Over the past few months there appears to be a dramatic rise in the number of articles, opinions and rumors discussing the likelihood of a US and/or Israeli military attack on Iran. Even the Israeli press is now regularly reporting various opinions about the desirability, or not, of such an attack while keeping a rolling tally of those officials who favor and oppose, often in very strong terms, such an idea.
For a person like me who has been predicting a US attack on Iran ever since I began this blog (in 2007), it is rather amazing to see the degree to which this debate about “will the US/Israel strike Iran or not” is frankly disconnected from reality and my wish today is to offer a few simple reminders which then can only lead to one logical conclusion.
First and foremost, and there is no over-stressing this one, something needs to be made absolutely unequivocally clear: a US and/or Israeli attack on Iran will have absolutely nothing to do with any putative Iranian nuclear weapons program. This is so important and yet so much overlooked, that I will repeat that in big bold letters:
Why?
For one thing, because there is zero evidence that Iran has such a program. Yes, sure, Israeli US and other Western politicians constantly speak about it, but only because not speaking about it or, worse, expressing doubts about it, is pretty much a career-killing mistake. However, away form the media, even Israeli and US politicians know – they have been told so by their own intelligence community – that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Second, even if Iran had a nuclear weapons program or even an fully strike ready nuclear force it would threaten absolutely nobody, not even Israel.
I mean, let’s get serious here. Iran being a major regional military power, it does not need nuclear weapons for its defense against a regional attack, nor would it need one if it wanted to attack somebody. What about Israel or a major international power like the USA or, say, an EU member state? Could Iran ever imagine a scenario in which Iran could strike at the USA, Israel or Europe and not immediately by wiped out by a massive retaliation which it would have no means at all from stopping? Of course not. What about the “the Mollah’s are crazy, they don’t mind dying, they believe in getting 72 virgins in paradise, etc”. All this is just a crude Zionist canard. There is zero evidence that anybody in the Iranian regime is crazy, wants to die or, for that matter, use weapons of mass destruction to procure virgins. Last argument: the Iranian might gave nukes to terrorists. That is laughable because the Iranians are no more likely to give nukes to terrorists than any other nuclear-weapons state, if only because by giving out nukes you loose control over them. All this is, frankly, rather silly kindergarten-level nonsense which only gets some traction with the lobotomized zombies who get their news from the TV. Nobody with an IQ at or above room temperature can take that nonsense seriously.
So what is the real deal here?
Simple: Iran is a major regional power, a rich country sitting on top of large energy reserves, which dares to openly defy the USA, Israel and even, crime of crimes, the international financial system (more about that later).
Think of Iran has “Hezbollah, only at a nation-state level, with much more money and resources”.
The other “crime” Iran is guilty of being an independent and sovereign Shia state with a very competent diplomatic and intelligence community. In other words, Iran makes controlling the Middle-East very difficult for the USA and Israel. And since the Shia have the bad taste of mostly living in oil-rich parts of the Middle-East, they are a direct threat to the US-NATO-Israeli-al-Qaeda alliance.
Considering the above, the real motives to attack Iran become immediately clear:
First, to set back Iran as much as possible in economic terms, to “bomb it back to the stone age” to use the expression so many US politicians like so much. Think of what NATO did to Serbia, what the USA did to Iraq or what Israel did to Lebanon and Gaza. None of these air operations ever had a significant military impact, but it terms of terrorism against the civilian population they were nothing short of brilliant.
Second, to punish the Iranian people for voting the wrong way, for supporting a regime loathed by the West, and for daring to defy the US and Israeli global overlords. Simply put: the Iranian experiment cannot be allowed to succeed.
Third, a military strike on Iran would give a much needed ego-boost to an otherwise despondent US and Israeli political elite and it would also deliver an equally needed ego-boost to the macho ego to large segments of the US and Israeli public opinion badly bruised by a long string of military defeats.
All of this one already true in 2007. But since then, something huge has happened: the Ponzi-scheme otherwise known as the “international financial system” pretty much collapsed in 2008 and ever since it has been going down and down and down and down. While our financial elites go out of their way to conceal this from us, and while the corporate media assiduously pretends like nothing is really going on, the truth of the matter is that both the USA and the EU could suffer from a quasi-instantaneous financial collapse at any moment. The dollar could loose its (fictitious) value, the EU could go bankrupt, the banks could run out of money, etc. And the really terrifying thing is that this final collapse could be triggered by so many different events that such a crisis has not practically become inevitable. Both French and Russian experts predict that all of the above is likely to happen next year, in early 2013.
