By hook or by crook, they want Iran. Neocons are pulling out the big guns. While Bush and the Oil Lobby are pretending to pursue "dialogue," for the sake of peace (in the markets) the neocons are busy trying to make sure violence becomes "viable." They are actively pushing for regime change by any means necessary.
Enter Jerome Corsi, stage right.
Who's Corsi? He's the guy who co-wrote the sensationlist piece of trash, Unfit for Command which arguably responsible for Kerry's defeat and made him a darling of the Rethugs.
Now he wants to liberate Iran. How? By urging the Iranian people to not vote in democratic elections!
BTW, this guy confirms the June "attack" too.
More analysis below...
His latest project is
Iran Freedom Foundation, complete with an expensive PR campaign: websites, TV commercials, planned rallys and satellite broadcasts. He's got a new book called
Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians
He gave a talk at the Heritage Foundation yesterday, which was filled with fear-mongering and "mushroom cloud over New York" rhetoric with no substance. Quite laughable actually. You can watch the streaming video here (FF. The first 15 min. is dead air)
His solution to foster Democracy in Iran? Don't vote! (not a joke)
It isn't just the one lunatic. There are forces mobilizing all over the political map for an Iran action. And their call to boycot the elections is a very calculated move designed to bring about a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Corsi's talk (and I assume his book) is both funny and frightening in that he makes rediculous assertions, but he's following the same exact talking point techniques that lead to the Iraq invasion:
- Do not focus on physical proof, evidence or likelihoods, instead demonize, demonize, demonize
- As much as possible, describe in great detail the worst imaginable scenario without the slightest context or chance of occurence.
- Set up a false dichotomy and a bogus brink: "we have to do something now."
- Claim you are pursuing a peaceful solution, but talk about the military option only in the "unlikely" event that it becomes "necessary." Then, once people accept this, it all of a sudden becomes the only viable option.
- To satisfy the maximum number of people, advance both democracy and self defense as motivations.
- Pretend like there's a peaceful solution "If only the regime does X,Y,Z", even though out of the other side of your mouth you're claiming it should go just because it is tyrannical. Once things get rolling along this Orwellian "peace pursuit," make sure even if X,Y,Z are attempted, they are never enough.
From his speech:
Now I want to make a few points very clear: the Islamic Republic in Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons -- we should make no qualms about that.
Evidence? In the immortal words of Homer Simpson but look! He's evil! Listen to the music!
Anyway, more bullshit. Half-truths. Flowery quotes by minor religious zealots taken as official policy... which is a little like holding the US government responsible for the actions of Bob Jones or David Koresh.
The mullahs have said that they will take 200 million casualties in the world if a nuclear conflagration ended up also eliminating the State of Israel, because they have pledged death to Israel and death to the United States. And they mean it.
Their rabid anti-Semitic Jewish hatred is almost identical to what we saw from Hitler, and with Hitler we had a holocaust that killed 6 million Jews and a World War that killed at least another 60 million. To get rid of this evil, we could be looking at the possibility that if they have a nuclear weapon, they'll launch one on Tel Aviv, or bring an improvised nuclear device into the United States and explode it in a major US city through Hezbollah sleeper cells that are probably already here, and that city will most likely be New York.
be afraid... be very afraid... be so afraid that another war with massive casualties just might be the thing we have to do. For the children of course, and the oppressed women...
The mullahs intend to play the world as a fool, to say they will only use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, to claim it's their right by being a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- a bizarre concept, that because they've signed this treaty they have the right now to enrich uranium: that's what they're arguing,
The treaty clearly states a right to peaceful civilian nuclear use by member states under oversight by the IAEA. Iran has accepted the oversight and the additional protocols, but as I mentioned nothing will be enough to "satisfy" the neocons. This is not about proliferation.
As I describe in the book, I go into detail minute-by-minute of what the consequences of that nuclear explosion would be.
Within seconds: 1 1/2 million people dead. Within a week: another 1 1/2 million dead. New York City reduced to rubble. A 150-kiloton explosion. Just a simple gun device nuclear weapon, metallized, highly enriched uranium, slammed together and detonated. The device would reduce America almost in one day to a second-rate power.
We would be faced with all of our major telecommunications wiped out: all the television stations that are headquartered in New York, major corporations, gone, and their leadership. Newspapers, gone, the ability to communicate or even see what was going on in New York, gone.
As I said... forget about likelihood, motive or opportunity. Just concentrate on "mushroom cloud." Can one really get any more shameless with the fear-mongering?
Here's another clown over at World Net Daily potificating some science fiction about what happens if Iran is "allowed" to enrich Uranium.
Overwhelming health problems would afflict the survivors of a nuclear attack upon Israel. These problems would extend beyond the consequences of prompt burn injuries.
Retinal burns would occur in the eyes of persons far from the explosions. Israelis would be crushed by collapsing buildings and torn to shreds by flying glass. Others would fall victim to raging firestorms. Fallout injuries would include whole-body radiation injury, produced by penetrating, hard gamma radiations; superficial radiation burns produced by soft radiations; and injuries produced by deposits of radioactive substances within the body.
