Iran: A War Is Coming

by John Pilger

February 3, 2007 (Anti-war.com)

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php


The United States is planning what will be a catastrophic attack on Iran. For the Bush cabal, the attack will be a way of "buying time" for its disaster in Iraq. In announcing what he called a "surge" of American troops in Iraq, George W. Bush identified Iran as his real target. "We will interrupt the flow of support [to the insurgency in Iraq] from Iran and Syria," he said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

"Networks" means Iran. "There is solid evidence," said a State Department spokesman on 24 January, "that Iranian agents are involved in these networks and that they are working with individuals and groups in Iraq and are being sent there by the Iranian government." Like Bush's and Blair's claim that they had irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein was deploying weapons of mass destruction, the "evidence" lacks all credibility. Iran has a natural affinity with the Shi'ite majority of Iraq, and has been implacably opposed to al-Qaeda, condemning the 9/11 attacks and supporting the United States in Afghanistan. Syria has done the same. Investigations by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and others, including British military officials, have concluded that Iran is not engaged in the cross-border supply of weapons. General Peter Pace, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said no such evidence exists.

As the American disaster in Iraq deepens and domestic and foreign opposition grows, "neocon" fanatics such as Vice President Cheney believe their opportunity to control Iran's oil will pass unless they act no later than the spring. For public consumption, there are potent myths. In concert with Israel and Washington's Zionist and fundamentalist Christian lobbies, the Bushites say their "strategy" is to end Iran's nuclear threat. In fact, Iran possesses not a single nuclear weapon nor has it ever threatened to build one; the CIA estimates that, even given the political will, Iran is incapable of building a nuclear weapon before 2017, at the earliest.

Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations – until gratuitous, punitive measures were added in 2003, at the behest of Washington. No report by the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever cited Iran for diverting its civilian nuclear program to military use. The IAEA has said that for most of the past three years its inspectors have been able to "go anywhere and see anything." They inspected the nuclear installations at Isfahan and Natanz on 10 and 12 January and will return on 2 to 6 February. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El-Baradei, says that an attack on Iran will have "catastrophic consequences" and only encourage the regime to become a nuclear power.

Unlike its two nemeses, the US and Israel, Iran has attacked no other countries. It last went to war in 1980 when invaded by Saddam Hussein, who was backed and equipped by the US, which supplied chemical and biological weapons produced at a factory in Maryland. Unlike Israel, the world's fifth military power with thermonuclear weapons aimed at Middle East targets, an unmatched record of defying UN resolutions and the enforcer of the world's longest illegal occupation, Iran has a history of obeying international law and occupies no territory other than its own.

The "threat" from Iran is entirely manufactured, aided and abetted by familiar, compliant media language that refers to Iran's "nuclear ambitions," just as the vocabulary of Saddam's non-existent WMD arsenal became common usage. Accompanying this is a demonizing that has become standard practice. As Edward Herman has pointed out, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "has done yeoman service in facilitating this"; yet a close examination of his notorious remark about Israel in October 2005 reveals its distortion. According to Juan Cole, American professor of Modern Middle East History, and other Farsi language analysts, Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be "wiped off the map." He said, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." This, says Cole, "does not imply military action or killing anyone at all." Ahmadinejad compared the demise of the Jerusalem regime to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Iranian regime is repressive, but its power is diffuse and exercised by the mullahs, with whom Ahmadinejad is often at odds. An attack would surely unite them.

The one piece of "solid evidence" is the threat posed by the United States. An American naval buildup in the eastern Mediterranean has begun. This is almost certainly part of what the Pentagon calls CONPLAN 8022, which is the aerial bombing of Iran. In 2004, National Security Presidential Directive 35, entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization, was issued. It is classified, of course, but the presumption has long been that NSPD 35 authorized the stockpiling and deployment of "tactical" nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This does not mean Bush will use them against Iran, but for the first time since the most dangerous years of the cold war, the use of what were then called "limited" nuclear weapons is being openly discussed in Washington. What they are debating is the prospect of other Hiroshimas and of radioactive fallout across the Middle East and Central Asia. Seymour Hersh disclosed in the New Yorker last year that American bombers "have been flying simulated nuclear weapons delivery missions...since last summer."

The well-informed Arab Times in Kuwait says Bush will attack Iran before the end of April. One of Russia's most senior military strategists, General Leonid Ivashov says the US will use nuclear munitions delivered by Cruise missiles launched in the Mediterranean. "The war in Iraq," he wrote on 24 January, "was just one element in a series of steps in the process of regional destabilization. It was only a phase in getting closer to dealing with Iran and other countries. [When the attack on Iran begins] Israel is sure to come under Iranian missile strikes. Posing as victims, the Israelis will suffer some tolerable damage and then an outraged US will destabilize Iran finally, making it look like a noble mission of retribution . . . Public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian hysteria, leaks, disinformation etcetera . . . It remains unclear whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war."

