The Mundi Club: January 2006

Monday, January 30, 2006

Lovelock Squeaks the End is Nigh

James lovelock, perhaps the world’s greatest living scientist, has written an interesting article promoting his new book, 'The Revenge of Gaia'. (‘The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years’ January 16th 2006). It is his starkest warning so far about the prospects for ooman survival – putting him clearly on the mundi club wing of the environmental movement. He believes "as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics." This is more than enough to kill off most life on Earth. As the mundi club has suggested this could even destroy the life of the Earth but lovelock refuses to indicate what will stop a runaway global burning disaster from creating venus like conditions on Earth. Lovelock coins the new phrase "fool's climate" because he correctly points out that it is oomans’ devastation of the Earth’s ecological systems which is causing global burning whilst, contrary to environmental beliefs, fossil fuel pollution is currently limiting the rise in global temperatures. After the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings the united states government banned all aircraft flights over america for a few days. The absence of fossil fuel pollution from aircraft during that time was enough to increase local temperatures by a couple of degreesC. There will be instant global burning if the fog of ooman pollution is lifted. Lovelock predicts, "before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

For anyone who knows little about lovelock’s thinking the following sentence will be puzzling, "By failing to see that the Earth regulates its climate and composition, we have blundered into trying to do it ourselves, acting as if we were in charge." All the evidence shows that oomans have made next to no effort to regulate the climate – what they have done is inadvertently destabilize the climate and refuse to heed scientific warnings about the destabilization they are causing. What lovelock is getting at here is his fear that if oomans (sorry I can’t use the phrase ooman civilization because this is a contradiction in terms) suddenly realize the need to prevent global burning they will ask their so-called Earth scientists to implement a range of technological cures to reduce global temperatures. Lovelock believes all of these techno fixes will eventually fail or just make things worse.

There is only one solution to global burning and that is to return one third of the planet back to ooman-free wilderness, one third to be used to adjust the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover to regulate the climate, and the final third would be Forest based economies in which oomans would acquire all their resources from regional Forests. As lovelock states, "we cannot pollute the air or use the Earth's skin - its forest and ocean ecosystems - as a mere source of products to feed ourselves and furnish our homes. We would have felt instinctively that those ecosystems must be left untouched because they were part of the living Earth." For the scale of the global destruction of the Earth’s ecological systems please see ‘The Destruction of the Earth's Photosynthetic Capacity: The Earth's Life Support System - Third Edition’.

Lovelock’s prognostication for the brutish isles is, well, quite brutish. He scoffs at britain’s so-called environmentalists, "We could grow enough to feed ourselves on the diet of the Second World War, but the notion that there is land to spare to grow biofuels, or be the site of wind farms, is ludicrous." What lovelock doesn’t say because his disdain for politics is that although all of us could survive on second world war rations this will happen only if all the land is used for the common good. In reality what will happen is that britain’s aristocratic landowning elite, including all of our laughable green leaders such as the windsors, goldsmiths, porritts et al, will continue to graze livestock Animals on their privately owned land because even in times of scarcity the rich will want to continue eating meat even if this means the masses will starve to death. It is the Animal exploitation industry that has destroyed the Earth’s ecological systems and brought about a global burning disaster not fossil fuels whose pollution is limiting the rise in global temperatures. The windsors, goldsmiths, porritts, et al and the rest of their Fox hunting, Animal murdering, chums – like those who managed to get into the house of commons and confront labour ministers who weren’t providing enough welfare benefit subsidies to the country’s biggest landowners - will never give up their support for the Animal exploitation industry and support veganism. They are more concerned with maintaining ancient aristo traditions like Fox hunting and their social and political ties with britain’s aristocratic landowning elite than they are with promoting green politics. Britain’s ancient class struggle over land will eventually descend upon us and amongst those leading the defence of private property for private good, and to hell with everyone else, will be our very own green elite – charles windsor; edward, ben and zak, goldsmith; and jonathon porritt. Charles windsor and ben goldsmith are married to members of the camila parker bowles, Fox hunting, landowning elite.

Lovelock states we have very little time left to act. This is true. However, what he is incapable of doing because of his steadfast political disinterestedness is pointing out the political forces preventing action from being taken. He simply will not denounce the zionists in america for putting zionist expansionism at the top of the global political agenda over the last four decades. In the 1970s and the 1980s the global agenda was dominated by the issue of jewish ooman rights in russia so that russian jews could be forced into palestine where they would help the jews-only state to murder palestinians and dispossess their land. In the 1990s it was saddam’s threat to the jews-only state in palestine and, in the 21st century, the global agenda has been dominated by the so-called terrorist threat to the jews-only state which has required not merely the invasion of iraq but is leading invariably toward the nuking of iran. Zionists have determined the world’s political agenda for the last four decades. It is possible to put the environment at the top of the political agenda only by dismantling global zionist domination.

Lovelock is the voice of geophysiological sanity but the voice of political inanity.

The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part One: The War against Iran is getting Closer.

Updated March 7th 2006.

The Israelis’ Domination of the Bush Administration.
The neocons, mainly israelis, were primarily responsible for lying and manipulating america into the invasion of iraq in march 2003. And yet, by the end of 2004, despite the increasing economic, and military, damage suffered by america as a result of the invasion, and despite the public exposure of their lies over iraq, the neocons had consolidated their dominance of the bush administration. "Most indicative is the fact that not a single neocon has been given his walking papers. So long as they are running the show, substantive change is unlikely." (William S. Lind ‘Last Exit Before Gas’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=4050 November 25, 2004)." John hulsman concluded, "Simply put, despite Iraq, despite the failure of the "greater middle east" project, despite a non–existent Iran policy, despite it all – there is no doubt that the neo–conservatives have emerged victorious in their struggle with realists for control of American foreign policy during the remainder of the Bush administration. In fact it was a rout." (John C Hulsman ‘Bush’s home run: neocon victory, realist world’ www.openDemocracy.net November 23rd 2004). The people currently being purged from america’s intelligence agencies are not the israelis who fabricated phoney evidence for a war against iraq but those who refused to go along with such traitorous activities, "It appears as though the long knives are out in Washington. Career operatives in the CIA and State Department who opposed the neocons’ attempt to "sex up" the intel during the run-up to the Iraq War are being purged wholesale."

In america, the jewish sayanim network of mossad collaborators, the jewish dominated media, the jewish lobby, the jewish-owned politicians in congress, and the israelis in the bush administration who, with the help of the jews-only state in palestine, manipulated the country into a war against iraq are now busy repeating the same tactics as regards iran. "Like the Downing Street memo stated, "The facts and intelligence are being fit to meet the policy". It’s the same here. No amount of groveling from the EU-3 will appease Bush once Tehran is in its crosshairs. The Big-3 would be better off sending arms and ammo to Iran so the people can defend themselves once the bombs start dropping." (Mike Whitney ‘The Inevitable War with Iran’ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_050923_the_inevitable_war_w.htm September 23rd 2005). America’s jewish elite pushed the bush administration into a proxy zionist war against iraq over non-existent weapons of mass destruction and it is currently pushing america into a proxy zionist war against iran over non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

When will the War Start?
The bush administration is following the same tactic of trying to win international support for a war against iran that it followed in the lead up to the war against iraq. In february 2006 it won support amongst countries on the international atomic energy agency to refer iran to the security council. "What President George W. Bush, Fox News, and the Washington Times were saying about Iraq three years ago they are now saying about Iran. After Saturday's vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report Iran's suspicious nuclear activities to the UN Security Council, the president wasted no time in warning, "The world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons."" (Ray McGovern Juggernaut Gathering Momentum: Next Stop, Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8510 February 8, 2006). It is hoping the security council will either impose economic sanctions on iran, as it did against iraq in 1991, or issue an ultimatum to iran that will lead eventually to war. If america’s jewish elite fails to get the security council to take any action against iran, then it will pressure the bush administration into declaring the united nations redundant and taking unilateral action. This is what happened when bush failed to win security council approval for the invasion of iraq.

The main question then is when the attack will be launched. A number of commentators believed the attack would happen in june 2005. Many believe the most likely date is the end of march: some argue it will be before iran establishes its new oil bourse whilst others point out that it is unlikely to take place before the jews-only state has elected a new jews-only government. The most confident speculation that could be made is that it will be before the russians provide nuclear fuel to start up iran’s bushehr nuclear reactor. But basically the bush administration has the luxury of choosing the best time for such an attack. Over the last few years, america’s jewish elite has primed the american public for a war against iran. "The public mindset has been thoroughly prepared for war by a barrage of untrue propaganda against Iran, extending over many years and gradually escalating in volume and tone. Iran has been demonized as the pure incarnation of evil: the foremost sponsor of terrorism, pursuing nuclear weapons, intent on harming America, harboring al-Qaeda, hiding arsenals of chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery, oppressing its own people, intent on destroying Israel and the West." (Jorge Hirsch ‘America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8577 February 20, 2006). As a consequence, america could go to war at any time with a popular wind behind it. The latest barrage of anti-iranian propaganda began after january 14th 2006 when iran broke the united nations’ seals on its nuclear facilities, and within a matter of weeks opinion polls showed there was a majority of americans willing to support a war against iran. "Despite persistent disillusionment with the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans supports taking military action against Iran if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found." (Greg Miller ‘57% Americans support military action in Iran’ Los Angeles Times January 27 2006).

It is possible the war will not take place for many years. When the neocons were unable to get the gulf war allies to invade iraq in 1991, they insisted the united nations should impose severe sanctions against iraq which lasted for 12 years before the invasion eventually materialized. The same could also be true of iran. "The regionalization of the war, and the widening split in Islam, are successes so far as the War Party is concerned. "Creative destruction is our middle name," says neoconservative guru Michael Ledeen, and there is no better phrase for a civil war. For the Iraqis and U.S. policymakers – as well as the Republicans – the chaos in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. For the neocons, however, it is a great victory. They have achieved half of exactly what they wanted, and now it remains for them to lure us into war with Iran and push their project to completion. If they have to do that under a Democratic administration, then so be it. Whether the Republican establishment succeeds in keeping John McCain at bay, or whether he bolts the party to lead a "Bull Moose" bipartisan coalition, the neocons – the vanguard of the War Party – will prove strategically flexible enough to attach themselves to whomever is left standing. In any case, they see this as a long-term commitment: it took them a decade to foment this war, and it will doubtless take another decade – they figure – to win it." (Justin Raimondo ‘On the Road to Empire’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8622 March 1, 2006).

There are still many reasons for suggesting the bush administration will not launch an attack on iran. When bush ordered the invasion of iraq many americans were still angry about the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings and demanded retaliation against those responsible. They were pleased with the successful invasion of afghanistan and the routing of the taliban and had become confident the american military could quickly overpower any nation. The american economy was ticking over. As a consequence, there was widespread public support for bush’s invasion of iraq. Today, however, the political and economic conditions in america are much different and do not lend themselves to another war especially another military invasion. Much of the american public has become weary of america’s continued occupation of iraq and many have become opposed to it. The president is becoming increasingly unpopular since many americans believe he lied about the pretext for the invasion of iraq. However, it has to be suggested these are not critical factors that could deter a war against iran. It is more than likely that the first shots in a war against iran would instantly transform public attitudes and lead, at least in the short term, to a huge boost in the president’s popularity.

Iran’s Desire to Exploit Its Natural Resources.
Why the Rush to War?
Jewish advocates for an american war against iran are whipping up a sense of urgency over the issue by claiming that iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. According to one leading israeli in america, "Within a very few years, in all likelihood, Iran will be able to launch nuclear missiles." (Mortimer B. Zuckerman ‘Moscow's Mad Gamble’ http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/060130/30edit.htm January 30th 2006). Another israeli living in america concurs, "Some experts estimate that Iran will need only three more years to build its first nuclear bomb, and it will pass the point of no return much sooner. Within six to 12 months, Tehran might be able to finish the enrichment facilities that will make the Persian bomb a foregone conclusion." (Max Boot ‘Iran's threat, Bush's dilemma’ http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot25jan25,0,5533737.column?coll=la-news-columns January 25, 2006). But this is just another israeli lie.

Most objective, impartial experts estimate that iran is about a decade away from constructing a nuclear bomb. "In a talk on October 3, 2004, IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei made the clearest statement yet: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program", he said, and then repeated himself for emphasis: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but I personally don’t rush to conclusions before all the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing that could be called an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of resorting to other alternatives."" (Mark Gaffney ‘Iran: A Bridge too Far?’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm October 26th 2004); "Even if Iran wanted to develop nuclear weaponry, the CIA estimates that it would take years before anything of any significance could be produced." (William O. Beeman, Donald A. Weadon ‘Iran as Bush's nuclear bogeyman’ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/30/EDGB790KB01.DTL September 30, 2004); "And, again, just how imminent is this "grave threat"? "We don't see a clear and present danger," Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA has just told Newsweek. Some put the possibility of an Iranian bomb at 10 years away. Con Coughlin, defense and security editor of the London Telegraph, writes that the 164 centrifuges in the Natanz pilot plant could enable Iran to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single bomb – in three years." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Another Undeclared War? http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8405 January 18, 2006); "Never mind that Iran is 10 years away from actually producing a usable nuclear weapon, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate: "Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S. officials have continually estimated Iran to be 'within five years' from reaching that same capability. So far, it has not. "The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before 'early to mid-next decade,' according to four sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures. The estimate is for acquisition of fissile material, but there is no firm view expressed on whether Iran would be ready by then with an implosion device, sources said."" (Justin Raimondo ‘Hillary Clinton, War Goddess’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8428 January 23, 2006).

The israelis in america pushing america into a proxy zionist war against iran allege that iran’s bushehr reactor could be used to produce nuclear weapons. This is another israeli lie. "Just as there are many different kinds of nuclear reactors, there are different forms of plutonium, distinctions that are almost never made in public discussions of nuclear proliferation. There are two different kinds of reactors, heavy-water or graphite-moderated reactors; and pressurized, or "light water" reactors (PWRs). The Dimona nuclear power plant in Israel is an example of the former. The Bushehr plant is the latter. The Israeli plant is ideal for yielding the desirable isotope of Plutonium (Pu 239) necessary for making bombs. The Iranian plant will produce plutonium, but the wrong kind. It will produce the heavier isotopes, Pu240, Pu241 and Pu242 - almost impossible to use in making bombs. Crucial to extracting weapons-grade plutonium is the type of reactor and the mode in which it is operated. The Israeli-type plant can be refueled "on line," without shutting down. Thus, high-grade plutonium can be obtained covertly and continuously. In the Iranian plant, the entire reactor will have to be shut down - a step that cannot be concealed from satellites, airplanes and other sources - in order to permit the extraction of even a single fuel pin." (William O. Beeman and Thomas Stauffer ‘Is Iran Building Nukes? An Analysis (Part 1)’ http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?
article_id=1b68abecee07b0cb8cf9ed0bc9de5954 Jun 26, 2003); "The reactor at Bushehr was specifically designed to use light-water to make recovery of plutonium more difficult." (Mark Gaffney ‘Will Iran Be Next?’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article3288.htm May 8th 2003); "It is worth noting the admission of many nuclear experts, including Mike Levi of King's College of London, that "it is impossible to enrich uranium to weapons grade in bomb quantities using the pilot facilities that the Iranians have"." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Russia's Iran gamble’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA18Ak02.html Jan 18, 2006).

