Another Fake Lead Up To A War - But Unlike Iraq, Any Iran Invasion Wouldn't Be A "Cakewalk"

Here we go again! Another episode of huff and puff, this time to work up to an Iran invasion. But make no mistake, going into Iran for whatever reason would be the very definition of insanity. And it also would not turn into another 'regime change"  such as when Bush II invaded Iraq and reduced Saddam's army to rubble using 'shock and awe'.  Let's repeat this a hundred times: Iran is NOT Iraq.  As the website 'breakingdefense.com' has pointed out:

"Iran is spatially large and mountainous with an enormous, fiercely nationalist population. Make no mistake, U.S. military occupation of the Islamic Republic would make the Iraq War, for once, actually look like the “cakewalk” it was billed to be.

So where are the troops available to topple Tehran? They don’t exist. The U.S. military is already running at full throttle, and the American people won’t be flocking to recruiters to stave off an overhyped, distant Iranian threat. The polling data is clear: Americans don’t want another war."

These are not minor considerations. Hence, the Trumpie warhawks - especially John 'Nutso' Bolton- fanning the flames, need to tone it down.  Much has been made of alleged Iranian sabotage of oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz, but as yet there is no iron clad evidence. Besides, even if true it is not a reason to start a war or launch an ill -conceived invasion in which tens of thousands of U.S. troops may lose their lives.

Never mind, the Trumpie propagandists have also called for evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad - asserting nebulous "threats" by Iranian "proxies" - whatever the hell that means. What it means for me and other critical thinkers is simply another ruse to bait Iran into a misguided conflict - that will be as bad or worse for us as it would for them. (And again bear in mind Iran is not Iraq!)

And if that fails, Trump, Bolton and their criminal cabal can pull the "nuke threat" out of their hats.  Oh wow, Iran now ready to go straight ahead to processing nuclear materials for warheads on missiles.  Well, whose fault was that anyway?  After all, it wasn't Iran that sundered the deal that the Obama administration and many allies had patiently forged! It was traitor Trump and his retinue of loons.  See e.g.

Brane Space: Iran Deal Is The Best The World Could Get: So Critics ...

brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/07/iran-deal-is-best-world-could-get-so.html

1. Cached

.

Fortunately, one military voice of sanity has spoken out on this concocted Iranian "threat" propaganda,  set up by U.S. Neocons.  That would be Major General Chris Ghika - a Brit senior officer in the coalition fighting ISIS. Maj. Ghika, speaking in a video two days ago from coalition headquarters in Baghdad, told reporters the coalition monitors any hostile activity, i.e. of Iranian -backed forces.  And to the point:

"We do not see any increased threat from any of them at this stage."

Who could contest such a clear synopsis?  Well U.S.  Central Command ("Centcom") did, claiming Ghika's sober assessment "runs counter to the identified credible threats from Iranian-backed forces in the Middle east."  Which is absolute balderdash. 

Besides, why in hell should I believe this claptrap retort from a source (Pentagon) that up to now has not been able to account for $6.5 TRILLION in military expenditures?  This as documented in the July 2016, Dept. of Defense (DOD) Inspector General study.   So now, get this, these weasels are gaming for another couple trillion of American taxpayer dollars to set fire to in another useless military excursion. 

Let's also not forget that in December, 2016 a Washington Post article published its own account of a "buried" DOD report which had found "$125 billion in administrative waste" in Pentagon business operations. What happened to all those taxpayer dollars? Where is the rest of the  $6.375 trillion, what did these wastrels do with that?  And now they want to over extend for another war, indicted by contradicting the assessment of Maj. Gen. Ghiza?

All smoke and mirrors? Maybe not. The NY Times already reported on the potential deployment of 120,000 U.S. troops to the Middle East - but which was dismissed as only a "rumor" by Pompeo.  Well, pardon me but one might consult history here.

