Iran 2006: Be afraid…Be very afraid

I hope Dean doesn’t mind if I reproduce this post completely:

Things Are Getting Very Very Weird In Iran

…and not in a good way. Yet most people seem not to notice or care. But the UN has just confirmed that Iran broke the seals on the uranium enrichment plant, the President has been mentioning Iran with almost every public appearance (with no one seeming interested, bizarrely), the British Foreign secretary has recently said that Iran is “pushing their luck,” with similar rumblings from the French and Germans. Regime Change Iran has an important news roundup with lots and lots of details.

I don’t think people quite understand that we may well be at war with Iran before 2006 is out.

Even though I’ve posted the whole thing myself, the comments are definitely worth checking out.

For what it’s worth, Murdoc doesn’t think we’ll be at war with Iran in 2006 unless our hand is forced. And I fully expect Israel to make the first move, possibly heading off any major conflict. So maybe a 25% chance that full-scale warfare erupts in the coming year. Maybe a bit higher, and maybe I’m clueless. Even so, that’s still far too high for comfort, of course.

Meanwhile: Iran breaks seals; International Community Plans more Discourse

Here’s Murdoc’s ballpark guesstimates for Iran 2006:

  • Israel bombs Iranian nuclear facilities – 75% chance
  • US and close allies bomb Iranian nuclear facilities – 50% chance
  • Full-scale conventional warfare between US/close allies and Iran – 25% chance
  • Large coalition of nations bombs Iranian nuclear facilities – 10% chance
  • Full-scale warfare between large coalition of nations and Iran – 0% chance
  • Note that I’ve rated both options including a large international coalition (meaning more than just the US, UK, Australia, Poland, and Italy) to be less likely than a full-scale conventional war between the US (+close allies) and Iran. I’m not sure that, short of actually being attacked by Iranian nuclear weapons, most nations are interested in doing anything.

If things get nasty, however, at least we’ll have military basing in all the right places. Funny how that works out sometimes.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Comments

  • Salminio says:

    Not going to happen. We do not have the resources nor the national will. The United States will not invade Iran.

  • Fersboo says:

    If a nuke goes off somewhere in the region or if they sally into Iraq, there will be enough resources and will.

  • kiwiruss says:

    I think Israel will hit the nuke facilities within a few weks if the international communittie get nowhere. BUT, I beleive the attack will be a cruise missile attack from israels (german bought type 209) submarines. Im guessing these subs are already headding to the indian ocean where they will get a straight shot at iran without overflight issues.

  • Francis says:

    I reckon the chances of Iran receiving some high explosive in places where it would prefer them not to be in 2006 or early 2007 is close to 100%. The only alternative I see is that Iran has another revolution and kicks out the Mullahs, unfortunately I think that will only happen after the bombs drop.

  • toad says:

    Neither the US nor Israel want to ‘invade’ Iran… to think that is folly. The goal of most nations, who see Iran with deliverable nuclear device as unacceptable, is to apply political pressure first and air strikes second. Like we did with Libya, which was sucessfull. Libya now is open to international inspections and is once again involved in the international community (not under heavy sanctions) The US has skads of airpower at hand, the war in Iraq, and certainly not Afghanistan do not provide much of a drain at all on our air power suite. B-2′s, B-1′s, b-52′s with F-22, f-15, f-16 cover are all available to strike. Not to mention 2-3 carriers groups which could be brought to bear. We currently have 12 carrier groups. Of course it would be nice if the UN was not an organization if ineptness through bureaucracy…and could do more than giving Iran a threat of a 20 minute ‘time out’ if they do not behave. It would be nice if European nations would step up and put some action behind words…but I wouldn’t hold my breath for that either. In the end it will come down to those threatened most, Israel and the US. And we do have the ability. And heres a thought to our european counterparts… just because the US and Israel are #1 on the threat list doesn’t mean you aren’t #2. …and you’re within range.