The reason jews in america and palestine are lying about the immediate threat posed by iran is to prime the american public for a war so the bush administration can launch an attack when the political and military conditions are most favourable. Basically all the jewish lobby needs to do is continually exert pressure on politicians to agree to a war in principle so the attack can take place when the time is right. The slightest incident with iran, which will doubtlessly be fabricated by mossad, or its chums in the bush administration, will provide the justification for the bush administration to conclude it is time to launch the war.

Iran has a Right to develop Civil Nuclear Power.
As a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, iran is legally entitled under international law i.e. the non-proliferation treaty, to develop civilian nuclear power although it is not legally entitled to acquire nuclear weapons.

The ZOGs do not want Iran to use Civilian Nuclear Power.
The zionist occupied governments (zogs) of america, britain, and palestine, are trying to overthrow the non-proliferation treaty because it provides iran with the right to develop civilian nuclear power. They have decided the most effective way of deterring iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is by using the threat of military power to prevent it from developing civilian nuclear power. "For example, American and European officials said the statements made clear that the West would not tolerate Iran's enriching uranium for civilian nuclear energy, despite international accords that allow it." (Steven R. Weisman ‘Europe and U.S. Agree on Carrot-and-Stick Approach to Iran’ http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/politics/12iran.html
?ex=1111208400&en=635e786cbef515b0&ei=5070 March 12, 2005). They are unwilling to go down the path of allowing iran to develop civilian nuclear power but prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons by instituting a stiff regime of united nations’ inspections. In general, therefore, the zionist occupied governments of america, britain, and palestine, are saying that no country which is not subservient to their military power will be allowed to develop civilian nuclear power.

Why does Iran want Nuclear Power when it has so many Oil and Gas Resources?
The israelis in the bush administration are whipping up public support for a war against iran by asking why iran needs nuclear energy when it has vast fossil fuel resources. Surely, the question implies, the only reason it seeks to acquire nuclear power is because it wants to develop nuclear weapons. Even the shabbat goy george bush has asked this question and come to such a conclusion, "I'm, kind of, wondering why they need one, since they've got all the oil." (‘Arming an Israeli Attack on Iran: Why the US should cancel "Bunker Buster" Bombs for Israel’ http://www.irmep.org/GBU.htm May 1st 2005). There are several reasons why iran wants to develop nuclear energy.

Firstly, to exploit its vast uranium resources. "Iran has huge reserves of raw uranium and has announced plans to extract more than 40 tons a year. Iranian officials say the Isfahan plant can convert more than 300 tons of uranium ore a year." (George Jahn Associated Press ‘Diplomats: Iran Readying Nuke Processes’ November 19th 2004).

Iran has a growing nuclear industry to economically exploit its abundant uranium resources. It mines uranium; it is creating milling plants to manufacture yellow cake uranium; conversion plants to create uranium hexafluoride; and can manufacture gas centrifuges to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power plants. "Furthermore, Iran has uranium mines in Yazd and is in the process of constructing milling plants to manufacture yellow cake uranium and conversion plants that convert it to UF6 gas. Iran has also begun manufacturing its own gas centrifuges used to enrich uranium." (Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster ‘A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences’ CNS Research Story September 9, 2004). Iran’s nuclear power industry could process the country’s vast uranium resources and export nuclear fuels around the world making substantial profits.

Secondly, iran’s nuclear power industry could generate huge amounts of nuclear electricity and export it to surrounding countries in order to make even more profits.

Thirdly, another major consideration is that the domestic consumption of nuclear energy would enable iran to export more fossil fuels, "They have a reasonable explanation for why they want to develop nuclear power. Oil is their biggest and most valuable export. The less they use for domestic purposes, the more they will have to export." (Charley Reese ‘Iran's Bomb’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8421 January 21, 2006).

The fourth major factor is that a nuclear energy industry would extend the life of iran’s fossil fuel resources. Given that, in the future, the increasing scarcity of fossil fuels will boost the price of fossil fuels, then current efforts to preserve fossil fuels will eventually reap huge financial benefits.

The Factors pushing Iran Towards the Development of a Nuclear Power Industry.
Another important factor pushing iran towards the development of nuclear energy is a problem commonly discussed in the west – looming energy shortages brought about by the depletion of fossil fuels. Although iran currently possesses an abundance of fossil fuels, it too faces the prospect of a depletion in its fossil fuel resources and thus, in the long term, energy shortages. Iran’s predicament is rarely discussed in the west – primarily because it make iran’s plans for development of nuclear power seem much more rational. What makes the nuclear option even more attractive to iran is its peculiar demographic problem. Half of iran’s population is currently under the age of 16. This is a considerable demographic time-bomb which will have significant economic repercussions in the decades to come. "Iran's oil exports will shrink to zero in 20 years, just at the demographic inflection point when the costs of maintaining an aged population will crush its state finances ..." (Spengler ‘Why the West will attack Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA24Ak01.html Jan 24, 2006); "If Dr. Rice has done her homework, she is aware that in 1975 President Gerald Ford's chief of staff, Dick Cheney, and his defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, bought Iran's argument that it needed a nuclear program to meet future energy requirements. This is what Iranian officials are saying today, and they are supported by energy experts who point out that oil extraction in Iran is already at or near peak and that the country will need alternatives to oil in coming decades." (Ray McGovern Juggernaut Gathering Momentum: Next Stop, Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8510 February 8, 2006).

Controlling Iran’s Nuclear Power Industry through Uranium Imports.
The russians and europeans are trying to mediate between the israeli dominated bush administration and iran by suggesting it might be possible to allow iran to use civil nuclear power without developing nuclear weapons if they were given control over uranium supplies to iran. George bush has acknowledged russia’s offer to do this, "Vladimir Putin pledged increased vigilance of expended uranium and the fuel cycle as part of Russian assistance in the construction and operation of Iranian reactors. President Bush mentioned this progress in Iran and even empathy for their development goals during his April 28, 2005 press conference: "As to Iran, what Russia has agreed to do is to send highly enriched uranium to a nuclear civilian power plant and then collect that uranium after it's used for electricity, power purposes. That's what they've decided to do. And I appreciate that gesture. And what Russia said: Fine, we'll provide you the uranium. We'll enrich it for you and provide it to you and then we'll collect it. And I appreciate that gesture. So I think Vladimir was trying to help there."" (‘Arming an Israeli Attack on Iran: Why the US should cancel "Bunker Buster" Bombs for Israel’ http://www.irmep.org/GBU.htm May 1st 2005).

The europeans are also interested in such a strategy, "The Europeans are aiming to get Tehran to cease all uranium-related activity permanently and depend instead exclusively on imports of low-enriched fissile material produced by the Europeans for Iran's civilian nuclear program. This is totally unacceptable to the Iranians." (Dilip Hiro ‘The Iranian Nuclear Issue in a Global Context’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=5952 May 14th 2005).

In other words, the russians and the europeans want to prevent iran from exploiting its own uranium resources and force it to pay vast amounts of money to import a commodity which it has in abundance. It’s good to think that they are trying to uphold the moral principles of the non-proliferation treaty rather than finding a means for promoting their material interests.

The Hypocrisy of Zogs’ attitudes towards Iran concerning Energy Shortages.
It is hypocritical for the zogs of america, britain and palestine, to use nuclear energy and yet deny iran such a right. Over the last few years, increasing numbers of politicians in the over-industrialized world have been advocating an increase in their countries’ use of nuclear energy to meet predicted energy shortages so it is hypocritical for them to stop other countries using this form of energy. Iran has just as much right as any other country around the world to develop nuclear energy. (This statement is not meant to imply support for nuclear energy. It is designed only to put pressure on all to give up the civil use of nuclear power).

Whilst the blair government insists that iran stops any further development of nuclear energy it is also demanding that britain needs to increase its reliance on nuclear energy. Blair wants to revive britain’s nuclear power industry in order to combat a predicted energy shortage even though there are plenty of energy saving measures that could make nuclear energy redundant. The blair government sees no contradiction in its bizarre double standards. "Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, insists that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful and has worked on several diplomatic fronts to resolve its problems with the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Meanwhile, Israel is yet to join the NPT community and is under no pressure to do so. Israel’s superior stance continues despite the call made by the IAEA’s chief, Mohamed ElBaradei to surrender its nuclear weapons and to sign the non-proliferation treaty." (Ramzy Baroud ‘Israel’s Nuclear Puzzle Resolved: But To What End?’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/baroud.php?articleid=6927 August 13, 2005).

The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Two: Iran’s Right to Militarily Defend Itself.

Updated March 7th 2006.

The Hypocrisy of Zogs’ attitudes towards Iran concerning Nuclear Proliferation.
It is also hypocritical for zog governments to possess nuclear weapons and yet deny iran the same rights.

The israelis in the bush administration are squealing about iran’s move towards civilian nuclear power because they fear nuclear proliferation and yet iran is the only country they are picking on over this issue, "The Bush administration continues an escalating spiral toward conflict with Iran, using Iran's nuclear policy as its primary focus. At the same time, the administration is reducing restrictions on other emerging nuclear states that pose a far more serious and immediate threat to world peace. The United States also recently removed nuclear restrictions imposed upon India for their thinly disguised nuclear weapons program. Much of the impetus for this reportedly came from the head of the export licensing arm of the Commerce Department, who is lobbying for a job as ambassador to India and who has a very cozy relationship with the Defense Department's neoconservative leadership. Brazil is now defying the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding questions over its nuclear program, which is not benign. This would violate the long-standing U.S. determination to keep South America nuclear- free. And the U.S. response? No seismic rumbles of the kind directed toward Iran are apparent here. And forget South Korean enrichment efforts - clearly they were "just a mistake."" (William O. Beeman, Donald A. Weadon ‘Iran as Bush's nuclear bogeyman’ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.
cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/30/EDG
B790KB01.DTL September 30, 2004); "New Delhi is keen to vote with the U.S., despite domestic opposition, in order to finalize and implement a nuclear cooperation deal initialed with Washington last July. This would effectively legitimize India's nuclear weapons and help resume civilian nuclear commerce with it." (Praful Bidwai ‘Iran Confrontation in the Cards’ http://www.antiwar.com/bidwai/?articleid=8481 February 1, 2006); "In a now-all-too familiar display of hypocrisy, the IAEA resolution which Bush has now successfully strongarmed India to endorse, sends the Iran issue to the UN Security Council to punish it for its so-called breaches of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and lack of confidence that it is not trying to make weapons. The text of the resolution expresses "serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program.'' It recalls "Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations'' to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It expresses "the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes," and it requests IAEA Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, to "report to the Security Council" with steps Iran needs to take to dispel suspicions about its nuclear ambitions. So, India, a producer of nuclear weapons and a nonsignatory of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, will get nuclear favours from Bush in exchange for supporting Bush's ramp-up for a seemingly imminent attack on Iran, an NPT signatory, for which there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program." (Ingmar Lee ‘The Smiling Buddha Blast and Canada's CANDU Snafu’ http://www.counterpunch.org/lee02272006.html February 27, 2006); "President Bush effectively tore up the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons by announcing this week that "as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, India should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states." Translation? Even though India refused to be a Party to the NPT, because India has developed and tested nuclear weapons, India should now "acquire the same benefits and advantages" that the NPT bestows on the five "nuclear-weapons states" – US, UK, France, Russia and China. Specifically, even though all NPT signatories not having nukes are required to subject all their nuclear programs to a full-scope Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the five NWS are allowed to unilaterally decide which of their nuclear programs – if any – they subject to such an agreement. Prime Minister Singh announced India was prepared to "assume the same responsibilities and practices" of the five NWS." (Gordon Prather ‘Tearing Up the NPT’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=6729 July 23, 2005).

Iran’s Military Justification for Acquiring Nuclear Weapons.
Iran believes it is militarily justified in acquiring nuclear weapons for its own defence. It is surrounded to the west by the jews-only state in palestine which possesses nuclear weapons; to the east by pakistan and india which have nuclear weapons; and to the north by russia which has a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons.

In recent years it has also been surrounded by america. Firstly, through its military occupation of afghanistan and iraq. And, secondly, through the establishment of military bases in many countries surrounding iran, "The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq." (Michel Chossudovsky ‘Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20050501&articleId=66 May 1, 2005). There are also military bases in kuwait and the united arab emirates. "The reality is that there are U.S. troops in Dubai, over 1,000 of them, and the United Arab Emirates (of which Dubai is a part) is one of our staunchest allies in the region. We have also signed a defense pact with Abu Dhabi, and the emirate has been used as a base from which to pre-position U.S. troops bound for Iraq. Our planes refueled at Dubai's al-Dhafra air base on their way to patrol Iraq's no-fly zone during the run-up to the invasion. Dubai has borne the costs in fuel and facilities maintenance of these U.S. military operations, and receives not a dime in "foreign aid." In addition to hosting over 1,000 U.S. troops at various air and naval facilities, the U.A.E. is contributing to the maintenance of U.S. military bases in Germany. The Gulf states are islands of U.S. influence in an Arabic-Muslim sea of Middle Eastern hostility: to insult them in so flagrant a manner would be to effectively sink the pro-U.S. governments that have so far remained our only faithful allies in the region. Fearful of Iran, the U.A.E. has cozied up to the U.S. like no other country in the Middle East, except, perhaps, Kuwait." (Justin Raimondo ‘Hating Arabs’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8587 February 22, 2006).

Thirdly, iran faces an even more intense encirclement through the expansion of nato’s role in the middle east, "NATO expansion project to include the US allies had been explicitly requested in a report submitted by the former Spanish Prime Minister José-María Aznar, L’OTAN, une alliance pour la liberté in which he talked about the possibility of including not only Ukraine and Georgia, but also Japan and Australia, and why not Israel. The Alliance would become then a permanent coalition for the service of Good as defined by the White House. Including Israel in the Alliance would create an obligation for all member States to provide assistance to the Jewish State if attacked by Iran, even though it was in self-defense." (Munich Conference: accession of Israel to NATO and attack Iran’ http://www.voltairenet.org/article135669.html February 15th 2006).

The iranians thus believe they have legitimate military reasons for possessing nuclear weapons to protect themselves from their nuclear-armed neighbours. If the jews-only state in palestine has nuclear weapons this legitimizes iran’s possession of such weapons. (Once again, these arguments are not meant to support nuclear weapons but to support the abolition of all such weapons).

It is true that iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty. But it is legally entitled to withdraw from the treaty if it believes this would be in its national interests. The jews-only state illegally occupying palestine has refused to sign the treaty so this provides less incentive for the iranians to continue abiding by it. Indeed, the best moral and legal justification that iran has for developing nuclear weapons are the threats being made against it by the zionist occupied governments of palestine, britain, and the united states.

The Hypocrisy of Zogs’ fears concerning Terrorists’ Acquisition of Nuclear Weapons.
The neocons in the western world have been stirring up fears about iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons by arguing it would be madness to allow iran’s religious leaders whom they regard as ‘irrational, islamic psychopaths’ to acquire such weapons. However, the fact is that ‘irrational, jewish psychopaths’ have such weapons so why not iran? Even more frightening for iran is the possibility that mad judaic mullahs will eventually take complete control of the jews-only, theocratic state so the only way for iran to curb their expansionist malignancy would be by acquiring nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons would be safer in the hands of iranian mullahs because they are far more civilized in comparison to the irrational, judaic lunatics in the jews-only state who believe in fantasies such as the jews-only holocaust. What is more, whilst the jews-only state in palestine is a racist, apartheid state the iranian state is not.

