In one week the US will have three aircraft carriers facing Iran

(many thanks to HL for this info!  S.)

Zerohedge reports:

US Aircraft Carrier John Stennis Arrives By Iran

Ten days ago, when we last tracked the progress of the third US aircraft carrier, CVN-74 Stennis, with destination Arabian Gulf, aka Iran, we reported that it was "within a week of reaching" its destination. Sure enough, as the latest Stratfor naval update confirms, CVN-74 has now reached its destination for which it was commissioned several months prematurely. But before you get your war hats out, note that that other aircraft carrier which is conducting its final voyage, the CVN-65 Enterprise, has decided to take a bit of a break and left the Arabian Gulf area for a scheduled R&R port visit in Naples, Italy. In a week or so, shore leave will be over and CVN will be back to join everyone else, at which point the US will finally have three aircraft carriers just off the Iranian coastline ready to rumble.

Comment:

The "Arabian Gulf".   Even the "accepted language" in the Anglosphere reeks of imperial policies.  Amazing...

The Saker

Mujahideen-e Khalq goes from "terrorist" to "freedom fighter" in perparation for war on Iran

Just as it had done with the KLA before the US/NATO war on Serbia, the USA is about to take the local terrorist group, in this case the Mujahideen-e Khalq, off its official terror list.  That makes sense politically and it is legally necessary to make it easier to fund, train and otherwise assist it: US assistance to various terrorist groups worldwide is usually provided only covertly which, of course, complicates its delivery.

Besides, the overnight re-branding of the local terrorist groups into "freedom fighters" is the normal procedure before any overt military aggression against another country. Hence the following statement by Dana Rohrabacher:

"The MEK are Iranians who desire a secular, peaceful, and democratic government."

Yet another "indicator and warning" that an attack on Iran is in the making.  The Imperial propaganda machine ("Innocence of Muslims", re-branding of Mujahideen-e Khalq) is now in full swing and the public opinion carefully "massaged" in preparation for a US assault on Iran.

The Saker

PS: a fitting tribute to the US regime 


 

Extremely strong words by Hassan Nasrallah at the "Prophet Loyalty Rally "

These are uncharacteristically strong words form the Hezbollah leader and I wonder if that is not also a way of preparing the Middle-East for a US attack on Iran.

In the meantime, one of the most pathetic US puppets in Lebanon, Amin Gemayel, actually took the risk of condemning Hassan Nasrallah and, once again, that just makes me marvel at systematic way the Lebanese Phalangists always end up on the wrong side of both morality and history.

In the meanwhile, the USN has moved three aircraft carriers into the proximity of the Strait of Hormuz for huge naval maneuvers with the participation of 25 nations.  

The Iranians are also rehearsing for a US strike on Iran.

As for the Israelis, they are still stirring up the anti-Iranian hysteria.

Is there still anybody out there doubting that this is all a lead up to a US attack on Iran?

The Saker

Why a US attack on Iran is inevitable

Over the past few months there appears to be a dramatic rise in the number of articles, opinions and rumors discussing the likelihood of a US and/or Israeli military attack on Iran.  Even the Israeli press is now regularly reporting various opinions about the desirability, or not, of such an attack while keeping a rolling tally of those officials who favor and oppose, often in very strong terms, such an idea.

For a person like me who has been predicting a US attack on Iran ever since I began this blog (in 2007), it is rather amazing to see the degree to which this debate about "will the US/Israel strike Iran or not" is frankly disconnected from reality and my wish today is to offer a few simple reminders which then can only lead to one logical conclusion.

First and foremost, and there is no over-stressing this one, something needs to be made absolutely unequivocally clear: a US and/or Israeli attack on Iran will have absolutely nothing to do with any putative Iranian nuclear weapons program.  This is so important and yet so much overlooked, that I will repeat that in big bold letters:

A US and/or Israeli attack on Iran will have absolutely nothing to do with any putative Iranian nuclear weapons program

Why?

For one thing, because there is zero evidence that Iran has such a program.  Yes, sure, Israeli US and other Western politicians constantly speak about it, but only because not speaking about it or, worse, expressing doubts about it, is pretty much a career-killing mistake.  However, away form the media, even Israeli and US politicians know - they have been told so by their own intelligence community - that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.  Second, even if Iran had a nuclear weapons program or even an fully strike ready nuclear force it would threaten absolutely nobody, not even Israel.

I mean, let's get serious here.  Iran being a major regional military power, it does not need nuclear weapons for its defense against a regional attack, nor would it need one if it wanted to attack somebody.  What about Israel or a major international power like the USA or, say, an EU member state?  Could Iran ever imagine a scenario in which Iran could strike at the USA, Israel or Europe and not immediately by wiped out by a massive retaliation which it would have no means at all from stopping?  Of course not.  What about the "the Mollah's are crazy, they don't mind dying, they believe in getting 72 virgins in paradise, etc".  All this is just a crude Zionist canard.  There is zero evidence that anybody in the Iranian regime is crazy, wants to die or, for that matter, use weapons of mass destruction to procure virgins.  Last argument: the Iranian might gave nukes to terrorists.  That is laughable because the Iranians are no more likely to give nukes to terrorists than any other nuclear-weapons state, if only because by giving out nukes you loose control over them.  All this is, frankly, rather silly kindergarten-level nonsense which only gets some traction with the lobotomized zombies who get their news from the TV.  Nobody with an IQ at or above room temperature can take that nonsense seriously.

So what is the real deal here?

Simple: Iran is a major regional power, a rich country sitting on top of large energy reserves, which dares to openly defy the USA, Israel and even, crime of crimes, the international financial system (more about that later).

Think of Iran has "Hezbollah, only at a nation-state level, with much more money and resources".

The other "crime" Iran is guilty of being an independent and sovereign Shia state with a very competent diplomatic and intelligence community.  In other words, Iran makes controlling the Middle-East very difficult for the USA and Israel.  And since the Shia have the bad taste of mostly living in oil-rich parts of the Middle-East, they are a direct threat to the US-NATO-Israeli-al-Qaeda alliance.

