Iran: The Next Stop?

The Iran question is not the only one amongst the Muslim thought ... though the most prominent and strong at the moment. Muslims all over are in their delusions of grandeur ...

Like the Shah had a thousand year peacock throne dream of Darius III which failed, Iran now has moved a few notches down and wants to regain the glory of their Sassanid past.

But that`s history. Iran thinks it can fight with oil. It will fail. Oil prices will touch $ 75 and crash when the others increase production. Remember the Oil embargo of 1973 which was much bigger? It can build nuclear weapons, but so what? No one can use them. The capability certainly hasn`t helped Pakistan in the least. I actually don`t know what`s Iran`s beef ... Islam? But that`s failed too .. Shia ideology? That died at Karbala and nails in the coffin driven during the Abbasids. So what else? Ego? That won`t help.

Only answer is integration. Integration with the west since they`re ahead ... and rightly so. They won, and Muslims failed. Period. Iran is wrong and their generation after generation will suffer for that.

The acquisition of nukes does not automatically translate into anything – especially not enhanced power or prestige – perhaps the situation next door did not dawn upon the Iranians. And countries which want nukes will probably eventually get them – they usually can always find some rationale for themselves – and they have no less claim to it than the Pakistanis do – and they can probably afford them better – and NPT or not makes little difference in those eyes. But I doubt the US is interested in making a move into Iran – the cost/benefit threshold is not easily crossed. And there is always the possibility that the people of Iran can get rid of the theocracy and breathe freedom. The Iranian regime has ill-served its population and it will be a great thing for those oppressed people if US were to get rid of the regime – but unfortunately, I doubt that will happen. The article adds little new information. The author could have perhaps summarized it into a simple sentence like this – ``Iran will not be attacked by the USA because I firmly believe that size does matter!``

the whole reagion starting with Morocco on the atlantic coast, through the Maghrib, Egypt, onto the levant, and through to pakistan, and whence to the Indonesian Islands is awash with the great unwashed of this earth. Their only rationale for existence is some perceived insult, and the inability to understand that the world has moved and forged way ahead of these mindless zombies.

They are in a daze for they have been made to believe that they are the best and thetrue inheritors of this earth. And when they find this not true - they all seem incapable of solving their problems. The only bright spots this huge arc of misery are Israel, parts of Palestine, Turkey, India, Malaysia

Getting Nuclear weapons will not solve the problem. You need to understand the reality of the world. Nuclear weapons will not save the collective sorry ass of this arc of misery.

engagement with the world and realising their own weaakness is the key. The world owes nothing to this arc of misery, and givena chance will put it down with a strong arm. 6 odd billion on earth is way too much. And given that natural disasters are providing the equilibrium, other means has to be found. And in this this arc of misery is providing the world with an excuse to use any means to restore population equilibrium.

Why should the US take on Iran? The article is not on very solid grounds. If it is oil, then the US gets less than 15% of its consumption from the Middle East sources. If the US wants to be the protector of oil supplies to western European nations then they better cough up the required military might and the costs involved. If it is Israel’s protection, then Israel can do its own job without the US being involved. If it is the regime change then, thank you very much, this regime has done exactly where the western interest wants them to be.

Further, the current administration will not be able to rally the US people support in such an endeavor. People are finally beginning to understand games MNCs play, and they will not participate for the foreseeable future. Politicians are getting the message that global economic forces are dead.

What is given is that under no circumstance Iran would be allowed to become nuclear.

THE LORD OF THE LIES AND COMMANDER IN THIEF

As Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, President Bush is face to face with what any commander of men throughout history has always feared the most. He has become known as a liar to the troops he commands. The survey of US troops presently in Iraq is a devastating read. Up and down the chain of command, there must be US officers in despair at what has been revealed.

An astounding 93 percent of the US troops polled believe the occupation of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction.
The plain vanilla facts are known and have been known for more than a decade. The CIA has itself told Congress and two Presidents, Mr Clinton and President Bush, that Iraq under Saddam had, in fact, shut down its nuclear weapons program in 1991. Mr Scott Ritter - a former US Marine working under UN auspices for several years in Iraq - stated early, often, and in public that Iraq`s entire WMD program had been terminated totally in 1995, chemical weapons included. Mr Kay, in the last full-scale desperate US attempt to find WMDs, nuclear or otherwise, has reported long ago to Congress that he found none.

