The next 9-11: a war with Iran?

Bismillah al rahman al rahim, (-: that is just to make Andriusha - who thinks of me as a convert to Islam - happy, all others please ignore this Islamic-style opening :-)

It is rather amazing how Iraq-centered the US media has been for the past years. Even Afghanistan has really become a minor newsitem. At best, the corporate media is talking about a possible aggression against Iran. What is lost in all this are the huge strategic losses the USA has suffered in crucial regions of the world. Let's take a look at what has really happened.

Iraq: I do not suppose that anyone will still deny that the USA has been totally defeated over there so I will skip this one.

Afghanistan: Karzad is now called the "Mayor of Kabul", the drug production is at historic highs, Pakistan openly says that the war there is lost, NATO is at about 75% of the minimally needed forces to operate there, senior Republicans are seriously suggesting that some Talibans should be allowed to join the government in Kabul, all key positions of the Karzai administration are held by Tadjiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras (all allies of Iran and Russia) and the provinces are under the total control of warlords.

South/Central America: this entire continent has elected anti-US leaders including Chavez, Morales and, even more humiliatingly, Ortega. Former anti-US guerillas are in power in Argentina and Chile. ALL South American countries have now rejected US-mandated SOFAs (Status of Forces Agreements) which say that US military personnel cannot be prosecuted under local laws and, after some posturing, the US had to roll over and accept this (to my knowledge, this is a first world-wide). The only remaining US allies (Guatemala and Colombia) are totally isolated from the rest of the continent by their opposition to Venezuela's bid to the UNSC while Chavez is sending oil to the American poor. In total defiance of the USA the Non-Aligned movement elects Fidel Castro as its President while Hugo Chavez' Venezuela replaces the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as the number one loan source for South American countries. Hugo Chavez, whom the USA tried to overthrow in 2002, is triumphantly reelected with the highest margin ever.

Middle-East: the two big "experiments in democracy" of Lebanon and Palestine have turned against their creators. Fatah thugs are now trained by CIA/DIA teams to fight against the democratically elected Hamas government and the Hezbollah/Aoun (who fought a war with Syria) can bring 2 million people in the streets (that is half the country!) to demand the resignation of Sinora's government put in power by a US backed color-coded "revolution"(for more details on these events see here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15869.htm). Inept attempts to blame Hezbollah for the killing of the fascist leader Gemayel backfire and the Lebanese public opinion openly asks the obvious question: who would benefit from this? Israel, lead by possibly the only world leader even dumber than Dubya, has been totally defeated by a Hezbollah force of about 1500 fighters and was even unable after 31 days of combat to take control of a small village 1,5 miles from the Israeli border (Bint Jbeil now often referred to as "Nasrallahgrad" by the Lebanese. Details about this battle here: http://www.debianhelp.org/node/1383). Even the "elite" Golani Brigade had to withdraw and lick its wounds. As a result, nobody in the Middle-East fears Israel anymore.

Asia: not only India and Pakistan go nuclear (nukleer) but the DPRK now openly threatens key US allies such as Japan, Taiwan or South Korea. Pakistan's ruler, Musharraf, openly admits that he was threatened with total war by the US while China takes over a increasing number of key energy contracts in the region. China, BTW, is exchanging a large amount of its foreign currency reserves from dollars into Euros while Iran has just opened a oil trade exchange in also Euros. These are extremely dangerous signs for the dollar.

Europe: even British politicians call for the complete elimination of what Amnesty International has referred to as the "American Gulag" (secret CIA prisons, Guantanamo, Military Commissions Act, etc.), all former US allies are now out of power (except Blair that is) and even Central European nations like Poland or the Ukraine are taking their distances with the American policies.

All in all, this is a disaster of unmatched magnitude in the history of the USA. Unlike the corporate media, the White House is aware of this and there still is a very real risk of an aggression against Iran before the next Presidential Election (my personal hypothesis of how it might be conducted is posted here: http://www.debianhelp.org/node/1545).

The French have an interesting expression "la fuite en avant" which means "flight forward". This is what happens when a person facing a disaster actually accelerates/increases the behavior which brought about the disaster in the first place (one can, for example, think of Galtieri's invasion of the Malvinas). Bush's puppeteers know that there is a risk of real anger in the US public opinion against both factions of the "Republicrat Business Party" if things do not improve soon but get worse. Thus, some 9-11 rallying around the flag is now much needed to maintain the status quo in the USA itself.

