Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come
AntiWar.com | 17.10.2005 19:45
As the layers of Useful Idiots, the paper mache masses once swayed by fear & patriotic rhetoric, are stripped away by the exposure of Bush/PNAC LIES and betrayals, it becomes very clear just who really drives this Madness, these policies of Neo-Fascism. Pay close attention, and take detailed notes.
Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come
by Jorge Hirsch
The stage is set for a chain of events that could lead to nuclear war over chemical weapons in the immediate future. If these events unfold, the trigger will be Israel, the target Iran, the nuclear aggressor the U.S. These are the reasons:
* The U.S. State Department determined in August 2005 that "Iran is in violation of its CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] obligations because Iran is acting to retain and modernize key elements of its CW infrastructure to include an offensive CW R&D capability and dispersed mobilization facilities."
* According to the CIA, "Iran likely has already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents – and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them – which it previously had manufactured."
* According to (then undersecretary for arms control and international security, now U.S. ambassador to the UN) John Bolton's testimony to the House of Representatives (June 24, 2004), "We believe Iran has a covert program to develop and stockpile chemical weapons," and on Iran's ballistic missiles, "Iran continues its extensive efforts to develop the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction," and "The 1,300-km range Shahab-3 missile is a direct threat to Israel, Turkey, U.S. forces in the region, and U.S. friends and allies."
* In the IAEA resolution of Sept. 24 [.pdf], Iran was found to be in "noncompliance" with its NPT safeguards agreements.
* Members of the Israeli parliament from across the political spectrum are urging the United States to stop Iran's nuclear programs, or Israel will "act unilaterally." Statements of grave concern about Iran's nuclear program have been made by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, and Mossad chief Meir Dagan (Iran poses an "existential threat" to Israel). Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter accuses Iran of plotting relentlessly to attack Israeli targets.
* According to the head of the Russian Atomic Energy Organization, Alexander Rumyantsev, Russia will ship the first cargo of nuclear fuel for Iran's Bushehr's reactor at the end of 2005 or early 2006.
* Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor (which was under IAEA supervision) in 1981 just before nuclear fuel was loaded into it (to prevent nuclear fallout).
* President Bush has said that "all options are on the table" if diplomacy fails to halt Iran's nuclear program.
* The U.S. House of Representatives on May 6, 2004, by a vote of 376-3, called on the United States to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
* In the recently released draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" [.pdf], the Pentagon states that it will respond to the threat of WMD (which includes chemical and biological weapons) with nuclear weapons.
Conclusion: according to Israel, the U.S. administration, and 99.2 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives, Iran will not be allowed to have access to any nuclear technology. No diplomatic options to achieve that goal will remain when Russia and China veto Security Council sanctions, or if the IAEA refuses on Nov. 24 to refer Iran to the Security Council. Military action will occur before Russia ships uranium fuel to Iran, and will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. against Iran.
How will it all get started? No matter how much Bush and Cheney want it, the U.S. Senate is unlikely to authorize the bombing of Iranian installations out of the blue. Unless there is some major disturbance in Iraq that can be blamed on Iran, Israel is likely to pull the trigger. It knows how to and has every motivation to do so.
Once Israel drops the first bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility, as it did with Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, there is no return. Bushehr is likely to be the first target; other installations will follow.
Iran will respond – how can it not? At a minimum, it will shoot missiles at Israel. It may or may not shoot at U.S. forces in Iraq initially, but given the U.S.-Israel "special relationship," there is no way the U.S. will stay out of the conflict. Many of Iran's targeted facilities are underground, and U.S. bombs will be needed to destroy them all.
Once the U.S. enters the conflict, 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will be at risk of Iranian missiles with chemical warheads, or of being overrun by Iran's conventional forces streaming into Iraq. According to the Pentagon planning [.pdf], nuclear weapons will be used:
* "To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD."
