Tough guys: GOP’s Rick Perry andRick Santorum go neocon on Iran

Patrick HenningsenInfowars.comNovember 9, 2011

In their desperate bid to avoidany of the really critical issuesthat are affecting the UnitedStates of America, most runnersin the GOP presidential race haveopted instead to play the fearcard, and build-up those crucialneoconservative credentialsbefore the 2012 primaries.

Bilderberg candidate Rick Perry(TX) and rear guard runner Rick Santorum (PA) took the opportunity during their recent Iowacampaign trail to hop on the war hawk’s bandwagon ahead of today’s IAEA’s intelligenceassessment on Iran’s allegedly nuclear weapons program.

The New York Times reported today that both men have taken clear pro-war stances, pledgingtheir support for both joint and unilateral pre-emptive military strikes against the Islamic Republic.

Perry made it abundantly clear he would back any Israeli strike on Iran, telling CNN he wouldsupport Israel, “up to and including military action.”

When asked, Rick Santorum described Iran as the “enemy” and took the Tony Blair line, addingthat he would “stand shoulder to shoulder” in support of Israel, and would also back a soloAmerican military attack if it was requested by the US ally.

The neoconservative angle on US foreign policy has always suffered from an acute lack ofpolitical imagination, often predictable and shallow in terms of caring or understanding – alwaysshying away from any detail regarding the sophisticated dynamics of cause and effect .Unfortunately for the hawks in Washington, the new IAEA report fell flat on its face in terms ofdelivering the elusive smoking gun that Washington and Tel Aviv have been after since it startedthis round of demonization in 2004. Still, hawks keep pressing forward on the pro-war path.

The New York Times report continued, citing more muscle flexing by Perry:

In a similar vein, when Mr. Perry was asked if he would approve a pre-emptive Israelistrike “even if it started a war in the region,” he responded, “We cannot allow thatmadman to get his hands on a nuclear weapon, because we know what he will do with it.”

Rounding out the pro-Israeli war hawk camp sits GOP candidate Michele Bachmann (MN) who istowing the Hilary Clinton line on aggression overseas, “Iran has stated once they gain a nuclearweapon they will use it to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.”

Her comments of course, are based on the infamous mis-translation from a statement sixyears ago by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who allegedly said that Israel “shouldbe wiped off the map.” In reality, such a statement was never made by the Iranian president. Stillthough, many Zionist lobbies in Washington and their agencies in North America, Europe andIsrael naturally ran with their idea, and to this day, this piece of misinformation remains the solerebuttal to anyone questioning a pre-emptive strike or sanctions against the Iranian people.Nonetheless, most US Presidential candidates are unable to make this distinction, unknowinglyhanging their foreign policy on something that never actually happened.

Other GOP front runner Mitt Romney has stopped just short of the hawkish line, saying he wouldprefer “increased military coordination with and assistance to Israel in order to make clear to Iranthat the military option is very much on the table, and increased Israeli preparation for a strikeadvances that policy.”

Only Congressman Ron Paul (TX) remains the most consistent in term of foreign policy, pickingup exactly where he left off from his successful 2008 Presidential run. Paul maintains that anyIranian threat to the Middle East is overblown. His stance is somewhat revolutionary compared tothe rest of the GOP field as Paul’s preference is well known by now – to trade and prosper with aforeign country, rather than send bombs and body bags.

His policy on the flip side of the issue is equally consistent, playing a fair hand with the Israeliissue. Campaign spokesman, Jesse Benton, adds here:

“(Ron Paul) refused to condemn Israel’s attacks against Iraq’s nuclear facilities in theearly 1980s and would not try to push Israel or tell them what to do.”

Putting Ron Paul aside, what is most frightening about the Presidential field on both the GOP andDemocrat sides(both Obama and Hillary Clinton have towed the same line as the GOP runners) isthat none of these men or women seem very interested or are able to offer up any diplomaticsuggestions or strategic solutions that do not involve a military strike. This is the definingparadigm in the US today, one where voters are told that, “there is no alternative”. Using thisdialectic, they will have you believe that an expanded WWIII, or the use of nuclear weapons bywestern powers was simply unavoidable.

The neocon agenda regarding the next 100 years of American foreign policy was laid out in fullview before 2000, in their guiding institution known as the Project for a New AmericanCentury. This think tank still influences Washington’s power structure today, as manytransnational corporations still support it because of the booty its policies offer in terms of off-shore profits.

If Americans are keen for another two decades of destabilizing wars, a global economicdepression and many more tens of thousands of Americans killed in action, as well as manymillions more innocent lives snuffed out on foreign soil, then certainly, an aggressive foreign

policy is the way to go.

Otherwise, is appears that only one presidential candidate has managed to cultivate an intelligent

21st century approach to dealing with matters overseas. RON PAUL 2012