How could all this be happening without millions of people in the streets of Washington protesting these disasters? Thanks to the US corporate media propaganda machine which truly would have made Goebbels blue with envy. That corporate media is now increasingly threatened by the emerging independent media (democracynow.org, indymedia.org, truthdig.com, informationclearinghouse.info, counterpunch.org, antiwar.com, commondreams.org, etc.) and for the first time in US history the influence of the Zionist lobby in the USA is increasingly being discussed. The writing is on the wall (which itself is full of cracks).

I expect the regime in Washington to lash out. There is no chance in hell that the ruling American Nomenklatura will let go of power. In the extreme case, it will do exactly as the Soviet ruling Nomenklatura did: overthrow *itself* (as was the case in the 1991 coup in which the Party/KGB basically turned into pseudo-nationalist pseudo-democrats and split up the country into various "independent" nations all ruled by former Nomenklatura members). But we are not there yet. My personal guess is that a war with Iran is simply too obviously dangerous for the USA (and Israel!) to let Dubya & Co. do it. Another 9-11 is the much safer option. As to what the target would be next time is anyone's guess.

Any ideas?

VS

0

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: Lebanon and Hezbollah

What amazes me about the Lebanese situation is how the US corporate mass media portrays the Lebanese gov't as some wonderful example of democracy worthy of the support of the Lebanese people, and the anti-gov't protesters as Hezbollah/Iranian/Syrian stooges and militants.

I mean, give me a break. The recent anti-gov't protests were estimated to have 1/3 to 1/2 of the entire Lebanese population out in the streets protesting the gov't. That's insane -- it is literally a vote of "no confidence" by the people that matter the most; there's no need to vote in parliament, the people have spoken!

(And it should be remembered that according to James Madison's post-American revolution's comments, only 1/3 of the American people supported the revolution against the British.)

Re: Lebanon and Hezbollah

Agreed. For example, the US corporate media "forgets" that Pierre Gemayel was the leader of an openly fascist militia (the Phalange was modeled on Salazarist, Petainist, and mainly Francist models and they are the worst collaborators of Israel and their executors in Sabra and Shatila. But hey - if they are pro-US they are democracts. But when Hezbollah is the biggest party in Lebanon, and when it is joined by Aoun's faction then these are "terrorists" and not democracts.

Even the US backed government in Iraq fully and openly back Hezbollah while such "democractic" regimes as Saudi Arabia or Egypt condemn them and back Siniora.

Coming back to Gemayel - since Hezbollah can bring 2000000 people out in the streets, since Nasrallah is by far the most popular leader of the Middle-East (including among Christians and non-Wahabi Sunni), since Hezbollah won the war against Israel, why in the world would Hezbollah need to kill a old fascist leader with a minor post in a dying government. And kill him right in front of the Phalangist headquarters, in the middle of the day, surrounded by bodyguards in the middle of a Maronite stronghold? And then have the killers escpape with nobody stopping them?!

And who *would* benefit from creating a chaotic situation in Lebanon if not for those who would have most to loose from a democractic and, hence, Hezbollah-run Lebanon?

The answer is obvious, but never asked in the US corporate media, of course.

How stupid do they think we are? LOL!

But there is probably no limit to the ignorance and stupidity of the TV-fried brains of the people getting their info from the corporate media I suppose...

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

There is another side and they risk everything.

Vees,
Any comment on the people risking their lives in the streets of Iran to protest yesterday?
Any letters from them that you can post?

There is another side and they risk everything.

I am not sure as to what you are talking about, my post was about the US strategic losses but nevermind. I googled "tehran+protests" and found this:

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 (Tehran):

Iranian students staged a rare protest against President Ahmadinejad on Monday burning his photograph during his speech at their university, the state news agency said.

Ahmadinejad responded calmly when the students at Tehran's Amir Kabir Technical University began chanting, "Death to the dictator," the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

"We have resisted dictatorship for many years, from before the 1979 Islamic Revolution," Ahmadinejad said, according to the agency.
The disturbances began when a group of students started chanting during the speech in a hall at the university.

Then they held up a picture of the president, upside down, and set it alight, the agency reported.