* "Against an adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations…"
* "[O]n adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons or the C2 infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies"
* "[T]o counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces…"
* "For rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms…"
* "To ensure success of U.S. and multinational operations…"
That makes six independent reasons for nuking Iran.
The first nuclear bomb used in an act of war after "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" should be code-named "Demo" – for "demonstration" that we can do it, don't mess with us, for "democracy" on the rise in the Middle East, and for the "Democrats" in Congress who will go along with the program. As with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we will be told it saved lives, ours and theirs. You know the script.
The upshot: a nuclear superpower will have nuked a non-nuclear state that is an NPT signatory and is cooperating with the IAEA, at the instigation of a state that is not an NPT signatory, that reportedly has over 100 nuclear bombs of its own, and that initiated hostilities with an unprovoked act of military aggression.
Given these prospects, the U.S. government should be doing its utmost to restrain Israel, yet it is doing exactly the opposite. It should be trying to achieve a diplomatic solution, but it refuses to even talk to Iran. The ongoing diplomatic effort by the EU is simply designed to provide cover for the planned military action, just as in the case of Iraq. How many times must Bush play the same game before the EU finally learns it is being used?
And how many times will it take for the U.S. citizenry to learn? The U.S. public and its representatives in Congress, preoccupied with the deception and subsequent disaster of the Iraq invasion, are blind to the enormously bigger deception and disaster unfolding just before their eyes. Do the majority of American citizens, from whom the authority of the administration is derived, really want to be drawn by Israel into a nuclear conflict? Is this really in the United States' best interest?
The sane world needs to tell the U.S. and Israeli governments to back off. And the United States needs to tell Israel, in no uncertain terms, that it will not allow (American-supplied) Israeli bombers carrying (American supplied) bunker-busting bombs over Iraqi airspace, and that it will not aid, abet, or condone such an attack. By not demanding this of the Bush administration, the U.S. Congress is complicit in what is about to happen and is betraying the trust of the people it represents.
There is a rational way to avoid this disaster.
* Let Iran pursue a civilian nuclear program. Over 30 countries have civilian nuclear programs, while only nine have nuclear weapons. Let the Nobel-prize winning IAEA and Mohamed ElBaradei do their job!
* The U.S. can guarantee Israel's safety by assuring Israel that any threat to its existence from a non-nuclear nation will be met with the full force of U.S. conventional forces, and any threat from a nuclear nation will be met with U.S. nuclear forces.
* If Iran were to withdraw from the NPT and not allow international supervision of its programs, it would still take several years for it to acquire a nuclear weapon. There would still be plenty of time to act.
Otherwise? Welcome to the new world order, where the U.S. can nuke any non-nuclear country at will. Refrain from having a nuclear deterrent at your own risk. All nations that can will become nuclear, others on their way will be nuked, and all-out nuclear war will become an absolute certainty. Bye-bye, world.
by Jorge Hirsch
The stage is set for a chain of events that could lead to nuclear war over chemical weapons in the immediate future. If these events unfold, the trigger will be Israel, the target Iran, the nuclear aggressor the U.S. These are the reasons:
* The U.S. State Department determined in August 2005 that "Iran is in violation of its CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] obligations because Iran is acting to retain and modernize key elements of its CW infrastructure to include an offensive CW R&D capability and dispersed mobilization facilities."
* According to the CIA, "Iran likely has already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents – and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them – which it previously had manufactured."
* According to (then undersecretary for arms control and international security, now U.S. ambassador to the UN) John Bolton's testimony to the House of Representatives (June 24, 2004), "We believe Iran has a covert program to develop and stockpile chemical weapons," and on Iran's ballistic missiles, "Iran continues its extensive efforts to develop the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction," and "The 1,300-km range Shahab-3 missile is a direct threat to Israel, Turkey, U.S. forces in the region, and U.S. friends and allies."
* In the IAEA resolution of Sept. 24 [.pdf], Iran was found to be in "noncompliance" with its NPT safeguards agreements.
