Neocon news network

For readers of this meager outlet, the only thing surprising about Tom Regan's article at the Christian Science Monitor (citing Robert Perry's piece at ConsortiumNews) is the news that neo-con advocacy for protracting the current Israel/Lebanon border war into Syria and Iran was pronounced by the Israelis themselves as "nuts." Apparently, the IDF are more than happy to limit the civilian slaughter to the Lebanese. Of course, I detailed the recent neo-con rhetorical war bluster awhile ago, so this comes as no surprise here.

The IDF battle was in place and on the table for over a year, presumably awaiting an actual reason to begin the assault. But with Republicans in Congress in serious trouble at the polls, appearing vulnerable and threatened, and probably not unaware of a nation-wide, grassroots resistance to their electioneering efforts, it was clear, as it always is to them, that a good war would do wonders for their poll numbers. With Rice's diplomatic efforts having at least forestalled the push to attack Iran over its nuclear enrichment program, something we know infuriated Cheney, Rumsfeld and other neo-cons like Bill Kristol, another more obvious and immediately threatening theatre would do well to not only aid Republican election prospects -- at least as far as they see them -- but would futher the neo-con agenda and grease the push against Tehran. The timing of it all was key, with the campaign season gearing up. One only need look at what Gingrich and Cheney have said in the time since this battle began.

Gingrich said that public opinion can change "the minute you use the language" of World War III. The message then, he said, is "'OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?"

Cheney:

It's going to be a battle that will last for a very long time.

It is absolutely essential that we stay the course. It's vital that we keep issues of national security at the top of the agenda.

If anyone thinks the conflict is over or soon to be over, all they have to do is look at what's happening in the Middle East today.

Look at what's happening in the Middle East today. And remember, be sure to vote Republican.

Further evidence has arisen that indicates the current conflict may have been entirely pre-arranged; a war looking for a trigger. Robert Perry now indicates that a May 23 summit between George Bush and Ehud Olmert set the agenda for inciting a Lebanese/Israel conflict. According to Israeli sources, Bush encouraged Olmert to pursue the pre-planned conflict and, three days after the summit, a car bomb assassinated brothers Nidal and Mahmoud Majzoub in the Lebanese city of Sidon. Hezbollah refused to respond to this assassination, though it was loudly condemned by the Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. A man by the name of Mahmoud Rafeh was arrested for the murders on June 10 and confessed to being an agent for Mossad.

What ultimately did appear to provoke Hezbollah was the Israeli invasion of Gaza, as the Financial Times noted that Hezbollah's incitement could be seen as an effort, in part, to relieve the assault on the civilian population there. But we quickly get deep in the weeds here as it is difficult to know who may have tried to incite whom.

It is entirely possible that, after kidnapping two Palestinians in Gaza, the Israelis hoped that provocation would lead to some response from Hamas, which could then be used to assault Gaza, which in turn might lead to a Hezbollah response. That sounds like a stretch but indeed, Hamas did respond and Israel attacked, devastating the civilian infrastructure and placing the Palestinian population in a crisis situation. It was then that Hezbollah responded with their own kidnapping, thus prompting the current conflict that had been agreed to by Bush and Olmert in May of 2006. There may be a small chance that this all just "happened," but I doubt it. The earlier assassination of the Majzoub brothers certainly indicates that Israel was looking to start the pre-arranged fight as had been agreed by Bush and Olmert.

None of this has worked to the imagined effect for the neo-cons. Hezbollah appears more formidable than first thought, although that too may be used as further justification to launch on Syria and Iran. But then, Israel's attack on Lebanon has not exactly proffered the envisioned hatred of Hezbollah within the Lebanese population. In fact, Israel's unbridled aggression has done nothing but enhance Hezbollah's standing in much of the Arab world.

Enhancing Hezbollah's standing, however, is likely to be viewed as the "collateral damage" of the larger effort that the Bush neo-cons had in mind. The Bush/Olmert summit was the arena in which Bush encouraged Olmert to expand the hostilities and move against Syria. Well, Olmert has certainly expanded hostilities and he is set to expand them more. As Israeli defense officials told the Jerusalem Post (via ePluribus Media),

they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.

While Jeff Huber speculates that this might just be a disinformation ploy to cow the Syrians, all other evidence would indicate that this is entirely serious. The neo-cons have been angling toward this for sometime.

Syria, though, is not the real goal. Syria is simply a stepping stone -- much as Baghad was imagined -- to the prize of taking out the mullahs in Tehran. And once that's done, why, then everything will work out in the end. Finally. The Middle East will be awash in sunshine and democracies friendly to "US interests." This is probably what the neo-cons still believe because they have yet to think that Iraq is a lost cause.

____________________________

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:

a. Crimes against peace:
1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

-- Principle VI(a), Nuremberg Tribunal,
adopted by International Law Commission,
UN, 1950.

I doubt that we would ever seriously see these principles generously applied to the Bush administration, as appropriate as that might be. After all, that dreadful business all those years ago was about the Nazis, not us. And we are most certainly not them.

We also cannot forget our new century mantra, 9/11 changed everything. And because it did, everything, everything, is now "on the table."