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.

Sunday, November 06, 2011


Actually, it’s not so much that the U.S. and Israel are seemingly ‘obsessed’ with Iran, but more that the neoconservative’s of the U.S. and Israel’s right-wing Zionists are. However, this apparent obsession is only a deliberately created illusion. Israel’s real obsession is the creation of a Greater Israel and the destruction of those that prevent Israel’s expansionist dreams; Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon, both of who are supported by Iran.

The stated casus belli for any Israeli/US attack on Iran will be that Iran is building a nuclear weapon with which it intends to ‘wipe Israel off the map’. The ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ and the ‘wipe Israel off the map’ are two memes that have gone hand in hand in the propaganda and rhetoric of Israel’s Zionists and their neoconservative allies in the US and, indeed, around the world for years.

There are, however, a range of problems with these allegations. Firstly, there is, despite the constant barrage of assertions to the contrary, no actual physical evidence whatsoever that Iran actually has a ‘nuclear weapons program’. Time and time again, Israel and their allies have made the accusations but have never been able to support their allegations with any hard irrefutable evidence. All of the ‘evidence’ so far has been either vaguely circumstantial, hearsay based on statements from dissidents and defectors, straight out lies or simply conclusions based on wishful thinking and vivid imaginations.

Secondly, the ‘wipe Israel of the map’ meme is a deliberate mistranslation of a statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who said nothing of the sort. It was the neoconservative organisation MEMRI that was responsible for the deliberate mistranslation of the ‘wipe Israel of the map’ line which has been used extensively by neoconservatives and Israelis ever since to invoke hatred of Iran and to infer an existential threat against Israel from Iran. Still, though, Israel and the US insist that Iran is intent on producing a nuclear weapon that it plans to use against Israel and possibly even against America.

Which brings us to the third problem with the allegations ranged against Iran and that is; why would Iran, even if it did have a nuclear weapon, risk utter and swift destruction by the US and Israeli retaliatory nuclear strikes if it were to ever attack Israel with a nuclear weapon? The answer, of course is; it wouldn’t – and the Israelis and the US are well aware of it. They are also well aware that in reality Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

So why then all the fuss? The hope is that with the aid of a compliant Western mainstream media, the propaganda memes of ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ and wants to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ repeated over and over endlessly will eventually so influence public opinion that it will support an attack against Iran.

The ‘Iranian problem’ is presented to the world via the mainstream media in its most simplistic form. It runs thus: ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program with which it wishes to wipe Israel off the map so the answer is to destroy its weapons making capabilities using military action’.

That’s the rhetoric and the propaganda.

The reality is this: Israel and the US have no real interest in Iran’s nuclear program; their real aim as far as Iran is concerned is to destroy the Islamic regime and replace it with one that is US and Israel friendly.

Attacking Iran and affecting regime change kills a number of birds with one stone. It puts an end to what Israel and the US regard as Iran’s influence in the region, but, most important as far as the Israelis and their supporters are concerned, is that an attack against Iran provides, so they hope the world will believe, a legitimate pretext for attacking Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon on the basis that the Israelis are pre-empting a strike by Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel in retaliation of Israel’s attack against Iran.

Since the only way the US and Israel will be able to affect ‘regime change’ in Iran without the use of an invasion and occupation – unthinkable considering that Iran is more than three and a half times the size of Iraq and has about two and a half times the population – is by bombing it into capitulation and surrender, one can expect a campaign that will be far more than a load of bunker-buster bombs aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities. Much more likely is a campaign of significant attacks against Iran’s defence and governmental institutions as well as its nuclear facilities; attacks that will deliberately inflict significant ‘co-lateral damage’ on civilians as the Iranian authorities get accused of using their civilians as ‘human shields’. The hope always with this strategy is that the civilian population will then press their government to end the war by capitulating to their enemies demands.

The only problem with this strategy is that it rarely ever works. Usually when such all-out bombing campaigns are carried out with the view to getting the enemy to sue for peace, rather than suing for peace, a phenomenon known as ‘Kriegssozialismus’ sets in whereby people from all walks of civilian life spontaneously ignore their ordinary class affiliations and come together to help each other out in circumstances where all are suffering equally due to war, and, importantly, collectively stiffen their resolve to resist the enemies actions rather than cave into them. Short of using nuclear weapons to defeat Iran, the US and Israel stand no hope of defeating the people of Iran.

There is also a problem of logistics in attacking Iran. Over the years that the threat of attack has prevailed, there have been reports that have suggested that Israel will ‘go it alone’ if they feel threatened enough by Iran’s ‘nuclear weapon program’. One report recently even suggested that the US is “concerned that Israel will not warn them before taking action against Iran’s nuclear facilities”. This is all rhetorical nonsense dished up for public consumption. The reality is that it would be absolutely impossible for Israel to launch an entirely unilateral attack against Iran without US connivance.

In any attack they mount, Israel will use American aircraft which constantly require spare parts mostly from the US. They will also require ordnance which also mostly comes from the US; they will require vast quantities of military jet fuel, and, if Israel plans to attack Hamas and Hezbollah at the same time, it will also require massive amounts of diesel fuel to power up its ground forces. All of this comes from the US and, as was recorded in August 2010, Israel has already ordered that fuel which would by now have been delivered and stockpiled.

The other major logistic hurdle Israel needs to overcome is the one of getting to and from its target. Israel is separated from Iran by at least two other countries; Syria and Iraq or Jordan and Iraq. Either way, this amounts to a round rip of around 3000kms to bomb Bushehr and/or Qom, Iran’s two main nuclear facilities. The most likely route would be via Syria who would be unlikely to offer any resistance to Israeli overflights – especially if it came under attack itself. Then there is the question of overflying Iraq. The Iraqi government on its own is unlikely to allow Israeli aircraft to overfly their territory. Israel would need to be in cohorts with the US if it wished to get the US to convince the Iraqi government to allow Israeli aircraft into its airspace. And not only would Israel need to have Iraqi permission to pass through its airspace, it would also need to use Iraqi airspace for in-flight refuelling operations which the Israelis would need to utilise since their strike aircraft do not have the range to do the job in one round trip without refuelling.