Considering the above, the real motives to attack Iran become immediately clear:

First, to set back Iran as much as possible in economic terms, to "bomb it back to the stone age" to use the expression so many US politicians like so much.  Think of what NATO did to Serbia, what the USA did to Iraq or what Israel did to Lebanon and Gaza.  None of these air operations ever had a significant military impact, but it terms of terrorism against the civilian population they were nothing short of brilliant.

Second, to punish the Iranian people for voting the wrong way, for supporting a regime loathed by the West, and for daring to defy the US and Israeli global overlords.  Simply put: the Iranian experiment cannot be allowed to succeed.

Third, a military strike on Iran would give a much needed ego-boost to an otherwise despondent US and Israeli political elite and it would also deliver an equally needed ego-boost to the macho ego to large segments of the US and Israeli public opinion badly bruised by a long string of military defeats.

All of this one already true in 2007.  But since then, something huge has happened: the Ponzi-scheme otherwise known as the "international financial system" pretty much collapsed in 2008 and ever since it has been going down and down and down and down.  While our financial elites go out of their way to conceal this from us, and while the corporate media assiduously pretends like nothing is really going on, the truth of the matter is that both the USA and the EU could suffer from a quasi-instantaneous financial collapse at any moment.  The dollar could loose its (fictitious) value, the EU could go bankrupt, the banks could run out of money, etc.  And the really terrifying thing is that this final collapse could be triggered by so many different events that such a crisis has not practically become inevitable.  Both French and Russian experts predict that all of the above is likely to happen next year, in early 2013.

Now ask yourself a simple question: if you were one of the plutocrats running the system, the top "1%", the type of person who would have everything to loose, including your life, in case of such a collapse, and if you were given a option of blaming it all on a war with Iran (and/or in defense of Israel, the "only democracy in the Middle-East and our eternal friend and ally!!") - would you go for it?  Of course you would.

Think of Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" or, on this 11th anniversary of the 911 attacks (organized, of course, by the very same "one percenters") which so conveniently overshadowed Don Rumsfeld's missing 2.3 trillion dollars  - $2,300,000,000,000.00 - and ask yourself if having the Iranians try to block the Strait of Hormuz might not be the best way to blame the ensuing economic chaos on "the Mullahs".  I think that the answer is rather obvious, is it not?

Besides a "good old war" is an excellent way to boost a stagnant or collapsing economy just as it is a simple but effective way to convince the rest of the planet to purchase US Treasury Bonds and Securities.

The next canard which needs to be debunked is the silly notion that Israel could go at it alone.  Nonsense!  Israel does not have the military capabilities to destroy the (civilian) nuclear research and energy program of Iran, nevermind bomb Iran back to the Stone Age.  All that Israel can do is to act like a trigger to provoke a military conflict between the USA and Iran.  So there really are only two options here:

Either the USA and Israel attack together from day 1 or Israel attacks on day 1 and the USA joins the war on day 2.

Anybody doubting that should simply re-watch the speech of Netanyahu to the joint session of Congress on May 24th, 2011 with its 29 standing ovations or listen to any US President's speech at the annual AIPAC dinner (makes no difference which President you pick).

This being said, it is true that a significant segment of the US 1% Establishment does not want a war with Iran.  We know that most of the US military is categorically opposed to such an option, and there are good reasons to suspect that even key individuals of the US financial power structure do not want that war either, at least not yet.

The US Nomenklatura is roughly composed of two main factions: first, what I call the "Old Anglo Lobby", which we can think of as "Dollar firsters" as opposed to, second, the "New Jewish Lobby", which we can think of as "Israel firsters".  Needless to say, both groups are fluid, its members often interchangeable, and they usually fully agree on most political issues.  So they should not be thought of as two hostile groups locked into some kind of zero-sum game.  Not at all.  For one thing, both of these factions are amazingly corrupt, so personal power and wealth decides a lot, regardless of any other consideration (see Sibel Edmond's book).  Tensions between these two groups only flare up when a common policy cannot be agreed upon, and this is what is now taking place with the Iranian issue.  The Anglo puppeteers who run the US regime will never shy away from prostituting themselves to the Zionist propaganda and interests, but not at the cost of their own Empire.  Simply put, there still is a lot of Big Money in the USA which does not feel that catering to somebody as clearly insane and obnoxiously arrogant as Netanyhu (and most Israeli politicians, really) is worth taking the risk of a war with Iran.

However, the upcoming and inevitable collapse of the US-centered financial system is going to go a long way towards getting the rest of the 1% on board for a diversionary attack on Iran.  Besides, when push comes to shove, and regardless of how much money the Old Anglo Lobby still has, the Zionists firmly control Congress and the media.  Once the missiles start flying around the Middle-East all they will have to do is speak of "existential threat to Israel", mention the "Holocaust" with its obligatory figure of "6 millions" always attached, and accuse anybody opposed to a US involvement of yet another war on behalf of Israel as being "anti-Semitic" and a "terrorist" and the deal will be done, regardless of any reservations somebody might have.

Bottom line: a US attack in Iran is pretty much inevitable and, barring some major and unforeseen development, its going to happen rather sooner than later.

So forget all this nonsense about a possible Iranian nuclear weapons program and prepare for the upcoming war.

The Saker

Strait History and Iran’s Options

by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

George Santayana wisely said: “"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Oblivious to history and its lessons, America and its Western allies are repeating their actions of the 1950’s -- that of imposing an oil embargo on Iran. The American-led alliance has forgotten the past.

Iran remembers.

When under the leadership of the nationalist Dr. Mossadegh, Iran opted to nationalize its oil industry, the British Royal Navy blocked Iran’s oil exports to forcefully prevent if from nationalizing its oil. In retaliation to Iran’s nationalistic ambitions, and to punish Iran for pursuing its national interests, the British instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil.

In the 1950’s, Iran did not have the military might to retaliate to the oil embargo and the naval blockade was aimed at crushing the economy in order to bring about regime change. The subsequent events is described in The New York Times1 article as a “lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid” when an oil-rich Third World nation “goes berserk with fanatical nationalism.” Iran learnt that sovereignty and nationalism necessitate tactical/military strength and determination.