Finally, the students set off a firecracker. Ahmadinejad supporters in the audience began to chant in response, silencing the protesters.

Ahmadinejad then continued with his speech. There were no reports of the authorities arresting any of the protesters.

Anti-government demonstrations have been rare in Iran since Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005, even in universities, which were once a stronghold of the pro-reform movement.

The president has not always tolerated criticism. A few months ago his government banned a newspaper that had satirised him. (AP)

I suppose that this is what you are referring to.

Your point being?!

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

My point.

There is always a bright side if you just look hard enough.

My point.

Jaclon - you were hardly looking for a bright side to anything Iranian. The fact that you spoke about people "risking their lives" and not "people demonstrating without being arrested or mistreated in any way" just shows the magnitude of your intellectual dishonesty. The fact that you now explain your non-sequitur post with "looking for the bright side" only reinforces this perception.

Anyway, compare "your" demonstration with this:

"UK Anti-Nuclear Activists Protest Blair's Call For More Nukes: In Britain, a series of anti-nuclear protests were held Monday to protest Tony Blair's push to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. Two protesters managed to unfurl a banner inside Parliament that read "Sane Government, Not More Missiles." 28 protesters were arrested in a series of actions across the country"

Notice something? Were did the protests take place?

Inside Parliament.

Where were the subsequent arrests made?

Across the country.

Any thoughts on that? What does this tell you (if anything)?

Where is your righteous wrath? Where is your indignation at these arrests?

Imagine ANYONE in the USA daring to burn photos of Dubya IN HIS PRESENCE! Or interrupting his speech with "death to the lying war criminal". What would happen to them?!

But no - you save your indignation for Ahmadinejad (who has, in reality, no more power that the British Queen) and the people "risking their lives" to protest against him.

Your level of hypocrisy is truly magnificent!

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

Are you sure?

Vees,
Can you tell me how you know that no one was arrested or mistreated?
Maybe I've misjudged your intelligence and not your affiliations.
If Ahmadinejad has no power, the Ayatollahs are screwed.
You are not enamored of someone without power. All of your posts deal with the powerful. Some of your people are big frogs in small ponds, but never the less, they are frogs. Be careful that you don't get warts.

Are you sure?

All you and I know is what AP (and other agencies) reported. Seculating beyond that is easy, but baseless. As for power in Iran, the Ayatollahs ARE in power, not the President. Specifically, the real power is in the hands of Ali Khamenei who is the Velāyat-e faqih or "Supreme Leader" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran)

I am enamored of nothing besides the truth. Your comment about ponds, frogs and warts sounds "cool" I suppose, but has little objective content. That does not surprize me, it has become a trademark of sorts for you.

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

No more gulags.

Vees,
I wouldn't spend a part of my life reading your posts if I didn't think you know more than I and AP. Your background alone indicates that you have knowledge of the alphabet boys that I could never hope to possess.
One thing I am sure of is that Ayatollahs will never discuss the thousands they have locked up. Would you?
How many were locked up in your homeland and did Amnesty International protest? Inhuman nature is the same everywhere there is humans.

Re: The next 9-11: a war with Iran?

Quote:
I expect the regime in Washington to lash out.

If the US loss in Vietnam is any indicator, that's exactly right. When faced with a loss, Nixon invaded Cambodia and paved the way for Pol Pot taking power.

To me, the driving force of the coming US war is the failure of the economy -- our massive trade deficit and decline of the dollar -- combined with the neo-con's stated goal of controlling world oil supplies to keep oil priced in dollars. That along with the Pentagon's publicly stated policy of "full spectrum dominance" and preventing even potential rivals from emerging means another war is coming. Military power is the only thing the US leads in anymore.

While Venezuela may be a flashpoint, the attack will go against Iran.

It's clear that the US ruling class will not pull out of Iraq. All signs point to the US staying, no matter what the public wants or think it voted for in the elections. If anything, we'll see the US get even more vicious and increase troop strength in Iraq -- all signs point towards it.

The big "prize" is the Middle East, and for the US to turn it into a pseudo-colony, it has to deal with Iran.

What the trigger or flashpoint will be is anyone's guess. I clearly think Hezbollah saved the world from a late-summer/early-fall war by defeating Israel. Israel's defeat threw a monkeywrench into the war mongerer's plans.