Asked about a US Senate resolution disapproving of the "surge" of US troops to Iraq, Vice President Cheney said, "It won't stop us." Last November, a majority of the American electorate voted for the Democratic Party to control Congress and stop the war in Iraq. Apart from insipid speeches of "disapproval," this has not happened and is unlikely to happen. Influential Democrats, such as the new leader of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, and would-be presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have disported themselves before the Israeli lobby. Edwards is regarded in his party as a "liberal." He was one of a high-level American contingent at a recent Israeli conference in Herzilya, where he spoke about "an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel (sic). At the top of these threats is Iran.... All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon." Hillary Clinton has said, "US policy must be unequivocal.... We have to keep all options on the table." Pelosi and Howard Dean, another liberal, have distinguished themselves by attacking former President Jimmy Carter, who oversaw the Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt and has had the gall to write a truthful book accusing Israel of becoming an "apartheid state." Pelosi said, "Carter does not speak for the Democratic Party." She is right, alas.

In Britain, Downing Street has been presented with a document entitled "Answering the Charges" by Professor Abbas Edalal of Imperial College, London, on behalf of others seeking to expose the disinformation on Iran. Blair remains silent. Apart from the usual honorable exceptions, Parliament remains shamefully silent.

Can this really be happening again, less than four years after the invasion of Iraq which has left some 650,000 people dead? I wrote virtually this same article early in 2003; for Iran now read Iraq then. And is it not remarkable that North Korea has not been attacked? North Korea has nuclear weapons. That is the message, loud and clear, for the Iranians.

In numerous surveys, such as that conducted this month by BBC World Service, "we," the majority of humanity, have made clear our revulsion for Bush and his vassals. As for Blair, the man is now politically and morally naked for all to see. So who speaks out, apart from Professor Edalal and his colleagues? Privileged journalists, scholars and artists, writers and thespians who sometimes speak about "freedom of speech" are as silent as a dark West End theater. What are they waiting for? The declaration of another thousand year Reich, or a mushroom cloud in the Middle East, or both?



I don't think Pilger is being alarmist - far from it he is right!

This madness must be stopped.

If Bush and the Neo-cons do indeed invade Iran, they had better declare martial law in America, because if they don't it'll be certain and immediate political suicide for the entire Republican Party!

If Bushco invades Iran I would strongly encourage all of us to make immediate plans for the worst domestic scenario you can imagine.

Stock everything!

I don't see it. Nothing of relevance points to a nuclear scenario much less an invasion of IRAN.

John Pilger pulls statements out of the air and makes his own interpretations....which I think are bullshit.

I tend to agree, with or without the nuclear degree, simply because the consequences would be so severe.

I dont know whether to admire your confidence or ridicule your naive complacency.

Scott Ritter, erstwhile UN arms inspector, stated back in July 2005 at a lecture in Edinburgh that Israel had been 'tooled up' by the US with tactical nuclear weapons in the shape of 'bunker busters' to take out the subteranian Iranian nuclear facilities.

Israel has a well developed plan to strike Iran at the drop of a hat with tactical nuclear weapons. You can bet your boots the US will be involved.

I've already stated that I believe the Bush Administration is trying to provoke a war with Iran as a response to the worsening situation in Iraq. Those who simply dismiss the notion that this could happen because we don't have the resources or international backing for it, or because it would not make sense to do it, are indeed naive. What is more an armed response against Iran might actually get the support and backing of Democrats such as Hillary Clinton eager to please Jewish interests and get more votes and put themselves in the spotlight.

The fact that Iran is publicly warning that it will strike U.S. interests if it is attacked, and is conducting missle tests designed to show it can protect itself and strike back shows that the U.S. is actively seeking to intimidate and provoke Iran, like a heavily-armed thug stalking around its targeted victim and getting it nervous and paranoid. I fucking hate what the U.S. has become under Bush/Cheney.

Speaking of Naive......


Consider the possibnility that we are being used. That the fear registered through this thread is exactly what the neo-cons want!

Iranians have the internet too! And they do read the news and other things on the internet. They see all this and it cranks them, just as it cranks you!

So, who's being naive?

If you think about the feasibility of it it won't happen soon.
1. Israel will not strike unless it is threatened. They do not have the horsepower to defend itself against the entire Middle East.
2. The US does not have the conventional horsepower to defend Israel right now.
3. The world cards are stacked against the US in many ways right now and support of IRAN via China, Russia, and the entire middle east would pose certain doom for ISRAEL and us, if we pursued it.
4. Posturing for war does not mean we WILL create a war.

ISRAEL could and would attack IRAN however, I do doubt they would do so without absolute assurance that the US would back the play...and right now, the US wont back it. And just because Scott Ritter was an inspector does not qualify him to make assumptions into facts. His opinion is free but as SKY pointed out....who is being naive.