Now ask yourself a simple question: if you were one of the plutocrats running the system, the top “1%”, the type of person who would have everything to loose, including your life, in case of such a collapse, and if you were given a option of blaming it all on a war with Iran (and/or in defense of Israel, the “only democracy in the Middle-East and our eternal friend and ally!!”) – would you go for it? Of course you would.
Think of Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine” or, on this 11th anniversary of the 911 attacks (organized, of course, by the very same “one percenters”) which so conveniently overshadowed Don Rumsfeld’s missing 2.3 trillion dollars – $2,300,000,000,000.00 – and ask yourself if having the Iranians try to block the Strait of Hormuz might not be the best way to blame the ensuing economic chaos on “the Mullahs”. I think that the answer is rather obvious, is it not?
Besides a “good old war” is an excellent way to boost a stagnant or collapsing economy just as it is a simple but effective way to convince the rest of the planet to purchase US Treasury Bonds and Securities.
The next canard which needs to be debunked is the silly notion that Israel could go at it alone. Nonsense! Israel does not have the military capabilities to destroy the (civilian) nuclear research and energy program of Iran, nevermind bomb Iran back to the Stone Age. All that Israel can do is to act like a trigger to provoke a military conflict between the USA and Iran. So there really are only two options here:
Either the USA and Israel attack together from day 1 or Israel attacks on day 1 and the USA joins the war on day 2.
Anybody doubting that should simply re-watch the speech of Netanyahu to the joint session of Congress on May 24th, 2011 with its 29 standing ovations or listen to any US President’s speech at the annual AIPAC dinner (makes no difference which President you pick).
This being said, it is true that a significant segment of the US 1% Establishment does not want a war with Iran. We know that most of the US military is categorically opposed to such an option, and there are good reasons to suspect that even key individuals of the US financial power structure do not want that war either, at least not yet.
The US Nomenklatura is roughly composed of two main factions: first, what I call the “Old Anglo Lobby”, which we can think of as “Dollar firsters” as opposed to, second, the “New Jewish Lobby”, which we can think of as “Israel firsters”. Needless to say, both groups are fluid, its members often interchangeable, and they usually fully agree on most political issues. So they should not be thought of as two hostile groups locked into some kind of zero-sum game. Not at all. For one thing, both of these factions are amazingly corrupt, so personal power and wealth decides a lot, regardless of any other consideration (see Sibel Edmond’s book). Tensions between these two groups only flare up when a common policy cannot be agreed upon, and this is what is now taking place with the Iranian issue. The Anglo puppeteers who run the US regime will never shy away from prostituting themselves to the Zionist propaganda and interests, but not at the cost of their own Empire. Simply put, there still is a lot of Big Money in the USA which does not feel that catering to somebody as clearly insane and obnoxiously arrogant as Netanyhu (and most Israeli politicians, really) is worth taking the risk of a war with Iran.
However, the upcoming and inevitable collapse of the US-centered financial system is going to go a long way towards getting the rest of the 1% on board for a diversionary attack on Iran. Besides, when push comes to shove, and regardless of how much money the Old Anglo Lobby still has, the Zionists firmly control Congress and the media. Once the missiles start flying around the Middle-East all they will have to do is speak of “existential threat to Israel”, mention the “Holocaust” with its obligatory figure of “6 millions” always attached, and accuse anybody opposed to a US involvement of yet another war on behalf of Israel as being “anti-Semitic” and a “terrorist” and the deal will be done, regardless of any reservations somebody might have.
Bottom line: a US attack in Iran is pretty much inevitable and, barring some major and unforeseen development, its going to happen rather sooner than later.
So forget all this nonsense about a possible Iranian nuclear weapons program and prepare for the upcoming war.
The Saker
Hi Saker,
That any war with Iran will have nothing to do with nuclear weapons/capability almost goes without saying.
OTOH: What appears to be missing in your analysis is the degree to which the national-security apparatus of the US is against a war. The military establishment is only one part of that apparatus.
