[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
International News Title: The Neocon Roadmap to War in Iran I was talking about the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran in the very near future with my dad the other day. Now my dad doesn't follow politics or current affairs as avidly as I do, i.e. he watches the TV news if it happens to be on, but his exact words were, "yeah, it's bubbling away nicely innit." For those not from Yorkshire in England innit means isn't it. "Bubbling away nicely" said it all for me; it put into words my own feelings on the matter. Small steps, none too significant but all in succession are threatening to lead us into another war, and I don't think anything can stop it. Like everybody else, I believed the Afghanistan invasion was purely a response to 9/11. Then the blame for the attack was shifted to Iraq, followed by rapidly intensified pressure over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and immediate threat to the Western world, leading very quickly to another invasion. This made me suspicious. So when Iran became the focus shortly after, I immediately started thinking Iran is the next target. Of course, by that time I was a fully paid up subscriber to the theory that the two invasions were part of a massive imperialistic drive by the neoconservatives. I waned on that when Iraq became such a massive failure and its cost spiraled. I waned further still when I read an article, the gist of which was that the massive amount of U.S. money being spent on funding wars was threatening the very future of America. If Iran is attacked, the threat will be multiplied. The U.S. war budget is running higher than America's gross domestic product, meaning America is spiraling deeper into debt. It went on to explain that much of America's debt is owned by banks in countries on the opposite side of the Iran debate, in the main, China. The author feared that China could wait until America was at a critically weak point, i.e. another few years of such massive defense spending, and pull the rug out from under Washington. I disbelieved America would put its overstretched economy at risk by again putting its overstretched military into another -- suicidally -- difficult mission. Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are currently at an all time high. China and Russia are strong allies. U.S. money is important to the Chinese economy, in capitalist investments, exports and interest payments, but I have no doubt that China would favor Russia over the U.S if the chips were down. So, the rug probably won't be removed until the Chinese economy can, not only survive, but also continue to grow without U.S. money, which will probably never happen, or until the chips are down, which should make me even surer that the U.S. won't attack Iran. However, in the last two weeks or so, major changes have happened. Firstly, when U.S. plans for an Iran attack were released it was stated what would be needed to warrant such an attack and for the first time two things were mentioned, not only proof of a working nuclear weapon, but also proof of Iranian involvement in U.S. deaths in Iraq. I saw this as laying the groundwork in preparation for U.S. plans being good to go. Next, all of sudden we'll see a "smoking gun" and all hell will break loose. This was followed just days later by a positive buzz in the mainstream media, from U.S. officials claiming to have "compelling evidence" that components for a new type of roadside bomb, explosively formed projectiles (EFP), which are capable of piercing armored vehicles at 100 yards, were manufactured in Iran. There has been a lot of hype also about the EFP being an advanced weapon, to strengthen the case for Iranian involvement in their manufacture. From what I can gather they aren't all that advanced. A six- to nine-inch steel pipe sealed at one end with a projectile of shaped steel or copper inside the pipe or fitted to the end. Anyone with explosives, metal and a lump of pipe can make an EFP. As most of the attacks on U.S. forces come from Sunnis who are also busy killing Iran's Shia brethren, obviously there are many bomb makers in Iraq quite capable of making an EFP who have nothing to do with Iran. U.S. generals in Iraq, who likely see the Bush administration attempting similar propaganda as led to the carnage their troops are struggling to survive in Iraq, have since came out denying the proof of Iranian involvement in U.S. deaths. The question is why has the future of such a dominant country been placed in the hands of China, at best a reluctant ally? And why does war with Iran and an increased risk to America's future hegemony seem so likely? The answer is the neocons' thirst for oil, allegiance to Israel and control of Bush administration foreign policy. In the case of Afghanistan, a massively profitable Unocal pipeline was being hindered by the uncooperative Taliban regime. When Sept. 11 provided justification for an invasion, and it was rapidly successful in removing the Taliban from power, Hamid Karzai, previously on Unocal's payroll, was installed as prime minister. Neocon Zalmay Khalizad, also on Unocal's payroll, was installed as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. That part of the plan was complete, and the blame for Sept. 11 was then put on Saddam Hussein, along with other fabrications, to justify another invasion of an oil-rich country. The neocons' Unocal operative Khalizad was moved to Iraq in his U.S. ambassador role to smooth their taking control of Iraq's oil profits. Now the case is being made for a third invasion of an oil-rich country. Iran is in the middle of Iraq and Afghanistan meaning an invasion can easily force Iran to fight a war on two fronts, suggesting that indeed, this may well have been the plan from the start. Many people will believe the line that any attack will be from the air only, but the U.S. attack plans released recently suggest otherwise. When the guns start smoking the plan is to attack not only Iran's fledgling nuclear sites, but to take out their entire military-industrial complex in a series of devastating airstrikes. "Shock and awe" all over again. Of course, it has been written many times that Iran's military will be a lot harder to take out than Iraq's was. So the bombing will probably be intensified, prolonged, and will definitely involve bunker busting bombs and possibly even tactical nuclear weapons. Once Iran's military-industrial complex has been decimated, its rich oil reserves will be easy pickings for the U.S. forces currently occupying the countries on either side. The neocons who have taken up such prominent positions in the Bush administration will make sure they go in and finish the job.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|