- Already waging multiple direct and proxy wars, will Obama
dare launch more? Views differ. Some believe budget constraints contain
him. Others say imperial aims matter most.
-
- Heading into an election year adds further complications
for and against more war. Will presidential aspirants anger voters advocating
it? Republican hawks aren't worried. Will Obama launch it when public sentiment
wants current ones ended? Don't bet against it, whatever he says.
-
- With growing rage against the system, changing the subject
may work best distracting it. At issue is hoping fear resonates more than
human need and grievances.
-
- Fake threats provide pretexts for militarism, wars, occupations,
higher defense budgets, domestic repression, and elevating national security
state priorities above others.
-
- America is a rogue terror state, an imperial predator.
Unchallenged global dominance is planned. All nations it doesn't control
are targeted. It was Saddam's undoing, Gaddafi's also as well as others
post-WW II, including democrats, despots and others in between.
-
- Since last winter, Syria was targeted. Externally generated
violence rages. Regime change is planned. Whether or not successful, is
Iran next? The fullness of time will tell.
-
- One View from Britain
-
- Commenting on UK reports about Britain preparing for
war, London Guardian writer Simon Jenkins headlined,"America's itch
to brawl has a new target - but bombs can't conquer Iran," saying:
-
- What's suggested is "appalling." At risk is
"armageddon engulfing the region." Iran poses no threat whatever.
It's no "two-bit dictatorship" like Iraq, but neither was Libya
and other past US targets.
-
- Iran's "a nation of 70 million people, an ancient
and proud civilization with a developed civil society (and) pluralist democracy."
Claiming belligerent nuclear ambitions is "massively overhyped."
Absent evidence, it's entirely bogus.
-
- Waging "war on Iran would be a catastrophe,"
aside from issues of international law and legitimacy to attack another
nonbelligerent country.
-
- Moreover, America's post-9/11 wars "have been a
gigantic historic tragedy. They have not advanced western security one
jot."
-
- Of course, doing so wasn't intended. At issue is imperial
dominance. Creating enemies further advances it. Ravaging the world one
country at a time is planned. Iran's turn may come sooner or later. Conquering
it is another matter, besides engulfing the entire region and threatening
general war.
-
- "A virus seems to be running through the upper echelons
of Washington and London." Add Israel to the mix, a longstanding regional
menace. Together they comprise a rogue axis. With France, they revel in
war, mass destruction, human slaughter, and for what?
-
- Britain's been there before, building, then losing its
empire. America's turn is next. Imperial arrogance is self-defeating. The
same dynamic doomed past empires. None survived. What can't go on forever,
won't.
-
- Britain knows its history but didn't learn. Now it plays
Bonnie to America's Clyde, or maybe it's the other way around. Either way
they're junior partners. Arrogant hegemons play back seat to no one.
-
- Perishing by the sword follows living by it unless planet
earth goes first. Don't discount it given America's preemptive nuclear
first strike policy. Be scared. Be very scared, regardless of whether attacking
Iran is planned.
-
- Hostile State Department Rhetoric
-
- Either way, inflammatory rhetoric on Iran is real. The
State Department publishes annual Country Reports on Terrorism.
-
- In August, its 2010 report omitted obvious choices never
included: namely, America, Britain, France and Israel. Other rogue states
also qualify, but these top the list.
-
- Instead, four countries were named - Cuba, Sudan (now
its North after balkanization divided the country), Syria and Iran, called
"the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2010" with no
evidence whatever proving it and clear proof pointing fingers at top unnamed
choices.
-
- Nonetheless, the State Department bogusly claimed:
-
- "Iran's financial, material, and logistic support
for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central
Asia had a direct impact on international efforts to promote peace, threatened
economic stability in the Gulf, and undermined the growth of democracy."
-
- Fact check
-
- Rogue regimes beset Middle East countries. Iran's not
one of them. Washington supports the worst of the bunch, including Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, other monarchies, and Israel the most threatening
of all.
-
- Most menacing is America's presence, its imperial policy,
and decades of destructive direct and proxy wars killing millions. In contrast,
nonbelligerent Iran threatens no one.
-
- "In 2010, Iran remained the principal supporter
of groups implacably opposed to the Middle East Peace Process. (Its) Oods
Force....branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)....cultivate(s)
and support(s) terrorists abroad."
-
- Fact check
-
- Iran supports peace and regional stability. America won't
tolerate either. Permanent war defines its agenda. As a result, humanity
is threatened.
-
- "Iran provides weapons, training, and funding to
Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups. (Iran) assisted Hizballah"
rearm after Israel's 2006 Lebanon war. Its "Oods Force provided training
(and weapons) to the Taliban in Afghanistan."
-
- "Despite its pledge to support the stabilization
of Iraq, (Iran) provide(d) lethal support, including weapons, training,
funding, and guidance to Iraqi Shia militant groups that target US and
Iraqi forces."