The question then is; what exactly is Israel’s intended endgame in the event of an attack against Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah?

Such a massive attack against all of its enemies at once is a huge commitment on Israeli resources and one of very high risk. It will, therefore, need to be decisive in terms of meeting all of its war aims.

Israel will have learnt the lessons of its past failures. After years of attacks against Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, Israel has not been able to destroy Hezbollah or Hamas despite its efforts against Hezbollah in 2006 and against Hamas in 2008/2009. In the event of an attack against Iran, Israel is likely to simultaneously mount hitherto unprecedented attacks against both Hamas and Hezbollah. Such a strike will likely be opened up with a massive aerial and artillery barrage and then, since Israel does not have to commit ground forces to attacking Iran, it will be able to invade and occupy the Gaza Strip and south Lebanon up to the Latani River. At the same time, Israel is likely to fully occupy all of the West Bank in order to prevent any uprising by Palestinian resistance there and remilitarise the Golan Heights to prevent any backlash there.

In short, for Israel an attack against Iran and Israel’s other enemies on the pretext of pre-empting an immediate threat to its own existence will be the do or die action it will take in order to realise Zionism’s ultimate endgame; the creation of a Greater Israel.

The coming confrontation is not about Iran being a threat; it is about Israel ridding itself of all of its enemies in the places that it would like to annex as part of its realisation of creating a permanent Greater Israel nation abundant with fertile lands, its own water resources, and living space. War is its pretext.


Anonymous said...

I can't seem to find any 'comments' section on your latest message, so this will have to do!.
On the IAEA report, I'm suspicious of satellite observations and interpretations of said features as you cogently wrote about 'dots' and their self serving picture they 'create'.
I've never forgotten the 'Tora' (proscribed to confer an emotional response) facility in Kazakstan in the '80's which saw hemispherical structures and ancillary facilties portrayed by the yanks as a dastardly nuclear pumped particle beam weapon or some such.
It was in the '90's that visits there revealed a prosaic nuclear reactor for power generation being planned as I recall.
Amusingly, even Soviet engineers and scientists 'far removed' from the truth,believed in the stories painted by the yanks and were most disappointed when hope for work in these areas never materialied as the whole thing was a canard.

Thus talk of 'containers' etc remind me of the old 'Tora' stories of the '80's and I suspect this one too will be a 'will-o-the-wisp'.
Good analysis on this matter mate!.

Nylon Shirt

Damian Lataan said...

Cheers, NS. Indeed, when one uses a multiple array of intelligence sources, it's easy to put 2 plus 3 plus 5 plus 3 plus 8 together and think that you can pull the wool over peoples eyes by telling them the aswer is 22. 2 plus 2 to equal 5 is too obvious so the alternative is to provide loads of numbers which most people will not bother trying to figure out but rather just accept that the answer already provided is the right one.

The problem in this case is that they've still not been complex enough. Already their ploy is coming apart. The bullshit hasn't baffled any brains and most thinking people are not at all taken in by this latest charade which has succeeded only in destroying what little cred the IAEA had since Mohamad elBaradei left.

Anonymous said...


I recall reading an admission that the IAEA report was derived from (substantially) information provided by various governments 'intelligence' agencies!.
Of course they claimed that their 'intelligence' was independently vetted etc so as to be objective, but I for one openly question this supposition.

Do they really think we'll be deceived by their claptrap, especially as the Iraq fiasco will never be forgotten?.
I'm pleased to hear though that people are seeing through it all though.

Oddly the best deterrent to war now is the U.S decline which is unstoppable now (at bloody last and thank goodness) and the world economic situation coupled to more independence from China and Russia.

The first missile that hits Iran will see the first oil tanker struck in the Straits of Hormuz in retaliation and then hear the pollies scream when petrol overnight rises to over $3 per litre or more!.

In a way its like mutally assured destruction, again the aggressor is the American empire and its lackeys, their hands tied by their own ineptitude and rot.
Old Nixon was prescient of his empire in the future; a hapless enfeebled pitiful giant.
Good riddance to them all!.

Nylon Shirt

Anonymous said...

I'm still perplexed and haven't changed my mind yet, but when you click on the map in the link at end of this message, you'll see that the nuke count relating to the hyped-up impending confrontation stands at:

Israel = 200
Iran = 0 (ZERO)

So, wherein lies the problem? And besides, countries who have nukes for the past several decades have relied on them basically as diplomatic bargaining chips, so again, wherein lies the problem with Iran developing nukes? I think we've taken these phrases of "religious fanatics" or conversely "never again" as panic buttons whipping up emotional fight energy to give a reason for preemptive military action. Total insanity which needs to be mitigated and dealt with diplomatically versus militarily. Don't think any jingoistic phrase in line with past historical episodes like "54-40 or fight", "remember the Maine" is worth arousing kill energy in the current (fear-mongering) nuke situation, or shall I just say "story". Hence, as for the bottom line (i.e. numbers of nukes) there is no "problem" unless you just want to make one up to give yourself some reason for war.

george wells said...

"compliant Western mainstream media"?

Aren't we talking about the hebrew tribe here?

Anonymous said...

The United States is the only country, in the history of the modern world, to nuke another nation. Therefore, it has no moral or legal authority to police nuclear proliferation. Israel, with the assistance of the U.S., has the bomb, so naturally, its neighbors want the same, and should have it.