It is also not a coincidence that the national-security apparatus of the US is the last bastion of American independence from the virus of both Lesser Zionism (Netanyahu and the rest of the Israeli state) and Greater Zionism (which comprises the forces that control most of the cultural, economic, and political space of the US and Canada. I have previously discussed the point that Zionism is a much bigger phenomenon than the state of Israel). The Greater Zionist control of the media often obscures the downright antipathy towards Israel that exists in some parts of the national-security apparatus. Note that they have prevented every President of the past 25 years from pardoning or commuting Jonathan Pollard’s life sentence for espionage. (Although I might not be surprised if enough time has passed to let the President do so in the near future, since so much time has passed and the point has been made to Israel that this kind of thing will not be tolerated. OTOH, even VP Joe Biden has recently said, “over my dead body”).
So 29 standing ovations in Congress notwithstanding, Netanyahu does not control the national-security apparatus of the US. See also the recent article by Jonathon Cook:
http://goo.gl/3Cv15
All of the reasons you mention for wanting to destroy Iran on the part of the US are sound, for sure. But there are voices, even some within the Greater Zionist establishment (see Bill Keller’s article “Nuclear Mullahs”) that are counseling against war. Even many of the Greater Zionists understand the immense risk to their larger projects if it were to even appear that thousands of Americans went to their deaths over a lie for the sake of Isreal in particular and the Jews in general. The anti-Zionist, even antisemitic, backlash would be immense.
Reading between the lines of all the noise it does not appear that war is a foregone conclusion in the short-to-midterm. Yes, the risk is high, but not 100%. And for each year there is no war, its likelihood decreases. The boy has cried wolf much too often and the Iranians are more prepared — with a guaranteed more effective response — with each year’s wolf howl.
Put another way: “Postponing war is only to the advantage of your enemy” [Sun Tzu I think]
So I don’t think we can take it at 100% risk in the short-to-midterm. Let’s pray not!
Peace
Great piece Saker,
You are the real thing and I agree with Ishamid let’s pray that the war with Iran will not happen soon. There is already too much blood all over the world.
But there are many dots out there that are going to the war path. Have you checked out the piece on voltaire net. I was looking for it’s english version with no success:
http://www.voltairenet.org/Iran-envia-sus-tropas-de-elite-a
“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has personally sanctioned Syria of sending 150 troops of the Revolutionary Guards in the country in search of help repel attempts by insurgents to topple the regime of Bashar al Assad government”
Also on the news that Canada is asking all of their consulates to leave Iran…that says too much.
We should make a bet that will not happen real soon!
Would they need ONU to make this war?
Correction and clarification:
“There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.” Machiavelli (not Sun Tzu)
“the degree to which the national-security apparatus of the US is against a war” i.e., at the present time and juncture.
Peace
Hi, Saker;
Good analysis. I hope Ishamid is right about the “non-inevitability” of war.
Although I have given my own “take” on all of this in a previous thread (which “sort of” dovetails with what Ishamid writes above), I have a couple of things to add to the mix, which I forgot to mention last time. These have to do with the elective affinity between Anglo-American Puritanism and the modern Jews.
First, you may or may not be aware that England expelled its Jews in the Middle Ages. That is why there were no pogroms in England during that period. It was the Puritan dictator Cromwell who invited the Jews back. Many assume that Cromwell’s motives were mercenary (i.e., he just wanted Jewish money for his regime). I don’t believe that.
As I said before, the Puritans explicitly identified with the Old Testament, far more than the New. Look at children’s names during that period. In America, all the way down to the end of the 19th century, Anglo-Americans had names like Jedidiah and Ezra and Cyrus at least as often as they had names like Nicholas, Francis or Christopher. Only Latin Americans, south of the Border, had names like Jesus (although Joshua was quite common).
Indeed, many Puritans actually believed that the English peoples were descended from the lost tribes of Israel. This is known as “British Israelism”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism
Now, any competent geneticist will tell you that, on a biological level, this is a load of swill. However, I say (again) that “Blood may be thicker than water, but spiritual affinity trumps both.”