* Members of the Israeli parliament from across the political spectrum are urging the United States to stop Iran's nuclear programs, or Israel will "act unilaterally." Statements of grave concern about Iran's nuclear program have been made by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, and Mossad chief Meir Dagan (Iran poses an "existential threat" to Israel). Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter accuses Iran of plotting relentlessly to attack Israeli targets.
* According to the head of the Russian Atomic Energy Organization, Alexander Rumyantsev, Russia will ship the first cargo of nuclear fuel for Iran's Bushehr's reactor at the end of 2005 or early 2006.
* Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor (which was under IAEA supervision) in 1981 just before nuclear fuel was loaded into it (to prevent nuclear fallout).
* President Bush has said that "all options are on the table" if diplomacy fails to halt Iran's nuclear program.
* The U.S. House of Representatives on May 6, 2004, by a vote of 376-3, called on the United States to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
* In the recently released draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" [.pdf], the Pentagon states that it will respond to the threat of WMD (which includes chemical and biological weapons) with nuclear weapons.
Conclusion: according to Israel, the U.S. administration, and 99.2 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives, Iran will not be allowed to have access to any nuclear technology. No diplomatic options to achieve that goal will remain when Russia and China veto Security Council sanctions, or if the IAEA refuses on Nov. 24 to refer Iran to the Security Council. Military action will occur before Russia ships uranium fuel to Iran, and will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. against Iran.
How will it all get started? No matter how much Bush and Cheney want it, the U.S. Senate is unlikely to authorize the bombing of Iranian installations out of the blue. Unless there is some major disturbance in Iraq that can be blamed on Iran, Israel is likely to pull the trigger. It knows how to and has every motivation to do so.
Once Israel drops the first bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility, as it did with Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, there is no return. Bushehr is likely to be the first target; other installations will follow.
Iran will respond – how can it not? At a minimum, it will shoot missiles at Israel. It may or may not shoot at U.S. forces in Iraq initially, but given the U.S.-Israel "special relationship," there is no way the U.S. will stay out of the conflict. Many of Iran's targeted facilities are underground, and U.S. bombs will be needed to destroy them all.
Once the U.S. enters the conflict, 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will be at risk of Iranian missiles with chemical warheads, or of being overrun by Iran's conventional forces streaming into Iraq. According to the Pentagon planning [.pdf], nuclear weapons will be used:
* "To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD."
* "Against an adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations…"
* "[O]n adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons or the C2 infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies"
* "[T]o counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces…"
* "For rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms…"
* "To ensure success of U.S. and multinational operations…"
That makes six independent reasons for nuking Iran.
The first nuclear bomb used in an act of war after "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" should be code-named "Demo" – for "demonstration" that we can do it, don't mess with us, for "democracy" on the rise in the Middle East, and for the "Democrats" in Congress who will go along with the program. As with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we will be told it saved lives, ours and theirs. You know the script.
The upshot: a nuclear superpower will have nuked a non-nuclear state that is an NPT signatory and is cooperating with the IAEA, at the instigation of a state that is not an NPT signatory, that reportedly has over 100 nuclear bombs of its own, and that initiated hostilities with an unprovoked act of military aggression.
Given these prospects, the U.S. government should be doing its utmost to restrain Israel, yet it is doing exactly the opposite. It should be trying to achieve a diplomatic solution, but it refuses to even talk to Iran. The ongoing diplomatic effort by the EU is simply designed to provide cover for the planned military action, just as in the case of Iraq. How many times must Bush play the same game before the EU finally learns it is being used?
And how many times will it take for the U.S. citizenry to learn? The U.S. public and its representatives in Congress, preoccupied with the deception and subsequent disaster of the Iraq invasion, are blind to the enormously bigger deception and disaster unfolding just before their eyes. Do the majority of American citizens, from whom the authority of the administration is derived, really want to be drawn by Israel into a nuclear conflict? Is this really in the United States' best interest?
