Target Iran
The neo-cons, Bush administration, and Israelis are beating the war drums again. Their next target is Iran. The propaganda groundwork for war is already being laid. Much of the case is made by means of imagery and innuendo. (Fox News is the master of this technique: show images of terrorists and explosions, preferably of the Twin Towers coming down, and place a caption underneath that reads, “Iran: Incubator of Terrorism?”) But there are two or three reasons being given that are not wholly absent of substance.
Let us look at the main arguments being given for war with Iran and dispatch them before the missiles start flying. Not that a refutation will matter to those with their fingers on the trigger. Their real agenda, which I will leave for the reader to figure out, is different from their stated one so debating them is beside the point. The justifications given on TV and newspapers are merely for PR purposes. Bush and his comrades-in-arms have their conclusion and are only in want of some premises.
Nuclear Weapons
It is claimed that Iran is clandestinely developing nuclear weapons and that, so armed, it will use them in terrorists strikes around the world. The major premise is, of course, implausible, but I pass over it and concentrate on the minor one.
(1) Despite the fact that we are told every day that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons, there has actually been no evidence presented that this is the case. Indeed, Just the opposite. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has searched the Iranian nuclear fuel research and production facilities, has not found any evidence Iran’s nuclear program is anything other than what it has claimed. In February 2003, for instance, Mohamed ElBaradei traveled to Iran with a team of inspectors to investigate Iran’s nuclear program. In November 2003 he stated that there was “no evidence” that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons.
ElBaradei went on to say that he was “still not in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.” The qualification is reasonable. It would be near impossible to determine that Iran or any country had no clandestine nuclear weapons program. So Iran may have such a secret program. They do seem to have the motive (counter-balancing Israel’s 500 nuclear weapons, being one) so it is not unreasonable to suspect that they have such a program. But suspicion is not evidence. And without hard evidence it is unjustified (and immoral) to conclude that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, much less launch a war against them on such a basis.
(2) On August 9, 2005 Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. This received scant coverage in the media. As the supreme religious leader of Iran, this is considered binding on the government. Since President Ahmadinejad is a conservative leader (”fundamentalist extremists” in current jargon), there is little reason to believe he will ignore the fatwa.
Some may view this as a ruse. I do not believe, however, that Muslim leaders have ever used a fatwa as a means of deception. Since they take such pronouncement very seriously, this gives us some positive reason to believe Iran does not have a secret nuclear weapons program.
Supporting Iraqi Insurgents
A good deal of news coverage makes the innuendo that Iran is arming Iraqi insurgents (”terrorists”). Most often heard is that Iran is by providing them with “improvised explosive devices” (IED’s). But no evidence has been provided to back this claim. Indeed, it has been established that the type of IED’s used by Iraqis are of British design.
Aside from the lack of hard evidence, the thought that Iran (a Shi’ite country) is supplying Iraqi insurgents who are predominately Sunni with IED’s borders on the ridiculous. Most of the IED’s are targeted at Shi’ite Iraqis. Why would Iran supply weapons to Sunni that they, in turn, will use against Shi’ites?
“Wipe Israel off the Map”
The Bush administration and others repeat like a mantra that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened to “wipe Israel off of the map.” But this is not the case. Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at University of Michigan, says that Ahmadinejad actually stated (quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini): “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).” Cole further states, “Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian” and “He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.”
While many would take issue with this sentiment, there is a vast difference between predicting or even hoping for the demise of a state and threatening to attack it. Iran, like other Muslim countries does not recognize the nation of Israel. They view it as an artificial state created through European mechinations by stealing land from the Palestinians. They have good reason for holding this view, but that is for another post. Since the Iranian position is that the land belongs to the Palestinians, it is hardly surprising that Ahmedinejad would hope for the demise of the state of Israel.
Note further that Ahmadinejad’s statement does not say the he hopes for or predicts the destruction the Jewish people. It is the Jewish state in Palestine he is concerned with. Jews have been living in Iran for centuries and except for a period in the 19th century have not been persecuted. Predictably, charges of “anti-Semitism” are levelled against Iranian leaders. Such accusations are easily made, but rarely proved.
But even if Ahmadinejad did threaten to “wipe Israel off the map,” what is that to us as a nation? This U.S. has no defense treaty with Israel and so it has no obligation to fight for the existence of the Israeli state. Nevertheless, since 1917 an increasing number of Americans have come to accept the theory that we are the world’s policeman and need to involve ourselves in the affairs of other nations. This shift in attitude was primarily Wilson’s doing, but there is plenty of blame to go around. Since World War I, our nation’s involvement in foreign wars has had disastrous consequences. Aside from this, Christian just war theory precludes any military action on the thin reed of justification that Americans are being fed.
A Gulf of Tonkin-type Incident?
Bush seems to want to attack Iran. The neo-cons and Israel (but I repeat myself) are on record calling for an attack. The problem Bush faces is that most Americans are sick of the wars we are already fighting (and losing) and will hardly countenance another. Not that public opinion matters much to Bush, but I do not think that even he would dare risk a populist uprising which very well may happen if there is another war. So it seems that we are safe. Or are we?
Representative Ron Paul recently wrote, “I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.” Recall that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was what allowed the Johnson administration to openly commit hostilities against the North Vietnamese. (Johnson already had the military involved in covert activities; indeed, he was doing his best to provoke a North Vietnamese attack on U.S. forces.) With a one carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf and another on the way, Paul’s concerns are reasonable. Just image how quickly public sentiment would change if one of our carriers were sunk and Iran was blamed for it. But if such an event does happen, ask the question, who benefits?, before you too beat the war drum.
+++++++++++++++++++++
As a side note, it turns out that the Gulf of Tonkin incident did not occur as reported by Johnson. The second alleged attack by North Vietnamese torpedo boats did not even take place. (Captain Herrick of the USS Maddox, the destroyer that was allegedly attacked, blamed an “overeager sonarman” who “was hearing his ship’s own propeller beat” for the bad the faulty information.) Johnson knew that the ships were probably not attacked, but ignored the evidence and convinced Congress to authorize a military action on North Vietnam anyway. The result: over 57,000 U.S. soldiers killed, not to mention the tens of thousands of Vietnamese.
This was probably not the only time Johnson lied about an attack against a U.S. naval vessel. In 1967 the USS Liberty was attacked by Israeli jets and torpedo boats, killing 34 and wounding 174. . They claimed they misidentified the ship and that the attack was a regrettable accident. But there are good reasons to believe otherwise. Whatever the case, Captain Ward Boston, in a signed affidavit, said Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told those heading the Navy’s inquiry into the incident to “conclude that the attack was a case of ‘mistaken identity’ despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”
Bush packs three whoppers in one sentence.
“Today, Iran remains the world’s primary state sponsor of terror — pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve.”
(1) a. Where is the evidence that Iran sponsors terrorism?
b. Even if there is such evidence, for the neo-cons, anybody who dares resist American hegemomy or Israeli agression (such as Hezbollah) is considered a terrorist.
c. Israel is provably the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.
2. As I point out in my essay, there has been no evidence given that Iran in pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
3. Iran’s people may be deprived of some liberties, but so are the citizens of almost every country, including our own. Israel has the worst human rights record on the books. Why does he not pick on them? Answer this and you find the missing piece to the puzzle.
Comment by MRB — January 24, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
Dear MRB,
Have I missed the post where you define terrorism?
Under any definition, how is Israel more of a sponsor than the U.S.?
-Turretinfan
Comment by Turretinfan — January 24, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
Michael,
I think as in most areas if you follow the money it’s easier to figure out what’s happening and why.
I’m a currency trader so closely watch currency fundamentals. Like the Iraq war I believe our war mongering has more to do with the Dollar.