The famous German sociologist Max Weber certainly thought so, as did his colleague Werner Sombart. The latter spent a fair amount of time analyzing the similarities and differences between the Jews and the Anglo-American plutocracy. Sadly, much of Sombart’s analysis found its way into Nazi wartime propaganda, which led to his work being discredited after the War.
I will speak separately about the Mearsheimer-Walt hypothesis, as well as the role of Walter Russell Mead in all of this.
To continue ……
I think that Mearsheimer and Walt’s “Israel Lobby” thesis is good, as far as it goes. I haven’t read the book, but I did read the London Review of Books article, so I know what their argument is. Basically, they see the Israel Lobby as one lobby among many, but which happens to be an extraordinarily effective lobby, like the NRA and the AARP. Their purpose in writing the book, was to circumvent the Lobby, in hopes that, by doing so, they could steer the debate in the direction of the sort of Realpolitik they favor.
I, too, think that the world would be a much safer and saner place if people like Walt and Mearsheimer were in charge of U.S. foreign policy. Unfortunately, Mearsheimer (in particular) has a big blind spot. I listened to an interview, in which he stated that he was raised in a Papist household, and went to church every Sunday because his father insisted upon it. However, he never liked church, and always chafed at religion.
In other words, Mearsheimer is a “non-militant atheist” of the type I have met often. He is not hostile to religion. Rather, he finds spirituality baffling and bizarre, and mildly amusing to boot. Such people (as long as they are psychologically well-balanced, as Mearsheimer seems to be) are perfectly good and decent people to have as neighbors, and can even be true and loyal friends. That is, they often have the classical “pagan” virtues which St. Paul acknowledges, even if they cannot grasp the higher Gospel virtues.
This orientation is reflected in Mearsheimer’s scholarly work. Because of this blind spot, he doesn’t grasp certain things which I think are crucial in understanding how the world (in general) works. In his analytical framework, there is no room for spiritual affinity, of the type I have described. Thus, he can only explain the deep attachment of America to Israel as some kind of media hypnosis or psychological trickery. This allows CFR stooges like Mead to smear them by saying, “Oh, yeah! That’s what the Protocols of Zion said too! See, David Duke loves you guys!” If Walt and Mearsheimer had studied Weber or Sombart more closely, and truly integrated them into their own analysis, they might have avoided that trap.
As I said before, I wish it really were just a matter of Ziocon propaganda and media hypnosis. If it were, this problem would be much easier to deal with.
Now, on to Walter Russell Mead.
First, I read his “Via Meadia” blog on a daily basis. He actually does grasp a lot of important things. His analyses of the breakdown of the 20th century New Deal system (what he calls the “Blue Model”) are very insightful. I agree with his thesis that technology has rendered the assumptions of the Blue Model obsolete. In particular, I find his criticisms of the American educational system to be second to none.
He has also studied Max Weber intensively, and integrated Weber’s work into his own writings. His magnum opus, “God and Gold” (excerpts of which I have read) is a largely Weberian analysis of how the Anglo-American system got to be as dominant as it is today. He understands the “elective affinity” between the Puritans and the Jews in a way that Mearsheimer and Walt do not.
On the other hand, he is not a disinterested scholar, as Mearsheimer and Walt are. He is definitely a “court historian” and a propagandist for the regime, in the manner of Froissart. He is a high-ranking member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and he has lead the smear campaign against Walt and Mearsheimer so blatantly that even his fellow CFR minions have cried foul.
Another criticism I have of Mead is his attitide to religious truth. He remains loyal to Anglicanism despite its rank apostasy. In this article, he makes it clear that he values religion, not because it is true, but because it is useful:
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=324
To me, this is worse than atheism. I have always preferred the company of unbelievers to heretics, but I find even heretics easier to relate to than nihilists and apostates. In summary, I think Mead is smart and insightful, but he is not a man I would trust if the chips were down. If I were in serious strife, and I had to choose between appealing for help to a straightforward atheist like Mearsheimer or a slippery nihilist like Mead, I would feel safer in the hands of the former.
On the possibility of another financial meltdown I don’t have the expertise to form an opinion. As far as the Eurozone is concerned this article by Mercouris makes some forceful points.
http://mercouris.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/the-eurozone-and-the-plans-to-save-it
As far as war with Iran is concerned it’s hard to see how the USraelians could be so irrational as to strike. The top brains in Mossad and the IDF must know it would be a huge mistake. Of course with lunatics like Netanyahu around anything is possible but I don’t believe the US will let him off his leash.