The sane world needs to tell the U.S. and Israeli governments to back off. And the United States needs to tell Israel, in no uncertain terms, that it will not allow (American-supplied) Israeli bombers carrying (American supplied) bunker-busting bombs over Iraqi airspace, and that it will not aid, abet, or condone such an attack. By not demanding this of the Bush administration, the U.S. Congress is complicit in what is about to happen and is betraying the trust of the people it represents.
There is a rational way to avoid this disaster.
* Let Iran pursue a civilian nuclear program. Over 30 countries have civilian nuclear programs, while only nine have nuclear weapons. Let the Nobel-prize winning IAEA and Mohamed ElBaradei do their job!
* The U.S. can guarantee Israel's safety by assuring Israel that any threat to its existence from a non-nuclear nation will be met with the full force of U.S. conventional forces, and any threat from a nuclear nation will be met with U.S. nuclear forces.
* If Iran were to withdraw from the NPT and not allow international supervision of its programs, it would still take several years for it to acquire a nuclear weapon. There would still be plenty of time to act.
Otherwise? Welcome to the new world order, where the U.S. can nuke any non-nuclear country at will. Refrain from having a nuclear deterrent at your own risk. All nations that can will become nuclear, others on their way will be nuked, and all-out nuclear war will become an absolute certainty. Bye-bye, world.
AntiWar.com
Comments
Hide the following 7 comments
maybe...but
17.10.2005 22:04
and will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. against Iran. "
another scenario might be
that
after the US use the UK to create a
reason to attack Iran
[currently in progress
see Rices Blair licking
and the Moscow visit balony]
the UN will be used as it was
for the Iraq invasion
Russia then threaten
to sanction UK
with a turn around on
Natural gas promises
Gazprom & soon
Sibneft = Kremlim based]
This will give Blair his excuse to use
the Nuclear option for power which
will also allow the production
of more weapons
all this talk of Nuclear options
is [i hope] over dramatic
but earlier this year
Russia & China issued a issue
joint statement on new world order
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The international community should completely renounce the mentality of confrontation and alliance; there should be no pursuit of monopoly or domination of world affairs; and countries of the world should not be divided into a leading camp and a subordinate camp, said the joint statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
what this spells out is a doctrine of Neoliberal collusion
and conspiracy as corporations hide behind national flags
The US economy, strangely enough,
is underwritten apparently by the
New prosperous Chinese corporate banks...
if there is to be a World war it will be the extension of
a sham played on the entire worlds
population by puppetmasters
known as the The Corporation; a cartel
which has been covertly in hold of the control of power
Hard: techno - security - military industrial secret state
Soft: socio-economic engineering, class war /media / pharma
programming & conditioning of Normality culture
but seeks an opportunity to move into the public
domain as an overt open global dictatorship
this opportunity is known as 'The War Against Terror'
[ that's right ; T.W.A.T!]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If September 11 is the forerunner of a new world conflict, coping with the conflict could bring a new constitutional order in its wake. In the 21st century, what might be called market states could replace nation-states. Market states will have the same borders and political systems as nation-states but will shift important responsibilities from government to the private sector; multinational corporations will become surrogate agents of government, filling roles that government can no longer play and blurring the boundaries between political and corporate leadership.... "
Philip Bobbitt
quoted from this by Katherine Yurica
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
a global dictatorship will need, not a nuclear armageddon...
but an emergency which threatens one
cw
The real truth is simple to understand, but will that help us
18.10.2005 00:27
If you read to the end, you will discover the author STATES that only the jews of Israel must be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and the price for any other Middle East state opposing this is death. How subtle, but not surprising, given the author.
However, the main point is the MISDIRECTION of a supposed Israeli attack on Iran. This isn't going to happen in a million years. The war is US/UK all the way, and is delayed while the US military planners are insisting that a 'little bit of war' is NOT going to get the job done with Iran.
Blair is happy with ANY initial plan of attack on Iran. He wants to get the ball rolling, and knows that the initial stages, no matter how limited, will lead to a full blown Middle East conflict, which is all he cares about.
