Michael S. Rozeff
February 2, 2012
Warmongers who want war with Iran are very persistent. The flow of pro-war “news” items (really expressions of pro-war sentiments and arguments) in recent weeks, here and in Israel, is similar to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice-Powell lying propaganda campaign leading up to the unprovoked U.S. attack on Iraq. This flow is heavy and is designed to create public support for a war of aggression on Iran.
Today there is an item from the Bipartisan Policy Center. These “policy” groups form and spring up to promote their views. Their official sounding names, designed to cull respect, are ruses. They are front organizations that are really meaningless in terms of objectivity or having in mind the interests of the general public or Americans at large. They are creatures of Washington and power and special interests. (I view Washington’s interests generally as being opposed to the properly-understood interests, and certainly the rights, of most Americans.)
The members of this center’s task force are listed in the title to this blog. I do not hesitate to name them warmongers, for they recommend war with Iran unless Iran abandons its nuclear program through a negotiated arrangement:
“The United States needs to make clear that Iran faces a choice: it can either abandon its nuclear program through a negotiated arrangement or have its program destroyed militarily by the United States or Israel.”
They recommend other steps that also lead to war. These you can read for yourself.
In terms of persuading others, Chuck Robb, speaking for the group, expressed a contradictory position. He said that the group is not recommending “bombs away” and wants to be seen as “reasonable” (moderate), but yet he wants a military first strike to be a viable and credible threat.
In other words, he’s saying (in my words) “We’re not bombing you today but unless you do what we say, we’ll bomb you tomorrow.” I fail to see that this position is materially different from bombs away, especially with all the other steps being recommended, one of which is to prevent Iran from shipping any oil anywhere! That’s an act of war.
So I construe such persuasion talk as a deceptive ruse. It’s designed to salve consciences. Its aim is to make the bombing of Iran palatable. It is designed to place the onus of war on the Iranians for failing to accede to the U.S. demands and its military threats. It is designed to shift attention away from another war of aggression begun by the U.S. and relieve Americans from the knowledge that they are invading yet another land.
Robb et al want to be seen as reluctant to do what they will label as the “right” thing to do. They are poseurs. They assume a pose of sincerity that covers up a rigid and wrong doctrine that is really what they want and what they are advocating.
They should be labeled for what they are, which is warmongers.