On October 18, 1913, after Serbia's occupation of Albania - a Balkan state also under the dominance of Austria-Hungary- the latter dispatched an ultimatum for withdrawal by all Serbian forces within 8 days..  Rumors of war circulated and the German Kaiser, grasping the 'genie' might be  out of the bottle, penned a letter to Austria stating "every reason for war is removed"- after a Serbian reply agreed.  

The letter of conciliatory support was too late, however, and barely an hour after the Kaiser penned those words Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia.  The match igniting the conflagration known as World War I had been tossed, and eight months later my great grandfather Anton was conscripted into the army of Austria-Hungary, e.g. 















My Great-grandfather, left, after conscription into the Austro-Hungarian Army some eight months after the onset  of World War I. An Austrian officer stands next to him in this 1915 photo.

The confusion with the Kaiser's  letter directly led to 11 million military dead and 7 million civilians in World War I.   But you can be sure a misguided and misdirected Iranian conflict could be vastly worse, even conceivably leading to a thermonuclear war.  This is because - while the media hasn't mentioned it - the Russians do have strategic interests in Iran, as they do in Syria.  Hence, any misstep could have catastrophic consequences.  All of which attests even more to the folly of Trump recklessly pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.

Will Maj. Gen. Ghika's comments be too late to stave off a rash move by the U.S. into an Iran invasion?  Let's hope so, because recall the Brit 1983 movie 'Threads' depicted a rapid escalation starting with an initial strike on a Russian nuclear reactor at Isfahan,  leading to global war. This also was ignited by reckless moves into Iran by the U.S. and a "coalition" of allies.

Let me pause here to interject that although none of us except  the Japanese have experienced an atomic bomb attack, you can get a very good inkling of what happens to humans by watching it in this clip from the movie 'Threads', e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrHoMSRZOS4

Watch it then watch again- especially the last 2 minutes of the clip-  to see what we may be in for if cooler heads do not prevail now and if congress again allows crazies to usurp its war making powers.

See also:

Iran

Neocons Won’t Stop Until They Get Their War With Iran

And:

Bolton in Wonderland

John Feffer

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (2)

FB comments (0)

John Bolton

by John Feffer | May 15, 2019 - 6:05am 

Excerpt:

"Of all the places where John Bolton would like to go to war, Iran is currently in the lead position.

The national security advisor was in office for less than two months before Trump announced that he was pulling the United States out of the nuclear deal with Iran, a key Bolton objective. Since then, Bolton has been part of the team that has put the squeeze not only on Iran (with additional economic sanctions) but any country with the temerity to continue any kind of economic engagement with Tehran (with the threat of secondary sanctions). Last year, Bolton also asked the Pentagon to prepare a menu of military options for striking Iran, scaring even some seasoned administration officials.

But it was earlier this month that Bolton upped the ante considerably. On May 5, he assumed the prerogative of the commander-in-chief by issuing a direct threat to Iran.

In response to a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings, the United States is deploying the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a bomber task force to the U.S. Central Command region to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force. The United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime, but we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or regular Iranian forces.

Is Gen Y Too Obsessed With Apocalyptic Futures? 'Yes!' According to One Prof (But They Have a Right To Be!)

"If you were born after 1960, you are more likely to die from starvation, disease or violence." - Jay Hanson, in essay at 'Dieoff.org
















Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado, Ira Chernus, has proposed the Gen Y demographic is too obsessed with apocalyptic visions and ideation - and gravitate excessively to dystopic fare like 'The Hunger Games',  'The Walking Dead' and likely the new flick, 'Divergent' too.  In the case of 'The Walking Dead' (which btw, I also watch, though it's not necessarily my "favorite") Chernus observes (Colorado Springs Independent, March 5-11, p. 21):

"It's no surprise that 'The Walking Dead', a zombie apocalypse series, is their favorite TV show since it reveals (and revels in) what one TV critic called the 'secret life of the American teenager'"

Leaving open the question of why those of us who are in the elder demographic also find the series riveting.  Hint: It has nada to do with any "secret life" of horrific ideation, but because it's very well done!  Also, maybe we grew up loving horror flicks, and still do. In our reckoning, there's no "statute of limitations" in terms of age, on loving horror flicks.

Having basically denigrated a particular demographics' love of a great zombie series, Chernus does admit we do inhabit an era wherein potential apocalypses are everywhere. One can think of global warming leading to the runaway greenhouse effect, for example, which would effectively wipe humans off the face of the Earth within perhaps 200 years - and all other species too.

Then there is the prospect of real thermo-nuclear war. Most of today's youngsters, though they may have seen a few atomic disaster flicks, have no conception of how horrific a nuclear war would be. Fortunately, one daring British film entitled 'Threads' showed it - from the original exchanges of thousands of megatons - to the nuclear winter that follows over decades.

Threads is not for the squeamish or faint-hearted but I do think all those yammering for war or confrontation with Putin and the Russians need to see it and let its message soak in. In fact, I think every critically-thinking red blooded citizen ought to see it, if for no other reason to be motivated to let their belligerent  reps know this thing isn't on - not now or ever.  In this sense, our political leaders could also use the therapy of seeing 'Threads' next time they're inclined to use antagonistic rhetoric.

Though based on a hypothetical Soviet invasion of Iran, (which possibility now reverts to a U.S. -Israeli bombing of Iran),  the projected invasion of a U.S. and NATO strike force remains accurate to any unfolding future scenario,  since the present day Russians have plowed enormous investment  into Iran and its reactors.. Anyway, from the initial strikes on a nuke reactor at Isfahan, to the accidental sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz, to the accidental exchange of 2 tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan) and the escalation to a full scale nuclear war - with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone) this movie will keep you on the edge of your seat.

It should also give sober citizens (of whatever age) nightmares and motivate them to scream down all the warmongers in this country with a boner to pick a fight....with whomever. In this sense, Chernus is right that "apocalypses are everywhere" in the political process for change. For example, the most powerful political process today, mostly for negative change (which is to say, the benefits of it redound only to the few, the wealthy, the multinational corporations) is Neoliberalism.  The Neoliberal dynamic and imperative is to "flatten the Earth" in terms of holding all global citizens to the dictates of the global market. These dictates demand all nations 'play by the rules' which means they do nothing to resist Neoliberal expansion irrespective of what form it takes. This is exactly why Obama and the U.S. are so pissed at the Russians for reverting to their original geographical interests and re-claiming Crimea. In addition, the Russians by their actions are messing up assorted trade deals that would have mightily benefited capitalists in the U.S.

As one astute commenter in the UK Guardian forums put it:

"The EU "trade deal" with America would allow American Corporations to take over "outsourced" public sector contracts in Ukraine"

So the negative impetus to confront the Russians is directly tied to this deflection of the Neoliberal imperative to enslave the Ukrainians in another "austerity" governed hellhole, like Greece. But is it worth having a nuclear war over? We have to wait and see. In the meantime one hopes more sober heads come to the fore in the Obama administration.

Chernus goes on to write- and this could certainly apply to the siren song of Neoliberalism:

"A better future is often implied between the lines but it seldom gets much attention because it's even harder to imagine such a future much less believe it."

For many of us, in the case of climate change this is certainly true, since there's almost NO upside, zero - if we should hit the critical thresholds identified by Bill McKibben. Thus, exceeding a carbon load (for the atmosphere) of 550 gT is the start of the road to climate hell, while exceeding the 2770 gT limit is the road to certain hell and the end of the game for humanity.

Thus it is understandable that upsides and positive images get less attention. We're already seeing the negative effects play out in massive droughts, wild fires, severe heat waves and storms, so why should we expect the future to be better - especially if humans aren't doing a damned thing to effect significant change? We keep growing our numbers, spewing more chemicals (including massive water pollutants) and CO2 out, even as the fossil fuel wizards now want to frack the whole planet into the ground.

