Washington has deployed missiles directed at Iran in its oil emirate puppet
states, Oman and the UAE, and little doubt in the other US puppet states in
the Middle East. Washington has beefed up Saudi Arabia's jet fighter force.
Most recently, Washington has deployed 9,000 US troops to Israel to
participate in "war games" designed to test the US/Israeli air defense
system. As Iran represents no threat unless attacked, Washington's war
preparations signal Washington's intention to attack Iran.
Another signal that Washington has a new war on its agenda is the raised
level of Washington's rhetoric and demonization of Iran. Judging by polls
Washington's propaganda that Iran is threatening the US by developing a
nuclear weapon has met with success. Half of the American public support a
military attack on Iran in order to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear
capability. . . .
In my judgment, the US government's war preparations are driven by three
factors. One is the neoconservative ideology, adopted by the US government,
that calls for the US to use its superior military and economic position to
achieve world hegemony. This goal appeals to American hubris and to the
power and profit that it serves.
A second factor is Israel's desire to eliminate all support for the
Palestinians and for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Israel's goal is to
seize all of Palestine and the water resources of southern Lebanon.
Eliminating Iran removes all obstacles to Israel's expansion.
A third factor is to deter or slow China's rise as a military and economic
power by controlling China's access to energy. It was China's oil
investments in eastern Libya that led to the sudden move against Libya by the US
and its NATO puppets, and it is China's oil investments elsewhere in Africa
that resulted in the Bush regime's creation of the United States Africa Command, designed to counter
China's economic influence with US military influence. . . .
George Galloway, December 9, 2011: "Iran hasn't invaded another country in 300 years."
[Despite President Barack Obama's assertion that he would open up avenues to
talk to the Iranians, he has failed to do so, he has rejected Iranian
initiatives to start a dialogue, and he is showing every sign of
unwillingness to negotiate on any level. Congress has even moved to block
any contact between American and Iranian diplomats. The sanctions that
recently took effect against the Iranian banking system can be construed as
an act of war, particularly as Iran has not provided any casus belli.
Further sanctions that will restrict energy imports are impending and will
bring the country's economy to a halt. . . .
The United States uses a neutron-type bomb against the main Iranian nuclear
research center at Natanz, which both Washington and Israel had already
bombed conventionally and destroyed. It vows to bomb again if Iran continues
to resist. Iran is defiant and fires another wave of Silkworms at U.S.
ships, hitting one. Russia and China place their nuclear forces on high
alert. Pakistani militants assume control of the government, aided by
radical elements in the army and the intelligence service. India launches a
preemptive strike against the main Pakistani nuclear centers at Wah and
Multan, where the country's arsenal is believed to be concentrated. Pakistan
has some of its nukes moving around on trucks to avoid such a scenario,
however, and is able to strike back by bombing New Delhi.
A minor engagement between American and Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf
has ignited World War III.--Philip Giraldi, "What War With Iran Might Look Like," The
Wisdom Fund, January 11, 2012]
[As with sanctions and covert military onslaughts on Iraq in the run up to
2003, the first point to underline is that the US is waging war on Iran. But
well aware of the US public's aversion to yet another war in the Middle
East, the onslaught is an undeclared one.
The analogy here is the run up to Pearl Harbor. Let me quote from a useful
timeline. On October 7, 1940, a US Navy IQ analyst Arthur McCollum wrote
an 8 point memo on how to force Japan into war with US. Beginning the next
day FDR began to put them into effect and all 8 were eventually
accomplished.--Alexander Cockburn, "War on Iran: It's Not A Matter of 'If'," counterpunch.org,
January 13, 2012
[We find ourselves in a situation in which neither side wants to force the
other into extreme steps and neither side is in a position to enter into
broader accommodations. And that's what makes the situation
dangerous.--George Friedman, "Red lines
in the Strait of Hormuz," atimes.com, January 19, 2012]
[Leave aside, for the moment, the new sanctions on Iran's central bank that
will go into effect months from now, ignore Iranian threats to close the
Strait of Hormuz (especially unlikely given that it's the main way Iran gets
its own oil to market), and perhaps one key reason the crisis in the Persian
Gulf is mounting involves this move to torpedo the petrodollar as the
all-purpose currency of exchange. . . .
In this context, it's worth remembering that in September 2000 Saddam
Hussein abandoned the petrodollar as the currency of payment for Iraq's oil,
and moved to the euro. In March 2003, Iraq was invaded and the inevitable
regime change occurred. Libya's Muammar Gaddafi proposed a gold dinar both
as Africa's common currency and as the currency of payment for his country's
energy resources. Another intervention and another regime change
followed.--Pepe Escobar, "The myth of
an 'isolated' Iran," atimes.com, January 19, 2012]
[ . . . the House of Saud sells its oil only in US dollars - thus the
pre-eminence of the petrodollar - and in exchange benefits from massive,
unconditional US military and political support. Moreover the Saudis prevent
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) - after all they're
the world's largest oil producer - to price and sell oil in a basket of
currencies. These rivers of petrodollars then flow into US equities and
Treasury bonds. . . .
