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.
posted by The Mundi Club @ 10:41 PM
<< Home