  • C-Low says:

    I agree with Francis late 06′ early 07′. I dont think Isreal is likley to hit Iran unless the US punks out. I would say 70% chance the US hits Iran with a limited Alliance and a quite UN but not on board UN. If that dont happen I would give Isreal a 90% chance of hitting Iran resulting in a US war with Iran anyway. I think what we are going to see is a UN security council bluff (one of those unspecified consequences for not obeying the resolution resolutions)that will of course be called then the EU will throw their hands up and shut up the UN will just debate the debate of the debate of Iran while the US will go handle buisness. We will see a massive air campain along the lines of GW1 with a decapitation aspect added and then wait and see what and if comes out and if revolution is that if then weapons money and SOF if not we either make piece with whats left of the Mullahs or invade. Either way we force piece on our terms and kick the can way down the road and make that show that is so needed to all the other possible problems. These dreams of revolution with no air strikes are just that dreams does anyone really think the Iranian’s dont remember the 91′ shia kurd revolution and that was after a crippling US air campain Saddam did it with a handful of helecopters and some tanks. Their is more Shia soldgiers burried around Karbala from that debacle than the whole damm Iraqi army has in it in total today. A strike by the US will be large enough to limit the Iranian counter strike to a few ballistic missles and terrorist proxies while we take down thier known nuke and chem/bio programs if nothing else putting them way behind, kill off a huge portion of the mullacracy leadership, defang their military, weaken the state control, force a no-fly zone to show how weak the Iranian gov is and also give US a at will ability to spy and hit this or that target while we support that ‘revolution’. The Army and Marines are streched the Air Force and Navy are barely tapped so far in the WOT they should get to show off some too. That last part was a joke. Bottom line I think US air strikes are inevitable becuase wether the goal is containment or regime change the air strikes are the first move of either choice and the US is it becuase the Isrealis dont have enough power, the EU dont have the balls, and the UN well they dont have either.

  • Steve says:

    I wouldn’t worry about US force readiness, after al its Europe’s turn to invade a middle east country that starts with ‘I’. Seriously though if it does go down, with so many people on board it would be more of a full NATO effort- which which brings a lot other currently idle forces into the frey. The bigger danger in invading Iran would not just be the iran forces– but China. Yes, they might find it the ideal chance to take back taiwan by force. For further destraction, they could ask North Korea to invade, or at least cause some serious trouble. In fact this whole Iran things has the makings for world war III.

  • Zhang Fei says:

    I think if Iran doesn’t back down, air strikes are a given. An invasion is quite doable, in the sense that Iraqi terrorists don’t really have what it takes to topple the Iraqi government, even if we leave today. However, I don’t think GWB is going to stage an invasion, because (1) the human – i.e. dead GI’s – and political costs are not worth it and (2) it’s not necessary to defang the Iranian nuclear effort. Israel had to rely on speed and surprise to destroy Iraq’s Osirak reactor – they only had one chance. Uncle Sam doesn’t need speed and surprise. We were configured to fight a large-scale air war – WWIII – with the Warsaw Pact air forces. We can bomb Iran’s nuclear installations for months – years, even, and there is nothing the Iranians can do to stop us.

  • Murdoc says:

    Kiwiruss: I agree that subs might do it. When I wrote ‘bomb’ I really meant non-invasion attack. Aerial bombing, cruise missiles, and even sabotage, could qualify. Francis: Part of my guesstimation took into account the possibility of Iran backing down, at least partly. If they belligerently carry on about ‘wiping’ countries off the map and such, the likelihood of attack is nearly 100%, as you say. I’m leaving room for a possible (though fairly unlikely) retreat by the mullahs. toad: You’re right that no one wants to invade Iran. And if things can be resolved successfully without a full-scale invasion, you can bet that every effort will be made. And I’m really hoping that good old Europe wakes up, in part because they certainly are within range. This world is a different place if the West is closely aligned. C-Low notes that Israel hitting Iran would probably result in a US-Iran war anyway. He’s probably right. His comments about the prospect of revolution without outside support (air and maybe special forces) are also right on. I’d been hoping, but it just ain’t gonna happen. I gave up about a year ago. Steve’s a lot more optimistic about European participation than I am. I have virtually no faith that anyone outside of the Poland, the UK (maybe), and Italy (possibly) would take part. And even if they did they wouldn’t be able to take the lead. Air war-wise, they’ll obviously be more likely to play along, but even that seems like a stretch to me. I’ll gladly be proven wrong on this. I pray to be proven wrong. And his ideas about others taking advantage of our pre-occupation in the ME are downright scary. Zhang Fei: I don’t disagree with you on the political ramifications, but what has GW got to lose? The next election? Still, your point that we have a lot more latitude than Israel in 1980 is a very good one.

