Richard Perle spoke to the AIPAC conference and proclaimed, to loud hosannas, that the United States must start dropping bombs on Iran to stop its dangerous nuclear program. From Dana Milbank's brave article:
". . . at a luncheon 'debate' in between, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and informal administration foreign policy adviser Richard N. Perle tried to one-up each other in pro-Israel views."
"Perle provoked cheers from the crowd when he favored a military raid on Iran, saying that 'if Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon, I think we will have no choice but to take decisive action.' When Harman said the 'best short-term option' is the U.N. Security Council, the crowd reacted with boos."
The underlying assumption is that it is a fact that Iran is on the verge of producing a nuclear bomb, and the main educational thrust of the AIPAC conference was to prove that point to American politicians. Therefore, it is clear that Perle and AIPAC are demanding an American military attack on Iran. This would be bad enough, but is made much worse by the following seven facts:
- Perle is an integral part of the neocon crowd that actively lied to the American people about Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction, and thus has zero credibility.
- Even if Iran had bombs, which it doesn't, they could only be used for defensive purposes, as nuclear retaliation would be fatal to the country.
- The only nuclear power in the Middle East with dangerous bombs is none other than Israel, the country that Perle and AIPAC work for.
- The reason we know about Iran's nuclear program is that Iran has allowed UN inspectors to inspect, something that Israel won't allow.
- Any bombs Iran might ever have in the distant future could never pose any threat to the United States as Iran has no means to deliver them.
- Since the Iranian nuclear program is spread out and hidden in anticipation of just the attack Perle is calling for, bombs wouldn't stop it.
- Bombing will kill a lot of civilians, but will have no effect on dislodging the Iranian government, and will indeed strengthen the position of the hardliners in Iran.
If we therefore sieve out the bullshit from Perle's remarks - a process which usually leaves nothing left - what he is advocating is for the United States to drop bombs on innocent civilians of a sovereign country that poses absolutely no threat to the United States. Here we have a prominent Jewish intellectual talking to a group of Jewish lobbyists for Israeli interests, advocating what amounts to a slaughter of Muslim civilians - a Jewish pogrom against Muslims, if you will - all to the cheers and applause of his audience. I know we're not supposed to make the Hitler comparison, but this is getting awfully close (Hitler had his bogus and lying reasons for the Holocaust too). Given what we now know about the lies about Iraq, the fact that Perle has the audacity to stand up and start lying for war again is amazing.
Whatever else Perle may be, he is not stupid, so why is he advocating a course for the United States that will lead to the consolidation of the strength of the hardliners in Iran? Surely that can't be in the interests of Israel? The plan is to so enrage the Iranians with the bombing attacks - to put a bee in their turbans - that the next step of the long-term Zionist plan for the Middle East can be put in place (other parts of the plan include instigating wars so that land can be taken, illegally occupying that land, oppressing the inhabitants and calling their reaction 'terrorism', pushing for the attack in Iraq, and taking steps to ensure that Iraq is broken into small countries). The Iranian leaders might decide to retaliate against the United States bombing by sponsoring some act of terrorism. In what is the more likely scenario, however, their justified anger would put them in a position to be portrayed by the disgusting American media as so angry that a American or Israeli terrorist attack faked to look like it was sponsored by Iran would serve as the reason for American military retaliation. This would involve actually fighting a war on the ground to remove the current Iranian leadership. In other words, the point of the bombing advocated by Perle and AIPAC is to lead to a real war in Iran with hundreds of thousands of American soldiers on the battlefield. Since more bombs won't teach the mullahs a lesson, American troops would have to fight and die in Iran.
The United States can barely fight the war it has going now, and the Pentagon likes to keep a few troops around in case of a war of necessity (as opposed to the hobby wars which the neocons like so much), so a draft will be necessary. This would please the neocons as an end in itself, as they like the fascist values that the total miltarization of society brings, and they particularly want the United States to be like Israel. Needless to say, neither the neocons nor their children will participate in this draft, but will bravely serve in the First Jewish Typing Corps, cheering on the battle against all those evil Muslims. The poor in America can serve as the fodder units to die in the Middle East.
Iran has two or three times the population of Iraq, hasn't been weakened by a sanctions regime, has piles of money to spend on arms, and has the example of Iraq to allow it to prepare for the American attack. Since the Americans obviously can't handle Iraq, just wait for Iran. Why would Perle want the United States to fall into this disaster of a war? There are three reasons:
- Neocons consider themselves to be change agents, and like to do things which have a big effect on people's lives, and are particularly fond of war as an end in itself. They consider it ennobling.
- The chief neocon goal is to start a general crusade of the Christians against the Muslims, for no other reason than that they really, really hate Muslims (the attack on Iraq is clearly a crusade, and is understood to be such by the Pentagon).
- The only way Greater Israel - the ultimate goal - is going to happen is in the general confusion of a conflagration in the Middle East.
The attack on Iran and the planned consequences of that attack would be the biggest mistake in American history. It would lead inevitably to a general crusade of Americans against Muslims all over the world. It may not happen (Syria appears to be the most likely first target, and there are those in the American government who would love to get their hands on the Saudi oil fields). However, if it does happen, when the shit hits the fan - and it will - Americans will be looking for someone to blame. American Jews just barely avoided being blamed for the Iraq debacle. The American anti-war movement, such as it is, won't be able to stop this war, particularly if it is arranged to fight it within the context of the war on terror (and even huge anti-war rallies are ignored by the arms-manufacturer-owned disgusting American media, and thus have no political effect). Important leaders are going to have to take a stand. Unless some prominent American Jewish leaders start to speak up decisively against this new war, the American Jewish community is going to deeply regret the consequences of the latest proposed Jewish pogrom against Muslims (and moderate American Christian leaders also have to start to counter the plans of the Christian Zionists). The relentless AIPAC push towards disaster means it is no longer possible to safely play the bad faith game of pretending to hold liberal principles while secretly cheering on the most vile plans of the Zionists.