Justin raimondo has pointed out that if the bush administration is worried about terrorists getting hold of iranian nuclear bombs there is an even bigger risk of this happening in pakistan and yet it expresses no concern about this. "To begin with, proliferation of nuclear weaponry is bad in and of itself: we don't want another Pakistan on our hands, in which we nervously await an internal eruption to empower some Islamic nutball to launch a nuclearized jihad. On the other hand, we've endured the Pakistan situation for this long, and its potential consequences in terms of getting nuclear arms directly into the hands of Osama bin Laden & Co. are far more likely – and more horrendously lethal – than the prospect of Tehran acquiring nukes." (Justin Raimondo ‘War, Lies, and Videotape’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8383 January 13, 2006).

Iran is More of a Democratic State than the Jews-only State in Palestine.
The racist, apartheid, jews-only state in palestine, and the israelis controlling the bush administration, say they want to attack iran in order to establish democracy in that country. However, it has to be pointed out that iran already has a political system with a substantial democratic component. "But how many Americans are aware that women may vote and hold political office in Iran? How many Americans are aware that the president of Iran is a reformer who is intensely disliked by the conservative Islamist establishment? How many Americans are aware that religious minorities have guaranteed representation in the Iranian parliament, and that Judaism is far more tolerated there than in almost all of the Muslim nations which are currently subsidized as our "allies"? How many Americans are aware that there are Christian members of the Iranian parliament, while there are no Muslim members of the American Congress?" (Steven LaTulippe ‘A Few Thoughts Before We 'Liberate' Iran’ http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe35.html November 24, 2004). Juan cole has sought to counter the neocons’ lies that iran has no democracy, "Goldberg criticizes me for saying that the 1997 presidential election in Iran was more democratic than the Jan. 30, 2005 election in Iraq. His complaint is that the four candidates for president were vetted and approved by Iran's Guardianship Council. It is certainly the case that although Iran has elections, they are flawed because many candidates are excluded on ideological grounds. To say that, however, is not to say that the popular will can never unexpectedly make itself known in Iran. In the 1997 election the vetting was lax, and a relative liberal, Muhammad Khatami, was allowed to run. He had earlier been fired as minister of culture for being too liberal. He wrote about Habermas and civil society and democratization in Iran (he had lived in Germany several years and read Habermas in German). The four presidential candidates in Iran were all known by name, unlike the candidates for Iraq's parliament, most of whom remained anonymous to voters in the weeks leading up to the election. I'd say that is a sign of greater transparency in Iran. The Iranian participants were not in danger if they campaigned or ran, one of the criteria of a successful democratic election according to international watchdog groups. In this respect, too, Iran in that year was superior to Iraq in 2005. Khatami's victory in 1997 was a big surprise. He was put in by the youth vote and the women's vote, against the wishes of the hardline clerics. If a candidate wins who wasn't expected to, that is a sign of lack of manipulation of the results. Khatami was elected by 69% of the Iranian electorate, and 76 percent of eligible voters voted. The latter number is higher than will be true for Iraq. In every way, from the transparency of candidates and platforms, to safe conditions for voters, to unexpected results, to the percentage of eligible voters who voted and the percentage of the electorate that directly chose Mr. Khatami, his election was more democratic than the elections just held in Iraq." (Juan Cole ‘Jonah Goldberg Embarrasses Himself Once Again’ http://www.juancole.com/2005_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 5th 2005). There was also a surprise election victory in 2005 for mahmud ahmadinejad which once again reinforces iran’s democratic credentials.

Power is not fixed in concrete in iran. One commentator has pointed out the limits to the power of the iranian president, "Khamenei, known as rahbar, or leader, is elected for life by the 86-member "Assembly of Experts" who themselves are elected by their provinces and have a guardian watchdog role. More important, the president has sharply limited executive powers. He doesn't control the High Council of the Nation's Security, the armed forces, the revolutionary guards, the intelligence services, the judiciary and broadcasting. All the important levers of power belong to rahbar. Nor does the president have the power to dismiss parliament and call new elections." (Arnaud de Borchgrave ‘Iraq, Iran unintended results’ http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060217-115704-7804r Feb. 17th 2006). But another commentator has suggested that since coming to power mahmud ahmadinejad has managed to transform a number of iranian institutions to extend his power base. "Lack of progress on the economic and social-justice front notwithstanding, Ahmadinejad has introduced massive changes to the face and operations of the executive branch. Virtually all provincial governors have been replaced by Ahmadinejad loyalists, who tend to be young and hail from the Islamic Republic's security establishment, in particular the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC - or the Sepah-e-Pasdaran). Moreover, Ahmadinejad has replaced most senior bankers and other important figures in charge of the country's finances. Furthermore, many of the country's most experienced diplomats have been recalled from abroad and replaced by less experienced figures, with backgrounds in the Sepah-e-Pasdaran and other security outfits." (Mahan Abedin ‘Ahmadinejad on the warpath’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB18Ak02.html February 18th 2006). This hardly suggests that iran is a fossilized theocracy. It is much more like a flexible democratic country.

A vitally important part of any democratic system is the protection of minorities. Given iran’s ancient history this might have been fertile ground for the appearance of persian supremacists wanting to create a new persian empire by conquering arab countries and acquire arab land. And yet such tendencies have not appeared since the islamic revolution. If anything the exact reverse has been the case. Iran’s admiration for islam leads it to respect and honour arab countries which also promote islam. As a consequence it would be anathema to the iranian state to persecuting its arab minorities. "Furthermore, claims that Arabs in Iran constitute a persecuted minority are as false as they are amusing. In fact, since the Islamic revolution of 1979, the Iranian government has gone out of its way to promote the Arabic language (at the expense of Persian) in its drive to "Islamize" Iranian society. It is also important to note that Iran's current defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, is an ethnic Arab from Khuzestan. Claims by Khuzestani separatists that the Iranian regime is engaged in the persecution of minorities is particularly strange when one considers the fact that the Islamic republic has shown extreme sympathy for Arab causes both inside and outside of Iran." (Mahan Abedin and Kaveh Farrokh ‘British Arabism and the bombings in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GK03Ak02.html Nov 3, 2005).

On a more mundane level, quite how western neocons could argue that wars are a means for establishing democracy after what has happened in iraq is not explained and is not explicable. If iraq is anything to go by, war is the worst possible means for bringing about democracy. The more that the jews in america and palestine bring about devastation in iran, the less likelihood there is of democracy rising from the ruins.

It has to be suggested that iran’s political system is much more democratic than that prevailing in the apartheid jews-only state in palestine. So why isn’t the west trying to democratize palestine? Jews in america spend more of their time, effort, and resources, on trying to push america into wars for the benefits of the jews-only state than they do in trying to reform the racist nature of the jews-only state in palestine.

The Promotion of Democracy in Iran will boost demands for Iranian Nuclear Weapons.
The israelis in the racist, apartheid, jews-only state and the bush administration believe a major benefit of attacking iran and democratizing the country would be that iranians would lose interest in their country obtaining nuclear weapons. However, all the evidence suggests that if iran became more democratic this would increase popular demands for the country to acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually every iranian, whether secular or religious, supports the idea of their country acquiring nuclear weapons. "But the mullahs are unlikely to give up their nuclear weapons efforts, which are popular among Iranians of all political persuasions …." (The New York Times ‘Military rumblings on Iran’ http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/
articles/2005/01/27/opinion/ediran.html January 28, 2005). The possession of nuclear weapons is popular in all countries which possess them so it is not surprising they are popular in iran. Of course, if iran is attacked this would automatically boost iranians’ support for the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Iran’s Acquisition of Nuclear Weapons will bring Peace to the Middle East.
Since the racist, jews-only state in palestine already possesses nuclear weapons the best way to neutralize, and perhaps even abolish, such weapons is for iran to acquire similar weapons. In other words, the best way to bring peace to the middle east is to encourage iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran and the jews-only state in palestine can then negotiate to eradicate such weapons through a multi-lateral agreement.

According to roger howard, the reason the jews-only state in palestine is opposed to iran getting nuclear weapons isn’t the military threat posed by such weapons but their political consequences for mutual disarmament. "It seems likely, then, that there are other, more convincing, reasons why Israel is concerned about an Iranian bomb. One possibility, for example, is that Tel Aviv is deeply concerned that such a development could potentially create deep splits in the U.S.-Israel alliance. Consider, for example, what would happen if Tehran, having developed a warhead and withdrawn from the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, offered to reduce the size of or even eliminate its own nuclear arsenal in return for similar moves – all UN-monitored – by Tel Aviv." (Roger Howard ‘Why Israel Really Fears Iranian Nukes’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/howard.php?articleid=4065 November 27, 2004); "Now that Saddam is defeated, Israel must seriously consider foregoing its nuclear weapons as part of a grand bargain with Iran. And the other Arab states, which are covertly developing the possibility of going nuclear, must open up and renounce the effort as Libya recently did." (Jonathan Power ‘The Danger of an Israeli Attack on Iran’ http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article
=60411&d=14&m=3&y=2005 March 14th 2005).

This position has recently been endorsed by justin raimondo, "Insofar as it would make all-out war unthinkable, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Tehran would, ironically, stabilize as much as destabilize a volcanically volatile region. As it stands now, the entire Middle East lives in the shadow of a possible Israeli first strike against a perceived threat – as exemplified by a recent round of speculation about an imminent Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sites. This is inherently destabilizing, as it means an increase in "fourth generation" terrorist tactics employed by Israel's enemies, and opens up the possibility that a future Israeli prime minister – perhaps an extremist elected by a radicalized Israeli majority – might one day really pull the nuclear trigger. On the other hand, having leveled the playing field, the Iranians would render the Israeli first-strike strategy inoperable. A war between Israel and its adversaries in the Middle East, rather than ending in the nuking of Tehran, Mecca, and every major Muslim city in the region, would instead have to mean "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) – that old specter of the Cold War that the neocons found so insufferably irritating at the time, and which stood in the way of their dreams of "regime change." (It happened anyway, albeit without their intervention, but that's another story…)." (Justin Raimondo ‘War, Lies, and Videotape’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8383 January 13, 2006).

The real reason, however, why the jews-only state does not want iran to acquire nuclear weapons is because this would neuter the jews-only state’s ability to use its nuclear weapons to blackmail america into fighting zionist proxy wars. The jews-only state would no longer be able to blackmail america into providing a constant supply of economic assistance, military hardware, and cutting edge military technology.

The neocons, israelis who are traitors to america, continually resort to propaganda in the hope of undermining opposition to an attack on iran. They have occasionally floated the idea that america should not only prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons but should try to remove those in the jews-only state in palestine. But, the idea that the israelis who have colonized america’s media/congress/administration/presidency will pressure the jews-only state in palestine into giving up its nuclear weapons for the sake of encouraging middle eastern countries such as iran to abide by the non proliferation treaty is preposterous. When in april 2004 bush recognized "the facts on the ground" concerning zionists’ illegal occupation of palestine he was also taking the first step in recognizing the jews-only state’s nuclear weapons.

Whether the bush administration forces the jews-only state in palestine to abide by international law and give up its nuclear weapons or whether it uses its military power to ensure the jews-only state’s monoploy of nuclear weapons in the middle east, is a good indicator of the extent of jewish global domination. Given that iran is not currently a military threat to either europe or america, and given that its possession of nuclear weapons would not pose a military threat to either europe or america, the fact that western countries are treating the iran issue as their primary foreign policy issue suggests they are all acting under orders from the jews-only state in palestine. Watching american, european, russian and chinese, politicians dancing to the zionist tune over iran provides conclusive proof as to the existence of jewish world domination. The jews-only state has taken over political leadership of the western world. Whatever policies are promoted by the jews-only state in palestine are then adopted by the zionist occupied governments of america and britain and then imposed on the rest of the world. America’s policies towards iran have nothing to do with american interests. On the contrary, they run counter to american interests. The foreign policies being pursued by the american, british, french, and german, governments are policies first formulated by the jews-only state solely for the benefit of the racist state in palestine. The jews-only state, and the jewish lobby in america, pushed the nixon administration into supporting the jews-only state in the 1973 middle east war, the proxy zionist gulf war in 1990, and the proxy zionist invasion of iraq in 2003. The west has suffered huge economic and military losses as a result of its implementation of the foreign policies of the jews-only state in palestine. It shows just how many sacrifices that western governments are willing to make for their jewish masters. But what is even more remarkable is that nobody in the western world seeks to blame the jews-only state for such losses. The west currently seems willing to sacrifice even more of its wealth and ooman lives on yet another proxy zionist war for the benefit of its jewish masters.

The Environmental Implications of Preventing Iran from Using Civil Nuclear Power.
Since the turn of the millenium, an increasing number of politicians in the over-industrialized world have proposed an expansion of nuclear energy firstly, to combat future energy shortages and, secondly, to combat global burning. Both blair and bush support an expansion of their nuclear power industries. The same is also true of european governments, "But now, some EU countries – including Germany – are having second thoughts about phasing out nuclear power. For one thing, replacing Germany's nuclear power plants with coal-fired plants would result in an increase of more than 170 million metric tons in carbon dioxide emissions. Well, Bush apparently really does want to revive nuclear power." (Gordon Prather ‘Placating the Greenies’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8599 February 25, 2006). After a couple of decades of silence since the three mile island disaster, the global nuclear power industry is becoming increasingly vociferous that a vast expansion of nuclear power is the best solution to combating climate change because it releases fewer Carbon emissions than fossil fuels.

As regards the energy shortage issue: If iran is not going to be allowed to generate nuclear energy, what is it going to use for energy when its fossil fuels are exhausted? Iran has abundant fossil fuel resources but even these are going to run out so what is it going to do once they have gone?

As regards the climate change issue: Western governments are demanding that the west increases its reliance on nuclear power to reduce its Carbon emissions and thus help to combat global warming. In other words, they want to prevent iran from adopting what they believe is the best option for combating global warming. Western governments pretend they want to reduce Carbon emissions from fossil fuels and yet they are forcing iran to continue using fossil fuels which will pollute the atmosphere and destabilize the climate. The west sees no contradiction in this bizarre double standard.

It seems the west is going to use its military power to allow only their allies to use nuclear energy. When the oil runs out, the rest of the world is going to have to survive without oil, gas, or nuclear energy. Only the west’s allies are going to be allowed to combat climate change and the increasing costs of fossil fuels by switching to nuclear energy. The rest of the world is going to have to pay more and more for fossil fuels until eventually they become too expensive. Poor countries will end up becoming even poorer because they have no energy resources. Prior to this inequitable policy it was hoped that all countries around the world would eventually become rich and that the divide between the first, and third, worlds would disappear. This new international policy will prevent this from happening. By denying countries access to nuclear technology, the over-industrialized world is also preventing other countries from developing industrially. In other words, the rich world is going to keep the poor world in a permanent state of poverty.

It seems as if the bush administration has concluded it cannot just ban countries from exploiting nuclear power leaving them bereft of energy. It has come up with an idea for helping countries to develop nuclear energy without increasing nuclear proliferation. "Meanwhile, the Bush-Cheney Department of Energy just announced plans to form a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, through which the U.S. "will work with other nations possessing advanced nuclear technologies to develop new proliferation-resistant recycling technologies in order to produce more energy, reduce waste, and minimize proliferation concerns." (Gordon Prather ‘A Way Out for Iran? http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8610 February 28, 2006). Gordon prather believes the chinese have developed a nuclear reactor which cannot be exploited to provide nuclear weapons. This new advanced nuclear reactor is also supposedly safe from a meltdown and comes in handy size packs that can be mass manufactured for use all over the globe, "The proliferation-proof, meltdown-proof pebble-bed technology development began in Germany more than 30 years ago and was continued in South Africa, but has apparently now been perfected in China. If, as planned, similar units are produced modularly in factories in China, by 2020 China will be the world's only supplier of first-rate nuclear power plants." (Gordon Prather ‘A Way Out for Iran? http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8610 February 28, 2006). As to where the nuclear waste from these pebble-dashed nuclear reactors will be stored once its useful energy has been extracted is not known but then only "eco-wackos", as prather refers to them, would raise such an issue. Whether these nuclear reactors are bomb proof is another matter not mentioned.

