THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010


Iran yesterday defied the US and its allies by rejecting their plan for Iran to send its low-enriched material overseas for further enrichment by a foreign facility which would then return the material to Iran for use. This follows close on the heels last weekend of China, a permanent member of the UN Security Council with full veto powers, to refuse to consider any further sanctions against Iran via the UN.

The US and their allies are left now with two options: one, to unilaterally apply sanctions against Iran, an option which will have little effect since Russia and China will take up the slack caused by any such sanctions by the West, or two, the option that the Israeli Zionists and their neoconservative allies really want since it has all along been about nothing else; to attack Iran with the aim of ‘regime change’.

War against Iran has been brewing for many years now with the propaganda from Israeli Zionists and neoconservatives having made it quite clear that they wish nothing else but regime change in Iran. With regime change in Iran the Israeli Zionists believe that resistance to the Israeli dream of a Greater Israel by Hezbollah and Hamas will crumble as Iran is no longer able to support them.

Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’ has only ever been an excuse for Israel and their allies to effect regime change. Despite years of intense and relentless propaganda accusing Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, there has not been one skerrick of evidence found to even suggest that Iran has a ‘nuclear weapons program’. However, Israel and the US and their allies will disregard the lack of evidence and continue on their march toward the inevitable final confrontation with Iran as the options quickly run out.

The world needs to prepare itself for the coming onslaught against Israel’s enemies. When Iran is attacked, Israel will launch an attack against Hamas in the Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly Syria as well.

It’s just a matter of time.


Anonymous said...

A disturbing possibility indeed I agree.
I wonder though if the public in places like Australia would support such a conflict if the hard implications were to eventuate.
I proffer a few thoughts but I welcome insights or clarification;
The warhawks seem to live in a fantasy world of their moral rectitude akin to 'big daddy' administering appropriate moral punishment to a wrongdoer (iran), that deserves it (with concomitant demonstration again of their self proclaimed 'leadership' and custodian of world security.
Thus in their skewed world, they can launch air strikes on selected targets in Iran and then this will settle the matter as if the people on the ground will concede they were wrong and similar sanctimonious cant.
The reality though would be that euphamisms like 'air strikes' are starting a war akin to that of any other aggressor in the past. eg, Nazi's, Argies in the Falklands etc.
Iran would be entitled to defend itself and fight back against the aggressor with any means it had as the yanks really know this and would logically plan to knock out the air defences, air fields etc which could pose a threat to their air raids.
Thus by definition, so called limited air strikes on key targets really are wide scale raids taking much time on numerous targets far removed from 'nuclear sites'.
Retaliation by iran would elicit a response to these by the yanks which widens the war greatly.
Thus matters nucleate into a prolonged nationwide war as more targets and developments are sucked into the vortex.
All this will take weeks (remember 1991 iraq) as Iran is no pushover and will have distributed its forces widely and hidden as best they can.
The yanks will need more and more forces to do all this and I fear Australia and Britain etc will be 'told' to help which we will invariably do out of feality to the American empire.
One main focus will be the straits of hormuz and the sinking of tankers and any U.S ships the iranians can hit with missiles and special forces etc.
In a jittery world, is the Australian public and motorist prepared to see petrol up to $3 per litre, with concomitant hikes in the cost of food and the economic slowing of the whole ecomomy.
The longer the war rages, the worse it will get and moreso if tankers are sunk and the oil supply is slowed or stopped.
Actually, as the times are so fraught, I expect hysteria and stock market falls on a huge scale to every incident.
Iran is a large country with diverse terrain and it wouldn't surprise me if Iran already has in place plans for guerilla war for years ala' iraq and Afghanistan examples.
U.S bases in iraq and afghanistan are fixed and large, easily attacked by iran's mid range IRBM's which is another avenue for retaliation.
Doubtless there are other options too.