The US military is NOT in that business. Its job is to present and execute a complete plan of action, with no unforseen consequences. Now take a guess of HOW they sound, AFTER the Iraq fiasco (fiasco from THEIR perspective, of course). The US military planners point out that Iran is vastly more difficult than Iraq, and that a limited bombing campaign on Iran will turn Iran from an ally in Afghanistan and Iraq, to an active enemy, requiring vastly greater resources in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ignore the psy-ops guys, and give the problem (from the US military point of view) some serious thought. Their job IS NOT politics, but successful execution, and with so many soldiers and logistics and machines and money involved, it is VERY VERY hard for any US politician to say "screw it, and do it half-assed". Many of us think another 911 will be required to overcome the inertia.
Remember, the MAIN QUESTION the politicians get is "we bomb Iran, and then what?". The US army relies on Iran to an extraordinary extent as mentioned above. This isn't mainstream news, UNLESS you are smart enough to notice who controls the leading political factions in Iraq and Afghanistan. From a US military planner point of view, an attack on Iran MUST be accompanyed with US switching sides, allying with the Sunnis, and supporting the Ba'athists once again.
Problem is, the US has trained Iranian controlled death squads to run the difficult parts of Iraq. It would take ages for the Ba'athists to rise again, so US military planners calculate full on chaos in Afghanistan, Iraq AND Iran after an attack. There would need to be a complete takedown of the whole area (rapidly expanding into Saudi, Kuwait, Syria, etc) and this is a WORLD WAR scenario.
REMEMBER, the oil must still flow (and YES, that does resonate with Dune, for obvious reasons).
Another 911 is problematic because, beyond the sci-fi crap that most people think is nuclear science, a nuclear 911 would have all kinds of details that would reveal the REAL truth as to who was responsible. This worries the forces that otherwise would happily put this into action. A non-nuclear 911 PART 2 would be extremely difficult to use as an excuse for attacking Iran.
US military planners don't need to factor in a FALSE FLAG excuse. There job is to project every task the US military will have to deal with, and ensure their political master's are in the the complete ride. Now, in the end, this tail DOES NOT wag the dog, BUT these whiskers DO SAY that if the cat squeezes through too small a gap, it WILL get stuck.
It's quite a conundrum, isn't it. The pressure for war with Iran is building up remorselessly, and will not stop. Blair has everyone of his agencies working to the max on this issue (which is why you suffer so many anti-Iran stories on Indymedia for instance). Under normal circumstances, the US would let this go, but it is top priority with the powers behind the throne there, and Blair's continuous reassurance that the operation WILL go green keeps them happily on track.
The history of humanity is one of overcoming obstacles. The obstacles on the way towar with Iran are immense (thank god) but they only delay, and WILL NOT stop the enterprise. The ultimate obstacle to Blair's desire is OUR WILL NOT TO ALLOW A WORLD WAR. But then the population of Nazi Germany WERE NOT in favour of Hitler's invasion of Poland either.
For us, we must be misdirected (hence the article above). At the same time, we must accept the changes around us that create the kind of society useful for the post-Iran invasion period. The next stage brings a US draft, and conscription will follow shortly in the UK, and much of Europe. The ground for such a move is being prepared now. Pre-WW2, Hitler had HIS 'Jamie Oliver's constantly focus on the youth of Germany, and their NEED to meet 'state ideals'. Funny thing is, this pattern is as old as Sparta, where the boys and girls ALSO were forced to give up their 'crisps' and 'choccy bars' in the name of building a ruthless warrior state.
When a WARLORD like Blair says our kids must be this, or our kids must be that, they are ALWAYS talking about the requirements for future cannon fodder. In a time of unprecedented youth health and behaviour (metrics that ARE measured, and ARE available, though famously Thatcher dismantled as many government stats bodies as possible to limit the amout by which propaganda could be spoilt by the truth), the idiots of the UK think their kids have never been more unhealthy and criminal!!! And, traditionally, what is the solution- "GET SOME IN!!!"