Getting into a war to divert attention from economic problems is surely too risky for the plutocracy and the Wall Street Ziocons. Those responsible would be held to account. Figures such as Michael Scheuer who used to work at the CIA’s Bin Laden unit have already denounced Israel Firsters as a liability to the United States.
If a critical mass of American patriots within the military and the CIA started to regard Israel as a liability to the US and the Israel firsters as traitors they might find means to punish Israel regardless of the will of the politicians.
@EVERYBODY: thanks your comments! I am in a rush, so I will only give some very short replies.
@Ishamid: Netanyahu does not control the national-security apparatus of the US.
Agreed. But in the case of a shooting war, the Israel-firsters will easily prevail.
@Anonymous:http://www.voltairenet.org/Iran-envia-sus-tropas-de-elite-a
At the top of the article it says “La información ha sido divulgada por el diario británico ‘The Telegraph’“. In other words, its propaganda.
@Michael: IMHO Mearsheimer & Walt, as well as Carter, for that matter, and a few others are just the “Old Anglo Lobby” pushing back. All these bonzes of the Anglo Establishment have suddenly “discovered” the “problem” of Israel and its lobby exactly when the Ziocons took power away from the “Old Anglo Lobby” under Dubya (well, under Reagan really, but it became obvious under Dubya)
Robert: As far as war with Iran is concerned it’s hard to see how the USraelians could be so irrational as to strike
Why? The same folks attacked Hezbollah in 2006 with a totally delusional goal set. That is the one constant that ALL racists share: they are friggin delusional, inevitably stupid, full of themselves, solipsistic idiots. Besides, Rabbinical Judaism has a long and proud history of breeding the kind of delusional and arrogant idiots whose obnoxious behavior ends up backfiring and defeating themselves.
@EVERYBODY – again, thanks for the comments and keep them coming. The topic is interesting whether my take on it is right or wrong :-)
Cheers!
The Saker
Saker
When you say Israel cannot destroy the Iranian atomic program cyou mean with conventional means? I think Jericho strikes against all nuclear installation would work. Any fallout will be blamed on Iran through a compliant MSM…
Dear Saker,
I completely agree with your analysis, but I think that the overriding reason for any possible War on Iran is a typical “Fuite en avant” by the power behind the power in the Zioconned Western World. This War, if it happens, will not be limited to Iran at all, it will include ALL the Persian Gulf, Lebanon, Israel and Syria. It could very well expand beyond that as well very easily.
I still do not believe that it will happen inevitably…, bit if it does, in my view these will be the Paramount Goals of that most criminal of Wars….
l’Histoire enfouie sous les histoires…
The crumbling US Empire and its Western Pawns and Proxies are becoming irrational & off-balance because of the weight of the insurmountable debt loads and total economic instability:
It could be that the utterly corrupt and criminal Western political forces, need a war-induced oil price inflation to set off the spiral that will minimize the sovereign debt burden in their respective countries…
Best,
Joe
So the US ambassasor to Libya has been murdered in Benghazi by Wahabist terrorists. Classic case of blowback. The situation in Libya may continue to be one of total chaos with various militias and Al Qaeda types on the rampage which is bad news for Europe given that Libya is so close. There could be a huge number of refugees and I doubt the Italians are happy with such anarchy happening in a close neighbour.
The UK and France should never have recognised the rebels but Hague and Sarkozy are both neocons and preferred to play geopolitical games rather than concentrate on Europe’s interest which lay in having a stable regime in Libya. For all his faults Gaddafi was preferable to Libya becoming a Wahabist hellhole.
The author can’t spell for shit. And there are a million typos in this article. Screw the Internet. I’m startin my own blog with blackjack and hookers. You know why, forget the blog.
Ummm…did someone say “financial colapse”…never too late to buy gold?
@anonymous:never too late to buy gold?
Absolutely. If only I had money to buy gold in the first place… :-(
@anonymous:The author can’t spell for shit
LOL! Considering that English is only #4 out of 6 of the languages I learned, I think I am doing rather well ;-)