  • James says:

    Food for thought DARPA will host a Proposers’ Day Workshop in support of the BAA06-16, Strategically Hardened Facility Defeat (SHFD) program on January 26, 2006… The DARPA Strategically Hardened Facility Defeat (SHFD) program seeks to develop non-nuclear earth-penetrating technologies for the defeat of hard and deeply buried targets with major strategic capabilities. I wonder what they are going to do….

  • Zhang Fei says:

    Murdoc: I don’t disagree with you on the political ramifications, but what has GW got to lose? The next election? That’s correct. He can lose the 2006 congressional and senatorial elections for the GOP. Air strikes will help the GOP win. An invasion, with the accompanying occupation and counter-insurgency costs, is just too expensive, and could bring about a GOP defeat. Upon which the Democrats will impeach GWB. We have discovered in Iraq that the new and improved military can fight an insurgency with minimal friendly casualties. We have also discovered, however, that the American public’s idea of acceptable military dead is nowhere near the average of 8,000 a year that they were in Vietnam. Before the Paris Peace Accords were signed, ending the American presence in South Vietnam, public approval for the war was at 70%, even with the casualties GI’s were taking, 7 years into the war. We are now taking under 1,000 dead a year, just over 2-1/2 years into the insurgency, and public approval for this war is in the low 50′s, at best. Fact is that the American public’s tolerance for casualties ain’t what it used to be.

  • JSF says:

    EU3 &/or IAEA refers Iran to UNSC, sanctions agreed by Russia & China: probability of US strikes within 12 months nil (of Israeli strikes, below 10%); probability of US (or Israeli) strikes increases to 100% if Iran fails to cave within 12 to 18 months of sanctions. Iran not referred to UNSC or sactions vetoed: probability of strikes 50% by end 2006, 75% by mid 2007, 100% by mid 2008. Ground force full-scale invasion (rather than limited special operation) probability: below 5% unless strikes lead to generalized oil embargo.

  • kiwiruss says:

    If I were in Israels shoes, I’d be planning for several options for neutralizing Irans Nuclear threat. 1. A bomb / missile attack only as previlosely. This is pretty strait forward but I m thinking that the Israeli’s might try a little harder and go for a second option. 2. Bomb/missile Attack combined with a couple of special forces raids by air. Thier special forces are pretty good and if the Israeli’s can pinpoint a few of the leading scientists working on the project the Israeli’s might try to nab them to gain further intel and slow down irans recovery from the strikes. Am I thinking too hard on this ? and will they just think KISS (Keep it simple stupid) or will they go for a full pull ?

  • Bram says:

    If a nuke goes off in the U.S. or allied country, we will keep it real simple and nuke their facilities.

  • happyjuggler0 says:

    Everyone seems to think the Iranians are stalling in the talks so they can progress in their nuke making capabilities. What people seem to be overlooking is that the US, in the absence of an Iranian decision to abandon attempts at making the bomb, would very much like to see Iran get nowhere in developing the bomb while the talks also stall. We want the talks to stall with an Iranian temporary freeze as long as possible so Iraq progresses towards the day it can defend the country from the terrorists/insurgents. The more stable Iraq can get, and the fewer US troops needed to help Iraq against those purposefully killing Iraqi civilians, the more troops we have in backup for elsewhere besides Iraq. Namely Iran. So we are happy to see a stalemate where the talks go nowhere and Iran does no nuclear work. US troops will not be going into Iran unless Iranian military forces attack us first in retaliation to an (aerial) attack on their nuclear facilities. But we want our ground forces to not be tied up elsewhere if we do eventually decide to take out their nuclear facilities. Delay is good for us, which is why the Bush administration is uncharacteristically quiet regarding threats of force. We don’t really expect the talks to work, we simply want them to happen to delay Iran’s nuclear work til we are more ready for worst case scenarios.

  • Nicholas says:

    Happyjuggler, I agree, a delay which would pause Iran’s nuclear weapons program would be to our advantage. But where’s the proof that’s happening? They seem to be unsealing the material and gear they need to make weapons grade uranium/plutonium. There’s virtually nothing that can be done to stop them from going ahead other than go in and confiscate the resources, is there? They have to want to pause or stop, or for us to make it worth their while. I just can’t see what we can offer or do to them, short of violence, to make it enough to their advantage that they want to stop. Am I missing something?