But besides a false-flag terrorist attack, there are many ways the US could trigger a war with Iran. It only takes the decision to do it and I think Bush's confidence was clearly shaken by 3 things: events in Iraq, Hezbollah's victory, and the public's views/election results.

Still, in the mindset of the war criminals in power, they've risked everything on their Iraq adventure; they'll double their bets before admitting they screwed up royally. There will be much more blood on the hands of the American people before this regime throws in the towel.

Pull back to Northern Iraq

I heard the other day that northern Iraq (where the Kurds live) is doing rather well. Judith Miller suggests that we pull out of Bagdad to northern Iraq, and get out of the middle of the Sunni-Shia civil war. Let them duke it out and slaughter each other until they are finally tired of death, and come to the table to talk to each other. Then we won't be the excuse anymore for all the violence.

Re: Pull back to Northern Iraq

Hasn't Judith Miller been thoroughly discredited by her fictional, pro-war stories and lies in the run-up to the war?

What would be the point of "pulling back" to Kurdistan?

Why not "pull back" to Texas and get US troops entirely out of the Middle East?

Let us not forget, the war was based on lies and waged by incompetents. The majority of Iraqis want foreign forces out of their country. We often lose sight that the whole point of the war is for western oil companies to control the Middle East's oil. (Did we forget Bush's Treasury Secretary on "60 Minutes" showing maps drawn up way before the war with Iraq carved up among western oil companies -- and the Bush regime's threat to have him prosecuted for revealing state secrets?!)

But lies and propaganda aside, the idea of retreating to a "crusader fortress" in Kurdistan is problematic.

The Turks will simply not allow an independent Kurdistan. The Iranians would strongly object to one. If US forces retreat into Kurdistan the anti-colonial insurgents will follow and the Kurdish areas will be immersed in violence.

My guess is that the Kurds themselves would object to large numbers of US troops in their areas of control.

Sooner or later -- and it's clear it's going to be later -- the US has to face reality: the US lost this war, and lost it badly.

This has been the second lesson (after Vietnam): the US cannot occupy a country when the people of the country do not want to be occupied and are willing to fight for their independence.

Re: Pull back to Northern Iraq

Quote:
Hasn't Judith Miller been thoroughly discredited by her fictional, pro-war stories and lies in the run-up to the war?

I'll count that as your opinion, with whatever credibility you have. However, Judith Miller actually spent time in Northern Iraq (have you), and it was her perception that the people there would be more than willing to accommodate our military presence. The purpose would not be to split up Iraq and form a Kurdistan, but to keep a geographically intact Iraqi state. We would be out of the way of the way of the Sunni/Shia conflict, but perhaps be able to deter Iran or Syria from jumping into the fray. Maybe when they are tired of killing each other, they will decide to start talking.

If we leave now, I predict that Iraq would split up and the three main ethnic/sectarian groups in the country would have to fight it out for their land. As you say... Turkey would not want a Kurdish state. Just as well, Saudi Arabia would not want a Shia state, and Iran would not want a Sunni state, so clearly the conflict would extend beyond Iraq itself if we left now.

Quote:
We often lose sight that the whole point of the war is for western oil companies to control the Middle East's oil.

This is not stated correctly. The Saudi royal family has more control over middle-eastern oil than western oil companies. After all, theirs is a state-run oil production company. In fact, I don't know of any western oil companies that have any "control" over any middle-eastern oil. Yes, we started it as Aramco, but they took over total control a while back. The point is: middle-eastern governments control middle-eastern oil. Did you ever hear of the U.S. being a part of OPEC? Nope, you didn't, so where do you get the idea that it is "for western oil companies to control the Middle East's oil?"

Either way, it doesn't matter. It's a global market commodity, so you can't really distinguish middle-eastern oil from Venezuelan or Alaskan oil. Control isn't the issue, because everyone buys oil, not just the U.S. Supply stability, however, is very important to the global economy, and that is a definite reason for our presence in the region, especially when one or more countries threaten the ability of another country in the region to export the oil that they produce.