Specifically Saddam threatened to start his own oil exchange where he would accept Euros rather than U.S. dollars, previously the only way any country could purchase oil. We responded by attacking.
In March of last year Iraq started their own oil exchange called the Iranian Oil Bourse (Bourse is their word for exchange, I think). They now accept Euros and every country that hates us (virtually the whole world) are exchanging their Dollars for Euros, thus the Dollar is falling against other currencies.
Interestingly when the Iranian Oil Bourse commenced in March the Fed stopped counting M3, which tracks the Dollars held offshore.
If you’re interested take a look at this article: http://energybulletin.net/12125.html
Comment by KKitchens — January 30, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Mr. Kitchens -
Thanks for the link. Yes, the Petrodollar plays a large roll in what is happening in the Middle East. It’s not the whole story, but it is a big piece in the puzzle.
The neo-con propaganda against Iran is reaching a climax. Expect an attack between the end of February and May. John Pilgar makes the case the die is already cast. I’m afraid he’s right.
When the attack comes (which will probably feature tactical nukes), Christian Republicans will raise their glasses of Victory Gin and celebrate. The dispensationalists will view it as the next step toward the Rapture. Postmils will view it as the next step toward an American-Israeli Utopia. Was there ever a time in Church history that so many have been played so much for suckers?
Comment by MRB — February 9, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
Even consummate insiders such as Zbigniew Brzezinski are warning of a Gulf of Tonkin style incident that will touch off a war with Iran. I don’t know what is motivating this globalist mastermind to come out with this warning, which he gave before the Senate foreign relations comittee, but if anybody is in a position to know, he is.
Comment by MRB — February 9, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
Russian papers have reported that April 6 will be the date that the U.S. attacks Iran.
Whether this date is correct, there will be an attack soon. This can be induced from the fact that the Democrats in Congress (who are under orders of AIPAC) gave Bush the the green light to strike without its approval and that we are beginning to see skirmishes (real and imaginary) between U.S./British forces and Iran.
Comment by MRB — March 26, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
If anyone believes Israel’s 1967 attack on the USS Liberty might have been a case of ‘misidentification,’ they need to watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7vpdU9id_g&eurl=
Comment by Doug Wood — March 27, 2007 @ 12:56 am
Doug -
Remember you are writing to an American audience which means they don’t have a memory of things that have happened last week let alone forty years ago. Why don’t you “remind” everybody about the USS Liberty and how knowledge of that event may be relevant to what is happening in Iran today.
Comment by MRB — March 27, 2007 @ 10:06 am
The USS Liberty, an electronic eavesdropping ship, was attacked by Israeli war planes and then torpedo boats four days after Israel’s 1967 land grab began. The US ship had been sent to the eastern Mediterranean to monitor communications of the combatants. That Israel attacked a relatively defenseless American ship is not disputed; Israel expressed regrets and paid the US 6 million dollars, claiming it was a tragic mistake. This was a transparent lie, a lie knowingly repeated by Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara, among others. I think Mr. Butler understates the case for Israeli complicity when he says “good reasons to believe otherwise.”
Why would Israel knowingly do this to their most faithful ally in the world?
The possible explanations include a desire on the part of the Israel to maintain the moral high ground in their war, which wouldn’t be possible if it became known they were butchering civilians and captured soldiers. Also it is speculated that it was an attempt at false-flag terrorism gone awry when the Liberty refused to sink. If it had, the world could have been sold the story that Egypt had attacked, thereby drawing in the US militarily.
Americans cannot remember this because it is not part of the daily gruel the sheep/goyim are fed by the corporate-controlled media. Might be a tad unsettling.
The parallels between what happened to the USS Liberty, what happened at the Gulf of Tonkin, and what is now transpiring in the Persian Gulf, with battleships, shows of strength, war games, and sailors interrogated for spying, all creating fertile ground for an “incident,” are clear.
