Thursday, October 26, 2006
Iran
I just had dinner with a very well-connected man who convinced me that America will attack Iran next year. I came back to read this. Russia knows exactly what it is doing. Geo-politics is no longer a bearable subject for anybody with children. On 11th September 2001, I said to a friend, 'At the end of this process, somebody will launch a nuclear attack.' Nothing since has caused me to doubt that prediction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A blog about, among other things, imaginary ideas - What ifs? and Imagine thats. What if photographs looked nothing like what we see with our eyes? Imagine that the Berlin Wall had never come down. What if we were the punchline of an interminable joke? All contributions welcome.
Of course, I hope you are wrong. If not, I hope I'm near it when it goes off. I hope I'm nearer my children.
ReplyDelete'At the end of this process, somebody will launch a nuclear attack.' Nothing since has caused me to doubt that prediction.
ReplyDeleteI think that too and have been surprised to find that quite a few "non-political" friends are of the same opinion.
You might well be right.
ReplyDeleteHubris inevitably leads to nemesis.
The truly frightening thing is that many people all over the world seem to be subconsciously willing us to destruction, or at least believe it's inevitable. Maybe they're right.
The signs are mixed and signals may be being sent to create certain effects, like US acquisition of bases in the Horn of Africa should aircraft need to touch down in a hurry, or my Israeli friend who is currently 'playing' the Iranians in Washington war games. The fact that most of the senior Bush people are not running for office should give cause for worry since they may see an attack on Iran's nuclear programme as their legacy to the American people....or to wipe away the sour taste of Iraq.
ReplyDeleteThe Iranians have spread these projects over hundreds of sites, so eliminating the programme, rather than retarding it for a few years, will be extraordinarily difficult. There is no enthusiasm in Israel to be the catspaw of the US, even assuming Israel has sufficient airpower for the job. In the early 1980s it attacked one Iraqi plant. Of course, to paraphrase James Baker, there are many intermediate strategies, like cargo ships having mysterious fires, or nuclear physicists falling off a roof in a fit of depression when they attend a boffins' conference in Stockholm.....Such an attack will throw the Iranian bourgeoisie (with their illicit stills, porn movies and satellite dishes) back on the mercy of the religious mob that Achmenijad incites......and the Iranian Pasadran militia has many terrorists it can mobilise around the world.....not good, whichever way you look at it. One ray of sunshine being that because of the nature of Iran's oil, the country is fatally dependent on imports to thin the stuff down for gasoline... two can tango at the Straits of Hormuz.....
There should be no surprise at the aggressive military policy of the US. Before 911 in the Project for a New American Century the neo-cons in the persons of people like Cheney and Rumsfeld stated their desire for just such an aggressive global push. They spoke of their desire to be involved in "simultaneous multi-theatre wars" to bring about the regime changes they envisaged. And as regards a process they stated this would not get the sufficient financial and popular backing "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbour." What extraordinary luck what happened next. The following the words of Richard Perle, one of the movers and shakers, "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
ReplyDeleteHe also wrote, "Dictators must have enemies. They must have internal enemies to justify their secret police and external enemies to justify their military forces.
Dictatorships start wars because they need external enemies to exert internal control over their own people."
You and I are old enough to recall that when Reagan was elected president, everyone was predicting World War III. The US will have a Democratic Congress after the elections on November 7th so Bush's power will be reigned in somewhat.
ReplyDeleteHopefully, Tom. However when Hitler got into his stride, quite a few people were predicting World War 2.
ReplyDeleteHere's another link very pertinent to the subject of Iran:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1754307,00.html
The article describes a US-UK war game for the invasion of Iran, conducted in 2004.
As the article points out, however, "war games covering a variety of scenarios are conducted regularly by senior British officers in the UK, the US or at Nato headquarters."
After the experience of Iraq, I'd be very surprised if the US (and UK) attempted another invasion. They will probably revert to the strategy of long-range surgical airstrikes, combined with special forces.
My first job, when I left college, was as an editor in the field of arms control and disarmament. It is one reason I never found Dr. Strangelove very interesting: The people in the field - I'm talking about Herman Kahn, Zbigniew Brzezinski and, yes, Henry Kissinger - were just not that way. They knew what they were up against. And they were dispassionately realistic about it. The real danger even then - though no one bothered to do anything about it - was nuclear proliferation, which is now starting to take off. The U.S. attacking Iran is hardly the thing to worry about. Iran having a nuclear capability is. North Korea having such a capability is. Once you understand that, you may be able put things into perspective. Read something beside the Guardian.
ReplyDeleteFrank,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if you're talking to me. These blogs have acquired the habit of taking off on their own to the point where I feel like little more than the key grip or prop manager. But, if you are, I read many things other than the Guardian, but that paper happens to have the best web site for reference purposes. I defer to your experience absolutely and my post was not intended to be in any way anti-American. The problems here are North Korea and Iran. My wider point was that, geo-politically, things are getting worse and I fear for my daughter's future. The name behind CaptainB above is a very big one and his assessment should be studied carefully. Realism is, as you imply, the point.
The idea of the people like Kissinger being worried about the wrong people getting their hands on powerful weaponry is somewhat belied by the fact that the US dominates the international arms market, supplying just under half of all global arms exports to whoever is willing to pay.
ReplyDeleteThe following from Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials,
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Bryan, a few posts back you chided me for worrying about the future, to wit:
ReplyDelete"The future, said Albert Camus, is the only transcendent value for men without God. I'm not big on the future, Susan, unlike Bill Clinton, I do stop thinking about tomorrow and, unlike Tony Blair, I think back can often be better than forward."
Now you're worried, and I'm glad to hear you say it. I worry about what my kids will inherit, too. And what they will do with the world they inherit.
Fear not, Bryan, the Guardian reference wasn't directed at you. In fact, I read the Guardian all the time myself - and link to it frequently. I should have been clearer all around. I certainly agree that the situation is increasingly dangerous. What bothers me is that many - not you, I must add - seem to think that America is the greater threat than Iran and Korea. Ahmadinejad is a very dangerous fellow, and so is Mr. Kim. It seems that the danger they pose ought to be something just about all reasonable humans could agree upon and decide to deal with effectively. But I see no sign of that happening. Which adds to the danger.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Iran is a grave threat. However perhaps also the reasonable men of US and British politics shouldn't have sabotaged that country's future when they organised the overthrow of Mossadeq in favour of the brutal puppet regime of the Shah and whatever lunatics in turn ended up overthrowing him. Applying logic to world power politics is to dabble with lies so all-encompassing, I don't see how anything can be taken at anything like face value. In the New Testament Jesus rejects the temptation of the nations of the earth if he bows down and worships Satan. There are always no shortage of those glad to accept the offer only it's not quite fair to see things in this light, is it? Perhaps it explains the easy conscience of people like Kissinger willing to use Agent Orange over much of Vietnam, a country they were supposedly helping. By their actions ye shall know them and all that.
ReplyDeleteGet yourself on the list for an allotment Bryan. That'll cheer you up. And you'll make some new friends. Ones that won't scare the pants off you over oysters and champagne.
ReplyDeleteSound advice, Pundit, though, on a point of fact, it was halibut and house white.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Zbigniew Brzezinski, it should be remembered he is an advocate of a one world state, member past and present of the Trilateral Commission and Council of Foreign Relations - basically a kind of secret government largely driven by David Rockefeller who had this to say in his memoirs, "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ?internationalists? and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure ? one world, if you will. If that?s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." Also, "We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
ReplyDeleteSome other quotes about the Trikateral Commisision and their New World Order aspirations here.
"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nationstates involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future." U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater in his l964 book: With No Apologies.
"The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault." CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs.
"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent." Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets
And how about this true but rather startling quote from David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations, "No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."
An done final one from the redoubtable Mr Kissinger, "Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991
The David Spangler Lucifer quote presumably quite odd to most people's sensibilities. Proof of this New Age UN guru's existence here.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Reimagination-World-Critique-Popular-Culture/dp/0939680920/sr=1-10/qid=1162058425/ref=sr_1_10/102-7603816-1180917?ie=UTF8&s=books