The Neocons are at it again on Iran. Although most of us know the Neoconservatives are warmongering psychopaths intent on ruling the world, it's best to not disregard their power when it comes to U.S. foreign policies. We learned that earlier this century. This time their message appears to be, bomb Iran now or the costs go up, and the United States can't afford those costs. The following report has surely been placed in the hands of every congress and senate member as well as in the Pentagon and the halls of the current democratic administration. They appear to be trying to paint someone into a corner.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/...
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has published a report titled, “Containing and Deterring a Nuclear Iran. Questions for Strategy, Requirements for Military Forces”. The AEI is a conservative think tank founded in 1943 with the stated mission "to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism—limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate.
The AEI and the now defunct Project for a New American Century (PNAC) – since evolved into the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) are two of the most prominent thinktanks in Washington D.C. that contributed not only agendas and strategies for U.S. foreign policies, but personnel for G.W. Bush’s two miserable terms as President. More than twenty AEI members served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions. Basically, AEI is Neocon Central with members including John Bolton, Lynn Cheney, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Elliot Cohen, Frederick Kagan, and Richard Perle. These are the people that want the U.S. to rule the world by hook or crook. They’re also the people who most want the U.S. to militarily attack Iran as soon as possible.
The report laments the idea that the Obama administration, or President Obama, will not use military force to attack Iran and remove it’s capability to build a nuclear weapon before they actually do it. It also states that while Israel is the only country willing to attack Iran, it is not capable of achieving the mission because of the extensive network of nuclear installations Iran has assembled and the ability to deal with the aftermath of such an attack, i.e., major war.
"American and international leaders have said that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is unacceptable for these and other reasons. But at this moment it seems nearly certain that the international community, including the United States, will accept it. Anything is possible, but it is very difficult to imagine the current American administration going to war with Iran to prevent Tehran from advancing its nuclear program, whatever reports come out of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or elsewhere. None of America’s allies, apart from Israel, will take military action. There is no reason to imagine that a sanctions regime, or attempts to “isolate” Iran diplomatically, will succeed in the next year or two, having alreadyfailed spectacularly for more than a decade.”
The authors posit that because the Republican candidates for President (except Ron Paul) are basically stating that a nuclear Iran will not happen “on their watch”, the Iranians have a window of opportunity to complete the task before the next President takes office. Thus their report, they make the argument that since it’s probably inevitable that Iran acquires nuclear weapon capability, the United States better develop a sustained policy for containment and deterrence, i.e., a Cold War.
"Strategically, Iran’s leaders would be foolish to wait until after November 2012 to acquire the capability to permanently deter an American attack on their nuclear program. Sound American strategy thus requires assuming that Iran will have a weaponized nuclear capability when the next president takes office in January 2013.”
But their agenda for the report seems clear. “Bomb now or pay later.” The authors describe the containment and deterrence policy as such:
“Modeled on Cold War containment practices, the following are essential components of a coherent Iran containment policy: that it should seek to block any Iranian expansion in the Persian Gulf region; to illuminate the problematic nature of the regime’s ambitions; to constrain and indeed to “induce a retraction of Iranian influence, including Iranian “soft power”; and to work toward a political— if not a physical—transformation of the Tehran regime."
The keystone of any containment policy is a military strategy of deterrence. An Iran policy of containment must meet the basic Cold War standard of credibility, which includes three criteria. The deterrent posture depends on an adequate US nuclear arsenal of offensive systems; a substantial investment in forward deployed and reinforcing conventional forces; and the preservation of strong alliances that permit relatively good policy integration, military cooperation, and basing and access for US forces.”
They suggest that the military strategy include the positioning of as many as 20-50,000 troops in Iraq, maintaining bases long term in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and possibly Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan to the North. They conclude that a bottom line force structure of 350,000 service members would be required to maintain a permanent Cold War against a nuclear Iran.
Complaining about the lack of military resources available to conduct the operation due to defense budget cuts and loss of future weapons capabilities, the authors conclude that a strategy of containment and deterrence can’t be done and is too costly.
"In conclusion, we find that though containment and deterrence are possible policies and strategies for the United States and others to adopt when faced with a nuclear Iran, we cannot share the widespread enthusiasm entertained in many quarters. Indeed, the broad embrace of containment and deterrence appears to be based primarily on an unwillingness to analyze the risks and costs described. It may be the case that containing and deterring is the least-bad choice. However, that does not make it a low-risk or low-cost choice. In fact, it is about to be not a choice but a fact of life.“
While admitting that containing and deterring may be the least-bad choice, they claim that doesn't make it the low risk or low cost choice. Obviously the best choice for them is to bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran. Now if not sooner. Even while admitting the consequences of an attack.
"We agree that escalated confrontation with Iran would throw an already volatile region into chaos, perhaps spread and involve other great powers, and place a heavy burden on overstretched American forces and finances. The costs of war are all too obvious and painfully familiar."
Let's see, a war that would throw the Middle East into chaos, kill more American soldiers and who knows how many innocent civilians, place a death watch on the United States economy, and perhaps involve Russia and China sounds just a tad risky, kind of like a possible World War III. Can you say Armageddon? Yes Neocons, that is more risky than your bullshit containment and deterrence proposal. It's also more costly and downright insane.