[the neocons] are back with a vengeance. They want war with Iran and they will not be denied.

They never left. They're a deeply rooted part of the Bush Admin and certainly include Dick Cheney in practice.

Regardless, the above piece is rather hyperbolic.

MJ should get some air. His obsession with AIPAC, neocons, and all things Jewish has become rather unhinged. He's becoming increasingly hyperbolic and emotional.

I don't know what MJ expects readers to do other than rushing into the streets screaming "war!" and rending their garments. He's certainly not providing enough context that a person could write an informed letter to Congress that would actually matter, nor intelligently debate the subject with a more hawkish minded person.

It's self defeating. It's easy to dismiss an emotionally distressed person obsessing over a favorite boogyman without an even academic attempt towards devil's advocate or checking their assumptions.

For example, take this:

My guess is that if the US or Israel starts a war with Iran, the Dems will support it.

What specifically is MJ even talking about? I don't think he even knows.

Are we talking internationally backed sanctions against Iran if the IAEA provides compelling evidence they've violated the non-proliferation treaty? Sanctions might constitute "war" under international law.If so, yes, Dems as well as our allies throughout the EU, Russia, Japan, Korea, China, etc might all support that.

Are we talking targeted strikes specifically on one or a few nuclear installations? Depending on the scale, and depending on what fallout would be anticipated, and what evidence the IAEA can provide, that *might* be supported.

Are we talking a full scale invasion of Iran? Or carpet bombing Iran? No, I don't think Dems or any of our allies would support that.

***

MJ could start discussing these issues and scenarios seriously, and delineating possible options and outcomes, in detail. Rather than just freaking out.

These points 1-4 are all acts of war. If we engage in any of them then it is probable that the Iranians will respond. No one can predict what their response to any of these will be. (Michael Indyk's WINEP has predicted that the Iranians are so weakened that they will do nothing, be that as it may).

I think reasonable people should consider the possibility that they will do something. If they do anything in response then I think it is only reasonable to assume that the US will then escalate our reaction. It is not paranoid to suggest that if we do some small attack then they will do something in response that will make it imperative on us to do something larger. This can then go back and forth. One cannot dissmiss the possibility that we would then have a real war with Iran.

If that all happens we should think about the consequences. Here are a few that have been considered. In no particular order:

1) The shiite forces in Iraq will unify and attack US forces (i.e. SCIRI and Sadr militias will cease fire and shoot at US forces in Iraq (folks this includes the Maliki army currently fighting the Sadr militias).

2) Our logistical supplies from Kuwait to Baghdad run along a line parallel to the Iranian border. This could be cut.

3) The Iranians are armed with Russian made anti-ship cruise missiles that are likely invulverable to any defence that the Navy currently has. These weapons have not been tested in combat but we should consider the possibility that the Iranians have the capacity to sink any US warship in the Persian Gulf. The lives of 30,000 US sailors would be put at risk.

4) The Iraqis have anti aircraft missiles that have ranges that extend from Iran to Baghdad that can easily take down commercial aircraft (again Russian and Ukraine developed weapons). If these prove effective, then an air logistical supply to our forces in the Baghdad region would be cut.

Perhaps Michael Indyk' WINEP analysts are correct and the Iranians will fold immediately. But if not then we should all be willing to accept losses that will exceed those we have already experienced in Iraq.

I tend to agree with MJ that this is a very worrisome situation.

Oh and did I mention Bashar's in Paris for the July 14th celebrations? this is a pretty rare honor - the eye doctor is a sensitive man, he likes that kind of crap. For Sarko - pretty neocon himself - to invite him is stunning. Things are being worked out between the West and Syria.
As for the bombing, the IAF is gonna take care of it. They'll either fly over Turkey with US blessing (I mean what is Turkey gonna do? shoot them?), or fly over Syria and Irak (ditto).
Time to load up on those oil ETFs...

I look at it this way, MJ. The great schism of Iraq is "to oil, or not to oil." The Neocons really did want to open up the gushers in Iraq, flood the market with cheap oil, and break the back of OPEC - all for the purpose of controlling the energy consumption of China. But they were stopped by Big Oil from doing this: the traditional practice of suppressing Iraq petroleum production won out in the end, thus keeping prices high and even through the roof as we are suffering now.

If that is true, how would that play out in the Neocon war-drumming re: Iran? Iran doesn't have that much petroleum - a significant amount, yes, but it shrinks next to Iraq's potential and proven reserves. Well, the Caspian basin's reserves are in the trillions of barrels, I understand, and production there is severely choked due to geography and political sanctions. The most efficient (cheapest) transport route for Caspian oil and gas is of course through Iran.

Good point, Marc.

There is no reason to bring up their religion (actually, ethnic group). Neocon suffices and it covers Bolton and a host of others too.

It is, however, not Klein's fault that neoconservatism was invented by Commentary magazine which was then the voice of the American Jewish Committee.

Is it worse for Klein (himself Jewish) to point out his problems with the worldview and loyalties of the neocons or for the neocons to endanger America, Israel and American Jews by leading the charge for a second Middle East war.