Ultimately, Hitler was able to say "Germany is ready for war". This DID NOT mean they had good military plans. It meant that WAR HAD TO HAPPEN because German society now required it. This is exactly what Blair is doing today. He understands better than ANY of you that war has no logic, and cannot be sold that way. The destruction of human rights, racist bullying, elimination of opposition voices, acts of state torture and murder, constant attacks on kids and their parents, and removal of hope or alternatives are all about Blair making us READY FOR WAR.
Iran will fall, precisely BECAUSE there can be no small or limited war with Iran. Poland WAS NOT Hitler's first conquest, but it was his first significant move. Why? Because afterwards, all pretence had disappeared, and everbody could see that Europe was at war. In any greater conflict, there must come a moment like this. Blair has trained a whole army, the US army, in readiness for Iran. Almost EVERY man and woman in the US army is now combat ready, thanks to direct experience in Iraq. The significance of this JUST CANNOT BE OVERSTATED. The one thing US military planners cannot complain about is a lack of combat experienced troops. For them, magically, Iraq has maintained a level of violence that has ensured real combat experince for US soldiers, no matter where they were stationed. Of course, no magic was involved, just an extraordinary amount of effort, ensuring that different factions were well armed, trained, and set against each other.
The violence in Iraq has come from every possible direction, from the brave people resisting the terrorist invaders, to those same invaders themselves posing as Iraqi terror groups. The US NeoCons, deadly enemies of the Iranians, have been more than happy to maintain active Sunni resistance in certain areas. Basically, a whole nation of factions, religious, political, tribal, and ethnic, together with a mixture of invaders, both military and mercenary, and the direct influence of powers like the US, Russia, UK, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi, Pakistan etc. How difficult do you think it REALLY was for Blair and his chums to ensure that the heat NEVER died down??? I don't think any political program was ever EASIER to achieve.
so:
-the US army consists of combat veterans
-the pressure for war with Iran is ever increasing
-the major politicians of the West stand behind Blair's plans
-Blair, and his forces, face no credible opposition in the nations they control
-nobody has paid any penalty for the known lies used to enable war with Iraq
-Western society is being prepared to function under full-blown wartime rules and laws.
-there is ZERO chance of Blair being dislodged from power, and the US would clearly be as pro-war, if not more so, if Bush were replaced by a Democrat.
-every day, Blair's power CLEARLY grows.
-US military planners cannot conceive of a 'small' war with Iran.
-Israel IS NOT going to attack Iran
This, ladies and gentlemen, is where we stand. A circle needs to be 'squared'. Logically impossible, but war creates its own logic.
NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY SO MUCH EFFORT IS MADE IN THE MASS MEDIA TO MAKE PEOPLE ANTI-IRAN. NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY 'OUTRAGE' TARGETS IRAN (OF ALL MIDDLE-EASTERN STATES), AND ISRAEL'S NEW (TEMPORARY) ALLIES, THE KURDS, HAVE LOST INTEREST IN TURKEY, AND DISCOVERED A HATRED OF IRAN???
The war is coming, UNLESS WE STOP IT, and we only stop it if we remove Blair from power. Who here thinks that is going to happen??? We, the people of the UK, have condemned the people of Iran to death. We should all be very proud of ourselves.
twilight
Twilight, oh Twilight
18.10.2005 08:58
Motive?
Boab
... same as the old motive ...
18.10.2005 12:00
In a resource dispute, those who would seek domination rather than cooperation are merely playing up their own inheirent psychology ... how else would they be selected for the leadership job? Through a democratic process? Ha ha, only joking of course ...
The writing is on the wall, writ large for all to see ... or are you suckered into the black hat white hat screenplay?
Why do you persist on denying the obvious?
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
Jack's Back!
18.10.2005 20:12
Boab
... no ...