Not heeding the aftermath of the 1950’s, the American-led Western allies have once again imposed an oil embargo on Iran. In retaliation, Iran has drafted a bill to stop the flow of oil through its territorial waters – the Strait of Hormuz, to countries which have imposed sanctions against it. This bill is not without merit and contrary to the previous oil embargo, it would appear that Tehran has the upper hand and the heavy cost associated with the embargo will not be borne by Iran alone.

Iran’s Legal Standing 

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that vessels can exercise the right of innocent passage, and coastal states should not impede their passage. Although Iran has signed the Treaty, the Treaty was not ratified, as such, it has no legal standing. However, even if one overlooks the non-binding signature, under UNCLOS framework of international law, a coastal state can block ships from entering its territorial waters if the passage of the ships harms “peace, good order or security” of said state, as the passage of such ships would no longer be deemed “innocent”2.

Even if Iran simply chooses to merely delay the passage of tankers by exercising its right to inspect every oil-tanker that passes through the Strait of Hormuz, these inspections and subsequent delays would maintain or contribute to higher oil prices. While higher oil prices would benefit Iran and other oil-producing countries, they would further destabilize the European economy which is already in crisis.

The Military Option 

Although American-led Western allies are flexing their muscles by sending battle ships to the Persian Gulf, Washington’s own war game exercise, The Millennium Challenge 2002 with a price tag of $250 million, underscored America’s inability to defeat Iran. Oblivious to the lesson of its own making, by sending more warships to the Persian Gulf, the United States is inching towards a full scale conflict. The inherent danger from the naval buildup is that unlike the Cuban Missile Crisis, the forces in the Persian Gulf are not confined to two leaders who would be able to communicate to stop a run-away situation. Nor would the consequences of such a potential conflict be limited to the region.

Given that 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 35% of the world’s seaborne oil exports go through the Strait of Hormuz, incidents in the Strait would be fatal for the world economy. While only 1.1 millions barrels per day goes to the United States, a significant amount of this oil is destined for Europe. Surely, one must ask why the United States demands that its “European allies” act contrary to their own national interest, pay a higher price for oil by boycotting Iranian oil and running the risk of Iran blocking the passage of other oil-tankers destined for them?

Again, history has the straight answer. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the United States and not the oil-producing countries has used oil as a weapon. Some examples include the pressure the United States put on Britain in the 1920s to share its oil concessions in the Middle East with U.S. companies. Post World War II, the United States violated the terms of the 1928 Red Line Agreement freezing the British and the French out of the Agreement.

In 1956, the United States made it clear to Britain and France that no oil would be sent to Western Europe unless the two aforementioned countries agreed to a rapid withdrawal from Egypt. The U.S. was not opposed to the overthrow of Nasser, but as Eisenhower said: “Had they done it quickly, we would have accepted it"3.

Demonstrably, although Europe is a major trade partner of the United States, the U.S. does not concern itself with Europe’s well being when it comes to executing its foreign policy. This should come as no surprise, especially since the United States sacrifices its own national interest to promote the Israeli agenda and that of the military industrial complex. But this does not explain why Europe would shoot itself in the foot at a time when its economical woes have passed the crisis point.

It is possible that the leaders of Western European countries are beholden to special interest groups – the pro-Israel lobbies, as the United States is, or they believe Iran will not call their bluff by ratifying the bill passed by Majlis and their oil will be delivered unhindered; perhaps both. Either way, they are committing financial suicide and their demise may well come before Iran’s resolve is shaken.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and blogger with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups.
-------
1 THE IRANIAN ACCORD”, The New York Times, Aug 6,1954, cited by S. Shalom

2 Martin Wahlisch, The Yale Journal of International Law, March 2012, citing UNCLOS, supra note 12, , art. 19, para1, and art. 25, para1. 

3 Stephen Shalom; The Iran-Iraq War citing Kennett Love, Suez: the Twice-Fought War, New York: McGraw Hill, 1969, p. 651 

Saker comment:

My good friend Soraya is making a lot of very interesting points, in particular one which is wholly overlooked by the corporate media: that Iran's legal position about the what constitutes "innocent passage" is rock solid.  Check out what Article 19 of Section 3 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea actually says:

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.
2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;
(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;
(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
(h) any act of willful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;
(i) any fishing activities;
(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;
(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;
(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

Interesting, no?  All the US saber-rattling and assorted threats against Iran would, in fact, legally allow Iran to prevent the passage of US ships through the strait.  Of course, considering the wholesale disregard and systematic violation of pretty much any and all forms of international law by the US and Israel such legal trivialities will make no difference to them.  The only thing that will matter them is whether or not Iran can shut down the Strait of Hormuz or not.  Unlike most observers, I do not believe it can.   As for the 2002 Millennium Challenge exercise, it was a very controversial exercise designed to validate concept of network centric warfare and not a rehearsal of actual US strike plans on Iran.  Furthermore, from a military point of view any military exercise in which the "good" sides "looses" is a perfect opportunity to learn the important lessons before the real shooting begins.  It would be foolish to expect the USN to attack Iran exactly according to the main lines of a scenario it fully knows will results in a defeat.  In fact, we can be darn sure that having learned all the lessons from that exercise the USN will strike in a very different manner than what was tested already a full decade ago.

I agree that Iran would have the full right to shut down the strait to any vessel deemed in violation of the UNCLOS, and I agree that Iran would be able to shut down the Strait if Hormuz, but what I don't believe in is Iran's capability to maintain the Strait closed for a extended period of time.  Finally, I am also very concerned that any Iranian move to close down the Strait of Hormuz would offer the Zionists a perfect pretext to further demonize Iran and paint it as an enemy of the rest of mankind.

As I wrote in 2007 in my piece Iran's asymmetrical response options, I believe that Iran better asymmetrical responses than closing down the Strait of Hormuz (the 2007 article is in some aspects dated today - in particular in what regards US deployments in Iraq and the Gulf - but its basic rationale still holds, I believe) which could be summed up as "the strategic version of Hezbollah's tactics in 2006": ride out the strikes and reply with missiles on US regional targets.

FYI: here is what shipping in the SOH looks on a typical day (click on image for full size) - already chaotic without any missiles flying; just imagine the panic which would result from any US strike on Iran even without the Iranians taking defensive action at all.