Re: Pull back to Northern Iraq

Knowing about Judith Miller has nothing to do with anyone's "credibility" (or lack thereof). All it takes is the ability to use Google. If you are google-challanged, here as some returned samples:

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/
http://www.slate.com/id/2086110/
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/05/27/times/index.html

I would note here that a flag-waving "patriot" of your kind might want to ponder the fact that Judith Miller's disinformation resulted in exactly the result Ahmed Chalabi and his bosses in IRAN (AXIS OF EVIL! AXIS OF EVIL! AXIS OF EVIL!) wanted: to get your jarheads to get rid of Saddam and then give power to the Shia majority. Miller, Chalabi and, of course, Dubya, all would deserve the "Majlis Medal of Honor" for their services to "the mollahs" :-))

Northern Iraq: sure things go better there. The current problems are in the Anbar province, the Sunni Triangle and the capital city where the Sunnis are fighting a civil war against the Shia. The Kurds, while generally backing the Shia, stay out. However, should the Kurds ever declare their own state the Truks will invade (they have repeatedly said so, if you doubt it - learn how to use google). In fact, the Truks are already operating in Iraqi Kurdistan. Also, most Shias (mainly those affiliated with the Mahdi Army, but also some Badr Bridage people) would not accept a Kurdish state. Nor would Iran. And remember that while the Sunnis have Saudi Arabia and the world wide Wahabi/Al-Qaeda network to back them (including Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.), and while the Shia have Iran and Lebanon, the Kurds have nobody (besides some help from Israel). So any joy about how democracy works in Kurdistan is just smiling on a ticking time bomb...

Lastly - you are assuming that by staying the US is preventing the Turks, Iranians and Saudis from intervening. That is not so. The US "reach" is pretty much limited to the Green Zone. Even inside the capital the US has utterly failed in its pathetic attempts to secure the city (things got *worse* since their media-hyped operation). The reality is that the neighboring states are ALREADY intervening and that there is little anyone can do to stop them. Also, the fact on the ground is that the country is Shia-controlled and nothing the US could do will change that. The Shia will eventually prevail over the Sunnis and get some deal autonomy with the Kurds (who having failed in their war in Turkey do not have the stomach to give it a try against the Iraqi Shia). As for the Saudis, they still have plenty of money and oil (at least for a while), but they have a really shitty army and an internally explosive situation anyway. The best trained part of their military (the "national guard") has no other function than to protect the regime against a popular uprising or a coup. I would rank the Saudi military even lower than the "invincible Tsahal" and considering the whopping the Israelis got in Lebanon there is no chance in the world that the Saudis would actually cross the border and fight the Shias in the Basra area. So their level of possible intervention is only financial, rethorical and political. Not a real show-stopper for Al-Sadr or SCIRI.

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

Going off the reservation

Vees,
Is bin Laden the only rich man to put his life on the line to fight the infidels? Are any of the leaders of these movements willing to pull a Patton?
Is this Holy War to be fought only by the poor and uneducated?
Why must three little boys die in Gaza at the hands of muslim terrorists? Is there no honor among murderers?
Why do you tolerate these murderers? I believe you could stop this. Match your actions to your words and we will convert these people to Jesus and then no one will die for religion.

You will need to keep an eye on Pat Robertson. We wouldn't want him going off the reservation.

Going off the reservation

A barrage of questions is not a substitute for rational thought. In particular wholly unconnected questions. I will give you short answers, pointers really, and you follow it up on your own if you want.
There are plenty of rich Wahabis. Patton is not a model followed by Muslims: he was too primitive, not educated enough, and not nearly as pious as say, Saladin or Nasrallah. It is true that on the US side most soliders come from poor and uneducated families, but that is not the case on the Iraqi side who had plenty of solid education under Saddam (at least in the technical fields) and enjoyed top-notch social, politcal, economic, historical and religious studies (read Jamal Sankari's excellent biography of Fadlallah to get a feel for the level of education of these guys). People in Gaza die because of the thugs in the Israeli Army, Fatah and Hamas. There is never honor among such thugs. I do not tolerate anything and were did you get the sick idea that I did "tolerate" these murders anyway?!? You think I can stop totally amoral killers like the Fatah thugs or their counterparts in Hamas?!

You tell me to convert people to Jesus while Andrej thinks that I am a convert to Islam. You guys are too much! LOL!

I don't want to keep my eye on people which make me feel like puking, so no eye on Robertson for me, sorry.

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

Syndicate content