In terms of the Neoliberal imperative, we already see the 'race to the bottom' played out in numerous nations for which the Neoliberal virus has become embedded. We behold millions and millions of unemployed and under-employed as well as people barely able to eke out a living on minimum wage. We also see the yen to cut social insurance, whether in the U.S. or Barbados - because for the Neoliberal,  security is not to be allowed. It is anathema because people are expected to either work for their money, or get if from investment in the (Neoliberal) gamed markets. Those who refuse are punished by extremely low yields and the creeping cancer of inflation eating up their savings (especially as the Neolibs continue to game the system and measure only certain types of inflation in their cost of living assessments)

Since we can see the dire effects of Neoliberalism (those of us with eyes to see) then looking for upsides to it, irrespective of what the Neolib pols spout, is a fool's errand.

As for Prof. Chernus, his heart is in the right place - in terms of trying to spread a more positive overtone to our rapidly approaching dystopic world - but his knowledge is inadequate. In terms of allaying climate change he writes, for example:

"Scientists have shown that renewable sources like the Sun and wind could provide all the energy humanity needs. Alternative technologies are putting those theories into practice around the globe just not on the scale needed to transform human life."

Which is true, but he doesn't explain why. The reason is that fossil fuels remain the energy sources with the biggest bangs for the buck, and sources like solar and wind are too dilute - not concentrated enough - to be useful. The Physicist's Desk Reference notes, for example, all the alternative energy sources taken together barely account for 1 EJ (exajoule) while oil-coal account for 15-17 EJ.

Unlike energy derived from fossil fuels, energy derived from solar power is diffuse and also extremely intermittent: it varies constantly with weather or day/night. If a large city wants to derive a significant portion of its electricity from solar power, it must build fossil-fuel-fired or nuclear-powered electricity plants to provide backup for the times when solar energy is not available. Solar power has a capacity of about 20 percent. This means that if a utility wants to install 100 megawatts of solar power, they need to install 500 megawatts of solar panels. This makes solar power a prohibitively expensive and pragmatically poor replacement for the cheap and abundant fossil fuel energy our economy depends on, especially if one intends to use it operate missile factories.

Worse, calculations show that solar cells currently consume twice as much sej as they produce, so they're no bargain. Worse, an entirely solar civilization would most likely have to exist at the power output and potential (relative to electric grid capacity) of about one half where we are now. IN order to accomplish that we'd have to winnow the human population down to barely 2 billion - which is exactly the number that Alan Weisman pinpointed as the Earth's "Carrying capacity" or the maximum number of people the Earth can support given its resource base.  You simply can't have 7.5 billion people able to exist on solar power.  Their transport needs alone - never mind food - would make it impossible.

H.T. Odum's solar "eMergy" (eMbodied energy) measures all of the energy (adjusted for quality) that goes into the production of a product. Odum's calculations show that the only forms of alternative energy that can survive the exhaustion of fossil fuels are muscle, burning biomass (wood, animal dung, or peat), hydroelectric, geothermal in volcanic areas, and some wind electrical generation. Nuclear power could be viable if one could overcome the shortage of fuel. No other alternatives (e.g., solar voltaic) produce a large enough net sej to be sustainable. In short, there is no way out of the dire fossil fuel predicament any time soon, and we will likely exceed the 2, 770 gT calamity limit before we can implement massive alternate energy inputs.

Chernus ends by saying:

"In an age in which gloom, doom and annihilation are everywhere, it's vital to bring genuine hope - the reality, not just the word - back into political life."

This is true,  but the problem is that our politicos have shamelessly abused the word 'hope' too often, using it in the wrong context of election cycles and seeking to exploit in when the wherewithal (or will) wasn't there to effect it. Hence, by doing so, they've only made the population more cynical - not less. This doesn't necessarily mean they are 'hopeless' or totally without positivity - but that they seek people in political life who are able to balance hope and realism. The problem again is that these really courageous potential politicians will not likely get the adequate funding to compete in our money-soaked system, which also favors the Neoliberal puppet over any other types.

The true fact here is the Gen Ys are quite right to view the current U.S. scene through mostly negative and cynical eyes. They've been betrayed as have we all. The problem has been to be able to pinpoint who or what is to blame, but most of us finally know it is un-tempered Neoliberalism, with its adoration of the markets as some deus ex machina, and the exclusion of human capital and human priorities.

