for Netanyahu and his paymaster at the AIPAC and in the senate is proof enough of the craven level of US leadership to carry this out.

  17. Zachary Smith
    March 16, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    Joshua Muravchik is a murderous neocon nut. The last part is “code” talk for Zionist, by the way. That his plan – if implemented – would result in the impoverishment and death of millions of people is quite beside the point. Googling his name turns up ample evidence of his dedication to do whatever it is Israel wants done.

    http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Muravchik_Joshua

    But now he has been allowed to write a major op-ed in one of the nation’s “big name” newspapers. Why? Because the Washington Post is presently owned by the Zionist billionaire Jeff Bezos. Don’t imagine anything in the Post more routine than daily weather reports and local news gets printed without the billionaire’s approval. It really irks me to have to shop at Wretched Walmart, but I do so because in my area there isn’t any other practical option. Likewise, despite coming to despise the Amazon site, I’m also compelled to subsidize Bezos. For a growing list of things I must purchase, there isn’t any other choice. A once-thriving network of local stores selling anything I needed is gone – forever.

    But back to this Muravchik bozo and a couple of remarks about his “war” proposal.

    Three Maps for Professor Muravchik

    (that’s my first attempt to put in a named link – here is the unadorned version if it isn’t displayed correctly)

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2015/03/three-maps-for-professor-muravchik.html

    And another commentary from a blog:

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/washington-post-will-kill-us.html

    Israel owns most of the American government – the letter by the 47 Republican Idiots of the US Senate is the latest evidence.

    Those of us who retain some decency and sanity ought to resist another War For Israel as much as we can.

  18. Theodora Crawford
    March 16, 2015 at 3:20 pm

    Thank you for reporting on what goes on behind the scenes of foreign policy. I fear they will lead to the ultimate destruction of our country. What creates such monsters of misguided hubris? I try to imagine growing up in a family that teaches these attitudes. I often wonder what positive events would arise if the billions spent on killing were invested in the planet and the majority of people who have so little. Rather than ensuring destruction of civilization through war, could there be peace?

  19. March 16, 2015 at 3:07 pm

    re: Robert PARRY on “”ONE prominent neocon, Joshua Muravchik”

    §How I managed to miss Mr. MURAVCHIK’s photo credit, I’ll never know.
    In any case, any & all interested should know that it’s a genuine “SELFIE”
    So not to worry, Josh. If all else fails, There should be a spot for you at the Old Firm.
    Maybe even as curator of a rogue’s gallery dubbed “The NeoConMen’s Hall of (in )Fame”.
    Anyway, as Bob Hope first crooned to Shirley Ross: “Thanks for the Memory.”

    Best Wishes. s/ Noel E. PARMENTEL Jr // NoelJr@OptOnline.Net

  20. Drew Hunkins
    March 16, 2015 at 2:58 pm

    The Zionist power configuration (ZPC) in America is doing everything it possibly can to goad Washington into attacking Iran! This is utter insanity; what’s truly frightening is that cooler heads in Washington seem to be totally absent.

    What terrified the ZPC and establishment warmongers in Washington was in late 2013 when public opinion beat back Kerry’s war plans against Syria. This was a victory for the people of the world and for peace loving folks in America.

    The crucial point is that absolutely no one in the establishment press will ever frame it as a victory, but a victory it surely was because Kerry and other warmongers were totally and completely set on bombing Syria yet they were beaten back in their attempts to do so by an astute, peace loving public.

    Hopefully this same public sentiment can be harnessed against the ZPC and Washington’s rush to attack Iran or foment more bloodshed in eastern and southern Ukraine. The public is our only hope.

    • D505
      March 19, 2015 at 12:21 pm

      Additional to the outpouring against war in the 2013 gas attack in Syria was discovery it did not come from Assad’s side of the fence, but rebel forces there. Kerry had to back down, and Obama had to hesitate. I believe if the evidence for gas from the rebels had not emerged the US would have taken military action anyway, despite public sentiment. This incident shows how quickly the State Department is ready to leap to ascribing blame, as also seen in Ukraine. Now we have Kerry talking about “negotiation” with Assad. Not the least of the world’s problems is its weak leadership, along with the psychotic tendencies indicated by this article. Who is winning the war for public sentiment?

  21. Stu Chandler
    March 16, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    Thanks again reminding me that insanity reigns supreme among some disturbing minority sections of the “opinion makers” in this benighted country. They will never learn, never. This is due to the fact that they never have nor will they ever experience hand-to-hand combat or even the most distant operation of war.

    It may be only when their mother, aunt or offspring lies dead and dismembered at their feet will they realize the ghastly truth: war only exacerbates misery in the world, and solves nothing. But,. then again, maybe they will remain numb to that truth.

  22. Raymond Smith
    March 16, 2015 at 2:43 pm

    If the Neocons want WAR then it should be them and only them that pays for the War and actively participates in it. I mean they need to be the ones in the planes and in the front lines. If this was a requirement it would not take long for them to change their minds. They are always happy about War when they pocket the numerous profits from munitions companies. As long as they get to sit at home safe this will never change. Time for All Neocons to put up or shut up.

    • angryspittle
      March 16, 2015 at 3:53 pm

      I have advocated for years now that the draft be re-instated. And a preference system set up starting with the richest zip codes on down to the poorest. No exemptions.

      • Photon's feather
        March 28, 2015 at 11:09 pm

        Starting with the red voters, I hope you mean.

  23. March 16, 2015 at 2:39 pm

    att’n: Robert PARRY re: “”ONE prominent neocon, Joshua Muravchik”

    §OMG. Joshua MuRAVchik ?? Talk about a Long Goodbye. Thought he’d
    departed for NeoCon Nirvana; or @ least a gig on Oprah’s “Where Are They Now”.
    Anyway, Welcome Home, Josh. Perhaps ‘Only U, Dick Daring’ can revive
    the pyromaniacal spirit of the late, lamented “Bombs Away” Curt LeMay.

    With All Due Respect etc. s/Noel E. PARMENTEL Jr / NoelJr@OptOnline.Net

  24. March 16, 2015 at 2:35 pm

    att’n: Robert PARRY re: “”ONE prominent neocon, Joshua Muravchik”

    §OMG. Joshua MuRAVchik ?? Talk about a Long Goodbye. Thought he’d
    departed for NeoCon Nirvana;or @ least a gig on Oprah’s “Where Are They Now”.
    Anyway, Welcome Home, Josh. Perhaps ‘Only U, Dick Daring’ can revive
    the pyromaniacal spirit of the late, lamented “Bombs Away” Curt LeMay.

    With All Due Respect etc. s/Noel E. PARMENTEL Jr / NoelJr@OptOnline.Net

  25. Wm. Boyce
    March 16, 2015 at 2:34 pm

    We can only hope that by some miracle, the U.S. and Iran reach a deal before Mr. Obama leaves office. Apparently, all other foreign policy voices w/megaphones are mad, totally nuts.

    • Epiphany
      March 17, 2015 at 5:39 pm

      Neither j. Bush nor H. Clinton are better than B. Obama

    • nexusxyz
      March 21, 2015 at 9:40 pm

      I don’t think a deal would be honoured by the US. It will not be worth the paper it is written on.

  26. sunwalker
    March 16, 2015 at 2:28 pm

    It’s my belief that the for the neocons, the Iraq War was a success, as much money was made by the war industry, and it left chaos in the Middle East.

    From their perspective failed states are much easier to exploit than healthy ones. It is part of Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine”.

    That is why that war was followed up by ones in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.

Comments are closed.