-
- Fact check
-
- For years, Washington spread the same canards with no
evidence whatever proving them. Hamas is Palestine's legitimate government,
not the US/Israeli-installed Fatah coup d'etat regime.
-
- Misnamed Palestinian "terror" groups are heroic
freedom fighters, struggling to liberate their homeland from Israel's lawless
occupation.
-
- In contrast, Washington's an imperial aggressor. Libya,
Iraq and Afghanistan were ravaged, illegally occupied, and colonized. So
were earlier targets.
-
- America's the world's leading sponsor of state terrorism.
Regional millions and others worldwide revile it. Heroic struggles challenge
its imperial footprint everywhere. Rage against it grows internally.
-
- Hopefully committed global resistance will continue until
its scourge on humanity ends. Free people everywhere support it. The world
can't wait and shouldn't have to.
-
- Iran's Alleged Nuclear Weapons Program
-
- No evidence suggests any. In contrast, America and Russia
have 97% of the world's arsenal and sophisticated delivery systems. Russia
threatens no one with theirs. America's post-9/11 policy is preemptive
first strike, including against non-nuclear states.
-
- Israel is nuclear armed and dangerous. It, too, threatens
first strikes if endangered. No one challenges its menace.
-
- In December 2007, America's National Intelligence Estimate
(NIE) said:
-
- "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003,
Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; (perhaps it never had one);
we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum
is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons..."
-
- True or not, dozens of nations may consider them, for
defense, not offense, in a hostile world. American and Israeli nuclear
arsenals and other destructive weapons pose enormous threats - less because
they exist; mostly because of stated intentions to use them.
-
- The NIE also said:
-
- "We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not
restarted its nuclear program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether
it currently intends to develop (them)."
-
- "Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program
suggests it is less determined to develop (them) than we have been judging
since 2005."
-
- In February 2010, America's Annual Threat Assessment
of the US Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
said:
-
- "We do not know....if Iran will eventually decide
to build nuclear weapons." No evidence of an ongoing program was presented.
-
- In March 2011, the US Intelligence Community Worldwide
Threat Assessment for the Senate Armed Services Committee said precisely
the same thing. Nothing new suggested an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
-
- Yet unsubstantiated accusations claim one. On November
5, Haaretz headlined, "UN report to reveal evidence of Iran's nuclear
weapons program," saying:
-
- The Western-controlled International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) "plans to share with its 35 board members satellite imagery
of what (it) believes is a large steel container used for nuclear arms-related
high explosives tests...."
-
- In other words, with no idea what's inside an alleged
structure, IAEA head Yukiya Amano may make unsubstantiated inflammatory
claims, alleging a secret nuclear weapons program.
-
- Unnamed "diplomats" cited "say they will
reveal suspicions," not facts, at a time saber rattling intensifies
dangerously.
-
- Amano will also allege "experiments took place after
2003," despite the above US intelligence assessments presenting no
evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
-
- "The upcoming report is meant to ratchet up pressure
on (Iran) to stop four years of stonewalling IAEA experts seeking to follow
up intelligence of such secret weapons-related experiments."
-
- In fact, Iran's been more than cooperative in contrast
to Israel and America. Both countries prohibit IAEA or other inspections
of their longstanding nuclear programs and arsenals. World leaders, IAEA
heads, and their officials don't object or comment.
-
- Clearly, their new Iranian assessment lacks credibility.
Reports suggest releasing it is imminent, perhaps early next week. What
follows isn't known. Expect continued hostile rhetoric.
-
- A November 4 Haaretz editorial noted IAEA's assessment
will contain:
-
- "partial information (and) disputed statements,
reliance on anonymous sources - meaning there's no way to know what interests
motivate them....But none of this obviates the (clear) need for (open,
truthful) discussion" of an important issue.
-
- Conjecture, baseless allegations, and hostile rhetoric
have no place in it. Nor do threats of war or targeted strikes begging
retaliation.
-
- On November 4, Ynet News headlined "Iran far from
posing existential threat," saying:
-
- "Former Mossad Chief Ephraim Halevy warned against
an Israeli strike on iran, saying....confrontation could be devastating
for the Middle East."
-
- Israel can't be destroyed, he said. However, attacking
Iran "could affect not only Israel, but the entire region for 100
years."
-
- Worry more about internal Haredi radicals, he added,
citing "ultra-Orthodox extremism (that) darkened our lives."
-
- MK Dan Meridor calls public discussion on Iran "scandalous....(a)
devil's dance" because of what may follow.
-
- Haaretz added that "bombing Iran's nuclear facilities
is effectively equivalent to starting a war. The implications of (doing
so will have) dramatic and painful (repercussions) for the entire Israeli
public" and others throughout the region.
-
- The possibility should frighten everyone. So far, only
hostile rhetoric and saber rattling continue. Similar episodes occurred
earlier, then subsided, hopefully, again this time. Stay tuned. Nothing's
so far resolved.
-
- Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
-
- Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and
listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive
Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central
time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy
listening.
-
- http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
|