Until that changes, no one has any right to exude false hope - which is the only form in abundance right now.

As for the zombies on 'The Walking Dead' - they are all around us, but mostly inhabiting the Beltway, as they sully forth to do the Neoliberals'  bidding on autopilot - and ignore the rest of us. Look just at the recent approval of $1b for the Ukraine, while our own kids - 15.6 million of them- go to bed hungry each night because of recent food stamp cuts.

See also:  www.dieoff.org

And:  http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/55026/nafta-at-20-a-vehicle-to-increase-profits-at-the-expense-of-democracy

The U.S. : Rogue State or Global Citizen? The Jury Is Out

"The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough—more than enough—of war and hate and oppression."- John F. Kennedy, June 10, 1963 (Speech at American University)

In the horrific 1983 British film Threads, the nuclear destruction and termination of human civilization is effected after the U.S. and NATO intervene in Iran and exchanges lead to the accidental sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz.

Subsequently,  an accidental exchange of 2 tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan) leads to escalation and a full scale nuclear war  within 24 hrs.- with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone).

After the final exchange, when 80 megatons land on Sheffield, UK, the focus is on a family huddled inside their shock -wave blasted home as the radioactive debris descends - leading to non stop vomiting by all the members, then deaths of the parents (after losing all their hair and skin sores) then the daughter giving birth (9 months later) to a monster, that can best be described as a 'Rosemary's Baby' look- alike. The final scene shows the baby after its live birth, porcine features with rat-like ears and teeth exposed on its epidermis- while the poor, malnourished girl who just delivered it screams at the top of her lungs.

'Threads'  is not a film for the squeamish, nor was it meant to be. It was intended to be a cautionary tale against rash human actions - laden with arrogance and hubris - with the perpetrators unable to see ahead to the consequences of their  actions. It was intended to send the message: "Look, you idiots! It doesn't matter whether YOU think you're in the right for any given action or not! If by god you fuck it up - launch an aggressive strike with unintended consequences, there may be no turning back for any of us!"

Such warnings apply now as a congress all too willing in the past to be 'yes men' to the executive, is once more being drumbeaten into taking reckless action for "humanitarian purposes". But what kind of humanitarian purpose will it be if 1 million more Syrian refugees are created by our Tomahawk attacks, and they pour into adjacent Turkey and Jordan which already are at their tipping points?  You call that humanitarian? It's stupidity! Plus, we will likely kill as many or more via collateral damage as perished in the gas attacks (And contrary to the nattering nabobs - including liberals like Krystal Ball on MSNBC - we still don't know WHO was responsible!)

The money consumed by destroying those cruise missiles ($1 billion est.) by lobbing them into Syria ought to be used instead to provide support for the 2 million refugees already in Turkey and Jordan. This was the suggestion yesterday by Rep. Alan Grayson (FL) as he addressed a media simpleton on MSNBC who tried to compare not taking action to the Chamberlain appeasement at Munich. Well, Grayson raked the Neolib twerp's ass over the coals, drawing attention to his historical attention deficit disorder, for that one! (The correct comparison, as Grayson noted, was the run-up to the Iraq fiasco.)

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer of the Center for Advanced Defense Studies(appearing on MSNBC's 'The Cycle)  laid it on the line this afternoon that NO the U.S. isn't "following the world" (on any issuance of a "red line")  to address any humanitarian concerns in Syria,  it is pushing the world to follow its lead. But this could have severe repercussions because no matter what we believe, our aggression and attacks will be regarded by the Syrians (as well as the Russians, Iran and other actors) as an act of war- inviting full retaliation which could assume myriad forms - from massive cyber attacks, knocking down power grids,  to Iranian missile attacks on the U.S. fleet, to Russian bombing of U.S. destroyers in retaliation for any collateral damage.