Comment by Doug Wood — March 27, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
I remember one year ago that the attack on Iran was predicted, by a Russian politico, to begin on March 26–2006. Let’s not put too much stock in what they say.
Comment by ElizaF — March 27, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
As we watch the situation in the Gulf unfold, remember another parallel from past Israeli actions: two Israeli soldiers being supposedly “kidnapped” from their home country was the pretext for the white phosphorus bombing of Lebanon in July, 2006:
http://www.rense.com/general72/PHOS.HTM
Later much evidence emerged showing the Israeli soldiers had entered Lebanon prior to being captured. Ultimately it won’t matter how it starts as long as they come close to plausible deniability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
The Neocons know that once the bullets start flying, its full speed ahead with “Support the Troops.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/270307iranwar.htm
Comment by Doug Wood — March 28, 2007 @ 1:56 am
Eliza (#10) — true; but the thing with the “15 British troops” makes it look like it cd be real this time. It wdn’t surprise me if the UK “starts it” this time, and the US “reluctantly” joins in to “support our loyal ally” blah blah this time. That wd solve the political resistance in US to some extent.
Comment by Tim H — March 28, 2007 @ 9:18 am
Without hearing the comment of the Russians, the first thing that occurred to me when I heard of the 15 British troops taken was Gulf of Tonkin, Lusitania, etc.
Comment by ElizaF — March 28, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
There is always the danger of crying wolf once too many times, however, I noticed that yesterday Sean Hannity was saying that if we don’t get more serious about the War on Terror, “they” are going to hit again, this time with one or two hundred thousand casualties. I suspect Sean gets his talking points from a FAX machine, so I tend to take his predictions seriously. It won’t be an “important” city like NY this time. If I were living in a city like Richmond or Cincinnati, I would start to worry a bit.
Comment by TJH — May 31, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
Paul Craig Roberts (former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and father of “Reaganomics”) warns that the replacement of General Pace as Chairman of the JCS may be a precursor to nuking Iran.
Comment by MRB — June 18, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
I’m sure everyone has seen it by now, but just for the record: John McCain singing about bombing Iran.
Comment by TJH — June 19, 2007 @ 8:46 am
Peter Pace’s statements were so good…almost TOO good allow him to be in charge…and sure enough, he was too good. He used the dreaded IM word–immoral. If you think in black/white terms like moral/immoral, you’re outta there. Just like if you understand the concept of jury nullification, you don’t stand a chance of getting on a jury.
Comment by ElizaF — June 19, 2007 @ 9:57 am
Eliza-
Pace is still a company man (you don’t get to be a full bird colonal, let alone the a 4-star general, without going along). But at least it seems he is a company man who has his limits. And even the most reasonable and unobjectionable limits is too much for U.S./Judaic War Machine Inc.
As for jury nullification, there are ways of not letting the slimeball lawyers and judges know that we hold to our Constitutional rights. And if we ever become empanelled on a jury, our deliberations are secret and no reason need be given for an acquittal.
Comment by MRB — June 19, 2007 @ 10:34 am
A Ukranian news agency has reported that a third aircraft carrier is on its way to the Persian Gulf. And there is talk of sending an unprecedented fourth. Something is up.
Apropos nothing (well perhaps something) it is interesting to note the names of the U.S. carriers.
Of the ten Nimitz class nuclear powered carriers, seven are named after U.S. Presidents:
George Washington (CVN-73)
Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)
Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)
George H. W. Bush (CVN-77)
Add to the first of a new class of supercarriers currently being build, Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78).
See a pattern? All save the George Washington (whose namesake would not approve) and the “Hiroshima” Harry are named after Republicans.
Comment by MRB — June 25, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
Israeli-powered carriers entering the Persian Gulf.
Comment by MRB — June 26, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
The House passed a resolution that pressures the UN Security Council to try Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for genocide. His crime? A bad (and intentionally bad) English translation of his speech in which he expressed hope that the Israeli regime would collapse. There were two dissenting votes on the resulution; Ron Paul was one of them. Is it any coincidence that Ron Paul is probably the only Congressman who does not take money from AIPAC.
