Hint: It starts with an "o"...

I've been attempting to understand the cons and neo-cons(by the way, what's the difference between the two at this point?)for months now. Why Iraq? Why Iran but not North Korea? Why this obsession with the Middle East? I'm still wrestling with this question, especially in light of articles like this one. Here we have Jed Babbin, former undersecretary of Defense in the first Bush administration, rating various aspects of the "war on terror" and how he feels we're doing at it. He talks about several things, but we'll stick to just North Korea and Iran. Let's take a look at how he rates the handling of the issue of North Korea and it's nukes:

"Kim is no descendant of Werner von Braun. Maybe he thinks an atomic test could scare us into electing John Kerry. In truth, the opposite result is more likely. More and more voters -- both undecided and those changing their minds -- are taking a page from Zell Miller's speech. They look at their kids and grandkids and decide they don't want a president who wants to fight a "more sensitive war." John Kerry said he wants America to be respected, not feared. Sorry, Johnnie. I prefer "feared," especially in regard to the jihadists whose religiously-driven ideology precludes them from respecting us. I expect most Americans see it the same way. Meanwhile, for North Korea, we're at a B-."

My only response to this is...what is he talking about? As near as I can tell, only the first and last sentences of that paragraph actually relate to North Korea. As has become typical among neo-cons trying to duck the subject, Babbin simply changes the subject. After all, absence of evidence of a policy isn't evidence of absence of a policy...or something like that.

Now we turn to Iran:

"Iran is at least close to achieving possession of nuclear weapons and the ability to manufacture them. One expat Iranian source tells me that Iran's "Supreme Leader," Ali al Khameni, has ordered his regime to produce its first nuke by mid-2005. One senior defense official said last week that Iran was being "actively unhelpful" in Iraq. His overly-diplomatic comment meant that Iran was running the al-Sadr insurgency and had become one of the principal obstacles to freedom in Iraq. We are blathering at the U.N. about Iran, and apparently not doing much else. Iran won't push its nuke ambitions to affect our election. They want to let it go ahead quickly and quietly. We can't afford that, without regard to the election. For now, Iran is a D or D-. If the mullahs achieve nuclear weapons, that grade will drop to a big fat F."

North Korea is just an excuse for an anti-Kerry rant, but Iran...now that's serious.

Clearly, Iran's desire to produce nuclear weapons is of greater importance than North Korea's actual ability to produce them. Why? North Korea appears to be mounting an effort to produce not only additional nuclear weapons, but weapons that can be mounted on the backs of vehicle delivery systems that in theory could reach the United States. Iran has yet to produce a single nuclear weapon, or demonstrate the ability to do so, and has no stated or implied ambition to be able to strike the United States with them. So why the focus on Iran instead of North Korea? The answer is simply that the neo-cons dreams of glory and conquest lie in the Middle East. The Middle East is the location of the world's greatest reserves of oil, and the neo-cons would like nothing more than to make sure the the United States has sway over how that oil is used. In other words, the issue of a nuclear armed Iran is not an issue of national security, or at least not one as they present it, as a need to protect Americans at home from attack by Iran or Iranian sponsored terrorists. The best the neo-cons can do on that front is to speculate hysterically that Iran might slip a nuke or two to terrorist enemies of the United States. No, the issue is one of imperial power, and our ability to control the vast reservoirs of oil that lie in the Middle East and thus maintain or pre-eminence on the world stage. The problem is not that a nuclear armed Iran could or would attack us. It's that a nuclear armed Iran will have a greater ability to defend itself from our influence in the Middle East. It's no great stretch to say that the neo-cons are imperialists; they'll hardly deny it themselves. And imperialists only understand the most blatant uses of power, which is why every suggestion they have for how to deal with Iran eventually leads to the threat of or use of force. But they cloak their rhetoric under the pretense of concern for national security, and the protection of Americans at home. Don't believe them. The issue is oil, our control of it and our subsequent control of world events. Dealing with that problem is an issue for another blog. But it's sufficient for now to say that the neo-cons concern is not with the safety of Americans at home, but rather the extension of American power abroad. And North Korean nukes give them no reason to feel otherwise.