Kerry basically said there's nothing to fret over re: Russia, but he's an idiot. How he has managed to get to the position of Secretary of State is beyond me. I guess politics and friendly Repukes (who relish his MA Senate seat) can make a difference. Anyway, as Lt. Col. Shaffer said, neither the Syrians or others affected will take any attack lying down. Besides, there are many ways the Russians could get involved, from an accidental strike on their naval base, to the accidental killing of their technicians who help maintain the Syrian air force. Think Putin wouldn't retaliate for killing Russian techs or other personnel? Think again!

Then there are the 50,000 Iranians who also are there in country, helping Assad's forces. Kill any of them and also watch as the Iranians retaliate. Who knows in what ways, but bear in mind, as with 9/11, the blowback can take years to unfold. Ask Chalmers Johnson who predicted (in Blowback) the 9/11 attacks because of our aggressive Middle East policies. Another thing, as Howard Fineman asked on the same MSNBC segment: 'Since when did the Democratic Party become the War Party'?

The notion we can just hurl cruise missiles into Syria with impunity and do whatever we like  (as self-proclaimed cop of the world- lacking any moral authority to be said 'cop')  is such a noxious, insane notion it is beyond the pale and makes us a rogue state, above the law - certainly above international law-  no matter what congress authorizes or not.

Lt. Col. Shaffer admonished Obama for his decision to go it alone, even with just the puny cover of congressional authorization. He stated that what must be done, to show the world we are not above the law - international law- is to take our case to the UN Security Council and behind the scenes make the political moves to get China and Russia invested in the proposal that it's in THEIR best interests to get Assad removed from power. But....contrary to asshole and idiot Bill Krystal (one of the foremost instigators of regime change in Iraq) it is NOT OUR business to regime change Assad.

But if we fire off a missile attack on Syria without UN concurrence,  we will expose ourselves as the outlaw rogue state everyone in the world believes we are. Worse, we will help to create a scenario that will likely quickly get out of control no matter how many supposed precautions we take.

In that case, a near future such as depicted on Threads may well be our sorry- ass lot. 

Start a War With Iran? Conceivably the Worst Mistake in U.S. Policy History!

According to a recent extended TIME article, 'The Path To War' (March 11, p. 20) it is only a matter of time before the Obama administration launches an all out attack - and presumably - war, against Iran.  According to a senior official quoted (p. 25):

"One way or the other we are entering the final stages of this drama".

All I can say then, is that if wiser heads prevail, there can be NO war! Not unless this nation wishes to single-handedly send the entire global economic system down a real shit pile while adding nearly fifty million terrorists! Mainly currently normal, American-loving Iranians who will as quickly turn against us in the bat of an eye if we are foolish enough to strike their homeland, no matter what the excuse.

Is Obama really stupid enough to send the world economy back two decades over some tiff with Iran using their nuclear facilities? I cannot believe so! Is he so weak to stand up to the Military-Industrial complex? I hope to hell not! (Though I do hear disturbing news that a bill will soon arrive at his desk to protect the Pentagon from the sequester cuts and add the $46b to the domestic side. And he is unsure whether to veto them or not? Hello, Mr. Prez, you VETO them! This deal was made for both sides, domestic and miltary to feel the pain, and the one saving grace to the domestic cuts was knowing the Pentagon would also have its purse strings cut!)

Anyway, according to the TIME piece, the Federation of American Scientists estimates the cost of open war with Iran to be "$1 trillion to  $1.7 trillion". Pardon me, but with oil prices consequently going through the roof, and all the deaths, injuries from thousands of terror attacks incepted around the globe, plus the destroyed infrastructure, it will be more like double that. If the Russians get involved - since they have interests there- you can perhaps even double that $3.4 trillion.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said in a 2012 appearance:

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/10/04/robert-gates-war-on-iran-would-be-catastrophic-and-make-a-nuclear-iran-inevitable/

"Neither the United States nor Israel is capable of wiping out Iran’s nuclear capability"


Adding:

"Such an attack would make a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable. They would just bury the program deeper and make it more covert. Not only would Iran be likely to reconstitute its defunct nuclear weapons program, but Tehran might also respond by disrupting world oil traffic in the Persian Gulf and launching a wave of terrorism across the region." 

And:

" The results of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran could, in my view, prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world.”