Shipping density in the SOH on 7/5/2012

US "mega base" at Al Udeid, Qatar: an ideal target?

International Bureau of Double Standards—The CNN/Iran File

Another great video from Anthony Lawson:

Anti-Shia plans finalized by NWO elites?

The leaders of the New World Order are clearly engaged in major and intense consultations of how to deal with the "Shia problem".  Check out this agenda:

• May 18th – May 19th: G8 Summit in Camp David, MD.
• May 20th - May 21st: NATO summit in Chicago, Il.
• May 31st - June 1st: Bilderberg Conference in Chantilly, VA.

On the agenda?  Syria and Iran, of course, at least according to Russian sources.  Practically, here are the options which must be decided upon:

1. Military strike on Iran and its inevitable consequences

2. Military intervention in Syria

3. Annexation of Bahrain by Saudi Arabia

The G8 summit will be an excellent opportunity to check out what the Russian position on this three topics will be, in particular since the election of Vladimir Putin.  Then, at the NATO summit, NWO leaders will have the opportunity to see who is on-board with these plans and who is not (most will), and finally the Bilderberg Conference will be the perfect setting for the Bilderberg Steering Committee and the interests behind it to take a final decision on these topics.  It is also likely that the upcoming Presidential elections in the USA will be discussed and that a post-Obama candidate will be selected to replace Obama.

I suspect that there will be a lot of horse-trading with Russia as the West can easily hand Putin a terrific PR "victory" by giving in on the anti-missile shield in Europe (either by shelving the entire idea - unlikely - or by getting the Russian involved - possible, but still unlikely - or by giving written guarantees to the Russian - which is probably what they will choose).  However, to give this to Putin the West will demand his compliance on Syria and even possibly Iran, and I personally very much doubt that this will happen.  So my personal guess is that the Russians and the West will put a positive spin on it all, but that they will not agree on anything meaningful.

I also don't see anybody in Europe agreeing to a NATO military intervention in Syria (except the Brits, of course - "poodles" - or the Central European, but they are irrelevant anyway).  Not because of any Russian efforts to rescue Assad, but basically because this is a militarily and politically risky operation with no clear exit strategy.  So for Syria, "more of the same, only worse" is probably the "best" choice for the West.

As for Iran, paradoxically, it is far more likely that the US will strike at it.  Yes, Iran is far bigger and far more powerful than Syria, but the objectives of a strike on Iran will be far more limited.  Indeed, I don't believe that anybody seriously has any more hopes for regime change in Iran, so the next best fallback option is to cripple Iran economically and humiliate it politically by doing to it what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006 and to Gaza in 2008.  Kill a maximum number of people while crippling the infrastructure.  The Israelis, who know full well that there is no Iranian military nuclear program, might even settle for less: a short 24 hour bombing campaign destined at humiliating Iran and at making the Israelis feel good about themselves.  Yes, this is naive and dangerous, but then the Israelis are stupid and arrogant.

As for the annexation of Bahrain, the Saudis can probably do it, in particular if the USA fully supports such an operation.

And make no mistake - the the US/Israeli Empire speaks of a "total war on Islam" they mean *Shia* Islam, not Islam in general, simply because the non-Shia Islamic world has been very effectively co-opted and neutered a long time ago and is a de-facto ally of Zionist interests.

There is no war on Islam, there is only a global war on Shia Islam.

What is your take on that?  Any ideas?

The Saker

Three articles about the US war on Iran

I found these three on Informationclearinghouse

We Want War, And We Want It Now

By Pepe Escobar

Our Men in Iran?

By Seymour M. Hersh

Report: U.S. Trained Terror Group

By Glenn Greenwald

Informationclearinghouse is really doing a good job at covering topics like Syria and Iran and it would be a good idea to help him by visiting his "support" page here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/support.htm .

Cheers!

Russian and Hezbollah in consultations

According to official website of the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, Moqawama.org,

A Hizbullah delegation visited on Monday Russian Ambassador to Lebanon Alexander Zasypkin in the Embassy headquarters, and delivered greetings on behalf of Hizbullah's leadership for the presidential victory of Vladimir Putin.  The Hizbullah delegation was led by Head of Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc member Mohammad Raad, and included MP Nawwar Saheli and Hizbullah International Relations Official Ammar Moussawi.  After the meeting, MP Raad indicated that "this visit is appropriate to praise the balanced political role played by Russia in this time period, especially regarding the crises storming across the region".  Moreover, Raad lauded Russia's role which "restores the principles of the UN, enables balance in the UN Security Council, and opens a window of hope for the nations so their just causes would achieve victory".  Regarding the common points discussed during talks between the Hizbullah and Russian officials on the Syrian file, MP Raad asserted, "Russia's stance stems from the root that achieving stability in Syria should be based on a political solution [that is gained] through dialogue between the regime and opposition".

This is all very good news.  In the current political context, it is essential that Russia, China, Iran and Hezbollah closely coordinate their efforts to avoid a US/NATO invasion of Iran and/or Syria on behalf of Israel.

While it is rather obvious that Russia and Hezbollah have had contacts in the past (everybody talks to Hezbollah, whether they deny it or not), it is interesting that this latest meeting was rather public, with even an official photo opportunity (see above).

In the meantime, Press TV is reporting that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has declared that an attack on Iran would be a "huge mistake" and a "catastrophe".

Lastly, Russia declared that it supported a yet to be officially released peace proposal by Kofi Annan provided that two conditions are met:

“The first that Kofi Annan’s proposals be made public and second, that the Security Council approves them not as an ultimatum but, approves them -- taking into account ongoing work -- as a basis for continuing efforts by Kofi Annan with the goal of reaching agreement among all Syrians, the government and the opposition groups, on all urgent issues, access for humanitarian organizations in Syria, an end to violence on all sides and the start of political dialogue and access for the mass media, and so on.” 

In other words, no invasion and no regime change.   In all likelihood, this will be unacceptable to the insurgency unless it is really weakened militarily.  Remember the war in Libya?  The "democratic opposition" categorically rejected all of the many peace plans offered to them by Gaddafi, the OAS and all other mediators.  Likewise, I do not expect the Syrian insurgency (or, rather, their Zionist bosses) to accept any kind of political settlement at this point unless, as I just said, the military balance on the ground shifts in the regime's favor.

