Here he is, heaving and gasping, ecstasy contorting his face as he fantasizes:
With Iran’s hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel’s decision of whether to use military force against Tehran’s nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.
Iran’s nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.
Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.
For my money, though, the old warmonger left the best for last (emphasis is mine):
In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama’s game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran’s nuclear program, Israel’s decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of “success,” negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.
Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran’s nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.
Of course! (sound of hand hitting forehead). I never thought of this, but I guess it takes someone of Bolton’s intellectual rigor and mental acumen to put two and two together and realize that the street demonstrations in Iran against fraudulent election results are clear proof that Iranians (a) no longer want Iran to be an Islamic nation, and (b) would support Israel if Israel started bombing Iran. As long as Netanyahu and Obama explain to them that the bombs are only going to be falling on the regime, and not on buildings, land, or people, there is every reason to believe that Iranians will not feel any patriotic need to support their own country. The airstrikes would have nothing whatsoever to do with Iran — only with the regime. This is not rocket science, after all. Why would Iranians interpret an attack on the regime as an attack on Iran, and on them as Iranians? Would John R. Bolton interpret Iranian airstrikes against the regime in Washington as an attack on the United States? Of course not! Iran’s regime and Iran are two different things, and if you are an Iranian who hates the regime, of course that means that you don’t mind if Israel drops cruise missiles and cluster bombs on the regime. As long as they don’t drop any bombs on Iran. And they’re not going to. Sheesh.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.