Mr Kay had the ultimate advantage because he and his crew of specialists arrived in Iraq after the US Armed Forces had defeated Saddam`s Iraqi forces. Mr Kay had total access and an unlimited budget.

The US Casus Belli was - NEVER - there:

From President Bush and downwards through the political chain of responsibility - everyone LIED. They lied when former Secretary of State Powell stood before the UN Security Council and regaled the world with ``facts`` about weapons in Iraq which were not even there. From Field Marshall von Rumsfeld to the national security advisor, Ms Rice and further down the chain of US political responsibility, they lied. Now, 93 percent of the American troops on the ground in Iraq KNOW that they lied.

Men who voluntarily choose to carry arms for their country by joining a voluntary force like the British or the Australian and now the American force, have something in common. Especially amongst the front line men (those on the fighting line), they don`t join for the pay or the ``job training`` or the perks. They join a company of other men whose respect they can earn and return. At the very central core of a genuine volunteer army - it is all about Truth, Honour and Valour.

Only men who tell the truth can earn respect. Once that truth is known, it becomes a matter of individual and personal Honour to defend it, even at the risk of losing one`s own life. Valour, the absolute individual human peak of courage, is the inner knowledge of an immense sense of innocence gained from knowing what is right and doing it in the near madness of a fire fight. Oliver Cromwell knew this. He proved it when he said: ``Tell men the truth and use them as men``. Wellington said it too: ``Never, ever lie to the men. That is the best way to lose the army.``

What is now happening is tragic. Ninety- three percent of American troops know that the truth is that they have been LIED into a war. They know that the lie has stolen their individual courage and honour from them. The morale of the US Army is at a low point and the officers of the US Army know this. Their hidden despair must be enormous, though they will all try to hide it.

From now on, their non-announced purpose will be to save the force but NOT the Commander in Thief.

I therefore conjecture that the US under President Bush cannot and will not take military action against Iran because the men and women of the US armed forces have woken up to the betrayal they have suffered in Iraq and they DO NOT trust or respect this regime any longer.

...SR

http://www.stopwaroniran.org/petition.shtml

anybody who thinks the Iran war plan will be a copy of the iraq war plan is a fool. The US plan almost certainly is to lead with airstrikes, block Iranian shipping lanes and increase sanctions. Jessica Lynch won`t be driving a truck in Iran anytime soon.

Iran should strike a deal with the West. What are they fighting the West for ? Oil is @ $60 barrel. That should be plenty of cash to finance their economy.

``Russia, Azerbaijan, and Ukraine are not involved in any conflict in the region. Their nukes and the nuclear plants are under effective international control. ``

of the ex-soviet states; kazakhstatan, ukrainre, belarus and russia had nukes. after the fall of the soviet union, all the nukes from the other states were transferred to russia in return for monetary compensation. azerbaijan never had nukes. and currently no ex-soviet state has nukes (other than russia).

``Israel, a rival, reportedly has already acquired nuclear capabilities. ``

iran sponsors jihadis and wants of throw jews and israel out of middle east. if this policy is discontinued there is no reason for israel to attack iran. iarael wants good relations with islamic countries (even with pakistan) as long as they recognise its right to exist.

in this article you have focussed on only u.s. objection to irans nuclear ambition. you should have written about what e.u., russia, china and japan think of it.

iraq was a unilateral approach by u.s. but its different in this case.

also the russian offer to work with iran to produce electricity has been neglected.

the world (including u.s.) wants iran to go for civilian nuclear technology not military. unless iran wants a nuke, there shouldn`t be a problem.

Re:bbabu#8

[...What are they fighting the West for ?....]

Excellent question. It is hard to understand why the Iranians are having such an itch up their rear. What is their problem?

No one is interested in a war with Iran. Not Israel, not US, not EU, not Pakistan. In fact, people want them to just lead their own lives, build their country and stop bothering everyone else. Why this fascination for nukes? India needed nukes for protection from Pakistan and Pakistan needed nukes for protection from India. Israel needed nukes for protection from the arab countries. Why does Iran need protection when no one is threatening it?

