Over the past few years, (citing fiction novels) Newt Gingrich has been trying to sound the alarm that the United States is facing a very serious threat of an “Electromagnetic Pulse” (EMP) attack. An EMP is a nuclear weapon detonated at a high altitude, an act that would shut down all electrical power throughout large swaths of the country.

The New York Times reported last month that “a number of scientists say they consider Mr. Gingrich’s alarms far-fetched” and that “many nuclear experts dismiss the threat.” Yet, Herman Cain signed on to the hysteria this election cycle. But he’s not the only one. Resurgent GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum has previously dabbled in this EMP nonsense too.

Writing in an August 2009 column for the Philadelphia Inquirer titled “Ignoring a doomsday scenario,” Santorum said “the scale of potential destruction” from an EMP “demands action now.” He then endorsed allocating more federal dollars to combat this so-called threat:

Our post-Cold War strategy to prevent nuclear attacks has been to stop nuclear proliferation. That is a great strategy until it fails, which has already happened and is continuing to happen in Iran. We need to make our missile defense system fully operational now.

What else? Here is something the big spenders from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other will be glad to hear: We need to spend money to study the electromagnetic pulse threat; to help states, localities, and families prepare; and to protect our critical electric infrastructure and transportation networks now.

Santorum has been campaigning on “deep cuts in federal spending,” but apparently that doesn’t apply to chasing solutions to security scenarios based on science fiction novels.

Syrian activists speaking to the Associated Press lodged complaints that the Syrian regime of President Bashar Al Assad is deceiving observers from the Arab League as he continues to crackdown with deadly force against anti-government protesters. Activists both inside Syria and in exile reported that the regime was taking measures to prevent free access for the mission of observers, which the Arab League said it would nearly double in the near future.

One local in the restive city of Homs — where, despite the removal of heavy weaponry ahead of the Arab League mission, sniper fire continues to kill demonstrators — said regime loyalists were bussed in and posed as residents to speak with the mission. The AP also reported:

Another activist, Syria-based Mustafa Osso said the regime is mostly taking the observers to relatively calm areas, painting military vehicles blue and changing street signs so that the monitors go to wrong neighborhoods.

“Since the mission started the regime is limiting their (observers) movements and when they go out they are under the protection and supervision” of Syrian security, he said. “In Homs, they raised signs of Bab Sbaa in other neighborhoods.”

The U.S. yesterday questioned the effectiveness of the mission, which by agreement with the Syrian government was meant to usher in the removal of security forces from cities and oversee talks with the opposition. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said:

The Syrian regime has not lived up to the full spectrum of commitments that it made to the Arab League when it accepted its proposal some nine weeks ago. For example, the violence hasn’t stopped. Far from it.

Questions have also been raised about the leader of the Arab League mission, Sudanese Lieutenant General Mohammed Ahmed Mustafa al-Dabi, a deputy of President Omar al-Bashir, who is himself wanted by the Hague for war crimes.

Meanwhile, threats of stepped up attacks by Syrian rebels are heightening fears of an all-out civil war, including possibly one along sectarian lines inflamed by regime propaganda.

The GOP presidential nomination’s newest “not-Romney” alternative Rick Santorum said last Sunday that a military strike is part of his plan in how he’d deal with Iran and its nuclear program should he become president. “You would order air strikes if it became clear that they were going to [get nuclear weapons]?” NBC’s David Gregory asked. “Yes, that’s the plan,” Santorum said.

Glenn Beck yesterday on his radio show asked Santorum about that comment, seeming a little concerned. “There’s a strong part of me that says enough of the wars,” Beck said, saying he was “playing devil’s advocate.” But the former Pennsylvania senator said an attack on Iran would serve to prevent a war:

BECK: There’s a strong part of me that says enough of the wars. Enough of the wars. What are fighting, five wars right now?

SANTORUM: We’re trying to prevent a war. We’re trying to prevent the most nefarious regime in the entire world, you know this is the equivalent of al Qaeda, it’s maybe even worse than al Qaeda being in control of a country with enormous resources and capability.

BECK: This is Hitler.

SANTORUM: We’re trying to prevent them from having the fail safe so they can go out and rein terror around the world.

Listen here via The Right Scoop:

Santorum’s close second place finish in the Iowa GOP presidential caucuses last night has thrust his candidacy into the spotlight with renewed scrutiny (even frontrunner Mitt Romney wouldn’t endorse Santorum’s plan to attack Iran). And apparently, he doesn’t see the irony in that launching military strikes against Iran will pretty much guarantee a war he says he’s trying to prevent.