Skip to content
About these ads

America takes another step towards war with Iran, towards the dark side of its soul

3 September 2010

Summary:  All we need do is to strike Iran with all our hatred, and our journey towards the dark side will be complete.

After years of propaganda the US population has become eager for war, much like the people of Europe were in 1914.  The wars of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st barely touched America, leaving most of us ignorant of war’s terrible consequences.  We cannot even see the rising fear of the US among the world’s peoples, shown in this June 2006 poll by the Pew Research Center — including supposed allies like Pakistan (see details here).

We’re at a point like early 2003 when our geopolitical experts casually discuss the likelihood of war, in a by-now familiar delusional way.  No matter how good, card-carrying US geopolitical experts must shill for the next war (see examples for the Iraq war here).  As in this report by George Friedman of Stratfor:  “Rethinking American Options on Iran“, 31 August 2010 (logical and well-written, as usual).  It has many levels worth examining.  Note the three key elements.

(1)  Our grasping at straws, such as Friedman’s belief that following a massive US strike at Iran …

  • the US military can reliably take down Iran’s military and keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
  • the risk of reprisals by Hezbollah has been “mitigated.”
  • a Iraq government will be “quickly formed and Iranian influence quickly curtailed” (before or immediately after a strike).

(2)  Our myopia concerning Iran’s retaliatory options.   Friedman discusses the 3 mentioned above, but Iran is not limited by our lack of imagination.

A massive strike like Friedman describe means war.  For nine years the US government has circulated poorly sourced (often baseless) stories of serious Iranian support for insurgents in Iran and Afghanistan.  Following a US strike Iran might show what real support means.  For example, by distributing modern MANPADS to their allies.  Commercial traffic interdicted and US helicopters falling from the sky, like we did to the Russians. (see here for more about the MANPAD threat)

(3)  Our blindness about the direction of US strategy, to large and dark for Friedman to mention.

  • First we assassinate our enemies (as opposed to killing them on a battlefield).  We become like our enemies, terrorists, who consider the world our battlefield.
  • Then we assassinate US citizens, trashing our most important rights:  arrest, trial by our peers, and then sentence.
  • Then Friedman describes (as so many neocons have proposed) a US attack on Iran like the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor.  A date which will live in infamy.  Then our transformation will be complete.

Posts about a strike by the US at Iran

  1. 4GW at work in a community near you , 19 October 2007 — Propaganda warming us up for war with Iran.
  2. Stratfor’s analysis of US reasons for invading and occupying Iraq , 4 March 2008
  3. Will we bomb Iran, now that Admiral Fallon is gone? , 17 March 2008
  4. More post-Fallon overheating: “6 signs the US may be headed for war in Iran” , 18 March 2008
  5. A militant America, ready for war with Iran , 6 May 2008
  6. Another step towards war with Iran?, 7 May 2008 — About Andrew Cockburn’s article in  Counterpunch.
  7. “War With Iran Might Be Closer Than You Think”, 13 May 2008 — About Philip Giraldi’s 9 May story in The American Conservative (see below).
  8. The most expensive psy-war campaign - ever!, 13 July 2008
  9. ISIS: “Can Military Strikes Destroy Iran’s Gas Centrifuge Program? Probably Not.”, 8 August 2008
  10. Will trade sanctions work against Iran, as they did against Japan in 1941?, 27 August 2008
  11. Is the War on Terror over (because there are no longer two sides)? Part 1, 3 September 2008 — Rumors of covert ops by us against Iran.
  12. Update on the prospects of war with Iran, from Stratfor, 6 September 2008
  13. Psywar, a core skill of the US Military (used most often on us), 26 November 2008
  14. Iran’s getting the bomb, or so we’re told. Can they fool us twice?, 16 February 2009
  15. Another general advocating war with Iran, 18 August 2009
  16. “Iraq Endgame” by George Friedman, 22 August 2009
  17. Stratfor: “Two Leaks and the Deepening Iran Crisis”, 7 October 2009
  18. Follow-up on America’s latest wetting our pants episode: Iran’s secret atomic facility, 13 November 2009
  19. Iran will have the bomb in 5 years (again), 21 January 2010
  20. Will Obama attack Iran?, 18 March 2010
  21. This is how a nation thoughtlessly slides into stupid wars, 25 July 2010
About these ads
2 Comments leave one →
  1. Hersh in The New Yorker: "Iran and the I.A.E.A" permalink
    20 November 2011 2:42 am

    More provocative analysis by Symour Hersh about the latest Iran bomb scare

    Iran and the I.A.E.A.“, Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, 18 November 2011

    Like

  2. Another geopolitical expert shilling for war with Iran permalink
    22 December 2011 6:42 am

    The worst case for war with Iran“, Stephen M. Walt, Foreign Policy, 21 December 2011

    Review of “Time to Attack Iran – Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option“, Matthew Kroenig, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2012

    Opening:

    If you’d like to read a textbook example of war-mongering disguised as “analysis,” I recommend Matthew Kroenig’s forthcoming article in Foreign Affairs, titled “Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option.” It is a remarkably poor piece of advocacy, all the more surprising because Kroenig is a smart scholar who has done some good work in the past. It makes one wonder if there’s something peculiar in the D.C. water supply.

    There is a simple and time-honored formula for making the case for war, especially preventive war. First, you portray the supposed threat as dire and growing, and then try to convince people that if we don’t act now, horrible things will happen down the road. (Remember Condi Rice’s infamous warnings about Saddam’s “mushroom cloud”?) All this step requires is a bit of imagination and a willingness to assume the worst. Second, you have to persuade readers that the costs and risks of going to war aren’t that great. If you want to sound sophisticated and balanced, you acknowledge that there are counterarguments and risks involved. But then you do your best to shoot down the objections and emphasize all the ways that those risks can be minimized. In short: In Step 1 you adopt a relentlessly gloomy view of the consequences of inaction; in Step 2 you switch to bulletproof optimism about how the war will play out.

    Kroenig’s piece follows this blueprint perfectly. …

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,435 other followers

%d bloggers like this: