The
Neocons To Get Another War
by
Patrick
J. Buchanan
by
Patrick J. Buchanan
DIGG THIS
The neocons
may yet get their war on Iran.
Ever since
President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi
Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S.
air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East.
Iran, Petraeus
told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has "fueled the recent
violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support
of the special groups."
These "special
groups" are "funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds
Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that
launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government
(the Green Zone) ... causing loss of innocent life and fear in the
capital."
Is the
Iranian government aware of this and behind it?
"President
Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders" promised to end their "support
for the special groups," said the general, but the "nefarious activities
of the Quds force have continued."
Are Iranians
then murdering Americans, asked Joe Lieberman:
"Is it
fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible
for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of
Iraqi soldiers and civilians?"
"It certainly
is. ... That is correct," said Petraeus.
The following
day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, "Unchecked,
the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability
of a democratic Iraq."
Translation:
The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future
of Iraq.
The general's
testimony is forcing Bush's hand, for consider the question it logically
raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist
organizations, are arming, training and directing "special groups"
to "murder" Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill
our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free
Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror
and aggression?
Hence,
be not surprised if President Bush appears before the TV cameras,
one day soon, to declare:
"My commanding
general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the
knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary
for two terrorist organizations Hezbollah and the Quds Force
of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to train, arm and direct
terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated
promises to halt this murderous practice.
"I have
therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes
on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the
Iranian attacks cease."
Because
of the failures of a Democratic Congress elected to end the war,
Bush can now make a compelling case that he would be acting fully
within his authority as commander in chief.
In early
2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied
Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval.
In September, both Houses passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Courtesy
of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the
signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it.
Israel
has been hurling invective at Iran and conducting security drills
to prepare its population for rocket barrages worse than those Hezbollah
delivered in the Lebanon War.
Adm. William
"Fox" Fallon, the Central Command head who opposed war with Iran,
has been removed. Hamas and Hezbollah have been stocking up on Qassam
and Katyusha rockets.
Vice President
Cheney has lately toured Arab capitals.
And President
Ahmadinejad just made international headlines by declaring that
Tehran will begin installing 6,000 advanced centrifuges to accelerate
Iran's enrichment of uranium.
This is
Bush's last chance to strike and, when Iran responds, to effect
its nuclear castration. Are Bush and Cheney likely to pass up this
last chance to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and effect the
election of John McCain? For any attack on Iran's "terrorist bases"
would rally the GOP and drive a wedge between Obama and Hillary.
Indeed,
Sen. Clinton, who voted to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a
terrorist organization, could hardly denounce Bush for ordering
air strikes on the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, when Petraeus
testified, in her presence, that it is behind the serial murder
of U.S. soldiers.
The Iranians
may sense what is afoot. For Tehran helped broker the truce in the
Maliki-Sadr clash in Basra, and has called for a halt to the mortar
and rocket attacks on the Green Zone.
With
a friendly regime in Baghdad that rolled out the red carpet for
Ahmadinejad, Iran has nothing to gain by war. Already, it is the
big winner from the U.S. wars that took down Tehran's Taliban enemies,
decimated its al-Qaida enemies and destroyed its Sunni enemies,
Saddam and his Baath Party.
No, it
is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. It is the United
States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran.
April
12, 2008
Patrick
J. Buchanan [send
him mail] is co-founder and editor of The
American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books,
including Where
the Right Went Wrong, and A
Republic Not An Empire. His latest book is Churchill,
Hitler, and the Unnecessary War.
Copyright
© 2008 Creators Syndicate
Patrick
J. Buchanan Archives
|