The events in Syria, tragic as they are, are still only a side-show to the real thing: the upcoming attack on Iran and I believe that both Russia and China see the Syrian civil war primarily in this bigger context.

The Saker

Interesting hypothesis for a US aggression on Iran

I just have listened to a very interesting interview of a Russian military expert named Vladilav Shurygin.  For the Russian speakers I am posting it below:

Now for those of  you who do not speak Russian, I want to summarize Shurygin's main hypothesis: that the US will use a "two-phase" approach to Iran very similar to the one it used on Iraq:

a) The first phase would involve a massive air and missile assault on Iran to basically "bomb it back to the stone age" to use James Baker's expression.  And just like after the first Gulf War it would be followed by a decade of so of crippling sanctions destined to further push Iran into poverty and chaos.

b) The second phase would, just as was the case in Iraq, involve a land invasion of a devastated, demoralized and economically crippled Iran, with the purpose of imposing a new occupation regime.

That is an interesting hypothesis, but it is based on several highly speculative assumptions.

First, this assumes that like Iraq in 1991 Iran would not seriously fight back.  Remember, Saddam did not send his armored divisions into Saudi Arabia even though he could have done so which would have left very few options to the US other than using nuclear weapons to rescue the 82nd AB and prevent Saddam from overrunning the Saudi ports.  If Iran is really cornered, it could strike out at every Gulf state with absolutely devastating consequences not only for the region, but the entire world economy,

The second hypothesis is that the UNSC and the rest of the planet would support the USA.  After is invasion of Kuwait Saddam was highly unpopular and both Russia and China were rather in disarray in 1991.  Nowadays, I very much doubt that the international community would stand by another decade of genocidal sanctions against another Gulf state.

Third, this hypothesis assumes that Iran is just as "invadible" as Iraq, but one look at a demographic and economic report and map of Iran will tell you that Iran is a full order of magnitude tougher to crack than Iraq.

Fourth, Iraq had no allies.  At the very least, Iran can count on Hezbollah and the various Shia parties in Iraq who have all unambiguously and repeatedly indicated that they would not stand by an attack on Iran and that they would do their duty.

Lastly, while at least initially the Iraqi Shia and the Iraqi Kurds were happy to see Saddam overthrown, the Iranian Kurds, Arabs, Azeris or Sunnis do not have the potential, or even desire, to turn into a 5th column for an invading US force.

And yet, Shurygin is not saying that this plan is doable or even that it makes sense.  All he is saying is that the US leaders might contemplate such a two-staged "final solution" to Iran's problem.  And here I must agree.

I have a very low opinion of the intelligence and education of the US leaders and I know how easily they like to delude themselves into believing that there is a simple solution to any problem. Add to this that the USA is basically run by the Zionist lobby which is very correctly referred to as composed of "Israel Firsters" i.e., folks who will sacrifice the USA without any hesitation for the presumed interests of Israel, and Shurygin's hypothesis becomes disturbingly credible, no?

The Saker

What does the civil war in Syria really mean for Iran, Russia and China?

I was recently asked by a reader to update two of my past articles, Iran's asymmetrical response options and For Israel war is the continuation of national suicide by other means, and that is an excellent idea, considering that the first one was written in 2007 and the second one in 2010.  I did touch upon these issues in a more recent article, Iran in the crosshair again, which does to a certain degree update the former two, but this might be a good time to look at the big picture of what is taking place and try to get a feel for where it all might be headed.  If the three above mentioned articles (which I recommend you read - if you have not already -  before reading on further) looked at the possible outcomes of an attack on Iran primarily from a military point of view, it might be interesting to look at where the most changes have occurred: in the political field.  After all, military conflicts never take place in a vacuum and, if anything, the war in Kosovo has shown that the side which militarily "wins" (the Serbs) can at the same time loose politically.  So let's look at what the major political shifts are not from the point of view of some reporter sitting in Los Angeles or Rome, but from the point of view of Iran and Israel.

The creation of an anti-Shia front:

The outcome of the war in Iraq and the de-facto takeover of Iraqi politics by Shia parties as resulted in "push-back" reaction in many Sunni Arab states, in particular in Bahrain and Syria.  The behind-the-scenes but direct involvement of Gulf States like Qatar in the war in Libya and the transformation of the Arab League into a "US/NATO invitation committee" clearly shows that the rich oil sheikdoms are becoming concerned and have decided to counter what they perceive as the "Shia crescent's" threat.

But let's remind ourselves of what we are talking about here: the Shia crescent is nothing else but a list of countries where the Shia have been systematically and brutally repressed and excluded from the political process either by secularist (Shah in Iran, Saddam in Iraq), Wahabi zealots (Bahrain, Saudi Arabia) or a mix of both (Lebanon).

It also happens that these are the parts of the Middle-East in which most oil can be found.

In other words, the Shia crescent is nothing else but the territories where the Western Empires have used local Sunni proxies to oppress and impoverish the majority population while stealing their natural wealth.  This is what all this nonsense about the "terrorist Mullahs" and the "Shia threat" really is designed to conceal: that the Shia, inspired by Iran and Hezbollah, are engaged in a national liberation struggle which threatens all those billionaires which have been in bed with the British, the USA and the Israelis since day one.

Everywhere you look, Sunni leaders, and in particular of the Wahabi type, have been working hand-in-hand with the Zio-American interests, even at the clear detriment of the interests of the local Muslim population (Balkans, Caucasus, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.).  Oh sure, there are regular clashes between the US and various Wahabi groups worldwide, but they are tactical, local, in nature.  In the big picture the West and the Wahabis have always walked in lockstep with each other (as seen recently in the case of Libya).

And don't let the fact that the Shia mostly deny all this deceive you: that denial of the obvious reality is an old Shia survival technique destined to blame any Shia-Sunni tensions on any and all conceivable causes but the obvious one: the religious one.  I think that this is a very misguided approach, but it has been historically the one most Shia have chosen: Shias much rather believe themselves to be a part of the big Islamic "Ummah" than to contemplate the outright distressing possibility that most of the Muslim world is hostile towards them (which is what the historical record shows).