The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Three: Initiating the war against Iran.

Updated March 7th 2006.

Who will start the War against Iran?
An increasing number of commentators have pointed out that the jews-only state in palestine, and the jews in america who give primary loyalty to the jews-only state, are at the forefront of the campaign to push america into a war against iran. (Please see ‘Jews Stirring up World War Three: The Zog War Against Iran’. However, which country, america or the jews-only state, would initiate an attack on iran is a matter of speculation. There are four options.

Firstly, it is possible the jews-only state in palestine will launch the initial raid. However, despite the jews-only state’s formidable military capabilities some commentators do not believe it has the capability for destroying iran’s nuclear facilities, "As for the Israelis, they would attack Iran in a New York second – if they had the capability, and I don't believe they do. If they take a northern route, they will need permission from Turkey to use its airspace. They won't get it. If they fly to the south through airspace we control, they would need our permission, and that's not at all certain. Moreover, they don't have the planes capable of taking enough ordnance to do sufficient damage to fortified, underground installations that are widely dispersed." (Charley Reese ‘Iran's Bomb’ http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=8421 January 21, 2006).

Virtually all commentators discussing this issue assume the jews-only state will use its airforce to attack iran. But this is not its only option. It could launch a missile attack - it might even be tempted to use some of its nuclear missiles. Another possibility is to launch cruise missiles from one or more of its submarines just off the iranian coast in the persian gulf, "Israel’s acquisition from Germany a few years ago of three Dolphin-class submarines capable of launching conventional and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles? The 1,720-ton diesel-electric submarines are among the most technically advanced subs of their kind in the world. Each can be equipped with four cruise missiles, which Israel reportedly tested in the Indian Ocean in 1999. (Uzi Mahnaimi and Matthew Campbell, "Israel Makes Nuclear Waves with Submarine Missile Test," London Sunday Times, June 18, 2000). The subs will cruise the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, and, ominously, the Persian Gulf -which tends to confirm the views of the late Israeli scholar, Israel Shahak, a leading dissident, who argued that Israel’s strategic goal is hegemony from Morocco to Pakistan. (See Israel Shahak, Open Secrets, 1997, chapters four and eight)." (Mark Gaffney ‘Will Iran Be Next?’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article3288.htm May 8th 2003); "Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html)." (Michel Chossudovsky ‘Nuclear War against Iran’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714 January 3, 2006).

The second option as regards who will initiate the attack on iran is that the jews-only state in palestine and america will launch a co-ordinated attack. This is feasible given the level of integration between the two forces but politically america would prefer the jews-only state not to get involved because of the likelihood that it would stimulate even greater opposition to the war within the arab/moslem/persian worlds.

The third option is that the jews-only state will use its political power to push or blackmail the bush administration into initiating the war whilst the zionists sit on the sidelines - as happened in the first gulf war and america’s invasion of iraq. Why would the jews-only state launch the initial attack, or even get involved in the war at all, if it can get the americans to do its dirty work?

Justin raimondo suspects the jews-only state won’t attack iran because it believes it can get the americans to initiate the war, and suffer the consequences. "The Israelis are now engaging in a bit of blustering, hinting broadly that they are ready to nip Iran's nuclear program in the bud by conducting a raid similar to that carried out at Osirak, Iraq, in 1981, when Israeli warplanes bombed Saddam's nascent nuclear facility. That probably isn't going to happen in this case, however, for two reasons: (1) The geographical spread of the various suspected nuclear sites prevents any attempt to knock them out in a single blow, or even several blows, and (2) Instead of fighting their own battles, the Israelis would much rather use the U.S. to do their dirty work, whenever possible – and that seems highly possible given their past success in this area." (Justin Raimondo ‘Spy With a Heart of Gold?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8441 January 25, 2006).

To date, the bush administration seems to have been following the same international preparations for an attack on iran as it pursued in the run up to its attack on iraq. Raimondo, however, rather surprisingly seems to believe the bushies are resisting the wishes of their jewish masters. "When it comes to Iran, though, their (israelis) strategy is just beginning to be put into practice – and is running up against a major roadblock in the reluctance of the Bushies to climb on board." (Justin Raimondo ‘Spy With a Heart of Gold?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8441 January 25, 2006). He even believes the american host is about to expel its zionist parasites, "When a parasite invades, it hides as long as it can, sucking the vital juices and draining the energy of its host. Yet there is a limit to what the host can tolerate: eventually, it either builds up an immunity to the depredations of its "guest," or it is sucked dry and exhausted to the point of near-death. Having used up nearly all available military and economic resources in Iraq, the U.S. has a choice: it can either build up an immunity to Israeli influence, even a partial one, or it can let itself be turned into a dry husk, a casualty of Tel Aviv's ambitions." (Justin Raimondo ‘Spy With a Heart of Gold?’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8441 January 25, 2006).

Raimondo’s analysis of the bushies probably derived from jim lobe, "That the administration, which promulgated and then implemented a doctrine of preventive war against presumed enemies allegedly bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction, should come under attack from all these sources for excessive passivity is ironic. But it is also testimony to the degree that it has been forced by its Iraq adventure to adopt what can only be described - to the disgust of the neo-conservatives, in particular - as both a new humility and a new realism with regard to Tehran. Noting how Iraq had overstretched US ground forces, officials who bragged in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion in 2003 that "everyone wants to go to Baghdad, [but] real men want to go to Tehran", now admit that such an option is completely out of the question. The most Washington can do militarily, in their opinion, is to use air power to take out as many nuclear-related sites as possible - reportedly more than 300, requiring three days of non-stop bombing - and hope for the best. But the military option - exercised early and eagerly in Iraq - is seen as the absolute last resort by the administration. Contrary to its neo-conservative and Democratic critics, the White House concedes that the potential costs of an attack - skyrocketing oil prices, a renewed Shi'ite insurgency in southern Iraq, a wave of terrorist attacks by Lebanon's Hezbollah, and new schisms in a North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance that Washington has tried hard to mend - could very well outweigh the benefits." (Jim Lobe ‘The Iranian neo-cons love to hate’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA26Ak04.html Jan 26, 2006).

Ok, let’s pretend the bushies are refusing to countenance a pre-emptive american attack on iran and decide to disobey their jewish masters. What are the likely consequences?

Politically, the jewish lobby in america will do its best to bring about the election of hillary clinton as next president of the united states since she’s agreed to do the jews’ dirty work for them. "In short, if Bush does not confront Iran on the nuclear issue with sanctions or air strikes, he may find himself confronted by Israelis and their U.S. auxiliaries. Hearken to Hillary Clinton: "I don't believe you face threats like Iran and North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond." Hillary is saying that if George Bush does not confront Iran, he is open to the charge of leaving Israel to face a nuclear attack by a regime that has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Political hardball." (Quoted in Patrick J Buchanan ‘Bush's Dilemma: Iran vs. Israel’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8437 January 25, 2006).

Militarily, if the jews-only state in palestine realizes it cannot lobby the bush administration into attacking iran, it might use its nuclear weapons to politically blackmail america into launching a war against iran. In 1973, the jews-only state in palestine used nuclear blackmail to force the nixon administration into sending military hardware to the jewish army to defeat the advancing arab armies – even though the result of this american intervention was an arab oil embargo that pushed america and the rest of the world into a decade long recession. In 1990, the jews-only state once again used nuclear blackmail against the bush senior administration to force it into removing saddam from kuwait even though saddam had been a loyal ally to america over the previous decade. In 2003, jews pushed america into the invasion of iraq – although whether this was the result of nuclear blackmail or political pressure from the jewish lobby in america is not known – although the latter is more likely.

The fourth option is that the jews-only state in palestine will launch a token attack against iran in order to provoke retaliation from iran. George wmd bush has promised to defend the jews-only state from any attack by iran. "What President George W. Bush, Fox News, and the Washington Times were saying about Iraq three years ago they are now saying about Iran. After Saturday's vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report Iran's suspicious nuclear activities to the UN Security Council, the president wasted no time in warning, "The world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons." More recently, in the case of Iran, President Bush has been unabashed in naming Israel as the most probable target of any Iranian nuclear weapons. He has also created a rhetorical lash-up of the U.S. and Israel, referring three times in the past two weeks to Israel as an "ally" of the U.S., as if to condition Americans to the notion that the U.S. is required to join Israel in any confrontation with Iran. For example, on Feb. 1 the president told the press, "Israel is a solid ally of the United States; we will rise to Israel's defense if need be." Asked if he meant the U.S. would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush replied with a startlingly open-ended commitment, "You bet, we'll defend Israel."" (Ray McGovern Juggernaut Gathering Momentum: Next Stop, Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8510 February 8, 2006). In effect then if iran retaliates it will trigger a war with america. If it retaliates against american forces in the middle east then america will obviously respond. If iran retaliates only against the jews-only state this too will bring in the americans. The only reason the jews-only state will initiate an attack on iran is to force america into the conflict when iran retaliates against the attack.

According to pat buchanan, bush is now in a dire political situation: he has either got to attack iran or he’s got to rebuff the jews-only lobby, and the jewish media, in america and prevent the jews-only state in palestine from launching a pre-emptive military attack on iran. "If America does not strike, Mofaz is saying, Israel will. Yet, as that could produce the same results as an American attack, without the same assurance of success, Bush may have to restrain Israel, if he does not want a wider war." (Patrick J Buchanan ‘Bush's Dilemma: Iran vs. Israel’ http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8437 January 25, 2006). In other words, bush has either got to obey his jewish masters or suffer the consequences of disobedience – just as his father suffered at the hands of the jewish lobby.

Let’s develop this scenario and assume the unimaginable: the bushies refuse to follow the advice of america’s jewish lobbies and resist the jews-only state’s nuclear blackmail. Once the jews-only state realizes it cannot politically shift the bushies, it will conclude that’s its only remaining option is to launch a token attack on iran. There is virtually nothing the united states could do to stop such an attack. What happens when the freebie jets that the bush administration recently gave to the jews-only state to enable it to bomb iran, start flying over american occupied iraq on their way to iran? Is bush going to order the american military to shoot down these american warplanes with their israeli pilots to prevent them from reaching iran? Or is he going to pretend he can’t see them and hope the iranians won’t retaliate against either america or the jews-only state thereby propelling him into what will be the third proxy zionist war in the middle east? What is going to happen if the jews-only state tries to use one of its submarines in the arabian sea to launch a nuclear cruise missile attack on iran? Is george going to order his navy to sink the sub before it fires? The jews-only state knows only too well that once iran retaliates against america or the jews-only state there will be no chance for bush to keep america out of the war. The jews-only state knows that if it attacks iran and iran retaliates against either the jews-only state or american forces in the middle east then there will be a huge public outcry in america for a war against iran. This will invariably push bush into the war he supposedly doesn’t want. Basically, the jewish lobby in america and the jewish dominated american media is better at manipulating american public opinion than the bush administration. No matter how much the bushies are opposed to such a war (and there is no evidence they do) the jews will exploit any attack on american forces in the middle east or the jews-only state in palestine to whip up public demands in america for revenge against iran. America will get rapidly sucked into the conflict. The jews-only state has got the americans by the balls. It’s just a question of how hard they want to squeeze. As jeffrey blankfort has pointed out, "There is considerable speculation that Israel will attack Iran, even if the US is hesitant, because this is an election year and Israel knows and the lobby knows that anything Israel does at such times will be applauded by Congress and we may end up with the same result in Iraq." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’ http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php February 20, 2006).

The reality of the situation is that there is nothing the bushies can do to stop the jews-only state from entangling america in a war against iran. This is why america’s jewish elite rules america not the president of the united states. Even worse is that if the jews-only state participates in an american war against iran in order ‘to support its american ally’, americans will love the jews-only state even more – despite the fact that they have just been manipulated into committing political, economic, and military suicide. By the time the war is over, america will have been "sucked dry and exhausted to the point of near-death" (justin raimondo). But at least americans will have had the pleasure of serving their israeli masters and boosting jewish world domination.

The point of the jews-only state launching a pre-emptive, token, attack on iran would not be to destroy iran’s nuclear facilities but merely to provoke iranian retaliation in order to bring the americans into the war since they have the military power to destroy iran’s nuclear industry and its nuclear infrastructure. One strike will probably be enough to force iran into retaliating which will almost inevitably bring in the americans. In effect, the americans are checkmated by jewish warmongers.

The Bluffing Game.
Jeffrey blankfort has stated, "What we are seeing is a game of international poker, with the US spreading this disinformation about a pending attack as a high stakes bluff, aided, ironically, by a host of the administration's critics whose shallow analysis seems to be part of our daily email fare. The Iranians know they have the winning hand for this round, at least." (Jeff Blankfort ‘Critique: Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation’ February 15th 2006).

The implication of the bluffing thesis is that the bush administration is behind all the manoeuvres in the bluffing game – aided unintentionally by his critics. It is probably true that the bush administration is placing stories in the media to exert pressure on iran to give up its nuclear energy dreams. But many of the media reports are probably concocted by jewish zionists trying to pressure the bushies into a war. If they can hype up the threat enough then bush will have to go to war against iran whether he’s bluffing or not. The jews-only state has little to lose from the war and everything to gain from pushing america into a war. What does it matter to them that thousands of american troops might get slaughtered in iraq as a result of such a war? They don’t care about america other than using it to promote the interests of the jews-only state in palestine.

It is possible the bushies are opposed to a war against iran and are just bluffing about an attack on iran. But it is highly unlikely the jews-only state is bluffing. Firstly, it has got the bush administration by the balls and it is highly unlikely it is going to waste the opportunity of using america to do its dirty work against iran. Secondly, the jews-only state cannot afford to be seen to be bluffing. It has twice threatened to use its nuclear weapons against the arab world in order to blackmail america into supporting the jews-only state – firstly in 1973 during the arab-jew war and then in 1991 removing saddam from kuwait. If the jews-only state bluffs over an attack on iran then america will never again take seriously the jews-only state’s attempts at nuclear blackmail and the jews-only state will have lost a critical grip over the world’s biggest military.

In the end it is irrelevant whether the bushies are bluffing or not about a war against iran. If they are bluffing and iran calls america’s bluff then bush has no other option but to go to war because otherwise his reputation and that of the american military will be shattered.

The ability of america’s jewish elite to manipulate america into wars that benefit only the jews-only state is a clear indication of jewish supremacism over america. This is why america is just a colony of the jews-only state in palestine. America’s jewish elite controls america’s vast military power which enables it to promote jewish world domination.

It doesn’t matter to Iran who starts the War against Iran.
From iran’s perspective, it doesn’t matter whether it is attacked first by america or by the jews-only state in palestine because, given that bush has vowed to protect the jews-only state, as soon as it retaliates against either american forces in the middle east or against the jews-only state then america will attack iran. Even if iran is careful to retaliate only against the jews-only state, america will immediately become involved in the war.

If the jews-only state initiates the attack on iran, the iranians will blame america for a number of reasons. If iran is attacked by air it will blame america firstly, for allowing the jews-only bombers to pass over iraq. Secondly, because america provided the jews-only state with these aircraft, and bunker busting bombs, to attack iran. "The US Navy will come under fire even if the US does not participate in the first so-called surgical raids on Iran’s nuclear sites, that is, even if Israel goes it alone. Israel’s brand-new fleet of 25 F-15s (paid for by American taxpayers) has sufficient range to target Iran, but the Israelis cannot mount an attack without crossing US-occupied Iraqi air space. It will hardly matter if Washington gives the green light, or is dragged into the conflict by a recalcitrant Israel. Either way, the result will be the same. The Iranians will interpret US acquiescence as complicity, and, in any event, they will understand that the real fight is with the Americans. The Iranians will be entirely within their rights to counter-attack in self-defense. Most of the world will see it this way, and will support them, not America. The US and Israel will be viewed as the aggressors, even as the unfortunate US sailors in harm’s way become cannon fodder. In the Gulf’s shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be difficult, at best, and escape impossible. Even if US planes control of the skies over the battlefield, the sailors caught in the net below will be hard-pressed to survive. The Gulf will run red with American blood…" (Mark Gaffney ‘Iran: A Bridge too Far?’ http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm October 26th 2004).

If iran is attacked by missiles launched from the jews-only state’s submarines then iran can blame america for financing these weapons.

In the following analysis the phrase zog war will be used to cover all three options for the initial attack on iran. There are virtually no significant political or military differences between a war against iran that is initiated by the zionist occupied government of america or by the jews-only state in palestine or by both.

The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Four: The Consequences of an Attack on Iran.

Updated March 7th 2006.

The Scale of a Bombing Campaign against Iran.
The israeli neocons are lying and manipulating america into a second proxy zionist war – this time against iran. They are trying to cover up the terrible disasters that could be unleashed as a result of such a war by suggesting that all that is needed to stop iran from developing nuclear weapons is to bomb the country’s sole nuclear reactor. They conjure up images of the jews-only state’s illegal aerial attack on iraq’s osirak nuclear reactor in june 1981 to stop saddam from developing nuclear weapons. In other words, a simple surgical strike on a single target that could be over and done with in a matter of minutes with few civilian or american military casualties.

It is possible the zogs might confine themselves to hitting a single target. However, they know this will deter iran from developing nuclear energy/weapons for only a short period of time. One commentator has outlined a minimalist attack on iran, "Iran might need 100 buildings in good working order to make its bomb, but it is enough to demolish a few critical installations to delay its program for years - and perhaps longer because it would become harder or impossible for Iran to buy the materials it bought when its efforts were still secret. Some of these installations may be thickly protected against air attack, but it seems that their architecture has not kept up with the performance of the latest penetration bombs. More than 35% of Iran's gasoline must now be imported because the capacity of its foreign-built refineries cannot be expanded without components currently under U.S. embargo, and which the locals cannot copy. Aircraft regularly fall out of the sky because Iranians are unable to reverse-engineer spare parts." (Edward N Luttwak ‘In a Single Night’ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113937026599968085.html February 8, 2006).

If the zogs want to delay iran’s nuclear development over the medium term they will have to attack all of iran’s nuclear industry. This would necessitate a wide-scale bombing campaign. Douglas herman makes some reasonable speculations on the first moves in a war against iran indicating the scale of the bombing campaign needed to wreck iran’s nuclear industry, "The ironically named Bushehr nuclear power plant crumbled to dust. Russian technicians and foreign nationals scurried for safety. Most did not make it. Targets in Saghand and Yazd, all of them carefully chosen many months before by Pentagon planners, were destroyed. The uranium enrichment facility in Natanz; a heavy water plant and radioisotope facility in Arak; the Ardekan Nuclear Fuel Unit; the Uranium Conversion Facility and Nuclear Technology Center in Isfahan; were struck simultaneously by USAF and Israeli bomber groups. The Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the Tehran Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility, the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories, the Kalaye Electric Company in the Tehran suburbs were destroyed." (Douglas Herman ‘Day One – The War with Iran’ Rense.com January 9th 2006). Wayne madsen concurs, "Likely targets for saturation bombing are the Bushehr nuclear power plant (where Russian and other foreign national technicians are present), a uranium mining site in Saghand near the city of Yazd, the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, a heavy water plant and radioisotope facility in Arak, the Ardekan Nuclear Fuel Unit, the Uranium Conversion Facility and Nuclear Technology Center in Isfahan, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the Tehran Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility, the Tehran Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Laboratories, the Kalaye Electric Company in the Tehran suburbs, a reportedly dismantled uranium enrichment plant in Lashkar Abad, and the Radioactive Waste Storage Units in Karaj and Anarak." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006).

It is possible the zogs might limit their attacks to only the publicly known nuclear sites. However, it is possible they might also want to attack sites they suspect are a part of iran’s nuclear industry. The zogs insist they do not know the location of all iran’s nuclear facilities and, being paranoid, suggest there are large numbers of secret sites all over the country. "according to U.S. military planners, nuclear facilities are now hard to find and target from the air. During Operation Desert Fox in 1998 - an air campaign designed to cripple Iraq’s capability to produce nuclear weapons - it became apparent that the United States had no idea where such Iraqi weapons facilities were located (later the Bush administration found out the hard way that they didn’t have any). The Iranians have learned from Israel’s successful surprise attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981. They have hidden, hardened, buried or placed their nuclear facilities in heavily populated areas. For this reason, according to The New York Times, U.S. military planners admit that the Iranian nuclear program is best dealt with by diplomacy rather than by military force." (Ivan Eland ‘Next Target: Iran?’ http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=4157 December 14, 2004). If the zogs decided to attack all targets suspected as being a part of iran’s nuclear industry this would require a bombing campaign lasting many weeks perhaps even months.

If the zogs are to launch anything more than a single strike against a single target they will also have to attack iran’s military defences and its ability for military retaliation. This will mean destroying iran’s aircraft and airfields, military bases, radar sites, communications systems, etc. "Other first targets would be Shahab-I, II, and III missile launch sites, air bases (including the large Mehrabad air base/international airport near Tehran), naval installations on the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea, command, control, communications and intelligence facilities." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006); "Israel will probably lead the assault taking out the potential nuclear sites with the US close behind in a mop-up role; bombing the 45 chemical, biological and conventional weapons facilities. This will ensure that Iran will be effectively de-fanged well into the future." (Mike Whitney ‘The Inevitable War with Iran’ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_050923_the_inevitable_war_w.htm September 23rd 2005). This would considerably add to the scale and duration of any bombing campaign and dramatically increase civilian and military fatalities.

Even if an aerial bombing campaign was successful in taking out many iranian nuclear facilities, the zogs know the iranians have the capability for learning how to produce nuclear weapons and long range missiles and that within a decade or so the nuclear threat from iran could re-emerge. "Even if Natanz, Arak, and Bushehr were destroyed in a preemptive strike, Iran probably has duplicate equipment that can be activated and has the know-how to produce more, to pursue a more vigorous and unabated nuclear weapons program in the long term." (Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster ‘A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences’ CNS Research Story September 9, 2004).

The idea that a single surgical strike will be sufficient to stop iran from developing nuclear weapons is simply jewish propaganda to persuade the world to accept the principle of an attack on iran so that a more wholesale and devastating war can be launched. In reality, the jews advocating an attack on iran are hoping for a comprehensive war that will bring about fundamental changes in iran and the middle east as a whole.

The jews-only state in palestine not only wants the destruction of iran’s nuclear and military facilities but the obliteration of iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure to make it even more difficult for iranians to start up a nuclear weapons programme. What this means is that any industry which contributes to the nuclear power industry thus becomes a legitimate target for destruction i.e. electricity power stations, water/sewage systems, telecommunications systems, bridges, etc. "Secondary targets would include civilian airports, radio and TV installations, telecommunications centers, government buildings, conventional power plants, highways and bridges, and rail lines. Oil installations and commercial port facilities would likely be relatively untouched by U.S. forces in order to preserve them for U.S. oil and business interests." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006). Considering that virtually all iran’s industries contribute in one way or another to its nuclear power industry what the zogs really want to do is to bring about the deindustrialization of iran – destroying any industry which could be used for military purposes to defend the country from the racists in the jews-only state. In other words, the zogs want to bring about the palestinianization of iran – a tactic they have already successfully inflicted on palestine and iraq. This would prevent the rise of iran as an economic and industrial superpower which would enable it to become a military rival to the jews-only state in palestine.

The ZOGs’ Options for Permanently preventing Iran from going Nuclear.
There are various ways for the zogs to permanently end iran’s nuclear weapons’ threat.

Firstly, to bring about regime change that would lead to the establishment of a zionist friendly government. This government would prevent iran from starting up a clandestine nuclear weapons programme.

Secondly, a partial invasion of iran. Mike whitney suggests the americans are not interested in invading the whole of iran only a tiny sliver of iranian land i.e. khuzestan. "Rather, the goal is to destroy major weapons-sites, destabilize the regime, and occupy a sliver of land on the Iraqi border that contains 90% of Iran’s oil wealth." (Mike Whitney ‘Battle Plans for Iran’ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060131_battle_plans_for_ira.htm January 31, 2006). They would hand over iran’s oil rich region to its indigenous arab population. "The majority of Iran's crude oil is located in Khuzestan, which borders Iraq and the Persian Gulf is the home to two of Iran's largest untapped oil fields - Yadavaran and Azadegan." (Joshua Frank ‘War with Iran: Of Nukes and Oil’ http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01262006.html January 26, 2006); "The Bush war plans for Iran also entail quickly seizing Iran's southwestern Khuzestan Province, where most of Iran's oil reserves and refineries are located. Khuzestan has a majority Shia Arab population that has close links with their ethnic and religious brethren in Iraq. The Bush plans call for a U.S. military strike across the Iraqi border and from naval forces in the Persian Gulf in answer to an appeal for assistance from the Al Ahwaz Popular Democratic Front and Liberation Organization rebel forces in Khuzestan, which will declare an independent Arab state of the Democratic Republic of Ahwaz and receive diplomatic recognition from the United States and a few close U.S. allies." (Wayne Madsen ‘BND leaks neo-con invasion plan for Iran’ http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ August 10, 2005); "At the end of the day, the US will need to invade the oil-rich Ahwaz region (perhaps, 90% of Iran’s oil) and create the rationale for a long-term occupation of the area. There’s no plan to deal with the 70 million Iranians who live beyond that region, although there will probably be an attempt to decapitate the leadership via cruise missiles or air-strikes." (Mike Whitney ‘The Inevitable War with Iran’ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_050923_the_inevitable_war_w.htm September 23rd 2005).

Thirdly, and much more ambitiously, the zogs could break up the iranian state. "U.S. prepared to grab Iran's southwestern majority Arab and oil-rich province after saturation bombing of Iranian nuclear, chemical, and command, control, communications & intelligence (C3I) targets. After World War I, Khuzestan was annexed by Iran, then called Persia. There are also plans to incite rebellions among Iran's other minorities, including Azeris and Turkmenis in the oil-rich Caspian Sea region. Other minorities targeted by the neo-con planners are Iranian Kurds along the Iraqi and Turkish borders and Baluchis along the border with Pakistan. The neo-con plan seeks to separate Iran from its oil resources and create an "Irani triangle" centered around Teheran, Isfahan, Qom, and other historically Persian centers." (Wayne Madsen ‘BND leaks neo-con invasion plan for Iran’ http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ August 10, 2005). It has been argued, "The most determined opponents of the regime in Tehran may be in Iran’s ethnic minorities, who make up around half its 68m population, but even here the ground is unpromising for the US." (Gareth Smyth ‘Iran rejects US money for ‘promoting democracy’ http://news.ft.com/cms/s/b9397dbc-a30d-11da-ba72-0000779e2340.html February 21 2006).

The jews-only state in palestine would like to hive off parts of north-western iran to its kurdish allies in iraq, currently in the process of establishing in iraq the independent state of kurdistan. This would give the kurds a chance to set up greater kurdistan incorporating territory from both iraq and iran. Even more ambitiously, if the syrians could be coaxed into a wider middle east war, the incipient kurdish state might also be given the opportunity to annexe land from syria.

The israelis in the bush administration are creating the conditions for a wider war that would involve syria. Indeed, it is possible the united states will trigger a war with syria in order to coax iran into attacking american forces in the middle east thereby justifying a war the american public has little enthusiasm for at present. The jewish-owned john bolton, bush's unconfirmed ambassador to the United Nations, is currently preparing the justification for an american attack on syria, "Bolton, a neoconservative warmonger, has managed to get the UN Security Council on Jan. 23 to instruct Syria to disband and disarm the Lebanese militias. Bolton's solution is a ridiculous attempt to turn Syria into a neocon proxy and to set it at war with the (lebanese shia) militias. Otherwise, Bolton intends to damn Syria for "noncompliance" and again threaten them with U.S. invasion." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘US Orders Syria to Do the Impossible’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8439 January 25, 2006). Incidentally bolton sought to publicize this decision solely through the media in the jews-only state, "If so, let that person read John Bolton's orders to Syria in the Jan. 24 online edition of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘US Orders Syria to Do the Impossible’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8439 January 25, 2006). The more the zogs can turn the war against iran into a regional war involving syria and lebanon, the greater the chance there is of breaking up these countries and helping to establish a greater kurdistan which would be behoven to the jews-only state in palestine.

Obstacles to the Break up of Iran and the Creation of Greater Kurdistan.
The bush administration is currently opposed to the break up of iraq. However, if the zogs trigger a regional war then the jews-only state might use the ensuing chaos to encourage their kurdish allies in iraq to a take over kirkurk, establish an independent state in iraq, and then annexe kurdish areas in iran and syria. An american administration might come to legitimize realities on the ground if it came to appreciate that a greater kurdistan could play a critical role in stabilizing the middle east, "Israel by the way, is the Kurds' major ally and regional sponsor, as Hersh reported in a previous New Yorker piece. Their agents, said Hersh, are crawling all over Kurdistan, even as they recognize that the American attempt to pacify the rest of Iraq is failing. This is their "Plan B," as Hersh calls it: if Iraq is being split apart at the seams, their best option is to grab a piece of it as it decomposes. That Kirkuk-to-Israel pipeline Chalabi promised his neocon backers may not be a pipe dream after all, especially if the Kurds succeed in their plan to shift the ethnic balance of oil-rich Kirkuk and seize control of the city they hail as their Jerusalem. This has American officers worried, and it contradicts the much-touted "pro-American" reputation of the Kurds as our trusted friends and allies: American commanders fear the Kurdish militias are about to precipitate a civil war, with our troops caught in the crossfire." (Justin Raimondo ‘The World's Most Dangerous Man: It's George W. Bush’ http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8185 November 30, 2005).