Here is a good analysis of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translation that this resolution is based on. And for those who have not heard of MEMRI, here is a good introduction.
Comment by MRB — June 28, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Just when it seems like they have stopped talking about Iran, I listen to the radio more carefully and realize it is actually just that they talk about it so incessantly that you filter it out.
Here is from an interview from just four days ago given by former Penna Senator Santorum. Look for the prediction of something “unfortunate” happening to change American’s minds. We also now know that the Big Three are in on the scam. Remember that, when it hits.
“I think all of [the main Republican candidates] understand the issue very, very well, they understand particularly the importance of Iran, and confronting Iran in the Middle East as an absolute lynchpin for our success in that region, and … they also understand that between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK.”
(Emphasis added by me, and thanks to this lewrockwell article for bringing the interview to my attention.)
Comment by TJH — July 11, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
FOX News is reporting that Bush officials are openly discussing bombing Iran.
What FOX does not say is that the attack will almost certainly include nukes.
Many things come to mind, but I will mention just two.
1) I don’t think the Cryptocracy has enough chutzpah to attack Iran before another terrorist event on American soil or on American troops. Look for for something big in the next few months.
2) Then their is the absurdity of nuking Iran. “Nuclear weapons are so bad that we will nuke any nation (who does not go along with our agenda) who even appears to be developing them.” This is just the cover story, of course, but it will probably be easy to sell the American goyim; especially after the staged terror event.
Comment by MRB — September 14, 2007 @ 9:31 am
U.S. National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iran suspended its bomb program in 2003.
Aside from the fact that there is no evidence that Iran had a bomb program, this report confirms what I wrote last January. It also suggests (to use a diplomatic term) that the Bush Administration has been caught in yet another lie.
Here is what Steve Hadley, National Security Adviser said in an interview today (December 4):
REPORTER: Steve [Hadley, National Security Adviser], what is the first time the president was given the inkling that something? I’m not clear on this. Was it months ago, when the first information started to become available to intelligence agencies? […]
HADLEY: [W]hen was the president notified that there was new information available? We’ll try and get you a precise answer. As I say, it was, in my recollection, is in the last few months. Whether that’s October — August-September, we’ll try and get you an answer for that.
Here is what Bush said in October:
REPORTER: But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon?
BUSH: I think so long — until they suspend and/or make it clear that they — that their statements aren’t real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. […]
So I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously.
Does anyone want to bet me that Hadley never comes back with the promised answer?
Comment by MRB — December 4, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Here is what Bush said at his press conference today (December 4):
“Asked if he had been “hyping” the threat from Iran, Bush said he was only made aware of the NIE last week and insisted it had changed nothing. ‘I still feel strongly that Iran is a danger. I think the NIE makes it clear that Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace. My opinion hasn’t changed.’”
So who is lying, Hadley (”As I say, it was, in my recollection, is in the last few months”) or Bush (”only made aware of the NIE last week”)? Ask who has the motivation to lie and you have the answer.
Comment by MRB — December 4, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
CNN reports: “President Bush was told in August that Iran’s nuclear weapons program “may be suspended,” the White House said Wednesday, which seemingly contradicts the account of the meeting given by Bush Tuesday.”
Press secretary Dana Perino tries to spin this, but the bottom line is that Bush lied.
Of course there is nothing surprising about Bush lying. But it is surprising that the truth is coming out on the MSM.
Clinton was impeached for lying about his liaison with jewess Monica Lewinsky. How much more should Bush be impeached for trying to lie his way into war with Iran.
Comment by MRB — December 6, 2007 @ 11:11 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWLBhgTQ46o ron paul: nancy pelosi ordered by Isreal and AIPAC to pull bill requiring congressional approval to go to war on Iran – Washington Post reports
Comment by Mo — June 10, 2008 @ 3:32 pm