The Bombing of Iran
By Staff News & Analysis - August 02, 2010

US has plan to attack Iran if needed, military chief admits … Admiral Mike Mullen (left) says there is a plan to prevent Tehran acquiring nuclear arms, but adds: 'I hope we don't get to that … Barack Obama's main military adviser said today the US does have a plan to attack Iran should it become needed as a means of stopping the Tehran regime from acquiring nuclear weapons. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the country's highest ranking officer, was asked by Meet the Press on NBC whether the military had a plan to attack Iran. "We do," he replied. – UK Guardian

Dominant Social Theme: If it must be done, then it will be so.

Free-Market Analysis: Increasingly, we believe the high-water mark of the Anglo-American axis came in 2007. History will record, as with Rome, that this first decade of the 2000s marked a gradual shifting away from one of the bloodiest annals of human history. The Anglo-American axis in the 20th century helped sponsor two world wars, while its banking elite (initially anyway) supported three of the most bloodthirsty regimes this poor globe has ever seen: The Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany and Mao's China.

Of course this is not the way well-intentioned Europeans – or Americans or Britains – see the 20th century, nonetheless it is unfortunately true in our view – and can be borne out with a brief Internet search of reputable documents. In the name of global governance, the Anglo-American power elite has wreaked much havoc on the world and continues to wreak it today. Violence is the melancholy currency of Western powers-that-be. America, for instance, is involved in an increasingly serious war in Afghanistan, even as Iraq simmers more strongly and Pakistan – a source of frustration – becomes more truculent as well. And then there is Iran.

There is an oh-so-obvious dominant social theme here – that the Middle East will be destabilized beyond recognition if Iran gets the "bomb" and that sooner or later Israel will be wiped off the map. But as we have indicated in these modest pages many times before, such a theme may be seen as a fear-based elite promotion rather than a potential reality. Nonetheless, having a top general restate the possibility that American (and apparently Israeli) bombs may be dropped on Iran – and soon – gives a force to the meme that has otherwise been lacking.

How possible is it? We're inclined to think that the Bush administration was closer to going to war with Iran than the current American regime, just based on the looniness and blood-lust of some of the Bush-ites. But certainly the possibility of war with Iran has been entertained by this American administration as well.

Why the need for more violence? Well, if you are running a "war on terror," the message needs to be refreshed every once in a while. Afghanistan is a sore point; Iraq has served its purpose; Pakistan is awkward. Iran is just right. It has a wiry, bearded man who sounds crazy (to Western ears) in its most visible office, is run by old men in white robes who see stoning women to death as rational justice and generally provides the kind of skewed perspective that Hollywood can milk at the box office.

Seen from this perspective, the war on terror is aimed, as most wars are, at domestic Western populations rather than those overseas. We have a feeling that when history is written on the subject even academic "court historians" will not be any clearer about this "terror war" than they have been on the subject of World War One. It is as phony as that war was (though the terrible casualties were not phony) and the collateral damage has been just as severe in our opinion – the virtual dismantling of 400 years of increasingly strong protections in the West against tyranny and despotism.

Fortunately, there is the Internet. It has made the job of whipping up wars tremendously difficult. As we have pointed out, couple the Internet's truth-telling with nuclear bombs and the task of starting and maintaining a war (even a regional war let alone a "world" war) is complex in the extreme. Were all things equal, we believe the powers-that-be would have plunged the world into another endless maze of organized and hierarchical violence. But things are not equal these days.

The US and Israel both have plenty of nuclear weapons but if they drop them on Iran what will China and Russia do? If the idea of Western power elites is to consolidate control worldwide so as to implement global governance, then one needs the cooperation, however grudgingly of both China and Russia. Drop bombs on Iran and that cooperation becomes suspect indeed. The article we are analyzing makes the following point as well:

"[Admiral Mike Mullen] fell far short of suggesting there was any appetite on the part of the US for taking on the leaders of Iran in open conflict. He said it was unacceptable for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, but he said that equally he would be 'extremely concerned' about the prospect of a military engagement. Striking Iran could have 'unintended consequences that are difficult to predict in what is an incredibly unstable part of the world'."

Again, we have no doubt, given the horrible state of Western economies – and the increased push for global governance over the past decade – that an expanded war on terror was just what the powers-that-be had in mind. Likely the larger war was supposed to be "on" by now. But it hasn't come for very good reasons. We make this statement not as hypothetical one but based on "facts on the ground."

The Afghanistan war is a disaster-in-the-making and so far as we can tell Iraq is beginning to unravel as well. The Dutch just marched out Afghanistan and the Canadians are supposed to follow next year – along with some Americans. Unless the "surge" proves effective, it may well be that Afghanistan ends up with a de facto partition between the Northern Alliance and the Pashtuns in the South.

We cannot confidently predict there will be no war with Iran. Sanctions are an act of war and they have been drawn around Iran with considerable tightness. The US now has a plan to "bomb" Iran and Israel no doubt wishes to put that plan into effect. On the other hand, the Internet especially has begun to work against these endless, regional wars and we anticipate further damage along these lines.

After Thoughts

Perhaps the West cannot wage war with impunity anymore. Perhaps it will anyway. If so, we predict such a war will be a terrible mistake. The Anglo-American axis may have peaked as the dominant world power but a war with Iran will end up doing a great deal to further reduce its power and influence – and more quickly perhaps than can be imagined.

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap