In the wake of charges against two people in an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate Saudia Arabia’s Ambassador to Washington, several neoconservative think-tankers both implicitly and explicitly called for the U.S. to engage in a war with Iran. Now, they’re being joined by neoconservative don Reposted by arrangement with Think Progress

In the wake of charges against two people in an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate Saudia Arabia’s Ambassador to Washington, several neoconservative think-tankers both implicitly and explicitly called for the U.S. to engage in a war with Iran. Now, they’re being joined by neoconservative don Bill Kristol, the well-connected Weekly Standard editor behind innumerable hawkish neocon projects of the past 15 years.

In the October 24, 2011, issue of the Weekly Standard, Kristol writes:

It’s long since been time for the United States to speak to this regime in the language it understands—force.

And now we have an engraved invitation to do so. The plot to kill the Saudi ambassador was a lemon. Statesmanship involves turning lemons into lemonade.

So we can stop talking. Instead, we can follow the rat lines in Iraq and Afghanistan back to their sources, and destroy them. We can strike at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and weaken them. And we can hit the regime’s nuclear weapons program, and set it back. Lest the administration hesitate to act out of fear of lack of support at home, Congress should consider authorizing the use of force against Iranian entities that facilitate attacks on our troops, against IRGC and other regime elements that sponsor terror, and against the regime’s nuclear weapons program.

What Kristol is talking about here is an all out war with Iran: attacking the Islamic Republic’s military, regime elements, and of course Iran’s nuclear program (which is alleged to be aimed at nuclear weapons, but has yet to be proven so — though don’t look for Kristol to make the distinction).

Sometime Kristol ally and fellow Standard writer Reuel Marc Gerecht, a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, made a similar call in the Wall Street Journal last week: “The White House needs to respond militarily to this outrage. If we don’t, we are asking for it.”

Gerecht called for attacking Iran in 2010 and Kristol, for his part, indicates that the latest alleged Iranian plot is little more than a pretext to start a war he’s had on his mind for a while: He writes that “it’s long since been time” to start a war with Iran.

Kristol was a central node in the long-running campaign for war with Iraq. He founded the Project For a New American Century, which advocated for war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1998 and said, less than two weeks after 9/11, that “even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power.” Kristol was also an advisory board member to the short-lived pressure group the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a hawkish outfit that worked in 2002 and 2003 to push Congress and the public for war.

In a 2010 article that compares the present to the years leading up to WWII, [...]]]> We hear it practically everyday, for one reason or another, Iran is a threat that needs to be countered. Nowhere does this kind of rhetoric thrive more clearly or consistently than among Israel advocates who operate as political analysts.

In a 2010 article that compares the present to the years leading up to WWII, neoconservative pundit William Kristol claims the alleged Iranian threat is shared by Israel and the U.S.:

The Iranian regime and its pursuit of nuclear weapons constitute the dominant threat to the security of Israel and to the national security interests of the United States in the Middle East.

Not true, according to a report in the Daily Beast by Bruce Riedel, a counterterrorism expert and CIA veteran who advised three U.S. presidents. While stating that “Iran is a dangerous country,” Riedel explains why it is “not an existential threat to either Israel or America.” Iran’s attempts to appear militarily powerful are “intended to hide the real balance of power in the region, which overwhelmingly favors Israel,” writes Riedel, adding that the imbalance will continue even if Iran acquires nuclear capability. Israel isn’t only protected by clear military superiority which includes an undeclared nuclear arsenal of at least “100 nuclear weapons,” it also has extensive material and financial backing from the most powerful country in the world.

Israel will continue to enjoy the support of the world’s only superpower for the foreseeable future. Assistance from the United States includes roughly $3 billion in aid every year. That is the longest-running financial-assistance program in American history, dating back to the 1973 war. It is never challenged or cut by Congress and permits Israeli planners to do multiyear planning for defense acquisitions with great certitude about what they can afford to acquire.

U.S. assistance is also far more than just financial aid. The Pentagon and Israel engage in constant exchanges of technical cooperation on virtually all elements of the modern battlefield. Missile defense has been at the center of this exchange for more than 20 years now. The United States and Israel also have a robust and dynamic intelligence relationship that helps ensure Israel’s qualitative edge.

Riedel’s report is a qualified wake up call for those who argue that the Islamic Republic poses a serious military threat to Israel or the U.S. It also indirectly explains why Israel advocates are actually threatened by Iran. Riedel discusses the “balance of power in the region” which has been in Israel’s favor for decades. Well-known analysts like Kristol who consistently argue against pursuing diplomacy with Iran are protecting Israel’s interests by working to maintain that imbalance. They don’t want Israel’s “special relationship” with the U.S to be hampered in any way by players who could compete for the same benefits, and Iran, unlike Israel, has much to the offer the U.S. geopolitically in return.

But Riedel isn’t arguing for diplomacy here. He’s debunking the hyped up threat of Iran and related damaging discourse that often appears unexamined in mainstream media reports.

For arguments about diplomacy, follow Paul Pillar who writes regularly about it in the National Interest. He recently argued that diplomacy shouldn’t be considered a “reward” but a “tool” which can be used to “advance the interests of the state” which wields it. He concludes by pointing out another reason why certain analysts are opposed to using talk as a form of diplomacy with Iran:

Of course, if one wants an incident to spin out of control because one is hankering for a war, that would be a reason not to talk. We know that George W. Bush thought along those lines when he talked with Tony Blair about how the United States might provoke an incident that could be the excuse for launching what became the Iraq War.

More food for thought.