After an Iranian nuclear attack - even a "small" one - those few medical facilities that might still exist in Israel would be taxed well beyond capacity. Water supplies would become altogether unusable. Housing and shelter could be unavailable for hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of survivors. Transportation would break down to rudimentary levels. Food shortages would be critical and long-term.
Israel's complex network of exchange systems would be shattered. Virtually everyone would be deprived of the most basic means of livelihood. Emergency police and fire services would be decimated. All systems dependent upon electrical power would stop functioning. Severe trauma would occasion widespread disorientation and psychiatric disorders for which there would be absolutely no therapeutic services.
Normal human society would cease. The pestilence of unrestrained murder and banditry would augment plague and epidemics. Many of the survivors would expect an increase in serious degenerative diseases. They would also expect premature death; impairment of vision; and sterility. An increased incidence of leukemia and cancers of the lung, stomach, breast, ovary and uterine cervix would be unavoidable.
Many balanced relationships in nature would be upset by the extensive fallout. Israelis who survived such a nuclear attack would have to deal with enlarged insect populations. Like the locusts of biblical times, mushrooming insect hordes would spread from the radiation-damaged areas in which they arose.
Insects are generally more resistant to radiation than humans. This fact, coupled with the prevalence of unburied corpses, uncontrolled waste and untreated sewage, would generate tens of trillions of flies and mosquitoes. Breeding in the dead bodies, these insects would make it impossible to control typhus, malaria, dengue fever and encephalitis. Throughout Israel, the largest health threat would be posed by tens or even hundreds of thousands of rotting human corpses. Nonetheless, the survivors might envy the dead.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, it is a vast understatement of what could be expected. Interactions between individual effects of nuclear weapons would make matters far worse. It follows that Israel must never allow a still openly aggressive Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
LOL! Talk about sensationalism. Oh my God!
So, who else is a guest at this party?
I want to introduce one other person. Jim Martin, Jim, would you please stand? Jim Martin is the president of 60-Plus, which is a conservative alternative to AARP. Jim has been in Washington for many, many years; a close friend and associate of the President. We're very honored to have Jim's guidance, his direction as a board member of the Iran Freedom Foundation. Jim, thank you very much for agreeing to serve, we really appreciate it.
Yes, thank you Jim. I'm glad you could take a break from demonizing senior citizens so you can demonize Iranians.
The book is a plea for peaceful change in Iran.
Oh good. I was worried there for a second.
We'll probably see this: many of the events I write about in "Atomic Iran" are coming to unfold right now before our eyes. We're seeing... I said most likely the issue will not come to an agreement with the Europeans. It will most likely head to the Security Council. It will most likely have Israel launch a preemptive strike. I call it the "Samson option" in the book because Israel cannot afford to wake up one day and find out Iran has nuclear weapons by seeing a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv. They won't tolerate that risk.
Wait... so even peace lovers like yourlf can't save the day? Is there
anything we could do to prevetn war?
anything at all? please! tell us!
We're going to have radio broadcasts into Iran and Internet coverage on the web site and it's estimated that some 40 million people in Iran will follow this march and we're going to call for on the 17th of June civil disobedience -- hundreds of thousands of people to come to the streets in Iran and say: No, we won't vote.
Oh excellent plan. Because
not voting in a president election is the key to democracy. American style.
The truth is, these guys are afraid. They are afraid that the Iranians will vote for another moderate like Khatami. And this act will leave them out in the cold with no exuse to take over Iran.
One thing you never hear them say is how much the 1997 Khatami revolution has changed Iran. Almost everyone living in Iran agrees that Khatami has made tremendous progress toward greater freedom and democracy in Iran. It's not perfect but it's eons better than before Khatami and it was all done without a bloody revolution or costly invasion. In fact, it was only after Bush 'axis of evil' style hostile approach that the conservatives took over the majlis. Bush was a god-sent for the hard-right in Iran, it gives them a sense of purpose. Much the same way Reagan's support for Saddam did during the Iran-Iraq war.
The problem is if another moderate takes over, the already-shaky "liberation" case will be destroyed. Neocons and Oil lobby will lose the market and the resources to Europe and China. So... if there's one thing they cannot afford is a democratic change in Iran (without US supervision.)
That's why they've chosen the election day of all days, for this "protest."
This isn't likely to bring down the Islamic Republic, especially since it's initiated by a bunch of conservative white guys in Washington. So it won't actually make a difference in that way. But it could make sure that no "moderate" will win the elections.
And what happens the day after the elections when a hard-liner like Rafsanjani will take over and start trash talking the US? Simple. The same people who engineered the "protest" will be all over Fox News saying: "See! It can't be done peacefully! We tried!!!"
But is there a moderate that could continue the Khatami line of liberalisation? Is there someone with a proven record of supporting democratic reforms? Is there perhaps a popular candidate able to mobilize the youth, and who has the nomination of the pro-democracy faction of the Iranian government? (Khatami's IIPF party)?
Who is running in the Islamic Republic elections but he's not even a mullah?
Yes there is. His name is Mostafa Moin. (his blog in Farsi) And for Neocons, he cannot be allowed to win the elections in Iran or be given the slightest positive press.
But his back has a taget on it, painted by two zealous clas: The US Necons and the Conservative Mullahs of the Islamic Republic.
Democracy is a dangerous game.