It might be countered that turkey is bitterly opposed to the creation of an independent kurdish state in iraq and would be even more opposed to the creation of a greater kurdistan state. Gary leupp has argued, "The Turkish regime fears its large (20%?) Kurdish minority, and the Kurds' kindred in Iraq, Syria and Iran. The Kurds are the largest stateless people in the world and have been oppressed historically in all these nations. A key reason Turkey opposed war on Iraq was the prospect of confronting an autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan on its border that might encourage its own Kurds to demand independence." (Gary Leupp ‘Goss Builds the Case for Turkey-Based Attacks: Targeting Iran and Syria’ http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12302005.html December 30, 2005). Wayne madsen believes turkey is so frightened about the emergence of a kurdish state in iraq it is refusing to give military assistance to america for an attack on iran. "According to sources knowledgeable about the meeting, Erdogan promised Putin, who has become a close friend, that Turkey would not support the use of its bases by the United States in a military attack on Iran. That brought a series of high level visits to Turkey by Bush administration officials, including CIA chief Porter Goss, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Although Erdogan listened to Goss's and Rice's pleas for Turkish logistical, political, and intelligence help for an attack on Iran and Turkish Army Chief Yasar Buyukanit heard much the same from Pentagon officials during his recent trip to Washington, the word is that Putin now has enough clout in Ankara to scuttle any use of Turkey by the U.S. for an attack on Iran. [Mueller delivered Ankara intelligence "proof" of Iranian backing for Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) guerrillas in Turkey. Intelligence agencies and business intelligence units around the world are now discounting any intelligence coming from the Bush administration as neocon propaganda invented by think tanks and discredited intelligence agencies in Washington, Tel Aviv-Herzliya, and Jerusalem]." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006). Juan cole also accepts this thesis, "Turkey is dead set against the emergence of an independent Kurdistan, for fear that its own Kurds might try to secede and join it." (Juan Cole ‘Talabani Condemns Jaafari for Turkey Visit’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_03_01_juancole_archive.html March 01, 2006).

However, turkey might condone the creation of a greater kurdistan if the kurds renounced any goal of incorporating kurdish territory in turkey. Ivan eland has suggested that turkey couldn’t afford to object to the establishment of a greater kurdistan, "Some analysts argue that if Iraqi Kurdistan became a separate state or states, Turkey would invade because of fears that its own Kurdish minority would get ideas of separating from Turkey and perhaps merging with the new Kurdish state(s). Despite Turkey’s blustering over the issue, however, it has lived with de facto Kurdish self-rule in northern Iraq for more than a decade. Also, the Turks desperately want to become members of the EU, and any belligerent action against the Iraqi Kurds would nix that possibility. The desire for EU membership may be an important reason why the Turks have recently been more accommodating to the Iraqi Kurds. And if Turkey gets EU membership - which brings economic benefits and demands the recognition of minority languages and cultures - Turkish Kurds might be less likely to favor independence. The voting patterns of Turkish Kurds already indicate that a majority does not favor separation from Turkey. These realities should make Turkey less nervous about a new Kurdish state on its borders." (Ivan Eland ‘Policy Report: The Way Out of Iraq: Decentralizing the Iraqi Government’ http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=16 January 2005).

The jews-only state in palestine is currently helping the kurds move towards autonomy in iraq. If a zog war against iran becomes a regional war the jews-only state would probably encourage the establishment of a greater kurdistan to permanently diminish arab and persian power – even against the interests of america and turkey. It might be that kurds in syria and iran might not want to join a greater kurdistan but if iraqi kurds, with oil wealth and a well trained army behind them, cajole their kurdish brethren into such a state then they will likely acquiesce.

These are extreme speculations about the course of events in a zog attack on the middle east. But, they are far from being idle speculations. They are realistic in the sense that they are extrapolations of what has already happened in iraq. A number of commentators have already pointed out that the zogs’ approach to the war against iran is following the same path as the lead up to the war against iran. The americans invaded iraq and established what was almost an israeli run authority to rule iraq. Not surprisingly the israelis instituted policies which have brought about the near disintegration of the country along ethnic lines. This break up is also being promoted by the jews-only state in palestine even though bush’s policy is to maintain iraq’s territorial integrity. If this is what is happening in iraq then why is it not possible that something similar might happen in iran? Ultimately the issue of greater kurdistan will be settled by one vital consideration: who else is going to help the zogs control the region if they won’t put their own troops on the ground?

Many commentators in the jewish dominated american media have expressed fears about the rise of a shia crescent that could dominate the middle east. "A specter haunts the Middle East - at least in the minds of Sunni Arabs, especially Wahhabis, as well as a collection of conservative American think tanks: a Shi'ite crescent, spreading from Mount Lebanon to Khorasan, across Mesopotamia, the Persian Gulf and the Iranian plateau. Seventy-five percent of the world's oil reserves are in the Persian Gulf. Seventy percent of the Gulf's population is Shi'ite." (Pepe Escobar ‘The myth of the Shi'ite crescent’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GI30Ak01.html Sep 30, 2005); "Now that the Shia crescent is spreading from Iran through Iraq to Lebanon .. And now the problem is how to turn back the Shia advance, which is increasing in power inside Lebanon as well through the Hezbollah and Amal movements." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘US Orders Syria to Do the Impossible’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8439 January 25, 2006). But there is another equally viable prospect - the break up of iraq, iran, and syria, to create a kurdish state which would help the zionists to control the arab, moslem, and persian, worlds in the middle east. There is no way that america or the jews-only state in palestine could hope to control the middle east without the aid of a powerful kurdish state.

Iran’s Response to a Zog Attack.
Possible Iranian Tactics.
Given that an intense, conventional, air and missile, strike against iran’s nuclear reactor, nuclear facilities, and nuclear infrastructure, could force the iranian government to crumble very quickly, iran’s best defence might be to act as quickly and as dramatically as possible to spread the war around the middle east. The more intense the zogs’ air and missile strikes, the more quickly and comprehensively the iranians would need to respond.

One of iran’s most effective responses would be missile strikes against america’s military forces in saudi arabia, kuwait, afghanistan, dubai, the united arab emirates, and iraq. "In a counter-attack, Iran would immediately launch its Shahab I and II missiles at the U.S. Green Zone in Baghdad, the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar, the US Navy base in Bahrain, Camp Doha base in Kuwait, Al Seeb airbase in Oman, Baghdad International Airport, the U.S. base in Kandahar, Afghanistan." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006).

Iran could also respond with guerilla attacks against american bases in the region. It has been pointed out above that iran has ethnic minorities which might fight on the zogs’ side. But, conversely iran has lots of allies in surrounding countries who might fight on its side. In afghanistan: "Iran's allies in Afghanistan were the Tajiks, the Uzbeks and especially the Hazaras. The Hazaras are Afghan Shiites. They form about 15% of the Afghan population. The Hazaras' main political vehicle was the Hizb-i Vahdat or Unity Party, which was and is closely allied with Iran. Tajik warlords in the Northern Alliance like Ismail Khan, who are Sunnis, also have strong ties of language and patronage to Iran." (Juan Cole ‘Iran in Bush's Sights’ July 21 2004). It would be relatively easy for iran to sponsor guerilla attacks on american troops in iraq. "If the US attacks Iran, it is probable that American forces - already taxed by attacks from Sunni factions - will also face reprisal attacks in Iraq from Shi'ite factions loyal to Iran. The result will be a dramatic escalation in US and civilian casualties, US forces will be required to bunker themselves further into their bases, and US forces will find themselves required to fight the very government they just finished helping into power. Iraq, already a seething cauldron, will sink further into chaos." (William Rivers Pitt ‘Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly’ http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010906I.shtml January 09th 2006). Iran also has allies in other middle eastern states, "Intelligence and military officials around the world are also bracing for the results of a U.S. attack on Iran. This includes the distinct possibility of a major Shia retaliatory attack in Iraq, the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and Afghanistan against U.S. military, diplomatic, and economic targets in the region." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006).

The iranians might be tempted to launch a guerilla attack against the american military in kuwait because this is the route americans use to re-supply their forces in iraq. "Without the Kuwaitis, the U.S. military would not have a staging area for the thousands of G.I's going into and out of Iraq. Without Kuwait, the U.S. would lose a key logistical base. Hundreds of trucks per day carry supplies from Kuwait to American soldiers in Iraq. Without the Kuwaitis' refineries, U.S. troops in Mesopotamia would lose a reliable supplier of motor fuel. Without motor fuel, American soldiers would be patrolling Baghdad and Tikrit on foot." (Robert Bryce ‘The Problem with Cutting US Oil Imports from the Middle East: Is Bush Serious?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce02032006.html February 3, 2006). If, as a result of being attacked by america, iran organized guerilla attacks on american troops scattered throughout both iraq and kuwait then they would be in serious trouble.

Michael schwartz fears that, "The increasingly desperate circumstances that constrained Bush administration actions when it came to the developing Iranian-Iraqi relationship were addressed by Middle East scholar Ervand Abrahamian, who pointed to a similarly precarious American situation in Afghanistan. He concluded that the U.S. could not afford a military confrontation with Iran, since the Iranians were in a position to trigger armed revolts in the Shi'ite areas of both countries: "If there's a confrontation, military confrontation, there would be no reason for them to cooperate with the United States. They would do exactly what would be in their interests, which would be to destroy the U.S. position in those two countries." A "senior international envoy" quoted by Christopher Dickey in NewsweekOnline, offered an almost identical opinion: "Look at what they can do in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Lebanon. They can turn the whole Middle East into a ball of fire, and [American officials] know that." (Michael Schwartz ‘The Ironies of Conquest: The Bush administration's Iranian Nightmare’ http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=6915 August 10th 2005).

Iranian political leaders also seem to believe they have given america an easy ride so far in the middle east. "The Iranian mullahs, meanwhile, are chuckling - literally. Some months ago, when the Iranian vice-president visited the United Arab Emirates for a regional summit, he was asked by the sheikhs whether he feared a US intervention in Iran. The Iranian leader roared with laughter: "Without us, the US could never have occupied Afghanistan or Iraq. They know that and we know that invading Iran would mean they would be driven out of those two countries."" (Tariq Ali ‘The logic of colonial rule’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1576657,00.html September 23, 2005); "Gholamali Haddad-Adel, "speaker" of Iran's parliament – in Cuba, last week – dismissed the possibility of a U.S. preemptive attack against Iran, finding it "impossible" to believe that the U.S. would want "to repeat the experience of Iraq. We hope the United States is not so stupid," he said." (Gordon Prather ‘March Madness’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8580 February 21, 2006).

One commentator believes iran might launch a conventional military attack on american forces in iraq, "It could also do something that would come as a total surprise to Washington and cross the Iran-Iraq border with four to six divisions, simply rolling up the American army of occupation in Iraq. Syria might well join in, knowing that it is only a question of time before it is attacked anyway. We have no field army in Iraq at this point; our troops are dispersed fighting insurgents. A couple dozen Scuds on the Green Zone would decapitate our leadership (possibly to our benefit). Yes, our air power would be a problem, but only until the Iranians got in close. Bad weather could provide enough cover for that. So could the Iranian and Syrian air forces, so long as they were willing to expend themselves." (William S. Lind ‘The Next Act’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=8486 February 2, 2006). However this tactic is unrealistic. Iran would be idiotic to use conventional military force against america. Iran can win only if it fights a guerilla war not a conventional war in which it will be slaughtered.

Iran could launch missile attacks against america’s warships and cruisers in the persian gulf and the arabian sea. One commentator believes that iran’s russian built sunburn anti-ship missiles could sink some of america’s largest aircraft carriers or warships.

The iranians could spread the war by attacking oilfields in kurdish occupied iraq, saudi arabia, and kuwait. They could also launch missile or guerilla attacks against arab governments supporting the united states such as those in saudi arabia, kuwait, and the united arab emirates.

The iranians, however, have a difficult choice to make in their military tactics: they could attack sunni dominated governments in the hope of liberating their shia minorities to create a shia dominated region. Alternatively, they could try to win support amongst sunnis for the fight against the americans. Iran could benefit enormously from an alliance with the sunnis throughout the middle east. If iran alienates sunnis and pushes them into joining forces with the zogs, its chances of surviving would diminish. This is especially so in iran itself since two of its provinces, baluchistan and khorasan, have high sunni populations both of which border the sunni dominated countries of afghanistan and pakistan. Iran’s need for sunni support is considerable. But the reverse is also true since both shias and sunnis are likely to be confronted by kurds fighting to establish a greater kurdistan. Although it is possible the iranians might hope that a war against america will bring about the emergence of a shia crescent in the middle east thereby eclipsing the sunnis, they have a great deal to fear from kurdish expansionism so they might be better off seeking an alliance with the sunnis. It is unlikely that iran will reach any agreement with the current pakistani government, "Iran and Pakistan were engaged in a regional struggle for influence in Afghanistan and Central Asia, in which Iran's Shiism and Pakistan's Sunnism were ideological tools." (Juan Cole ‘Iran in Bush's Sights’ July 21 2004). But, iran might reach some accord with sunni fundamentalists to set up a radical islamic government that would ally itself with iran. As will be explored later, pakistan is a major wildcard in any zog attack on iran.

Iran might also retaliate by attacking the jews-only state in palestine. Firstly, missile attacks, "Iran would also launch its long-range Shahab III missiles on the Israeli cities of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beersheba, Eilat, and the Israeli nuclear complex at Dimona." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006). Secondly, by mobilizing hezbollah freedom fighters in southern lebanon to launch rocket attacks on the jews-only state.

Iran has few alternatives. It has to spread the war as rapidly and as comprehensively as possible around the middle east and encourage a general uprising of shias, preferably with sunnis, against the zionist imperialists and their kurdish allies. Iran might also hope that a regional war would force america to send in more ground forces because this would inflict even greater economic and military damage on america. The greater the financial costs that iran can impose on america, the more likely it is to topple the precarious american economy.

Iran’s Use of Oil as a Weapon of Self Defense.
Iran could also use oil as a weapon of self defense. Mathew maavak has argued, "Iran's military retaliation would only need to disrupt oil supply, not winning battles per se." (Mathew Maavak ‘Beware The Ides Of March’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11826.htm February 7th 2006).

Firstly, ending its export of oil. The world’s oil industry is currently working flat out and has very little chance of making up for the loss of iranian oil by boosting production even further. "Folks, the world only produces about 85 million barrels a day. And most of that is used up by the producers so it isn't available for export." (Juan Cole ‘Shiite protests Roil Iraq’ http://www.juancole.com/2006_02_01_juancole_archive.html February 22, 2006). Iran is currently the world's fourth biggest oil exporter so the loss of its oil would lead to a considerable rise in oil prices which could trigger a global economic recession, "Oil prices would double overnight to $100 a barrel." (Carlton Meyer ‘On to Iran?’ http://www.g2mil.com/Summer2005.htm Summer 2005); "Attacking Iran doesn't make good economic sense, either. Iran is OPEC's second-largest oil producer and holds 10% of the world's proven oil reserves. It also has the world's second largest natural gas reserves (after Russia). Oil and gas prices have recently soared in response to rising global demand and heightened security concerns in the Middle East. Iran is unlikely to maintain its current level of oil production in the face of a massive military assault. The loss of just a fraction of Iranian oil production through collateral damage, sabotage, or economic embargo could trigger a severe global recession." (Daniel T. Barkley Preemptive Strikes Will Not Disarm Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/barkley.php?articleid=4009 November 19, 2004).

Secondly, if iran also attacked oil fields in saudi arabia, kuwait, and kurdish controlled iraq, to prevent them from financially benefiting from the war, then oil prices would rise even more substantially and bring about an even deeper global economic recession. It has to be suspected that if iran is attacked then one of its most urgent responses would be to attack kurdish oil fields in iraq. Iran will want to limit the amount of military support the kurds could give to the zogs’ attack on iran.

