Is John Bolton an Iranian Mole?

There can be no argument that the destruction of Iraq was the single most significant event in Iranian history, even surpassing the Islamic revolution in importance. The destruction of Iraq converted its most deadly ally into a probable future client state.

The concurrent inclusion of Iran in the axis of evil slated for regime change and the torture and execution following sham trails of leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan removed any deterrent to seeking weapons of mass destruction. If attack and regime change was a true threat in any event pursuance of weapons of mass destruction to deter such an eventuality became the only logical response by the Iranian government. By demonstrating that people associated with the regime would be tortured and summarily executed after sham trails, everyone associated with the government had a personal vested interest in its continuance.

The emergence of an empowered, more repressive Iran bent on acquiring a weapon of mass destruction deterrent was an easily foreseeable result of the destruction of Iraq.

An attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities would almost certainly increase Iran's power, make it more resistant to regime power and more certain to develop a weapons of mass destruction .

The nuclear program in Iran is one of the few popular polices of the current regime. Far from causing a crisis for the Iranian government it would almost certainly strengthen the regime and the national resolve to obtain a credible weapons of mass destruction deterrent.

The attack on US interest will be immediate and won't come from Iran. Israeli forces will have to fly over Iraq airspace to attack Iran. As the United States is air force is the de facto air force of Iraq the Iraqi people will see this as a betrayal and termination of their agreement with the United States.

There would almost surely be immediate attacks on US forces in Iraq. The government would be under extreme pressure to demand and immediate departure of US forces.

The majority Shiite population would want closer contact with Iran and perhaps invite the Iranian air force to replace the departing Americans.

This would understandably not be well received by the Sunni population. Unrestrained by the presence of US troops the Shiites will most likely continue the sectarian cleansing that made the surge so successful.
This would result in heavily armed militant refuges entering Saudi Arabia.

Israel would definitely face repercussions for its attack on Iran. There would be a strong temptation for Israel to go ahead and do all the things it perceives as offensive to the international community at once and be done with it.

Its attacks on its neighbors and its threats have been increasingly violent. The Israeli population has almost completely lost faith in a peace with the Palestinians. There is more and more talk of a permanent solution.

It is highly probable that Israel would use any attacks from the occupied territories as an excuse for large scale ethnic cleansing. This would result in heavily armed militants flooding into Jordan and Egypt, destabilizing both of these countries. Israel would almost certainly launch massive attacks on Lebanon as well.

These actions will also make it clear that Israel never intends to reach a peace with Syria.

The result of these actions will be a destabilized Egypt or a an Egypt run by the Muslim Brotherhood. Lebanon would fall under greater control of Syria or Hezbollah or both. Syria would be drawn into a closer alliance with Iran and would itself be desperate to obtain a weapons of mass destruction deterrent against Israeli attack.


It is almost impossible to believe that Bolton's proposal could be motivated by concern for American interest in the region which would almost certainly be drastically damaged.

in reference to: Articles & Commentary (view on Google Sidewiki)

Why this time no really means no

Micah Zenko argues in his 30 August 2009 editorial in the Los Angeles Times editorial "Israel has Iran in its sights" that if talks with Iran concerning their nuclear program that Israel will act unilaterally and that such unilateral action will not negatively affect the relationship between Israel and the United States.

One can see why Zenko would have written such an argument. Negotiations with Iran do not seem to be going well. Israel certainly does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. The argument for such talk generally follows the good cop bad cop script. Zenko tries to assert that if Iran does not reach a deal Israel will strike and there is nothing that the United States can do about it.

However, in the case of an Israeli attack on Iran, Obama would almost certainly not learn of the attack "from CNN." Israel would almost certainly have to travel through Iraqi airspace to launch an attack on Iran. If Israel can traverse Iraqi airspace without our knowledge, we have been wasting untold billions on defense spending.

The Good cop Bad cop routine has been run so long by America and Israel it is a farce that is no longer funny. If we allow Israel to use Iraqi airspace to attack Iran, our relationship with Iraq will be disastrously ruptured. This will have real consequences in the form of the lives of American servicemen stationed in Iraq as well is in gas prices.

More importantly, Israel and the United States do not have similar interest regarding Iran. Israel desperately does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapons, not because it fears an almost inconceivable first strike situation, but because it fears that a nuclear deterrent to an Israeli attack would encourage Iran to be more supportive of Hezbollah and other organizations threatening Israel. The security of the United States would be very little altered by the Iran's obtaining a small nuclear arsenal. Iran's regime has proven itself obsessed with its own security. Which makes it very easy for the United States to depend on deterrence.

The problem with deterrence is it depends on the deterred party not being attacked. After the deterred party is attacked there is no reason not to counter attack. In this case America's security issue with Iran is much more closely related to its troops in bordering Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the stability of nuclear armed Pakistan.

If an attack by Israel destabilizes Iran. Militants from Iran will almost certainly flow into both Iraq and Afghanistan resulting in substantial deterioration of America's strategic position. This is a case where the interests of Israel and the United States really do differ. Israel should not ignore the interest of the United States in this matter. If it does, the relationship will truly never be the same.