So why the fuck do it! Macho-ism? To show who's the 'Boss' of the world? Because the Israeli warmonger Netanyahu insists on it? How about putting a muzzle on him and his war mongering ilk?  Because some dildo-brained  morons in the Pentagon want it? Stand up to them like JFK would! Tell them where to get off! Let them do a serious cost-benefit analysis, that is if anyone in D.C. has the I.Q. to pull it off!

Even leave out for the moment the report in an issue of The Economist ('Smart Concrete', March 3rd,  2012, p. 89) that recently developed U.S. "bunker buster", 30,000 lb. bombs may not be able to penetrate Iranian underground facilities, fortified as they are now with "ultra-high performance concrete" (UHPC) . It's still a terrible idea! 

In other words, attacking Iranian facilities using these Massive Ordinance Penetrators ("MOPS' ), which can break through 60 m of ordinary concrete, will not necessarily be a walk in the park. And if not for the U.S., it won't be for Israel either, unless they do something truly reckless like using tactical nukes - the basis for the horrific nuclear war flick, 'Threads', e.g.


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/03/anxious-to-start-war-with-iran-see-this.html

There is also a major fault in the logic that if Iran goes nuclear it'll set off a nuclear arms race in the region. We have examples that counter such reasoning. When North Korea went nuclear, neither Korea or Japan followed suit. And when Israel went nuclear, neither Egypt or Saudi Arabia followed suit. Iran wants a few nukes for a simple reason: self-protection from an arrant, aggressive invasion such as done under the "Bush doctrine" to Iraq in March, 2003!  We already showed we didn't respect national sovereignty by that "Shock and Awe" Nazi- style, Blitzkrieg invasion - which btw, violated Principle IV against pre-emptive war, under the Nuremberg laws. (First incepted with Nazi Germany's violations of international law) That Principle states:

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). "

In other words, one can argue that the Iranians are obtaining  insurance against pre-emptive strikes or war such as the U.S. has already wantonly demonstrated 10 years ago. They reason, I believe correctly, that once they have x nukes, they will be less likely to be bombed or invaded, just as the N. Koreans have reasoned. (Recall both were placed on idiot Bush's "Axis of Evil" list with Iraq back in 2002 - and they saw what transpired with Iraq)

Neither does the argument that any nukes "might fall into the hands" of terrorists make sense. After all Iran has endured, including massive sanctions (the worst being cut off from the international electronic banking SWIFT system) how or why would they be so cavalier in allowing their hard won attainments to be usurped by loonies? It is all scare tactics.


Finally, the (mainly) Israeli argument that Iranians are "prepared to commit mass suicide if it means the extermination of Israel"  is hyperbolic babble. (This was the claim of the Israeli Ambassador on a Bill Maher show back in March, 2012). A truer take was offered by Gen. Martin Dempsey when he referred to Iran as a "rational actor" - which is ultimately invested in survival not self-extermination for a manic, irrational cause. Again, Iran sees the U.S. as the threat, given how it used a reckless 'bomb, burn and slash' invasion back in 2003, which by World Health Organization estimates,  killed over 600,000 Iraqis, perhaps 200 of whom were "al Qaeda" operatives - if that. IN the end it was all a ruse instigated by an Iraqi nut nicknamed "curve ball" who invented the bullshit about WMD.

The only rational response of the U.S.? Tell Israel and Benji Netanyu to shove it, and stop Biden and others from blustering on with war talk! 

The last thing this planet needs right now is another war, especially instigated from a nation that already has 5,000 nuke warheads of its own, and a smaller nation (Israel) that has at least 100. We need now Obama to stand up like a man, face down the warhawks and tell them to fuck themselves like JFK would. We need him to inveigh against the odious myth of "Pax Americana" - of the U.S. being the policeman of the world - and imposing peace by resort to American weapons of war. We need him to stand tall now as never before and aspire to steely spine,  as John Kennedy would have (at the peak of the Cuban Missile crisis in 1962) instead of expediting what will be the worst mistake this nation's ever made!