The civil war in Syria really brought it all out in the open and if in the past one could debate the putative successes of Iranian diplomacy with its Gulf neighbors and the various smiles and hugs it resulted in, but the fact is that Iran's neighbors are now all joining forces against it.  Even Turkey, which tends to be cautious in its policies towards Iran is now fully involved in the external intervention in Syria, which is another bad sign for Iran.

As for Hezbollah, it always new that all the Arab and Sunni expressions of support for its causes were just that - empty words, lip-service to the personal popularity of Hassan Nasrallah, but that in reality Hezbollah had no other friend or ally except Iran.  In his famous 2006 "Divine Victory speech" Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah said the following:

The people of Lebanon gave strong proof to all the peoples of the world. The Lebanese resistance provided strong proof to all Arab and Islamic armies. Arab armies and peoples are not only able to liberate Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem, they are simply capable of regaining Palestine from sea to river by one small decision and with some determination. The problem is that when one is torn between two choices and is asked to choose between his people and his throne, he chooses his throne. When he is asked to choose between Jerusalem and his throne, he chooses his throne. When he is asked to choose between the dignity of his homeland and his throne, he chooses his throne.  What is distinct about the resistance movements in Lebanon and Palestine is that they chose the dignity of their people, holy places, and freedom and offer their leaders, sons, and dear ones as sacrifices to join the throne of God Almighty.

These words are a direct slap in the face of all the hapless Sunni and secular (Baathist) Arab leaders who literally for decades drowned the world in fiery speeches and yet have never achieved anything: from the Wahabi fat cats of the Gulf, to the Masonic Baath (corrected typo) Phalangist leaders of Lebanon, to the "progressive/popular" secular leftists leaders of the various Palestinian factions, none of them ever managed to scure even a modest victory against Israel.  Compare that to the Shia who defeated the USA in Iran, then defeated the USA again in Iraq, and then defeated Israel's four brigades, three reserve divisions and entire Air Force and Navy with roughly one thousand second rate Hezbollah soldiers (the best Hezbollah fighters were all kept north of the Litani river).  What Hassan Nasrallah is saying is this: the reason why the Arab and Islamic world was always defeated is because it was lead by unworthy leaders who care about their thrones more than anything else.  Such talk is tantamount to a death threat to all these leaders and they are now "circling the wagons" under the protection of Uncle Sam and his Israeli overlords to stop the Shia liberation movement.

The USA as re-grouped and has Iran surrounded:

Juan Cole has recently published a map of US bases all around Iran which really says it all:

What this map is not showing is how the spread of force levels has changed since, say, 2007.  Nor does it show to what degree the US lines of supply have become shorter (in Afghanistan) or disappeared all together (Basra is no more a key transit area).  While there still is an important US presence in Iraq, most of it via its huge mercenary forces, the bulk of the US Army combat units has been withdrawn to safer locations and is now available for deployment.

That still leaves plenty of US bases as potential targets of an Iranian retaliatory missile strike, but at least the Iraqi Shia allies of Iran have less of a chance to easily hit US military personal in Iraq.

Finally, should the USA decide to mount a sustained campaign of air and missiles strikes against Iran, it now has the regional resources to to so.  Iran is now as surrounded as Kosovo was.

The civil war in Syria as the litmus test of Western power:

I have said that many times already, and I will say it again: I despise the Baathist regime of Assad Jr. almost as much as I despised the regime of his father. To me, what is happening to Assad today is exactly what happened to Gaddafi, Saddam, Noriega and so many faithful servants of the US Empire who have been dumped by their American masters as soon as they became useless. Assad, specifically, was all to willing to torture 'suspects' 'rendered' to him by the US CIA and there is no doubt in my mind that his regime let Israeli agents kill Imad Mughniyah.  And, of course, Assad is yet another example of a leader who only cares about his "throne" to use Hassan Nasrallah's expression, and who will do anything to hold on to it.  So please don't mistake any of what I say below as a defense of Assad or his regime.

Just as was the case with the anti-Gaddafi forces in Libya, there is no doubt in my mind that the anti-Assad forces are nothing but US/NATO puppets, from the diplomatic prostitutes of the Arab League, to the Wahabi snipers in Homs, to all the doubleplusgoodthinking "humanitarians" who flood the Internet with crocodile tears about the civilians victims in Syria but who strenuously fail to say anything about the butchery of the Bahraini Shia.  

Libya provided this bizarre hodge-podge of wannabe humanitarians with a grand rehearsal for their current operation, the big difference that Gaddafi and his sons were clueless clowns whereas Assad seems to be a more sophisticated player.  That, and the fact that the Alawi and Christian communities are probably terrified of what will happen to them if the Wahabis take power in Syria, makes Assad a tougher opponent than Gaddafi.

What makes things worse in Syria is that is has the misfortune of being at a strategic crossroads of the entire Middle-East and that is plays a crucial role not only for Iran, but even more so for Hezbollah.  That, in turn, means that the "throne-loving" leaders of the Middle-East, the US/NATO and the Israelis all see in the civil war in Syria the perfect opportunity to deal a sever blow to their Shia enemies.  Hence the toxic "sacred alliance" against the Assad regime, all in the name of democracy and human rights, of course...

I can't call the outcome of this civil war yet.  There are too many variables and too many possible developments.  My personal feeling is that the fate of the Assad regime might well be decided in Moscow and Beijing as I don't see the Assad regime indefinitely resisting against the combined onslaught of all the forces arrayed against it.  As for Iran, it also does not have the political weight necessary to save Assad from eventually loosing power.

In contrast, Russia and China have enough weight, in particular in the form of money, to throw around to strongly influence the events on the ground, but will they do so?  That, at least for me, is the big question.

So far Russia and China have a checkered record at best, which includes the betrayal of Iran and Libya at the UNSC, but which also includes the recent veto of the anti-Syrian resolution at the UNSC as well as numerous statements that no military action against Iran is acceptable to them. 