Thirdly, if iran blocked the straits of hormuz to prevent oil leaving arabia this would further boost the rise in oil prices and cause an even deeper economic recession around the world. "a repeat of any "Shock and Awe" tactics is not advisable given that Iran has installed sophisticated anti-ship missiles on the Island of Abu Musa, and therefore controls the critical Strait of Hormuz. In the case of a U.S. attack, a shut down of the Strait of Hormuz – where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass – could easily trigger a market panic with oil prices skyrocketing to $100 per barrel or more. World oil production is now flat out, and a major interruption would escalate oil prices to a level that would set off a global Depression." (William Clark ‘The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target’ http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html October 27th 2004).

Since america imports only a small percentage of its oil from the middle east such tactics would not directly affect its oil supplies. However, it would suffer from the global increase in oil prices and a recession in the world economy. "Today a three-month closure of the strait and a loss of Iranian oil exports would cost the US alone a 4 to 5 percent drop in gross domestic product and cause a 2 percent rise in unemployment." (Howard LaFranchi ‘On Iran, West looks for a Plan B’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0118/p01s04-wome.html January 18, 2006). A world economic recession would have a considerable impact on the american economy.

Fourthly, there is currently a worldwide shortage of oil refining facilities. There are a string of oil refineries in the middle east: a couple in iraq, kuwait, bahrein, qatar, the united arab emirates, oman, and not forgetting those in saudi arabia. Perhaps a visit by that friendly mr shahab and his sons shabab two and shabab three might lead to such a vast increase in the price of oil it would send the global economy into an immediate collapse. What wonders this would do for the environment! It would take years to rebuild these facilities.

Finally, if the israelis, and their pet rottweilers, the americans, launched a pre-emptive strike against iran there are also some very large oil pipelines in the middle east that might attract iranian military attention.

Possible Iranian response to a Partial Occupation of Iran.
Mike whitney has suggested the americans might try to occupy khuzestan which contains 90% of Iran’s oil wealth. He presents the idea as if the american military had thought of the idea only after it realized a full scale invasion of iran was not feasible. In fact the idea has been part of british foreign policy since the second world war. "The severing of Iran's Khuzestan province and its "Arabization" has been a long-held British goal. In fact, this policy was made clear in the November 2, 1944 editorial of the Times of London, which proposed Iran's dismemberment by having Khuzestan appropriated by the British. To achieve this long-term objective, British Arabists have supported Arab nationalist activities (academic and military) against Iran and in Khuzestan in particular. Needless to say, this plan neatly converged with the ideology and geopolitical aspirations of Arab nationalists, particularly of the Ba'athist variety." (Mahan Abedin and Kaveh Farrokh ‘British Arabism and the bombings in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GK03Ak02.html Nov 3, 2005). In the early 1980s saddam hussein’d army invaded iran to annexe khuzestan but was repulsed from the region.

An american military invasion and occupation of this sliver of land, khuzestan, sounds tempting and easy. But, it would not be so.

Firstly, the american military in iraq is primarily based in the central and northern parts of iraq. It would have to move through the shiite controlled south of iraq to reach khuzestan. As soon as the american military makes a move in that direction the iranians will be warned of an invasion. "As for "covert" strikes, any unusual activity on Iraqi soil will be noted and passed on to the Iranians before it is time for take-off. Battle-weary Iraqis know enough of warfare and logistics." (Mathew Maavak ‘Beware The Ides Of March’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11826.htm February 7th 2006).

Secondly, what makes the idea of occupying khuzestan seem additionally attractive is that a majority of the people in the region are arabs so, it is argued, their loyalties to the iranian state might be limited. However, this is not the case, "Little mention is made of the fact that Khuzestan is inhabited not only by Arabs but by an array of ethnic groups, including Bakhtiaris, Behbahanis, Lurs in the north, Afshari and Qashqai tribes, and Persians in the major cities. Furthermore, claims that Arabs in Iran constitute a persecuted minority are as false as they are amusing. In fact, since the Islamic revolution of 1979, the Iranian government has gone out of its way to promote the Arabic language (at the expense of Persian) in its drive to "Islamize" Iranian society. It is also important to note that Iran's current defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, is an ethnic Arab from Khuzestan. Claims by Khuzestani separatists that the Iranian regime is engaged in the persecution of minorities is particularly strange when one considers the fact that the Islamic republic has shown extreme sympathy for Arab causes both inside and outside of Iran." (Mahan Abedin and Kaveh Farrokh ‘British Arabism and the bombings in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GK03Ak02.html Nov 3, 2005).

When saddam invaded khuzestan in the early 1980s he found the arabs did not welcome him as a liberator, "When Iraq invaded Iran on September 22, 1980, with the stated intent of annexing Khuzestan, ……(the assumption was that) the Arabs of Khuzestan would fully support the invasion. These premises proved to be utterly unfounded, with Iranian resistance actually stiffening, leading to the permanent expulsion of Saddam's armies from Khuzestan in 1982. The vast majority of Iranian Arabs not only did not support Saddam, but were in fact at the forefront of resistance to the Iraqi invaders." (Mahan Abedin and Kaveh Farrokh ‘British Arabism and the bombings in Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GK03Ak02.html Nov 3, 2005). Why would arabs in the region be any better disposed to american invaders?

Thirdly, the iranians aren’t going to allow the americans to occupy khuzestan and take over their oil fields without a fight. During the second world war the chinese blew up some of their dams to hamper the invading japanese, so perhaps the iranians might conclude that if they are going to be deprived of the use of the oil in this region then no one will exploit it. If iran decides to destroy its own oil fields to stop the americans from taking control of them why wouldn’t it also try to destroy saudi arabian oil fields, kurdish controlled iraqi oil fields, and kuwait’s oil fields? The iranians might ask themselves why american friendly countries should be allowed to benefit financially from the american destruction of iran? If this was to happen, the price of oil wouldn’t rise to $100 a barrel - it would be more in the region of £10,000 a barrel.

Fourthly, the americans couldn’t complete their military objectives in iran solely by annexing one sliver of land. If they want to export expropriated iranian oil they would also need to control the straits of hormuz. So that’s two areas they would need to invade and occupy.

The Dangers of a War against Iran escalating towards Weapons of Mass Destruction.
There is more than a likely chance that a zog war against iran will go beyond conventional warfare. If the zogs launch an attack against iran using conventional weapons then iran is likely to respond in a similar conventional military fashion. However, if the zogs attack iran using nuclear weapons, even so-called small scale bunker-busting nuclear weapons, there is a possibility that iran would respond with the use of chemical weapons against american troops in the region not merely in iraq but kuwait and saudi arabia.

If the zogs launch a conventional, albeit illegal and pre-emptive, military attack against iran and iran responds by using chemical weapons then it is almost certain that america, perhaps even the jews-only state in palestine, will retaliate by going nuclear. Paul levian speculates, "An initial Israeli air attack against some Iranian nuclear targets, command and control targets and Shahab missile sites. Iran retaliates with its remaining missiles, tries to close the Gulf, attacks US naval assets and American and British forces in Iraq. If Iranian missiles have chemical warheads (in fact or presumed), the US will immediately use nuclear weapons to destroy the Iranian military and industrial infrastructure." (Paul Levian ‘Iran and the jaws of a trap’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB03Ak02.html Feb 3, 2006).

If the jews-only state in palestine attacks iran’s nuclear reactor in bushehr before it has been loaded with nuclear fuel then iran might be tempted to hurl missiles at the jews-only state’s nuclear reactor at dimona. However, this would be a serious escalation of the war because it would, in effect, be equivalent to a nuclear attack. It is more than likely that the jews-only state would respond to an attack on dimona by using nuclear weapons against iran. There are those who speculate that iran will attack dimona, "If the United States launches an attack on Iran, the Islamic republic will retaliate with a military strike on Israel's main nuclear facility. Dr. Abasi, an advisor to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, said Tehran would respond to an American attack with strikes on the Dimona nuclear reactor and other strategic Israeli sites such as the port city of Haifa and the Zakhariya area. Haifa is also home to a large concentration of chemical factories and oil refineries." (Yossi Melman ‘Iranian advisor: We'll strike Dimona in response to U.S. attack’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/687022.html February 25th 2006).
"Iran vows to retaliate against an Israeli attack by firing conventionally armed missiles against Israel’s nuclear weapons complex at Dimona." (Eric Margolis ‘Nuclear Iran feared’ http://torontosun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2006/01/28/1416265.html January 29, 2006). Iran would be justified in an attack on dimona only if its own nuclear reactor was loaded with nuclear fuel.

The jews-only state in palestine and its israeli allies in america are trying to push america into yet another proxy zionist war – this time against iran. They don’t care how many thousands of american troops would be killed or injured in such a war because the jews-only state would escape relatively unscathed. In fact the more american troops who are killed the better because it would tempt america into launching a regional war which would produce even bigger benefits for the jews-only state in palestine – even though this would mean even greater american casualties and even greater financial losses. There could not be a more fatal combination – america’s jewish rulers promoting a war that will boost the interests of the jews-only state in palestine whilst causing massive damage to american interests.

The jews-only state in palestine and its israeli traitors in america manipulated america into a war against iraq on the basis that americans would be welcomed as liberators. There can be no such delusion that iranians would welcome an american attack with open arms and yet still jews are still willing to manipulate america into a proxy zionist war against iran.

Russia Unlikely to get involved in a War against Iran.
The worst case scenario is that a jewish-induced war against iran could degenerate into a regional war. However, a world war is not likely. Russia is not in a position to militarily challenge the united states. It is not even in a position to go on the diplomatic offensive against america, "A glance at the Russian press makes it immediately evident that Moscow's costs for maintaining a "business as usual" position with Iran are becoming intolerably high, forcing President Vladimir Putin and his foreign policy team to send strong signals that Iran can no longer count on traditional Russian support in view of the "unacceptable policy positions" of Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad regarding Israel, among other things. "Keen on cultivating its ties with Israel, Moscow wasted little time in moving a critical distance from Ahmadinejad in the months after he came to power, by sending Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to Israel in late October. Lavrov stated unequivocally: "Russia understands the anxiety of Israel about the Iranian nuclear program and will not let Iran obtain weapons of mass destruction."" (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Russia's Iran gamble’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA18Ak02.html Jan 18, 2006).

Furthermore, russia has no economic incentive to stop an american attack against iran because although it will suffer some economic losses from its investments in iran it could reap huge financial benefits from such a war. Russia would benefit financially from a war against iran primarily from an increase in oil prices and, secondarily, from sales of military weapons to iran. This wealth could enable it to rebuild its armed forces and fend off zionist aspirations to dismantle the country. The americans have added another economic incentive to encourage russia to distance itself from iran by promising to allow it to develop a major oil field in iraq, "According to the Boston, Globe Lukoil president Vagit Alekperov met with Iraq’s oil minister Ibrahim al-Ulloum to firm up "an understanding" about Russia’s $6 billion contract to develop the West Qurna-2 oil field. Al-Ulloum, of course, is just following Washington’s directives in reviving the moribund Russian contract. But it is striking that Bush would surrender such an enormous trophy as one of Iraq’s main oil fields just to secure Russia’s vote (in the IAEA over referring iran to the un security council). The Lukoil transaction should prove to skeptics that Washington is prepared to give up anything to prevent the opening of Iran’s oil exchange. The UN Security Council is just the last step before military operations begin." (Mike Whitney ‘Why Russia caved-in on Iran’ http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060204_why_russia_caved_in_.htm February 4, 2006).

In terms of russian national interests: the more that russia can arm iran to defend itself against a zog attack then the longer the war will be and the longer there will be high oil prices - thereby boosting russia’s benefits from the war.

There, however, is one important caveat in this view of russian political and military impotence. A pre-emptive strike against iran’s nuclear facilities would threaten the lives of many russian scientists and technicians. One commentator believes an american attack on iran which results in the deaths of russian scientists would be tantamount to a declaration of war against russia, "The US and Tsahal can hardly bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, since these are maintained by Russian advisers and technicians. Attacking Iran would imply declaring war against Russia." (Thierry Meyssan ‘The hidden stakes in the Iran crisis’ http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MEY20060204&articleId=1885 February 4, 2006). One of the primary aims of a zog attack on iran’s nuclear facilities would be to kill as many iranian nuclear scientists as possible because although it would be easy to rebuild many facilities, iran would have a great deal of trouble in replacing its nuclear scientists’ expertise. If iran’s nuclear scientists can be protected then iran could rebuild its nuclear facilities but if it can’t then iran’s nuclear programme would come to a grinding halt. "A major American attack on Iran's nuclear sites would kill up to 10,000 people and lead to war in the Middle East, a report says today. Hundreds of scientists and technicians would be targets in the opening salvos as the attacks focused on eliminating further nuclear development, the Oxford Research Group says in Iran: Consequences of a War." (Thomas Harding ‘'10,000 would die' in A-plant attack on Iran’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/13/wiran13.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/13/ixworld.html February 13th 2006). So, how are the zogs going to kill iranian, but not russian, technicians?

China Unlikely to get involved in a War against Iran.
In contrast to russia, china stands to lose economically because of a zionist inspired war against iran. Firstly, it would suffer from the loss of iran’s fossil fuels. "China imports 17 percent of its oil from Iran." (Howard LaFranchi ‘On Iran, West looks for a Plan B’ http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0118/p01s04-wome.html January 18, 2006). China might permanently lose access to iran’s fossil fuel resources if an american installed government reneged on pre-war oil deals as it did in iraq. Secondly, it would lose out from higher oil prices.

Despite these potential losses, china is unlikely to risk taking any diplomatic let alone military action against america. "China's decision to vote against Iran at the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting this month - resulting in Iran's referral to the Security Council - did not come as a big surprise to Tehran, since for more than two years top Chinese officials have been visiting Iran and in no unmistakable tone conveying the message that China would not sacrifice its huge trade interests with the West, the US in particular, over Iran." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘China's energy insecurity and Iran's crisis’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB10Ak01.html Feb 10, 2006).

There are commentators who believe that china might be willing to risk a military engagement, "China, which, sources a significant amount of oil from Iran might be tempted to flex its own muscles, the same way Imperial Japan raced to the Dutch East Indies for oil when Pearl Harbor was still smoking in ruins. Beijing doesn't have much of a strategic petroleum reserve but it does have ample nuclear deterrent." (Mathew Maavak ‘Beware The Ides Of March’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11826.htm February 7th 2006). Wayne madsen also believes that china might be tempted into military action, "And China may elect to respond financially and militarily against the United States since Iran is China's second largest source of imported Middle East oil after Saudi Arabia and plans to use an Iranian terminal for the export of natural gas from Turkmenistan. [China now imports 60 percent of its oil needs, and Iran represents 17 percent of those imports]." (Wayne Madsen ‘Preparations for US Strike on Iran in "Final Stages"’ January 2, 2006).

China has an economic weapon which it could use against the united states but it would suffer just as much america if the weapon was used, "Paul Craig Roberts, writing for The American Conservative, said in July of 2005 that "As a result of many years of persistent trade surpluses with the United States, the Japanese government holds dollar reserves of approximately $1 trillion. China's accumulation of dollars is approximately $600 billion. South Korea holds about $200 billion. These sums give these countries enormous leverage over the United States. By dumping some portion of their reserves, these countries could put the dollar under intense pressure and send U.S. interest rates skyrocketing. Washington would really have to anger Japan and Korea to provoke such action, but in a showdown with China - over Taiwan, for example - China holds the cards. China and Japan, and the world at large, have more dollar reserves than they require. They would have no problem teaching a hegemonic superpower a lesson if the need arose." (William Rivers Pitt ‘Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly’ http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010906I.shtml January 09th 2006); "The truth of the matter is that "foreign investment" in the US today consists of Asian central banks, mainly Japan and China, using surplus earnings from massive trade surpluses to prop up the US dollar by purchasing US government bonds. By propping up the dollar, Asians keep their goods and services cheap, thus worsening the US trade deficit. Washington goes along because Asian countries use their export surpluses to finance the US budget deficit." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘War, Outsourcing and Debt’ http://www.counterpunch.org September 29, 2004); "The most likely scenario has nothing to do with political opposition at all - it has to do with the willingness of Asian countries that covet Iranian oil, especially China, to countenance another U.S. military adventure. The U.S. is now so badly in debt to countries like China, Japan, and South Korea that while a limited raid is simple enough, any massive new military expenditure would literally require the Asian countries to be writing the checks, and they're not about to do so for a war that threatens their own strategic interests. Bush may well be finding out the limits of a global empire erected on other people's money." (Geov Parrish ‘The next war?’ http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=20367 February 15th 2006).

