neocon checklist

Jim Lobe reveals a checklist of US neocon foreign policy ambitions for the next four years, drafted by Frank Gaffney. Here's an excerpt:

What is common to almost all of these effusions is the sense that, while Iraq might not have gone quite as well as anticipated, the ''victory'' in Fallujah marked a turning point in the U.S. occupation and January's elections should permit Washington to begin drawing down its troop presence in Iraq not long afterwards.

And, while the United States should still be committed to Iraq for the long haul, it is time that it came to act on the threats posed by other ''evil'' regimes -- be it by military force, covert action, ''support for the opposition'', or simple intimidation.

At the top of the list, as they have been for so long, of course, are Iran and North Korea, whose possession of nuclear weapons is simply ''unacceptable'', as the administration itself has said. But others -- Syria, Venezuela, China, even Russia, and the latest target, the United Nations itself -- are still seen as requiring policies of active containment, if not ''regime change''.

Recent news reports that quote ''intelligence'' and sometimes ''military'' sources saying that Syria is now the financial, logistical and planning hub of the insurgency in Iraq have prompted right-wingers to resurrect their plans for Damascus, even as President Bashar al-Assad assures Washington and Israel he is ready for peace talks without conditions, and might even be willing to go to Jerusalem and negotiate an agreement with the United States to secure his border with Iraq.

''The president's goals in Iraq, and elsewhere in the region, will not be achieved until the Syrians are forced to halt all assistance to our enemies'', write three officials associated with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a neo-conservative group behind the recent re-creation of the Committee on the President Danger (CPD), in the 'Washington Times' this week.

Iran, of course, gets the most ink, with a constant drumbeat of columns underlining the duplicity/hypocrisy/naiveté of Britain, France and Germany for negotiating a nuclear accord with Tehran and the necessity of an ultimate confrontation, if not because of its nuclear program than because of the regime's alleged infiltration and subversion of Iraq.

While the hawks concede that a full-scale invasion of Iran is not a viable option, at least for the moment, they insist not only that well-targeted air strikes (by Washington or Israel) could, at the least, significantly retard Tehran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon.

Similarly, they seize on every report of discontent, such as this week's heckling by university students of President Mohammed Khatami, as evidence that, as in pre-war Iraq, Washington is wildly popular with theologically oppressed Iranian masses who will be eager, at the very least, to accept money and rhetorical support -- already in the works, according to recent reports -- from the Bush administration to put an end to the regime, perhaps as peacefully, even, as in Ukraine.

North Korea is another top-ranking target, with, as in Iran, right-wingers seizing on even more dubious reports of widespread and growing discontent with the government to bolster their argument for regime change and at least the preparation for military strikes, despite the fact that U.S. intelligence does not have the faintest idea where key nuclear facilities can be found.

Concern about China, whose failure to ''deliver'' North Korea, along with its recent multi-billion-dollar energy contract with Iran and persistent tensions with Taiwan are seen as evidence of potential enmity, is also being spurred by the hawks, who appear to have resumed their campaign against ''engagement'' with Beijing after a three-year hiatus.

Particularly notable in that regard, Dan Blumenthal, until recently Rumsfeld's senior country director for China and Taiwan, moved recently to Perle's American Enterprise Institute (AEI) where he resurrected the notion of China as a ''strategic competitor'' to the United States.

Venezuela's recent aircraft purchases from Russia have spurred a series of columns, particularly in the Journal and 'National Review', reminding readers how close President Hugo Chavez is to Fidel Castro and how determined he is to curb U.S. influence in the Americas.

But the newest and easiest target, of course, is the United Nations, beginning with Annan, whose resignation over the ''oil-for-food'' scandal is being sought by a growing number of Republican lawmakers in Congress and op-ed hawks whose hatred and contempt for the world body dates back decades.