John Bolton: Still Crazy After All These Years

By Steve Hynd

Old Walrus Face is back in the pages of the WSJ again today, still banging the war drums over Iran.

He starts by telling us the obvious - sanctions are only marginally effective in swaying a nation away from a policy it sees as in its national interest. Then he misses the point about supporting internal dissenters who might bring about regime change - all the senior regime changers inside Iran also believe its nuclear program is very much in the national interest. They've said so.

And then the pride of the neocon movement has this [emphasis mine]:

We therefore face a stark, unattractive reality. There are only two options: Iran gets nuclear weapons, or someone uses pre-emptive military force to break Iran's nuclear fuel cycle and paralyze its program, at least temporarily.

And that's the rub, because every military mind who has ever spoken out on this, from Admiral Mullen on down, agrees that at most an attack would set Iran back some - there's no way force can halt Iran if it is determined to proceed with its nuclear program short of invading and occupying, which is a non-starter.

So, what Bolton's really offering us here is a choice between an Iran which hasn't been bombed but has attained the "Japan Option" they've said they want and which most analysts including US intelligence say they're after...or an Iran which is pressing ahead with its nuclear plans after being bombed, scared and pissed off, which would make their stopping at a "virtual deterrent" far more unlikely.

Guess which of those options Old Walrus Face thinks we should aim for.

This is what passes for logic among the "bomb Iran" set, and Bolton gets hearty endorsements today from the National Review and Commentary magazine.

And yes, I'm banging my drum again about Bolton and the neocons banging their drums.I'll simply echo Steven Taylor on that:

I know, by the way, that I am largely repeating myself on this subject, but it seems to me rather important to argue against another war in the region.  Supporters of a military strike frequently over-hype the risks of a nuclear Iran while ignoring the almost certain consequences of an attack.  I am not sure that that can be pointed out too infrequently.

And so it goes on.

What worries me most is what may be a repeating pattern of a Democratic president setting up, through injudicious rhetoric and domestic fearmongering to "look tough" the following Republican president with their favored war of choice. Clinton did it for Dubya on Iraq and Obama may well be setting up (with Hilary Clinton's wholehearted help) a Palin, McCain, Romney or other rightwing warmongering incumbent with a similiar open goal.