The main military contribution that china and russia could make would be to arm iran before a war starts.

The Problems Facing a Zog attack on Iran.
In the short term, the bush administration is unlikely to launch a ground attack against iran because american troops are bogged down in iraq and there is little hope of peace in that country freeing up these troops. If it wants to invade iran it would have to introduce the draft which would make america’s intentions even more obvious. A joint military invasion by americans, the jews-only state in palestine, and kurds, is a possibility but only a remote one. It is much more likely the zogs would try to rely solely on a bombing campaign – indeed, there is a case for arguing that an invasion may be counter-productive – especially during the early stages of an intense and comprehensive aerial bombardment.

America has three models for aerial bombings campaigns. Firstly, long term, low intensity bombing such as that used against iraq after the first gulf war. Iraq suffered a low level of air strikes for over ten years. However, saddam was able to use these air strikes to boost his political power in iraq so it is doubtful whether the american military would repeat that mistake. The big advantage of this tactic is that the jewish media in america and britain were able to keep this blatant warmongering out of the news and thus very little public opposition built up to what the zogs were doing.

The second model is the intense aerial bombing of serbia which brought an end to serbian control over the various states that made up yugoslavia. If the americans showed the iranian government they could quickly and comprehensively destroy the country’s nuclear power reactor, its nuclear facilities, its nuclear power infrastructure, and military infrastructure, then the iranian government might conclude that surrendering was the best option.

It is possible that an intense, comprehensive, and conventional, aerial bombardment could bring about the rapid capitulation of the iranian government and thus limit the retaliation suffered by the americans and the jews-only state. However, such a military victory is likely to be completely illusory because the zogs would find it difficult to politically stabilize the country after the capitulation. The zogs would have two options. One option would be to create a more democratic iranian government. This is, after all, one of their professed justifications for an attack on iran. But, this is highly unlikely to happen because if a democracy is established in iran it will doubtlessly lead to popular demands for the development of nuclear weapons and the re-establishment of iran’s military power. After the zogs occupied iraq, they opposed any elections, even local elections, and disbanded the iraqi army because their real objective was to bring about the palestinianization, and eventually the disintegration, of iraq. The same is also true of their goals for iran.

A second option would be for the zogs to establish a zog friendly dictatorship to prevent the rebuilding of the iranian military and any further development of civilian nuclear energy/weapons. But how long such a puppet zionist regime would last in the face of popular opposition, popular demands for nuclear weapons, and a popular insurgency, would be open to question. Iran might follow the same course as iraq when it was ‘liberated’ by the jews’ pit bull americans. "Yet the U.S. and UK took it upon themselves to invade Iraq in order to remove an allegedly authoritarian Government. The result of the invasion is that many more people have been killed and injured than Saddam was ever accused of. Worse still, the powers which are supposed to save the Iraqi people have broken international laws on human rights, by detaining Iraqis and others and torturing them at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere." (Mahathir Mohamad ‘Who are the Real Terrorists’ http://adeebpress.blogspot.com/2005/09/who-are-real-terrorists.html September 10, 2005).

Only the Nuclear Option will Bring Iranians to their Knees.
America’s third model of aerial bombings is the use of nuclear weapons against japan. This resulted in the instant and unconditional surrender of the japanese government and a people so traumatized by such a shocking event that no insurgency emerged against the american imposed constitution and government. The zogs might start their attack on iran by using bunker busting nuclear weapons to destroy iran’s nuclear facilities. They might then threaten the iranian government with a more wide-scale nuclear attack if it did not capitulate. An iranian government would almost certainly do so because many of its nuclear facilities have been built in densely populated urban areas. "Since a ground invasion of Iran is impractical, the only possible military action is an aerial attack on Iran's nuclear installations, as Israel did to Iraq in 1981 (when Iraq was by all estimates several years away from the ability to build a nuclear bomb). However, unlike Iraq's Osirak reactor, Iranian nuclear facilities are underground and will require nuclear bombs to be destroyed. Despite Vice President Cheney's suggestion in January 2005 that Israel "might do it without being asked," Israel is not likely to want to confirm that it possesses nuclear bombs by using them in such a situation. Is the U.S. willing to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear adversary that is an NPT signatory, thus risking universal condemnation? Several statements and documents from the Defense Department suggest that it is indeed fully prepared to do so." (Jorge Hirsch ‘The Meaning of the IAEA Iran Vote’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7431 September 29, 2005).

Neither of the first two aerial options seems likely to be successful. No matter how intense a conventional attack would be on iran, the iranian government could still retaliate heavily against america and its allies in the middle east before it capitulated. And politically, neither of the two possible forms of post-war government that could be imposed on iran would seem to bring the long term benefits desired by the zogs. The zogs’ chances of winning the peace, which they have singularly failed to do in iraq, would be daunting. It would be far easier for the zogs to win the war against iran than it would be to win the peace. Another factor that ought to be considered is that the more comprehensive the scale of the zogs’ military attack on iran, the more difficulties the zogs would face in winning the peace.

It has to be concluded that the nuclear option seems to be the only way to bring about the instant capitulation of the iranian government, minimize iranian retaliation, and boost the chances of a zog friendly government surviving because iranians would be too traumatized to support an insurgency. The zogs could then carve up iran. Firstly, an enlarged kurdish state covering north west iran. Secondly, south western iran could be turned into an independent state whose majority shia arab population could take over the bulk of iran’s oil reserves and refineries. Both of these new states could then help the zogs to militarily control the region. Thirdly, pakistan might annexe some of iran’s south eastern region.

It has been argued that if the zogs want to permanently destroy iran’s nuclear potential they would need to invade the country, "The only way to find and eliminate Iranian nuclear weapons using military action would be to launch a full-scale invasion of Iran." (Ivan Eland ‘Next Target: Iran?’ http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=4157 December 14, 2004). However, a zog nuclear attack on iran would make such an invasion irrelevant.

It is highly unlikely the zogs will issue an ultimatum to the iranian government: surrender or face a nuclear attack. Whilst such a threat might be politically effective in bringing about the capitulation of the iranian government, if the zogs’ bluff was called and nuclear bombs were dropped on iran there would be a huge public outcry against the zogs. It is likely to prove politically disastrous.

What is much more likely to happen is that the zogs will start a conventional aerial bombardment and when iran retaliates there will be a massive demand from americans to "nuke ’em". Far from having to win the case for a nuclear attack on iran, the zogs would have to ‘acquiesce’ in popular demands for nuclear retaliation – especially when the jewish media in america and palestine has been preparing people for the use of such weapons against iran. "The forthcoming attack will probably unfold as surgical strikes by Israel on perhaps as many as 12 facilities and weapons sites. Both Israel and the US have signaled to Iran that retaliation will escalate quickly into nuclear war. In fact, the Pentagon hawks may desire such a conflict to deter future adversaries in Latin America and Asia." (Mike Whitney ‘The Bombs of March. Countdown to War with Iran? http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney01132006.html January 13, 2006). Douglas herman’s speculations about the first few hours of an attack on iran have already been mentioned. He also speculates about iran’s retaliation, "At 9 AM, Eastern Standard Time, many hours into the war, CNN reported a squadron of suicide Iranian fighter jets attacking the US Navy fleet south of Bahrain. Embedded reporters aboard the ships - sending live feeds directly to a rapt audience of Americans just awakening - reported all of the Iranian jets destroyed, but not before the enemy planes launched dozens of Exocet and Sunburn anti-ship missiles. A US aircraft carrier, cruiser and two destroyers suffered direct hits. The cruiser blew up and sank, killing 600 men. The aircraft carrier sank an hour later." (Douglas Herman ‘Day One – The War with Iran’ Rense.com January 9th 2006). If the iranians managed to sink an american aircraft carrier this would almost inevitably result in america responding with nuclear weapons.

The zogs are also unlikely to issue a nuclear ultimatum to iran because they want the war to spread around the middle east. The zogs would love an excuse to attack lebanon and syria and bring about their disintegration. This will not merely remove yet more military threats to the jews-only state, it would enable the establishment of an even more extensive greater kurdistan. One of the zogs’ primary objectives in this regional war would be the creation of a greater kurdistan for it is highly unlikely the zogs could control the middle east without the kurds.

It has to be speculated that the zogs are probably prepared to make some sacrifices in order to achieve their ultimate objectives. Perhaps american military leaders are hoping the sacrifice they will make, to persuade world opinion to condone their use of nuclear weapons, won’t be as substantial as the sinking of an aircraft carrier.

A conventional aerial attack on iran could be economically, militarily, and politically, suicidal for america. William rivers pitt points out the economic dangers. "Two vaunted economists - one a Nobel Prize winner and the other a nationally renowned budget expert - have analyzed the data at hand and put a price tag on the Iraq occupation. According to Linda Bilmes of Harvard and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz of Columbia University, the final cost of the Iraq occupation will run between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, surpassing by orders of magnitude the estimates put forth by the Bush administration. If an engagement with Iran envelops our forces in Iraq, and comes to involve Syria, our economy will likely shatter under the strain of fighting so many countries simultaneously. Add to this the economic threat posed by China, and the economic threat implicit in any substantial disruption of the distribution of Mideast petroleum to the globe." (William Rivers Pitt ‘Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly’ http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010906I.shtml January 09th 2006). This leads him to conclude, "The question must be put as directly as possible: what manner of maniac would undertake a path so fraught with peril and potential economic catastrophe? It is difficult to imagine a justification for any action that could envelop the United States in a military and economic conflict with Iraq, Iran, Syria and China simultaneously." (William Rivers Pitt ‘Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly’ http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010906I.shtml January 09th 2006). It is possible that bush is a maniac. Perhaps he’s been convinced to act like a maniac by his israeli masters. But it is much more likely that, within his worldview, bush is acting rationally because whilst the risks to america and the jews-only state in palestine of a conventional war against iran are catastrophic the risks of a nuclear war seem to be far less substantial.

Pakistan could get Sucked into a Regional War.
The west’s jewish rulers must have thought the master of the universe was producing sequential miracles to help pathe the way to world domination. Although their lies over the war against iraq have been exposed, the neocons have not been punished politically by the president nor have they become politically unpopular. On the contrary, the president has rewarded them politically with promotions. And the american people still trust these devious liars. The fact that america’s jewish rulers escaped all censure and punishment has encouraged them to repeat the same tactics in manipulating america into a war against iran. America’s jewish rulers must have been even more heartened to find that this time around, europe was fully behind their racist propaganda blitz against iran. And they must have been even more thrilled when russia and china began to acquiesce in america’s warmongering. When the publication of a dozen danish cartoons produced violent protests across the moslem world, the jewish owned media in america and europe used the opportunity to indulge in a flood of anti-islamic sentiments which further boosted the western public’s support for a war against iran. Everything seemed to be going the way the west’s jewish rulers wanted.

But then they suffered a setback whose magnitude has yet to be determined. Since the pentagon and new york (p*ny) bombings, pakistan’s president musharraf had given considerable support to america’s invasion of afghanistan and had seemingly curbed his country’s islamic extremists. However, over the last year or so, for one reason or another, musharraf has been losing out to islamic rebels, and the publication of anti-islamic cartoons in europe triggered off protests in pakistan that were directed against his authority. It was at this point that a number of commentators began to realize that if islamic rebels deposed musharraf and replaced him with sunni islamic rulers, some of whom might have connections to the taliban or al quaeda, then a zionist war against iran would suddenly become far more problematic. "Then, the strong American response to Pakistan's disastrous earthquake turned Pakistani opinion around. Only America really came through for the tens of thousands of people de-housed by the catastrophe, and other people noticed; when mullahs in radical mosques denounced the Americans, their congregations told them they were wrong. Of course, America blew it in classic American fashion, with the Predator strike on homes in a Pakistani border town. As always, the target wasn't there, because, as always, we depended on intelligence from "systems" when only humint can do the job. The resulting Pakistani civilian deaths threw away all the good will we earned from the earthquake response and made America the Great Satan once more. Musharraf paid the political price. If the riots continue and grow, the Pakistani security forces responsible for containing them will at some point go over and join the rioters. Musharraf will try to get the last plane out; perhaps he will find Texas a congenial place of exile. If he doesn't make that plane, his head will serve as a football, not just of the political variety. The fall of Pakistan to militant Islam will be a strategic disaster greater than anything possible in Iraq, even losing an army. It will be a greater disaster than a war with Iran that costs us our army in Iraq. Osama and Co. will have nukes, missiles to deliver them, the best conventional armed forces in the Muslim world, and an impregnable base for operations anywhere else." (William S. Lind ‘Taking Pakistan's Temperature’ http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=8595 February 24, 2006); "Bush's ill-fated invasion of Iraq has set in motion forces beyond his control. On February 23 the Asia Times reported that America's Pakistani puppet, Musharraf, is "losing his grip." Some Pakistani provinces are already beyond Musharraf's control, and the remainder are rioting against "Busharraf" as Musharraf is now known. The infantile American press misrepresents the riots as responses to the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, but in fact the target of the riots is the American puppet. By invading Afghanistan and Iraq and by threatening Syria and Iran, Bush has taught Muslims everywhere that they owe their humiliation to the Western controlled secular governments that suppress their aspirations. They are realizing that their power resides in Islam and that this power is suppressed by secular governments. Busharraf is probably dead meat, and when he goes so does the US military adventure in Afghanistan." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘From Superpower to Tinhorn Dictatorship?’ http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02272006.html February 27, 2006).

But, then again, who knows whether the world’s jewish elite would be worried about a nuclear armed al quaeda? The jews-only state has sought to neutralize pakistan’s nuclear threat by seeking an alliance with pakistan’s enemies, india. The neocons, however, have never mentioned any plan of action to deal with an islamic leaning pakistan government. Perhaps the reason for this is not because they have no desire to neutralize pakistan but simply because any public discussion of such a goal would cause alarm bells to ring around the world as to just how extensive their warmongering really was. The neocons would undoubtedly like to see pakistan disarmed. Perhaps, in the past, they believed action against pakistan could wait until after the middle east had been politically re-arranged for the benefit of the jews-only state in palestine. Now that pakistan is on the verge of becoming a factor in the proposed war against iran they might think they have an opportunity for dealing with the militarily most dangerous islamic state of all – the nuclear armed pakistan.

The Mundi Club

Monday, January 30, 2006

Lovelock Squeaks the End is Nigh

The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part One: The War against Iran is getting Closer.

The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Two: Iran’s Right to Militarily Defend Itself.

The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Three: Initiating the war against Iran.

The Prospects of a Nuclear Attack on Iran. Part Four: The Consequences of an Attack on Iran.

About Me

Previous Posts

Archives