19.10.2005 08:52
Hiking the price of the commodity is also useful in a number of ways to those who play this game ... the same amount of oil is still being used as before (probably more), yet at over twice the price. Considering the intimate relationship between oil & the current admin in wash., this is tantamount to policy.
As Kipling remarked, it is a 'grand game' being played out ... no different than before ... sieze the resources ... isolate and destroy the opposition.
Surely you don't believe in the 'higher purpose'[sic] of democracy and liberation???
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
There will be no war with Iran
19.10.2005 14:42
Because as a matter of realpolitik, the US cannot invade. First, Iran will be an enormously more formidable foe than Iraq or Afghanistan. The people of Iran do not oppose their own government to the extent that the Afghans and Iraqis opposed the Taliban and Saddam, and so there will be greater resistance to foreign attack. Crucially, Iran is much better equipped to defend itself than either Afghanistan or Iraq, and US fatalities will be far higher in any land war against Iran. If the Americans can lose 2000 soldiers fighting a poorly equipped, hapless enemy like Iraq, then 20,000 will die attacking Iran. The people of Iran united to repel a technically superior foe when Iraq attacked in 1980, and the US knows that Iran will do the same again in the event of another invasion.
Secondly, the US is unable to commit resources and manpower to a war against Iran because of its present campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thirdly, the US will be unable to isolate and weaken Iran in the way it did against Iraq. Before the invasion of Iraq, the US persuaded the UN Security Council to impose crippling sanctions for over 12 years. The US and the UK were also able to cling on to a UN resolution in order to claim that the war was legitimate. However, in the case of Iran, there are no UN Security Council sanctions or resolutions in place at all. Russia has already made it clear that it will veto any attempt to impose UN sanctions, and China too is a firm ally of Iran. Practically the whole developing world is behind Iran. The US will simply be unable to go down the usual route of weakening its enemy with UN sanctions, legitimising military action with UN resolutions, and ultimately attacking. It cannot isolate Iran in the way it has to before it can successfully attack.
So despite the immense power of the US, an invasion of Iran will be impossible, which shows that US power alone does not always determine the course of world affairs, and that there are meaningful countervailing power blocs. This leaves the US or one of its allies such as Israel with limited choice. The US could opt for air strikes against Iran outside the auspices of the UN, but this would not increase US control over Iran. Illegitimate airstrikes would not change the religious leadership of Iran or promote a more pro-American leadership, but entrench the anti-US and religious sentiments of the Iranian people and the government.
The only likely military action that could be taken against Iran would be by Israel. It is conceivable that Israel would destroy the nuclear facilities at Esfahan, Natanz and Bushehr, to prevent any possible Iranian nuclear threat to itself. In the event of such an attack, the loss of life would be relatively limited (the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear plant of Osirak in 1981 led to one death). But even this kind of attack is unlikely, given Iranian belligerence towards Israel and the likely retaliation that Israel knows it would be subject to in the event of an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. When Israel attacked Osirak, Iraq was an ally of the US and Israel was aware that the Americans could apply pressure on Iraq to desist from retaliation. However, the Israelis would not have any protection against retaliation if they attacked Iran.
The result of this? A military attack of any kind against Iran is highly unlikely to occur. It could be argued that as the global political situation changes over the next few years, an attack may become more likely. But the current changes in global politics make an attack less and not more likely in the forthcoming years. Iran is already in the process of building a gas pipeline to Pakistan and India, and India is emerging as one of the new powers of the 21st century. Iran has also entered into a huge gas deal with China and is solidifying its relations with Russia all the time. In short, Iran does not look like it will become more isolated over the coming years, but a central ally of the key emerging powers of China, India and Russia. This makes war against Iran in the next few years practically impossible. The US will not be able to control Iran through coercion and threats but will have to engage with the government in Tehran to exercise any influence whatsoever. It is this possible rapprochement, and not conflict, that we can look forward to.
Sarabjit Singh
e-mail:
sabsingh@hotmail.com