  • happyjuggler0 says:

    You’re correct that they seem to be resuming work on nukes. I gues my only point is that stalling such work, as has happened in the past due to the until recent ‘freeze’ on such work, is in our best interests. We want the talks to somehow persuade Iran on the idea of not pursuing nukes. But if the talks never get there, then delay is in our best interests. We don’t need to wring our hands because there is no progress so long as Iran is not resuming work. So if we can get them to freeze work again, we buy time to free up our military from elsewhere.

  • happyjuggler0 says:

    P.S. Perhaps this is the reason why they (Iran) are resuming work now. They know the Iraqi military is making progress on being able to do the job we have been doing in Iraq, namely preventing all out civil war, or a return to a dictatorship with anyone as dictator. I am sure they understand the reasoning behind not wanting to delay any longer.

  • christina says:

    America will definitly will take Iran, but america will not win, america will not win the war with Iraq neither. After the creation of the Palestine State, that is when Isreal will destroy Iraq, maybe Iran?, but when Iraq is destroyed, that is when gas prices will go up in America, causing our economy to collapse!!!! if Middle-class cant afford to drive to their jobs, then what?, ECONOMIC COLLAPSE!, America went to war without God’s permission, this war is unjust, We went to war with Afgan, Iraq, and Iran , for the Black Gold (OIL) before Russia does, that is the very reason why Russion is helping out Iran with their Nuclear Project. America used to be a Nation of God, but we rather worship Money, and depend on our Government. Instead of depending on God. America will SUFFER !! God’s Judgement is falling on America right now!! book of revelations,chapter 17, Babylon the Great is America!! the Great Whore that sits on many waters, nations, and tongues, is the Statue of Liberty. China, Russia, N. Korea, Cuba, Mexico, and 3 other countries will Destroy America in ONE HOUR!! when America’s economy collapses. Watch and Pray for this !! ACTS 2:38, read this now!! PRAY PRAY PRAY, REPENT NOW AMERICA!!!

  • Manik says:

    The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse By Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D. 20 January, 2006 Gold Eagle I. Economics of Empires A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes. Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms-usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire. For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods-the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened. Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold. Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world’s gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960′s was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ’s Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax-the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world. When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of ‘severing the link between the dollar and gold’, in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond- the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it. From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil. In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world’s demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil. The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren’t strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind. The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush’s Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished. Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can’t explain why Bush would want to seize those fields-he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq. History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have gone into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished-he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire. II. Iranian Oil Bourse The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate ‘nuclear’ weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam’s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system: The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans. The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves. The Russians have inherent economic interest in adopting the Euro – the bulk of their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries, with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with China and Japan. Also, the Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold. Russians have also revived their nationalism, and if embracing the Euro will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the Americans bleed. The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a means of diversifying against rising mountains of depreciating dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for its stability and for avoiding currency risk, not to mention their jihad against the Infidel Enemy. Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace? Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York’s NYMEX and the London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by the Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner. At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter-those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs-will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation’s exchange: Sabotaging the Exchange-this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities. Coup d’+

  • Manik says:

    Israel’s Broken Record – Attack Iran By Kurt Nimmo 3-14-5 It’s like a broken record: Israel will attack Iran, Israel will attack Iran. Iran is working on nukes, Iran is working on nukes, even though the International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran is not working on nukes. Now we are told the Israelis have created a mock version of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant in order to practice assaults on the facility. Ha’aretz reports ‘Israel would use F-15 fighter planes and its air force’s elite Shaldag [Kingfisher] unit in the attack.’ For months now, Israel has sent the same message over and over: Iran is close to finishing construction on a nuke (call it the George Bush effect; there is no evidence Iran is building a nuke; uranium enrichment is not the same thing as building a nuke, thus Israel is exaggerating and lying as a pretext to attack). Another part of the message is that Iran cannot be trusted, it is a nation of crazed Muslims who want to kill all Israelis. In fact, if Israel has said anything consistently, it is that every single Arab and Muslim wants to kill Jews and push them into the sea. Last year it was figured the IAEA would be used as a cudgel to beat Iran into submission and impose Iraq-like sanctions on the country. But over the last few months the US and Israel have consistently beat the war drums. Every few weeks Israel comes out with another Iran nuke story. ‘Heading off Iran’s attempt to attain nuclear capability is one of the Mossad’s main missions, and the foreign media is one of the most important instruments utilized in this effort,’ Aluf Benn wrote in Haaretz in 2003. ‘Mossad agents supply foreign journalists with information about Iran’s nuclear efforts; such foreign reports, the Mossad expects, support the international campaign to thwart Iran’s nuclear weapons program.’ Lately, however, Iran has been telling the US and Israel to go suck an egg-it will not stop uranium enrichment, it feels uranium enrichment is in its national interest and Israel and the United States should butt out. Now we have Mossad agents pulling fire alarms, telling the world they are actually practicing bombing Iran. Mossad, the Likudite faction in Israel, and the Strausscons in the United States want you to know they plan to bomb Iran very soon. If they do this all hell will break loose. Natanz is not Ain Saheb. Iran is not Syria. The Likudites and the Strausscons realize that any attack on Iran would solidify the position of the fundie mullahs. ‘Tehran, experts expected, could move Iraqi Shiite groups to launch attacks against US occupation forces, already facing a hellish situation amid a bubbling cauldron of chaos and anarchy in the war-scarred country. They can also provide these groups with human and logistic support,’ Islam Online reported last year. ‘The Islamic Republic could also use Southern Lebanon, controlled by the Lebanese resistance movement Hizbullah which can not stand neutral regarding an Israeli attack on Iran.’ As the experts cited by Islam Online see it, this ‘could spill over to a Syrian-Israeli confrontation.’ Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah-three targets at the top of the Likudite-Strausscon mafia hit list. Israel wants to start a war-the Strausscons call it World War IV-and get the United States to fight it. The NED and Republican NGO engineered ‘Cedar revolution’ in Lebanon will of course not pan out-not if the Muslim majority in Lebanon, who know a scam when they see it, have anything to say about it-and even if they do manage to get ‘moderates’ (Christian Maronite fascists) back in power, this will not put an end to Hezbollah who understand the true nature of the Israeli colonialist settler state: Israel hungers for southern Lebanon, its land and water, and it will stop at nothing to pitch Lebanon-indeed, the entire region-into war and chaos. Fragmenting and balkanizing the Arab and Muslim world remains a long-held Zionist dream. In the propaganda campaign for total war (and the Haaretz item above is simply the latest element of this on-going propaganda blitz) we are told ‘Israel is worried that a preemptive strike against Iran could provoke ‘a ferocious response,’ including attacks against Jewish and Israeli targets abroad, as well as Lebanese-based rocket attacks on northern Israel,’ which is of course precisely what the Likudites want, especially among the Shia in southern Iraq who will undoubtedly be agitated if Israel attacks Iran. A Shia jihad declared against the infidels is exactly what the Likudites and the Strausscons want. It will provide an excuse for even more military action on the part of the United States, possibly in Iran and Lebanon as well as in Iraq. Of course, this is completely insane, since the US cannot contain a couple hundred thousand Sunni resistance fighters in Iraq let alone an influx of possibly millions of Muslims from Iran. For the Strausscons and Israelis, bombing Iran is a way to up the ante and set in motion a series of events that will result in total war. In order to for the American people to find the ‘stomach’ (as the Strausscon godfather, Norman Podhoretz, deems it) for total war, a few terrorist events closer to home may be required. Mossad has plenty of experience pulling off such events. Israel, however, did not learn its lesson in southern Lebanon. ‘The increasingly effective operational capabilities of the resistance prove once more that it takes a small group of determined fighters armed with light arms and ‘weighty’ faith to expose zionist pretentious claims to invincibility and omnipotence as nothing short of a hollow myth,’ Khalil Osman wrote in 1998, before Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon. It will be a ‘hollow myth’ that drives the Likudite-Strausscon war against the Arab and Muslim Middle East. It is no longer 1920 and the Arabs are not so easily divided and ruled. If Israel attacks Iran, a Hezbollah-styled resistance will spread across the Middle East and may even join together with the Sunni resistance in Iraq, even though the corporate media loves to tell us the Shia want nothing more than to put down the Sunni rebellion. Regardless of what the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times says, at the end of the day the common enemy is the US-Israel alliance.

  • Mahdi Nazemroaya says:

    Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran’ by the American War College A U.S. Army report: Israel can’t engage Iran in Conflict or War Geopolitical limitations render Israel’s air force militarily incapable of halting Iran’s nuclear weapons program according to a new report published the by U.S. Army War College. The report asserts Israel lacks the military capability to locate and destroy Iranian nuclear assets or to challenge Iranian defences. The report said the Israel Air Force cannot operate at such long distances from its bases. The Israeli Air Force has formidable capabilities and enjoys unchallenged supremacy vis-+

Comments Closed