Skip to content

When Neocons Make the Case FOR an Iranian Nuclear Project

March 28, 2015

Making the case for Iranian nukes.

John Bolton’s incoherent New York Times article is practically a laundry list of the discredited arguments used to get us into the disastrous war in Iraq. But the most notable item on that list is the claim that regime change is certainly achievable:

“ Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.”

We all remember how well regime change has worked out in Iraq and Iraq was a far smaller and less stable nation than Iran. Even the Iranian people who don’t like their government would rally behind it based on the simple fact that it is obvious that American regime change would have nothing to do with the regime’s actions against its own people and everything to do with our desire to subjugate the Iranian nation.

But the casual nature that Bolton talks about regime change and illegal bombing campaigns may do one thing— they may help build up a very good case for why Iran should obtain nuclear weapons.

After all, Neocon goals have always been clear, and in this case, that goal is the ultimate destruction of Iran’s government. No Congress is likely to lift the sanctions, no matter what Iran does, and in fact much like Libya, you can make the argument that even complete submission on Iran’s part would merely postpone the day of reckoning. At some point, Iran would face the mightiest military power on earth, at least if Bolton and his ilk have their way.

And how could they stop us? One very effective way would be a legitimate nuclear capability that could allow Iran to ask the American people “Is Tehran worth Los Angeles?” After all, one might presume that America would become somewhat more choosy as to its conflicts if its enemies had the ability to strike back.

And this is the Achilles’ Heel of the neocon policy. Their every action makes obtaining a nuclear weapon not an act of religious fanaticism, but a matter of cold-blooded pragmatism on the part of Iran. Iran cannot defeat America in a conventional battle and they have the ruins of Libya and Iraq to show them what American “liberation” leaves in its wake. They also know that the moment the neocons could launch a war, they would.

Does this mean that the Iranians are building a bomb? No. From America to Israel, most legitimate intelligence sources agree that Iran is not currently working to develop a bomb. Whether they are working to develop a break out capability is another matter— but if you can bomb for that then you can argue that you can bomb a nation for nearly anything.

But what it does mean is that Iran, faced with America’s neocons and their endless appetite for war, can make a very good case that having nuclear weapons may be vital to its national survival at some point. So could any other nation fearing a similar confrontation. The Iranian leadership has no doubt given consideration to the fact that giving up his WMD’s did not save Libya’s Qaddafi.

After all, if America was facing a much more powerful nation, one where political figures spoke of regime change and sang songs about bombing our nation, we would do everything we could to obtain the kinds of weapons that could hold them at bay. If Iran were to do the same it would not be irrational, it would not be fanatical— it would be common sense.

The neocons like to rant about Iran’s aggressive foreign policy— but they were the primary backers of America’s invasion of Iran, and the body count for that has vastly exceeded anything Iran has done. They have not learned from their mistake, not proclaiming how we can do the same in Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb… no problem exists that cannot be solved by more bombs.

And this is the disastrous core of the neocon philosophy. They have no desire to meet for an accommodation but only wish utter submission on the part of Iran, to be followed by “regime change” with all that entails. In such an environment, why shouldn’t Iran, or for that matter any nation that might desire to oppose America, seek out the one weapon that can stop us in our tracks.

The neocons’ claim Obama is making a bad agreement. It is a far better agreement than any of their morally and pragmatically bankrupt schemes offer, which boiled down, come out to “more war so long as we do not shed any of the blood involved.”


From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Mike Brotherton: SF Writer

Science and Science Fiction

Make A Living Writing

The political thought of Charles Gray

Psyche's Circuitry

Thoughts on growing up and growing old in the digital age

Future Tense

The political thought of Charles Gray

Viv Drewa - The Owl Lady

PA/PR, Indie Author and Blogger


Writing, Publishing, and Marketing Ideas

Artistry With Words

Helping writers to spread their wings and fly

Random Thoughts

from a stranger in a strange land.


easy reading is damn hard writing


Speculations on the Future: Science, Technology and Society

storytelling nomad

the humble musings of a nomadic writer

Charles Gray's blog of writing

Charles Gray's professional and not so professional writings

%d bloggers like this: