Remember the name Jamie Fly. Fly is a long-time adviser to Sen. Marco Rubio and a well known neconservative. If Rubio ascends to the White House, Fly and the neocon establishment will too. Right Web details Fly’s experience here:
As FPI’s executive director, Fly authored numerous articles and was frequently quoted in the press promoting a variety of neoconservative agenda items, including attacking Iran, increasing defense spending, remaining in Afghanistan, and forcing regime change in various hostile countries.[6]
In 2012, Fly co-authored with former PNAC director Gary Schmitt an article for Foreign Affairs advocating extensive bombing strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites. Contradicting numerous studies concluding otherwise, the authors argued that an aggressive bombing effort could help prompt regime change in the country. They wrote: “A limited strike against nuclear facilities would not lead to regime change. But a broader operation might. It would not even need to be a ground invasion aimed specifically at toppling the government. The United States would basically need to expand its list of targets beyond the nuclear program to key command and control elements of the Republican Guard and the intelligence ministry, and facilities associated with other key government officials. The goal would be to compromise severely the government’s ability to control the Iranian population. This would require an extended campaign, but since even a limited strike would take days and Iran would strike back, it would be far better to design a military operation that has a greater chance of producing a satisfactory outcome.”[7]
In contrast to the optimist scenario depicted by Fly and Schmitt, according to Think Progress, “A bipartisan expert report released last September concluded that in order to achieve regime change, ‘the occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.'”[8]
More recently, in a January 2013 op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal, Fly argued that a more robust U.S. role in the Syrian conflict was necessary to secure that country’s stockpile of chemical weapons in the event of regime collapse. “If Mr. Obama is serious about ensuring that terrorists don’t get their hands on weapons that could be used against American interests or personnel in the region or even on the U.S. homeland, the only solution is early and sustained planning to stabilize a post-Assad Syria,” he wrote. “Veiled threats against the Assad regime—after nearly two years of benign neglect toward the chaos in Syria—won’t be enough to protect Americans and our allies. And they certainly won’t help Syrians rid themselves of Bashar Assad.”[9]
Related video:
