February 27, 2007
From the guys who gave you the Iraq war, another fine idea
The country is developing weapons of mass destruction; its leader is a new Hitler; he has connections with terrorists; time is running out; containment has failed; we must strike before it is too late.
If you think you have heard it all before, you have. The arguments for an attack on Iran are almost exactly the same as the arguments that were made for an attack on Iraq. The people making the case have not changed either.
Here is James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA, speaking at a conference last month about Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, president of Iran, and his talk of wiping Israel off the map: “Hitler meant it when he said he wanted to exterminate the Jews. It was spelt out in Mein Kampf. We need to take seriously what people like Ahmadi-Nejad and others say to their own followers. They are not lying; they are stating their true objectives.” And here is Mr Woolsey, speaking on American television in January 2003: “Saddam sounds very much, with respect to the 250m people or so in the Arab world, as Hitler sounded before world war two, with respect to Europe. The Ba’athist parties really are fascist parties… they’re anti-Semitic like them; they’re fascist.”
And here is the official summary of comments made at the same conference in Israel last month by Richard Perle, a former Pentagon official: “In possession of nuclear weapons, Iran is capable of using their terrorist networks to enable damage . . . The issue is one of timing and intelligence. You can’t afford to wait for all the evidence.” Once again, this is a reprise of a favourite tune. Appearing on American television in February 2003, Mr Perle argued: “Let us just agree that Saddam Hussein had those weapons and he is perfectly capable of transferring them to al-Qaeda.” Mr Perle emphasised the urgency of the problem: “There is a threat and I believe it is imminent.”
The remainder of Gideon Rachman’s column can be read here (FT.com subscribers only).
Dear Mr. Rachman,
I applaud your reasoning and your conclusion.
The following article from The Guardian is an interesting Iranian viewpoint on the matter (amazingly written by an Iranian critic of the regime).
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/hossein_derakhshan/2007/02/between_khamenei_and_bush.html
Best regards,
Pacifist
PS Whilst reading yet another shrill article about Russia in The Economist, I reflected that I am glad that you left that newly NeoCon organ which seems to fish for American circulation, at the expense of objectivity.
Posted by: Pacifist | February 27th, 2007 at 2:20 pm | Report this commentRe: The Economist
Yes, Pacifist I’ve also noticed that publication supporting just about everything the Neoconservative right supports. Must admit that I’ve just renewed my subscription, but only for a year. They’re definitely on probation!
Posted by: Mary Seaton | February 27th, 2007 at 3:10 pm | Report this commentRe: “Iraq….the sequel!”
It’s depressing, isn’t it, Mr Rachman? But there must be a good economic explanation for the vampirish quality (you think they’re well and truly dead & then they rise to fight again) of the neocons, mustn’t there? They remind me of those gentle folk that used to plague me in my early fund management days.
These ‘up-and-down-economists’ used to forecast merrily, confidentally, and–most important–often! They weren’t fired if they went wrong, they were there for their academic kudos. So none of them have ever were paid for being accurate, or making ‘clients’(suckers!) money…
Like the academic ‘forecasters’, the academic neocons are not personally at risk from their proclivity to start “splendid little wars”. Like those economists they keep singing the same old song, with no detrimental effect to themselves whatsoever. Makes one long for the days of National Service, or, in American terms to :”Bring back the Draft.”
Posted by: Mary Seaton | February 27th, 2007 at 3:21 pm | Report this commentThe neocons are absolutely righ doing what they are doing. ( I mean, when a bank robber aims a gun on a clerk to battress his request, this is absolutley correct strategy to reach his goal). As was posted in Slate recently, Bush pere on the question of Bush fils “Who are neocons” answered: “Israel”. To Mary: it is not a question of “forecasting”. it is a question of influencing to their benefit. Some smokescreening should be done of course.
Posted by: OM | February 28th, 2007 at 5:47 pm | Report this commentHi OM,
Do you have a link to that comment by Bush the elder?
Thanks.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 1st, 2007 at 10:07 am | Report this commentvoila
Posted by: OM | March 1st, 2007 at 4:07 pm | Report this commenthttp://www.slate.com/id/2160462/
Merci
P
Posted by: Pacifist | March 2nd, 2007 at 10:01 am | Report this commentOM:
Re: neocons ‘forecasting’ or ‘influencing to their benefit’
Maybe I didn’t press the analogy far enough…although the ‘up-and-down-economists’had sold their ‘forecasts’ as something for *my* benefit, not theirs, the risk/return was skewed monumentally to their favour. If they were wrong, I took the rap; if they were right, they added it to their cv of ’successes’ & took full kudos…then went on to ply their dishonest wares to another credulous player.
The dishonesty of the neocon propaganda is similar. *Their* sons are not doing the fighting or dying in Iraq, nor will their progeny fight or die in Iran. Understandably the bereaved American working class parents who contributed the troops for Iraq, *believing* neocon Iraq propaganda, are loathe to repeat the error in Iran. (Check out the collapse in support for the war–and the Republicans–among Reagan Democrats).
The neocons lose nothing, and will continue to forecast doom (for other people’s offspring)in hoping that *eventually* they will be proved right. If their own children were threatened, they might be keener on negotiation than military action, but that is simply not the case.
I do wish they would change their Hitler comparison, however. I am tired of hearing that song.
Posted by: Mary Seaton | March 6th, 2007 at 9:59 am | Report this comment