As far as Islamic theocracy is concerned, no one really cares. If the Iranians are so dumb that they want to cover up their women and pray 100 times a day, no problems. Keep praying and torturning your women. No one gives a $hit. Just dont threaten or bother anyone.

Iran cannot be put in the same bracket as India and Pakistan. The difference is that Iran is an Oil producing country whereas India and Pakistan are not.

This aspect becomes significance since though India and Pakistan can flaunt their Nuclear Weapons but that is it. Both the countries, being resource and technology starved, cannot stand on their own. They have to depend on western/ other countries for their survival. They cannot think of their survival by remaining cut-off from the rest of the world. This aspect puts a de-facto check of the world on their respective nuclear programmes.

Iran being an oil producing country can survive even remaining cut-off from the world. Oil is a precious commodity and it will find its buyers anywhere, anytime. Thus the rest of the world cannot have a check on Iran`s nuclear programme the way it can have on Indo-Pak nuclear programmes. This makes Iran a dangerous place for one and all.

No doubt, all efforts are to be made to desist it from going nuclear.

The author writes <<< The Middle East is headed for another confrontation and the countries in and around the area should brace for continued violence for sometime to come. >>>

Well balanced, carefully written article into which much thought and work has been put (more than I can say for most of the articles published here). One wonders if peace in the general Middle East region is ever possible given the fact that the US jumps from one imagined ``threat`` to another in that region. One also wonder, as in the case of Iran, that whenever a country in that region is on its way to development some upsetting event occurs, almost without fail, taking that country back several decades. Then one looks at the wars in the region and the long history of conflict and how people`s lives, generation after generation, are circumscribed by war and want and how that affects the very nature of their being, their personalities and their culture. In all this ``wondering`` one factor emerges as common, the US, its reaction or lack of reaction and the catastrophic consequences that has had for people`s lives in that region.

One wonders if the US would be as fascinated with the general Middle East region were it not for the resources, as a factor in profit making and not merely for their cheap access. One also wonders if Israel in that region, were it not for its ``value`` to the US elite in starting and inflaming conflicts that serve their interests, would exist in the form that it exists today. Then one wonders how intricately all this is worked out, divide the region into nation states, play one against the other, dominate their resources and thereby their economic and political systems, arm both sides in a conflict, and to add spice to it all, place a marauding base, the state of Israel, in their midst so that whenever they desire peace and development, control of their own resources or unity, some conflict can be inflamed. For people who look at all this from a humanitarian perspective, rather than the ``us versus them`` mentality that is nurtured and promoted by the world capitalist system, the consequences of US rhetoric will boil down to, even as the author alludes , “another human disaster in the area after Iraq and Afghanistan``.

Do I think war with Iran is immanent in the short term? Not really, the perpetual threat that allows the US its hegemony over the region serves its interests much better at the present time than any new war. It is as if they have rewound the tape on Iraq and are replaying it with Iran. Wait for a trigger event and not merely the ``nuclear threat`` for war to become immanent. It will be over something else, some other event and not the ``nuclear threat`` in my opinion. One wonders what that trigger event might be, and where it might occur, but the US elite do not lack imagination where it concerns ``trigger events`` or making prepostrous connections to justify invasions. The all too familiar familiarizing the public with this new bogeyman, to support a new threat and a possible war has already started on the US media, the next stage is prepping them for war and the resulting wholesale theft by the defense industries.

Re: # 4-CORRECTION - Iran has the Bomb. Pay the money and get it. Developing nukes is a strategy again to keep the politics alive and something to be discussed at the Pentagon and 10 Downing street once in a while.

Umreeka cannot risk its forces..with its recent dip in popularity..and increasing deficit..it can however instigate the people of Iran from the inside..in response to which Iran has responded very neatly.

Let`s see, where the saga ends and another drama to satisfy Sharon comes in.

#11 by sanjay

[Iran being an oil producing country can survive even remaining cut-off from the world.]

Hmmm ... like Iraq ... come to think of it .... isn`t Iraq oil producing as well?

Re: # 5- And when are u leading the rebellious forces against the Pentagon? and topple the regime? and get a heft pay check from Musharraf and Du`as from Qazi.

Re: # 10 - RANJIT - [Israel needed nukes for protection from the arab countries]..

and since when Hyennas have started fearing the mouse?