I think that many people are making way too much over the recent visit of the Russian mini carrier group (one aircraft carrier, one frigate, four tankers, one tug and two corvettes) to the Syrian port of Tartus.  This was very much a political visit, scheduled a long time ago, and not at all the deployment of a real task force to "defend the Assad regime" against any US or NATO attack.  In fact, the Russia flotilla was a mix of Northern Fleet and Baltic Fleet vessels whose area of responsibility does not include the Mediterranean.  Yes, it is true that the Russian Navy would be interested in having a permanent base in Tartus, but this would be a re-supply and maintenance base, and not at all a military base designed to project Russian military power in the region, much less so intervene in internal Syrian political strife.  So let's make something absolutely unequivocally clear: neither Russia nor China will ever use military means to oppose a US/NATO intervention anywhere in the world unless it is against Russian or Chinese territory or forces.  Those who believe otherwise are dreaming.

This being said, its not the Russian or Chinese military power which might influence the outcome of the civil war in Syria, but Russian and Chinese "soft-power", mainly in the form of money: in the form of official loans, of course, but also by means of behind the scenes pay-offs and bribes of various key actors, combined with technical assistance to the regime, and diplomatic pressure on the West (Russia and China do have excellent political "levers" which they could potentially use against the West).  What is not so clear to me is whether Russia and China are willing to use much of their capital (financial and/or political) to save this weak, corrupt and untrustworthy regime from collapsing.

Sure, for Iran and Hezbollah a collapse of the Assad regime would be a disaster, but for Russia or China?

Looking at even the bigger picture, would even a US/Israeli war on Iran be a disaster for Russia and China?

The sad reality is that, at least so far, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and, even more so, the Collective Security Organization (CSO) have failed to live up to the idea of being a counter-weight to NATO and the US.  NATO has the huge advantage of being an organization totally controlled and operated by the USA, with the rest of the Alliance playing the role of a symbolic fig-leaf concealing the ugly fact that the Europe is a US colony.  In military terms, NATO is just another combined joined task force operated by the US military.  The SCO has two independent heavyweights, Russia and China, who remain in many ways suspicious of each other and who both want to retain their full independence.  The CSO is much more Russian controlled, but that also means that it has a much smaller, strictly regional, role and importance.

The US therefore enjoys the immense advantage of having a fully integrated NATO as the cornerstone of its imperial project, supported by a list of local entities (Arab League) all capable of acting in full unison once the order is given by Uncle Sam (or his Zionist overlords).  Add to this an immense and sophisticated propaganda machine, the Western corporate media, and you come to the inevitable conclusion that there is nobody out there who can really stand up to the US/Israeli Empire and make it back down.  Oh sure, the Russians did make the US and NATO back down over Georgia in 2008, but the Russians were actually willing to have a full scale war with NATO and the US over this issue, whereas most leader is the West did not give a damn about Georgia or Saakashvili.  Like in Chechnia, the West would have preferred to win, but a small loss was really no big deal for them.

I am afraid that the exact same logic, but in reverse, might be applied to Syria and Iran: whereas the West, fully controlled by Zionists interests, is hell-bent on a confrontation with Syria and Iran, the Russians and Chinese are show very little desire to really take a firm stand on this issue.  Syria is not in the South China Sea or the Caucasus and its economy is too small to really matter to Moscow and Beijing.  In contrast, Iran is awfully close to the Russian Caucasus and a war involving Iran might have a spillover effect on the Russian southern border.  Not only that, but Iran's economy is far more important to Russia and China, so my guess is that there would be far more willingness in Russia and China to prevent the West from returning Iran into its sphere of influence than to do much about Syria.

And yet, consider this: if my 2007 analysis is still correct and the USA and Israel cannot 'win' in Iran, at least not in the sense of achieving regime change, and if Syria does not really matter enough to Moscow and Beijing, is there any rationale at all for direct Russian or Chinese intervention in either conflict (other than the usual loud protests and other expressions of outrage at the UN?).

Conclusion: an international anti-Shia coalition

First, it appears that an international anti-Shia coalition has been successfully formed by the USA in its efforts to support Israel.  The primary aim of this coalition is to weaken Iran's influence in the Middle-East by all possible means.  Second, the USA is now in a much safer position than it was in 2007 to be able to respond to an Israeli strike on Iran or even to launch a missile and air campaign of its own.  Third, there are as of now no signs that Russia or China are willing to directly intervene to save the Assad regime in Syria.  In the case of Iran, since regime-change is probably not achievable in the first place, there is not clear rationale for a direct Russian or Chinese intervention in a possible war between Israel, the US and Iran.

If the above is correct, that leaves Iran and, even more so, Hezbollah, in a very difficult position.  One could say that they are the victims of their own successes, Iran in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon.  In this context, I think that it is fair to say that the Assad regime has proven to be a fantastic liability for both Iran and Hezbollah, and that suggests a possible solution to this problem: the replacement of Assad and his band of highly secularized minions by some regime more committed to the Iran-Hezbollah alliance.  The problem with that is that unlike the Shia of Bahrain or Iraq, the Shia in Syria are a minority (13% split into three factions) and that the Alawis are tainted by the role in the Assad regime. So where would such a leader come from?

Syria always was the weak link of the Iran-Hezbollah alliance, and most definitely the weak link of the so-called "Shia crescent".  By striking there the West has correctly identified this civil war as a low-cost operation (for itself, of course, not for the Syrian people) with very high potential rewards and it is now using all its power to win this battle.

Iran and Hezbollah might want to take heed of the US expression, "hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and settle for anything in the middle" and pray that the worst, whatever that may be, does not happen in Syria.  Still, it remains highly likely that once the dust settles in Syria, both Iran and Hezbollah will find themselves in far weaker and vulnerable situation than before the conflict began.

And Israel in all that?  The fact that I did not mention it at all in this analysis should not be taken as meaning that it is irrelevant to these processes.  Israel is crucial to it all since it is on Israel's behalf that the entire US policy in the Middle-East is conducted.  Let me repeat this: the grand purpose of the entire Imperial operation against the Shia is to help Israel deal with Iran and Hezbollah.  The question remains, of course, whether the Israeli leadership is willing to listen to reason and stay put while the Americans are doing their bidding, or whether they will commit yet another folly and strike at Iran with no possible hope to achieve anything tangible (other than feeling good about themselves).