So on one side we have Washington, NATO, Israel and the GCC. Not exactly an
"international community", as the spin goes. And on the other side, we have
Iran, Syria, a fed-up-with-Washington Pakistan, Russia, China, and scores of
countries linked to the 120-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). . . .
It's China's position in relation to the GCC that is a source of endless
fascination.--Pepe Escobar, "The US-GCC
fatal attraction," atimes.com, January 19, 2012]
[What we do know is that "Bibi" Netanyahu is desperate to have the United
States launch air and missile strikes to stop Tehran from becoming the
world's ninth nuclear power. And he is echoed not only by U.S. neocons, but
GOP candidates save Ron Paul.--Patrick J. Buchanan, "Who Wants War With Iran?," antiwar.com, January 20, 2012]
[At no time has the U.S. based its foreign policies on facts - as
opposed to its conceptions reliant on sheer wishes, interests, or
pretensions--Gabriel Kolko, "The
CIA's Cassandras: Paid to be Ignored," counterpunch.org, January 20,
[The Netanyahu government and its echo chamber in U.S. politics and media,
the neoconservatives, members of Congress, Newt Gingrich, and Rick
Santorum.--Patrick J. Buchanan, "Who Wants War With Iran?," antiwar.com, February 7,
[Few ask the sensible question: why would Iran risk nuclear vaporization by
Israel and or the US just to launch a small number of its inaccurate
missiles at Israel? US and Israeli early warning satellites would spot any
Iranian missiles at launch and bring down a nuclear holocaust on the Islamic
Republic.--Eric Margolis, "Politicians Want
War With Iran," lewrockwell.com, February 8, 2012]
["The stupidest thing I have ever heard." - Meir Dagan, former head of
Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad, on attacking Iran's nuclear
facilities.--Steve Chapman, "False Fears About a Nuclear Iran," reason.com, February 13,
"Iran vs Israel: Who Should India ally
with," ndtv.com, February 17, 2012 -- One of India's top diplomats
speaks out on the U.S., Iran, Israel, Palestine, and the NPT. Will U.S.
leaders and news media ever speak so clearly and forcefully?
[The debate over whether Israel should attack Iran rests on three basic
questions. First, if Iran's leaders got the bomb, would they use it or
give it to people who might? Second, would a strike substantially retard
Iran's nuclear program? Third, if Israel attacks, what will Iran do in
response?--Peter Beinart, "Experts Say
Iran Attack Is Irrational, Yet Hawks Are Winning the Debate,"
thedailybeast.com, February 21, 2012]
[U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (1991) . . . explicitly commits
signers to establishing a WMDFZ in the Middle East.--Noam Chomsky, "What
Are Iran's Intentions," truth-out.org, March 2, 2012]
[We may never be able to establish with certainty what happened in Delhi,
Bangkok, and Tbilisi earlier this month, but the evidence that has come to
light thus far doesn't support the widely accepted notion that Iran and
Hezbollah were behind it. That evidence is consistent, however, with a
clever Israeli "false flag" car bombing operation that would not injure the
passenger but would serve its broader strategic interests: dividing India
from Iran and pushing US public opinion further towards support for war
against Iran.--Gareth Porter, "Who Was Behind the Delhi Bombing?," antiwar.com,
March 3, 2012]
[The commander in chief of the armed forces is Supreme Leader Ali
Khamenei. Who sets nuclear policy? Ali Khamenei. In Iran, the
"president" is more like a vice president (think Joe Biden) than a real
executive.--Juan Cole, "Khamenei Takes Control, Forbids Nuclear Bomb,"
Informed Comment, March 4, 2012]
[Pillar also questions why the argument that any Israeli/U.S. attack on Iran
to set back its nuclear program uses the "best case" scenario that Tehran's
response would be limited, while only a "worst case" analysis is made of
Iran getting the bomb. If the armed attack by Israel or the United States is
analyzed under "worst case" scenarios, Pillar says, "we would be hearing
about a regional conflagration involving multiple U.S. allies, sucking in
U.S. forces beyond the initial assault."--Walter Pincus, "How bad would
Iran be with the bomb?," washingtonpost.com, March 19, 2012]
[The treaty permits signers to produce enriched uranium to fuel commercial
and research reactors, store the radioactive fuel and reprocess spent fuel
as long as all nuclear facilities are subject to I.A.E.A. oversight. . . .
Of the countries now operating or constructing nuclear energy or research
reactors under the treaty, more than 40 also have the capabilities to build
nuclear weapons--Bernard Aronson, "Can Brazil Stop Iran," nytimes.com, April 3, 2012]
[The Times report repeated a familiar allegation, attributed to unnamed
"analysts", that the fatwa is merely a conscious deception justified by the
traditional Shi'ite legal principle called taqiyyah. But a quick fact check
would have shown that taqiyyah is specifically limited to hiding one's
Shi'ite faith to avoid being killed or otherwise seriously harmed if it were
. . . even Mehdi Khalaji of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near
East Policy acknowledged in an essay published last September that
Khamenei's oral statements are considered fatwas and are binding on
believers.--Gareth Porter, "Report
distorts Iran's nuclear fatwa," atimes.com, April 20, 2012]