Point out one more aspect by asking a question.

If the US were to attack Iran, where's the profit? Military Industrial Complex?
They require Further Purchases to make future war profitable. If the US invaded Iran, this might be at risk, especially when one considers who backs and supports Iran. To name just two, China and Russia. (They both want Iranian oil)

So do I. I never thought I would see it come to this in my lifetime. Growing up in the segregated Deep South, I never thought I would see the day when American Appartheit was brought down either, but I did and thank God for it. Naive complacency is a good description for the majority of people in this country who still don't see it coming. Denial is another name for it. I would give my right arm to be wrong, but BillCo98 is right: the handwriting is on the wall.

Complacency yes, but I'm more concerned about global warming, and an economy based on smoke and mirrors.

I respect what you say, but I fear you underestimate the driven zeal of the Zionists, both Christian and Jew whose blind ambition does not take into account the consequences of their misguided actions. You only need to look at the hell on Earth that is Iraq to see the proof. Despite being warned time and again that the outcome of a pre-emptive war on Iraq would be a disaster they dogmatically marched onwards.

I hope to God I am wrong but all the signs are there for a repeat performance only this time on a far bigger scale.

I don't think god has much to do with it, and I also hope you're wrong.
The consequences would be carried by all of us.



In the mean time, the planet is warming, and there are still powerful people who refuse to accept this.
What can we do?

Things will get red hot for us all if Bushco have their way in Iran.

Sorry, Sky, I didn't mean to be flipant.

As far as global warming is concerned the Luddites, flat earthers and supporters of the creationist theory are in power in the US at present. Without a sea change resulting in an acceptance of the phenomenon that is global warming by the next President and a concerted act of political will to embark on positive measures to deal with the US contribution to the problem, what chance have we to bring the Chinese, Indians and Brazillians on board? The muti national corporations will also require to be dragooned into the forces for change.

In the short term, ie the next 50 years, it's not a question of reducing the carbon dioxide levels already in the upper atmosphere. The need is to substantially slow down the growth of carbon emissions. That requires not only many very tough political decisions but also the rigid will to see them through. I am very sceptical that those requirements will be met. Mankind seems only to learn lessons the hard way. When the richest and most powerful country in the world, which also happens to be the biggest polluter, elects a cretin with the intellectual capacity of a sparrow as President what hope have the rest got. (Sorry to all the sparrows out there - that was below the belt).

Can't Al Gore be persuaded to run for the Democratic ticket or is that asking too much?

You see, that's where we differ Bill, in that I believe Bushco ARE having their way with Iran, and public opinion and discussion is the weapon of choice! The selling of fear is what these people do best!

The use of fear as a tool has been the only tool they ever had and used that was effective.

But fear is not the only tool they've taken out of the box, unfortunately.

No, but it was the first, will be the last, and will be the most often used.

I think, Sky, that you are near to being proven wrong. (Although I really hope not !) The feeling I have at the moment is of a powerful and deliberate attempt to go to all out war with, er, everybody, from the neocons and their little friends.

I try to see some positive response from the Dem's but all I see is handwringing and "oh, we love you Israel, you are right, Iran should NOT have the bomb, here, would you like a few more Catepilars to help as you dig up the third most important religious site in the Islamic world...."

FUCK !


Abell, military recruitment is on the up in all Western countries, people I know in the "trade" are preparing for war, against who, I don't know, and hope never to have to pick sides. Russia is getting mighty pissed at American leaders stupidity and refusal to open their eyes to reality, and they still have an AWFUL lot of troops, many hardened by Chechenya and there is still a lot of fight in them. Lets not even look at China, or even North Korea. Manpower wise, even with the technological advantage the US Army has, they would have their asses handed to them on a platter if a wide, all fronts war broke out. This I'm sure the strategists and Generals are far more aware of than just a pundit like me, but the problem is that THEY ARE NOT IN CHARGE, and that the Straussians who are swinging off the chandelier of Power and defecating on the Constitution, and leaving peanut shells all over the White House (fading to black..) and the Donsgone war room ARE !! And they are now certifiably insane, and staring glazed eyed at the walls of their führer bunker whilst barking orders that no sane man would issue !! Damn !!

Once the first bomb is dropped, no matter by who, all bets are off and it's Armageddon-a Go-go. "It'll never happen..." people said that about WW II, but hadn't really grasped how vicious, evil and downright fricking STOOPID the fascists were, because they REALLY believed that they could win, they really, REALLY thought that !! A Thousand year Reich has metamporphised into a New American Century, but the same driving idiocy and anti-Human fuckwits are behind it. Sheesh !

We all know about the Nuclear clock, and if there was an Armagedon clock, not just Nuclear, I believe we are very very close to midnight. By Armagedon I refer to all world wide acts of violence INCLUDING the stress that will be caused by global warming.