I'm a Jew and an active one. I don't think any of the neocons give a damn about the Jews. If they did, they'd shut the hell up.

I don't think they should shut up because of Israel. They should shut up out of shame that 4000 American soldiers died in furtherance of their dreams, and the lies they invented to sell them.

As for the government officials among them, they should be hauled up before Congress and then the courts.

And Marc, guess what, I never have advocated Americans dying in wars to support any position I hold on Israel or anything else. These chickenhawks knowingly sent Americans to die while sitting at home cheering and (like Richard Perle) raking in the profits.

Being Jewish is irrelevant in that Jews overwhelmingly opposed Iraq and now Iran (and formerly Vietnam). Scumminess knows no ethnicity. Nor does treason.

I myself go through various levels of "will they, or won't they" on this, and always end up falling on the "they won't" side. Last night I was at Drinking Liberally in Arlington and this very topic came up. They would like to do it. Of that I'm totally convinced. Too much publicity to pull it off, though.

There are simply too many people in positions of power who don't want this to happen for it to happen. Military officers. Press people. Intellectuals. And on and on. Even my upper middle class WASP Mother -- who admittedly pays more attention than most -- told me they'd better not do this.

This would be such a bad move for the people of this country (and the world, not to mention Israel) that if they did do it, Kristol and the lunatics would end up needing armed guards to stay in the states. Perle's piece out in the last week shows how seriously unhinged these nuts are. If they do this, we'll ultimately be expelled from the Middle East. They'll end up bringing down several governments in the area. Apocalypse Now in the Middle East. This is such a bad idea that I have serious trouble even believing they think it's a good idea for this country, Israel, and the world. But apparently they do. If they do this after the elections -- God forbid -- I would be for treason and crimes against humanity trials.

Over at Klein's ranch today there was a guy posting that even the dumbest American will end up blaming "the Jews" for $15 gas if they end up blowing up the Middle East. He's right. Our relationship with Israel will end up changing due to the ramifications of bombing Iran, which will include much higher gas prices due to total chaos in the Middle East, not to mention pariah status for our poor country. No one yet has been asked for any sacrifices in this war, and when they do, as they must if we widen it, the Neocons may be in for a major shock. I'd say much higher gas prices, a depression, higher unemployment AND many more dead will put most people in pitchfork and torches mode.

Unfortunately, people will also climb up the cognitive rope, and the less rational -- which will encompass many with $15 gas and 10% unemployment -- will quickly jump to blaming Jewish people for this disaster. All the worst ever said about the Jews in the last 100 years will pop up again, and anti-semitism will rear its ugly head here in our country.

And it will be really difficult for non-jewish individuals like me to fight back, given the "look" of the thing. Anti-semitism would be just below the surface, maybe not on the cable news, but just below the surface amongst large portions the population.

I'm not sure why the Neocons can't seem to think through this process, but they do seem to be rather blinkered intellectually. Fools. I become emotionally angry thinking about it.

Tony, I think you are right. It's dangerous.

Methinks the whole antisemitic stuff is tiresome. To invoke it at the drop of a hat only invites spreading it around more.

FROM RAHM EMMANUEL:

"Madam Speaker, in 1993, when professional-baseball owners were deciding how to rehabilitate the reputation of baseball, after the player's strike, they debated whether to enact a wild-card rule to allow a second-place team into the playoffs. Only one owner at the time voted against this: Texas Rangers general partner George Bush.

When the rule passed 27-1, at the time the President said, "I made my arguments and went down in flames...History will prove me right." [Associated Press, 9/9/93]

Since then, nearly a third of World Series champions have been wild-card teams, including the 2004 World Series Champion Boston Red Sox.

The rule helped saved baseball as history has shown.

And just like his baseball predictions, President Bush sings a very similar tune about Iraq, he says, "History will prove whether I'm right. I think I'll be right..."[Whitehouse.gov, March 29, 2006]

Really?

Five years today since his speech on "Mission Accomplished," and let's take stock.

More than 4,000 lives have been lost.

Tens of thousands of American men and women have been injured.

We've spent over $475 billion in taxpayer dollars, with the price tag continually going up.

History will be the judge of whether once again George Bush's record and America's reputation will go down in flames.

At this rate he's going to be 0 for 2."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WILL BUSH MAKE IT 0 FOR 3??????

Before dawn on most days, Newsweek recently reported, President George W. Bush gets up to read his Bible and to pray. His devotional guide, as it is for many evangelicals, is "My Utmost for His Highest", by Scottish preacher Oswald Chambers (1874-1917).

Most Americans already believe that George Bush is not much influenced by facts, but rather by his ideology. Already he is reportedly thinking of his legacy and dreaming that history will prove him "right." More disturbing are his religious beliefs, in particular his daily readings of Scottish preacher Oswald Chambers, who argues that if plans and events go wrong, it just means that God is testing believers' faith, not that strategies should be changed. This may also explain Bush's aversion to diplomacy. After all, God does not "negotiate" with evil."

In the longest run, divinely guided decisions will be vindicated, and any gathering mountains of evidence to the contrary may themselves be signs of God's continuing involvement. God is testing us. He is purifying the Church.