Quantcast

«

»

Oct 14 2013

Neoconservatives despair over easing of Iran tensions

Jim Lobe writes that there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth in neoconservative circles over the thawing of relations between Iran and the west, with the concomitant shift to diplomacy as opposed to sabre rattling and war.

“The Israelis find themselves in a far worse position now than they have been for several years,” concluded Elliott Abrams, a leading neoconservative who served as George W. Bush’s main Middle East adviser, in Foreign Affairs.

While Israel could still attack Iran’s nuclear sites on its own, “[i]ts ability to do so is already being narrowed considerably by the diplomatic thaw” between Iran and the United States, Abrams wrote. “It is one thing to bomb Iran when it appears hopelessly recalcitrant and isolated and quite another to bomb it when much of the world – especially the United States – is optimistic about the prospects of talks.”

Abrams’ assessment was widely shared among his ideological comrades who believe Israel will be the big loser if hopes for détente between Washington and Tehran gather steam after next week’s meeting in Geneva between Iran and the P5+1 (the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China plus Germany).

Gary Sick, an Iran expert who served on the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan, told IPS that neoconservatives’ recent outpouring of defiance and despair constituted “the most convincing evidence I have seen to date that the die-hard supporters of sabotaging an agreement between the US and Iran are in full defensive mode.”

Not that this is stopping them from trying. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a speech in parliament urging the P5+1 group of nations (Britain, China, France, Russia and the US plus Germany) not to ease the sanctions. This was delivered on the eve of their meeting in Geneva with representatives from Iran.

The Iranian dissident group MEK also issued new dire warnings about Iran but few seem to be paying heed these days, even though this shadowy group with deep pockets filled by unknown sources has been spreading its largesse to influence people in the west to cover up its dubious activities and have it removed from the State Department’s list of terrorist groups. Who are the people who got money from the MEK? It is a veritable who’s who of US politicians and media figures.

Last year, the Christian Science Monitor thoroughly described “these former high-ranking US officials – who represent the full political spectrum – [who] have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK.” They include Democrats Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, and Lee Hamilton, and Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Fran Townsend, Tom Ridge, Michael Mukasey, and Andrew Card. Other prominent voices outside government, such as Alan Dershowitz and Elie Wiesel, have been enlisted to the cause and are steadfast MEK advocates.

Money has also been paid to journalists such as The Washington Post’s Carl Bernstein and the Chicago Tribune’s Clarence Page.

You can be sure that opponents of an Iran-west détente will intensify their efforts.

12 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    colnago80

    But it’s perfectly AOK for the Leveretts to get money from supporters of the Iran regime.

  2. 2
    AsqJames

    Elliott Abrams, a leading neoconservative who served as George W. Bush’s main Middle East adviser, in Foreign Affairs.

    Ah, clearly someone we should listen to very carefully…and then do the polar opposite of anything he says.

  3. 3
    atheist

    They’re trying to stimulate me into a schaudenfreudegasm.

  4. 4
    Jockaira

    I’m sure many of these neocon creeps have their panties in a bunch because this Iran-west détente will throw a monkey wrench into their carefully laid plans for world Armageddon.

  5. 5
    Nick Gotts

    Colnago80, aka the genocidal scumbag slc1, gives no evidence for his claim@1, as usual. Even if he can do so, the Leveretts are not influential political or media figures. Slc1 is just following his usual practice of trying to distract attention from facts he cannot dispute.

  6. 6
    colnago80

    I would point out to the limey that it’s Prof. Singham that keeps citing the Leveretts as his experts on Iran.

  7. 7
    Nick Gotts

    So the genocidal scumbag slc1 has no evidence for the claim he made, confirming that he’s just following his usual practice of trying to distract attention from facts he cannot dispute. As it happens, I can’t recall Mano Singham citing the Leveretts (as I have done more than once), although since they are indeed experts on Iran (having served Presidents Clinton and Bush Jr. in that capacity), there’s no reason why he should not do so.

    limey

    Really? That’s the best you can do?

  8. 8
    colnago80

    Citing the Leveretts shows what a schmuck you are.

  9. 9
    bmiller

    Because the Persian Lobby of Perversion is just so amazingly powerful in the United States!

    It’s a sad day in slc’s world when he can only imagine hundreds of thousands dying in screaming pain, rather than turning on his television set and seeing the flames. Heck, I would bet that slc has open ended plan e tickets in hand so he can pop over there and dance on the radioactive graves in person!

  10. 10
    bmiller

    حرامزاده های خشونت آمیز

    Better a schmuck than the above (violent bastard in Persian) :) .

  11. 11
    colnago80

    Real men ride on tubulers. I bet bmiller is not a real man.

  12. 12
    Nick Gotts

    Come on shit-for-brains: you claimed that the Leveretts get money from supporters of the Iran regime. Produce your evidence for that claim, or stand revealed as a barefaced liar as well as a genocidal scumbag.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>