zondag 13 juli 2008

Iran 226

'Why the US won't attack Iran
By Tom Engelhardt

Despite all the warnings, alarms, rumors and panicky pieces coursing through the international media, an attack on Iran is less likely than ever to happen. For small, vulnerable Israel, an air assault on Iranian nuclear facilities, alone or with the backing of the US, is literally inconceivable, given the disastrous fallout that would follow.

It's been on the minds of antiwar activists and war critics since 2003. And little wonder. If you don't remember the pre-invasion of Iraq neo-con quip, "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran ..." - then take notice. Even before American troops entered Iraq, knocking off Iran was already "Regime Change: The Sequel". It was always on the George W Bush agenda and, for a faction of the administration led by Vice President Dick Cheney, it evidently still is.

Add to that a series of provocative statements by Bush, the vice president and other top US officials and former officials. Take Cheney's daughter Elizabeth, who recently sent this verbal message to the Iranians, "[D]espite what you may be hearing from Congress, despite what you may be hearing from others in the administration who might be saying force isn't on the table ... we're serious."

Asked about an Israeli strike on Iran, she said, "I certainly don't think that we should do anything but support them." Similarly, former United Nations ambassador John Bolton suggested that the Bush administration might launch an Iranian air assault in its last, post-election weeks in office.

Consider as well the evident relish with which the president and other top administration officials regularly refuse to take "all options" off that proverbial "table" (at which no one bothers to sit down to talk). Throw into the mix semi-official threats, warnings and hair-raising leaks from Israeli officials and intelligence types about Iran's progress in producing a nuclear weapon and what Israel might do about it. Then there were those recent reports on a "major" Israeli "military exercise" in the Mediterranean that seemed to prefigure a future air assault on Iran. ("Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military's capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran's nuclear program.")

From the other side of the American political aisle comes a language hardly less hair-raising, including Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton's infamous comment about how the US could "totally obliterate" Iran (in response to a hypothetical Iranian nuclear attack on Israel). Congressman Ron Paul recently reported that fellow representatives "have openly voiced support for a pre-emptive nuclear strike" on Iran, while the resolution soon to come before the House (HJ Res 362), supported by Democrats as well as Republicans, urges the imposition of the kind of sanctions and a naval blockade on Iran that would be tantamount to a declaration of war.

Stir in a string of new military bases the US has been building within kilometers of the Iranian border, the repeated crescendos of US military charges about Iranian-supplied weapons killing American soldiers in Iraq, and the revelation by Seymour Hersh, the US's premier investigative reporter, that, late last year the Bush administration launched - with the support of the Democratic leadership in Congress - a US$400 million covert program "designed to destabilize [Iran's] religious leadership", including cross-border activities by US special operations forces and a low-level "war of terror" through surrogates in regions where Balochi and Ahwazi Arab minorities are strongest. (Precedents for this terror campaign include previous US Central Intelligence Agency-run [CIA] campaigns in Afghanistan in the 1980s, using car bombs and even camel bombs against the Russians, and in Iraq in the 1990s, using car bombs and other explosives in an attempt to destabilize Saddam Hussein's regime.)'

2 opmerkingen:

Anoniem zei

Ik ben helaas bang dat de personen aan de macht er maling aan hebben wanneer de wereldeconomie instort, omdat het hen juist meer macht geeft. Het start de hele bankencirkel weer opnieuw, de banken maken meer winst. Het enige hoopvolle punt in dit artikel is het verzet van de hoge officieren in het Amerikaanse leger. Maar wat maakt hun mening uit als je gewoon een atoombom op Iran gooit. Je hebt maar een paar piloten nodig. Om de mensen af te leiden creëer je eerst een "false flag" die groot genoeg is, je voert Martial Law in en stuurt je piloten naar Iran. Klaar is kees.

Anoniem zei

Wat zeg ik, je hebt niet eens piloten nodig!

Het Nihilistische Israel

‘Het Westen heeft de wereld niet gewonnen door de superioriteit van zijn ideeën, waarden of religie, maar eerder door zijn superioriteit in ...