This Al Jazeera headline will not help Obama deflect meddling charges:
US 'has agents working inside Iran'
Intelligence staff are inside Iran amid opposition protests, former US official says.
Are American neocons bosom buddies with Iran's graybeards? Well they do seem to enjoy a dysfunctional relationship that presents their respective audiences with a boogeyman. Thus, a National Security Advisor repaid the antagonistic 'holocaust' quotes by echoing Khameni's charge of 'western saboteurs in Iran'. Way to undermine those regime underminers!
As if that wasn't enough for a fiery Ahmadinijad speech, Scowcroft doubled-down his challenge: 'we need to look at what we can do best, which is to try to influence Iranian behaviour in the region'. Yep, must remind state-run media of America's past meddling.
John Q. Adams admonished, 'We go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy,'. Neocons of course are as good at making monsters as they are bad at building nations - especially where oil's concerned. But in the case of Scowcroft, why is he building up America as a monster?
Do Rush, Brent and friends really want Obama to fail that much?
While Scowcroft is not an identified neocon, he shares enough of the world view to be a suitable proxy. Moreover, his associations affirm the conservative picture of an old boys club that doesn't want too much change - if any at all.
Scowcroft was quoted as such:
"The reason I part with the neocons is that I don't think in any reasonable time frame the objective of democratizing the Middle East can be successful. If you can do it, fine, but I don't think you can, and in the process of trying to do it you can make the Middle East a lot worse."
No wonder he didn't mind stabbing the democracy protestors in the back - better to not rock the oil tanker. Me thinks that when Scowcroft mentioned 'a lot worse' he was not thinking of the repressed, impoverished Middle East, but rather the Princes and palaces.
But don't take my word for what worries Brent. In his Wall Street Journal article entitled "Don't Attack Saddam", Scowcroft puts it very bluntly:
"Saddam's strategic objective appears to be to dominate the Persian Gulf, to control oil from the region, or both. That clearly poses a real threat to key U.S. interests.
Unsurprisingly, Scowcroft represents those "key US interests". Scowcroft has the usual neocon link: board of Directors of Penzoil-Quaker State Oil and on the advisory board of OILspace.
It just goes to show: scratch a neocon and he bleeds oil from the Middle East, or any of the other vital resources provided by a tyrannical regime armed by US/Western defense contractors.
On the subject of his interview, some might argue that Scowcroft is merely stating the obvious about American intelligence - but that ignores the delicacy of the situation.
Words matter, and they can be challenging even if simply stating fact.
If the shoe were on the other foot you can be sure that Fox News would be hyperbolic about a 'former Iranian official' stating 'of course Iran has intelligence agents in America/Israel/Iraq'. For the hypothetical Iranian official to state that in response to an assertion by the US President would be amazingly brazen. To say that they 'may be involved in fomenting unrest' would be enough for an invasion.
Simply put, stating that we have 'agents in Iran' that 'may be involved' is needlessly provocative. So why do it, especially for a Arab media? Was Scowcroft being stupid, or just playing stupid? Whose patsy is he?
Update:
The argument that Scowcroft is not of the Bush-Cheney camp is unconvincing - why take an old Republican at his word? Even then, maybe he is a neo neocon, recently remembering that the spots on his jacket are really oil - and those spots don't change.
It is my opinion that the neocon camp has merely seized onto language like 'regime change for democracy' as rhetoric to cover their lust for control. The neocon movement is not after anything but a strong defense industry and compliant governments in areas that control the world resources. This is why Scowcroft can be dismissive of democracy; to him, it really doesn't matter whether there's justice in this world, so long as there's money to be made for the well-connected. And as long as there's a boogeyman that he knows how to do business with, then he will be important and in line for some of the pirated loot.
Rhetoric aside, American homogeny is something any neocon can agree with, and meddling is their forte. Today, Scowcroft was a model spokesman for the abrasive model of America foreign policy, and the team of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly couldn't have done a better job of pissing off the Iranians. That's the proof in the pudding.
To a neocon, words don't mean anything...they're just emotional triggers that you use to piss people off.
Update 2:
To those who would beatify Scowcroft, have a read of this New York Observer interview
The most damning quotes?
"It's not that I don't believe Iraq is capable of democracy," said Mr. Scowcroft. "But the notion that within every human being beats this primeval instinct for democracy has not ever been demonstrated to me."
Note: There goes the basis for our confrontation with Communism! Do these people believe in anything?
....
"It's curious," Mr. Scowcroft said. "I think back to my days of graduate school during the Cold War: I was attacked by many of my friends-probably primarily Democratic-for being a hard-liner, a hawk, so on and so forth. I think I have maintained a pretty consistent philosophy. Now I'm being attacked from the right for being a wussy liberal."
Ironically enough, this same Observer interview ends with Scowcroft quoting John Adams on creating monsters. Of course, in 2004 the reference was not to creating the US as a monster, but rather foreign powers such as Iraq. Considering that I had not read the Observer article before I used the monster quote, it was shocking to see how such words could be used in such a different manner just 5 years later.