Cheney’s Neocons Behind Syrian/North Korea Nuclear Claims

If we were to believe the White House claims that Israel blew up a nuclear facility in Syria last September, then we’d also have to believe that it took both the Israeli and U.S. governments better than 7 months to confirm their suspicions, and then release the blurry photos.

We’d also have to believe both governments would keep such a revelation secret all these months. And, make no mistake about it; that would indeed be a revelation capable of making Cheney and his neocon ne’r-do-wells all have a massive orgasm.

Needless to say the timing is dubious.

Despite the adamant denials of Syria’s ambassador to the U.S., Imad Moustapha, Cheney’s neocons have promulgated the Syrian reactor claim by distributing nebulous photos of a structure that essentially have even vexed the experts; let alone us laymen.

So, what are we to believe? Well, I don’t know about anyone else but visions of the runup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq are flashing in my head.

But, am I right to be skeptical? Are the bright red warning flags waving before my eyes attributed to internal manifestations of cynicism?

According to the White House, the reactor was being built with the help of the North Koreans; was not meant for peaceful purposes, and very close to becoming operational when it was destroyed. But, would the North Koreans actually risk such a venture when they’re under close scrutiny and so close to normalizing relations with the rest of the world? Moreover, would Syria really risk building a nuclear reactor given its current designation [by U.S. standards] as a state sponsor of terror?

Our neighbors to the north are suspicious. The Edmonton Sun thinks Cheney wants to punish North Korea:

Vice-President Dick Cheney and fellow neocons forced the CIA to release the James Bondish video in an effort to sabotage an impending six-nation agreement to end North Korea's nuclear program. They bitterly oppose the deal for being too soft on Pyongyang. Neocons long have worried the possibility of North Korea selling nuclear technology to Arab states posed a potential threat to Israel.

The international press is beginning to question the White House's claims as well; as evidenced here at the Australian news site ABC News:

But Mike Chinoy, from the Pacific Council on International Policy (PDF) says the claim needs to be taken in its political context, as North Korea's de-nuclearization reaches a critical stage.

"Everything I'm hearing from my own sources in Washington is that what you have now is a kind of push back by Vice-President [Dick] Cheney and his office and other hardliners who are opposed to diplomatic dealings with North Korea," he said.

"[They are] hoping that by making public these allegations of nuclear cooperation it will torpedo the diplomatic process."

White House press secretary Dana Perino said the US would be sticking with six-country talks with North Korea while at the same time claiming the bombed out reactor was now "damaged beyond repair." She demanded that Damascus "come clean before the world" on its nuclear activities.

Her statement came after U.S. intelligence officials briefed Congress on the allegations that North Korea had shared its nuclear wherewithal with Syria.

But is Mike Chinoy correct in his assumption?

According to The Christian Science Monitor, the White House has been pushing Israel to attack Syria in order to widen the war in the region.

The White House, and in particular White House advisors who belong to the neoconservative movement, allegedly encouraged Israel to attack Syria as an expansion of its action against Hezbollah, in Lebanon.

(snip)

Neoconservatives, or 'neocons,' believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled military power to promote its values around the world. Several prominent neocon columnists have recently written about the need for Israel to take the current conflict beyond Lebanon to include the countries they consider to be Hezbollah’s main backers – Iran and Syria.

One of Cheney’s neocons, columnist Michael Ledeen, concurs wholeheartedly. From his blog @ The National Review Online back in 2006:

The hard work on the ground belongs to the Israelis, and you are right to say we have done well to support them rhetorically. But we have to [go] after Assad, and we have not done that. Perhaps this is due to my own ignorance; it may be going on behind the scenes (not movie scenes, the real ones). I hope so. But I don't see it.

I don't see or hear our leaders condemning the Syrians and the Iranians, aside from the original White House statement (in direct conflict with the statement from the State Dept, let's not forget) holding Syria and Iran responsible. Okay, so they're responsible. And then?

There has to be a "then." And it has to be aimed at the total destruction of Hezbollah and the downfall of the regime in Damascus.

Otherwise, it will all rewind. There will be no semblance of a strong, free, and independent Lebanon, and the next time around things will be much worse. You will see more and more Iranian missiles, in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in Israel. It's a war, not a debate.

Back in July, 2006, The Jerusalem Post wrote about Israel being prepared for a possible attack by Syria in response to its attacks in Lebanon.

The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] was also concerned about a possible Syrian attack in response to the ongoing IDF operations in Lebanon. It was also known that Syria had increased its alert out of fear in Damascus that Israel might attack.

Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.

So, as far back as July, 2006 the White House was interested in attacking Syria.

Robert Parry over at Consortium News via AlterNet is suspicious:

One Israeli source said [US President George] Bush's interest in spreading the war to Syria was considered "nuts" by some senior Israeli officials, although Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has generally shared Bush's hard-line strategy against Islamic militants.

After rebuffing Bush's suggestion about attacking Syria, the Israeli government settled on a strategy of mounting a major assault in southern Lebanon aimed at rooting out Hezbollah guerrillas who have been firing Katyusha rockets into northern Israel.

On July 18, Consortiumnews.com reported that the Israel-Lebanon conflict had revived the Bush administration's neoconservative hopes that a new path had opened "to achieve a prized goal that otherwise appeared to be blocked for them -- military assaults on Syria and Iran aimed at crippling those governments."

After the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 -- after only three weeks of fighting -- the question posed by some Bush administration officials was whether the U.S. military should go "left or right," to Syria or Iran. Some joked that "real men go to Tehran."

According to the neocon strategy, "regime change" in Syria and Iran, in turn, would undermine Hezbollah, the Shiite militia that controls much of southern Lebanon, and would strengthen Israel's hand in dictating peace terms to the Palestinians.

But the emergence of a powerful insurgency in Iraq -- and a worsening situation for U.S. forces in Afghanistan -- stilled the neoconservative dream of making George W. Bush a modern-day Alexander conquering the major cities of the Middle East, one after another.

So, has Cheney decided to revive the "dream?" And, is he doing so by having his "Alexander" share the glory with Olmert? It appears that Cheney is hell-bent on going right, and then leaving it up to Olmert to take the left.

IMPEACH ALREADY!!

Peace