My main point is that U.S talks of air strikes on selected targets are only part of a wider plan that would have to be enacted due to the difficulties inherent in action against iran.
I have no special inside knowledge as I'm just a humble resercher in a different field, but its easy enough to work out what would happen as any cursory study of iran and the history of conflict tells us.
Of course the yanks are deluding themselves as always such is their self absorbtionnow thet they always believe their own propaganda trapped as they are in a positive feedback circuit.
Are we in Australia and the world, though prepared to engage in a prolonged war taking months or years of very intense fighting, disrupted oil flows, fuel rationing?.
Rising food costs, economic slump and electoral defeat etc?.
I hope we've learn't the lessons of the lies told over iraq, but I see the murdoch 'press' is already doing its softening up in accordance to their warmongering soulmates wishes in the U.S and israel.
I intend to write to my local member of parliament on this issue and see what kind of response I get.
Thanks for your time to all and I welcome any other thoughts or insights.

Nylon Shirt

traducteur said...

As Nylon Shirt's comments clearly show, it would be highly irrational for the US to attack Iran. It's the Zionists who want that to happen, and in view of the reality of Zionist control of America's government and media, the possibility cannot be ruled out. On the whole, though, I think it's unlikely.

Anonymous said...

traducteur, if the Zionists "control" America, then why wouldn't it happen?

If it doesn't happen as they wish it to, perhaps those Jews you refer to don't really have that much control.

David G said...

I don't think it's helpful to differentiate between Israel/Jews and the U.S. They work together to further their commmon imperial objectives.

The U.S. provides the army while Israel/Jews provide a supportive MSM, lots of money, and they also have lots of influential stooges in high places!

Know thy enemy!

Damian Lataan said...

Hi NS, Trad, David and Anon. The endgame for the Israelis is not the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities; they’re merely being used as an excuse to achieve their real goal which, of course, is regime change. It is also what the US wants. The only way to achieve that is to pinpoint destroy all of the regimes potency. That’s not to say all of Iran’s governmental institutions need be destroyed, but the powerbases will need to be if they wish to achieve regime change. These include the Mullahs homes and offices, the Revolutionary Guard and their facilities, the air force, their elitist armed forces and their bases, their missile sites and control centres, all known air defence facilities – and, just to make it look good for the rest of the world, they will, of course, attack their nuclear facilities.

The US is unlikely to unilaterally attack Iran, or, at least, will not be seen to attack Iran unilaterally. However, if Israel decides to unilaterally attack then the US will immediately join in to protect Israel from retaliation.

Both Israel and the US will make every effort to build up public opinion to support any such attack while at the same time make noises about ‘negotiations’ and ‘sanctions over Irans so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’; all of which they have now done. Once having ‘exhausted’ all these avenues they expect public opinion to slowly be settling on their side. All it takes from then on is some incident that will be blamed on Iran, rightly or wrongly, and matters will quickly escalate from there.

Obama has presented himself as a popular president and a man of peace – a president that is ‘different’ from Bush, yet within less than a year of taking office he has already escalated the Afghan war by a surge in troops and also by taking the war into Pakistan where he has had no problems at all in allowing the CIA to RPVs to indiscriminately kill Pakistani civilians including hundreds of women and children without say so much as a dicky bird by way of even a mock apology, and using mercenaries in both Pakistan and Afghanistan where there is strong evidence of these people committing acts of terrorism and blaming the Taliban.

We should not be deceived by the appearance of Obama seeking peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Obama’s administration is quietly arming Israel to the teeth with weapons and fuel which Israel uses against defenceless Palestinians in the Gaza and which Israel is stockpiling for the coming confrontation between it and all of its enemies including Hamas and Hezbollah. Obama has done absolutely nothing to halt the strangulation of the Gaza Strip nor has he said a thing to stop the daily incursions of Israeli warplanes into Lebanese airspace in violation of UNR 1701 though is quick to criticise Hezbollah when Israel accuses them of 1701 violations.

Neoconservative influence in the US is still strong. The repercussions of their influence in the Bush era still resonate in the Obama era. The wars go on.

The US will not care one hoot what Australia thinks of a war against Iran. It will fait accompli as far as they’re concerned – and also as far as Rudd is concerned. Rudd might jump up and down a little bit privately but all we’ll get from him are a few very carefully selected words of support for the West, the US and Israel and some vague promise that Australia will not at all be involved despite knowing full well that it will be what with Pine Gap being used as a comms station for the US. Chances are also that Australian special forces seconded to US forces would also be involved.

Hope this answers a few questions.


traducteur said...

There's a celebrated brand of Irish whiskey named "Black Bush". I understand that many drinkers now order a glass of it by asking for "an Obama".