I would say that the past record clearly shows that the Israelis have never missed an opportunity to do something stupid, and that this time, pushed by, on one hand, their own rhetoric and, on the other, their belief that they can get Uncle Sam to rescue them from even a self-created disaster, they will end up attacking Iran probably sooner, than later.

The Saker

Congress pushes iran regime change over diplomacy

Commentary: Amazing interview, isn't it?  Read between the lines and think about it: what is Wilkerson *really* saying?  He is saying that the entire US political establishment, the entire US polity, is completely controlled by, and powerless against, the Israel Lobby.  Even though many politicians and government officials fully understand that the USA is headed towards a disastrous war against Iran, they are unable to do anything to prevent that outcome.

The only global superpower is headed towards a disastrous war solely because of foreign lobby has taken complete and undisrupted control over it.  Absolutely amazing, IMHO.

Call it the Israel Lobby, call it the Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC), call it the Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG) or call it by some super politically correct expression ("our beloved Jewish overlords" (OBJO)?), the reality is the same: the US has lost its sovereignty and is now controlled, fully, by a foreign power, whose interests are diametrically opposed to the national interests of the USA.

How can anybody deny this now self-evident fact?

The Saker

Will Netanyahu Use US Elections to Push Obama into Iran War?

Why Did Defense Secretary Panetta Say Iran Not Building Nukes?

LEON PANETTA, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No, but we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that's what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is: do not develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us.

BOB SCHIEFFER, FACE THE NATION (CBS): What would happen if Israel does decide to take this matter into its own hands? And what would be our reaction and response to that?

PANETTA: If the Israelis made that decision, we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation. And that's what we'd be concerned about.

Iran in the crosshair again?

I am sure you all have followed it.  From Panetta's threats about Iran crossing a "red line", to the saber-rattling of pretty much all the Republicans except Ron Paul, to the Israel's lobby renewed efforts to get the US to not only impose illegal sanctions against Iran, but to actually attack it.

So is this really going to happen?

Last time it appeared that Iran was about to be attacked - in 2007 - I wrote a piece entitled "Iran's asymmetrical response options" in which I took a look at the various forms a US/Israel attack could take and what Iran could do about it.  While this analysis is still basically correct, the circumstances have changed rather dramatically in several key aspects since 2007.

First and foremost, the US has withdrawn the bulk of its forces from Iraq and has consolidated its remaining forces.  This means that not only will the Iranians have far fewer targets to attack inside Iraq, it also means that the most exposed lines of resupply through the Basra region have now been abandoned.  This is huge.

Second, with the withdrawal of the bulk of the US forces from Iraq, there are more troops available for operations against Iran.

Third, the US Air Force does not have to play its role of "airborne protector" of US troops in Iraq, meaning that its assets are now available for other operations.

Fourth, NATO, the eternal slave of the USA, is now heavily involved in Afghanistan and that, in turn, means that NATO assets are also available for any US attack on Iran.  You can count on the likes of Sarkozy to send 10-20 Rafales to attack Iran just to prove that France is a "great" country...

Bottom line: the US is far better positioned to attack Iran in 2012 than it was in 2007.

Unlike many other analysts, I do not believe that Iran has the capability to block the Strait of Hormuz.  Or let me put it this way: yes, Iran can sink a number of ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz, but the USA does have the means to wrestle the control of this strait back from the Iranians by force.

Worse, should the Iranians attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz it would give the USA a perfect pretext to wage war on Iran under the guise of "guaranteeing the freedom of navigation and commerce in international waters" and "not letting the Mullah's take the rest of the planet hostage". Frankly, I hope that the Iranians will be smart enough not to fall into this trap.

Iran would have the option of attacking US forces in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and other countries, but the problem with that is that this could be presented by the Imperial corporate media as a "Shia attack against the Sunni".  My personal opinion is that as long as the USA and Israel attack Iran the majority of the Muslim world will see that as an infidel attack on the Muslim ummah, but any Iranian counter-attack on US basis in majority Sunni countries will inevitably rekindle sectarian tensions, much to the advantage of the USraelian Empire.

As for the "raining missiles down on Israel" option, I did not like it in 2007 and I still don't like it.  I oppose symbolic military operations on principle.  Militarily speaking, hitting back with missiles at Israel will bring no advantage to Iran, so what is the point?

Frankly, I believe that the best option for Iran is to simply ride out the attack and make the USA and Israel pay a painful political price for their attack.  After all, how much damage can the USA and Israel really inflict on Iran?

The Zionists (US and Israeli) can definitely hit a large section of the Iranian civilian and research nuclear program.  And it can be rebuilt.

More painfully, the Zionists might use this strike to kill a number of key Iranian scientists.  Such scientists are far more precious than any installation and I hope that Iran will do a better job protecting them than it did in the past (many have been killed in assassinations).

No doubt, the Zionists are capable of destroying a large part of the Iranian air defense system and several key naval ships (surface and submarines).

Finally, we can count on the Zionists to attempt to kill key members of the Iranian leadership, but considering similar efforts in the past (Nasrallah, Saddam), they are unlikely to succeed in this effort.

Now, if the Iranians strike back it will give the Zionists an excuse for a much more sustained campaign.  But if the Iranians only reply with political measures, it will make it much more difficult for the Zionists to sustain and air strikes campaign similar to what they did in Kosovo or Libya.

Anyway, whatever option Iran chooses a Zionist attack on Iran is inevitable.  Not because anybody in Israel or the USA seriously believes that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, but because both countries have gone far to far in their rhetoric and saber-rattling.  Not to strike at Iran at this point in time is tantamount to surrender.

Don't be deceived and mislead by all the rational arguments against a strike on Iran.  Remember that these are the folks who brought you two of the most embarrassing military defeats in modern history (Lebanon in 2006 and Georgia in 2008), which have lost the war in Iraq, are loosing the war in Afghanistan and which are now elated by their apparent 'victory' against Libya.  They are evil enough to do 9/11 and stupid enough to deploy anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe!

So make no mistake, the attack on Iran will happen, sooner or later.

The Saker

IAEA Iran Report Spins Intelligence

Deluge of articles about a possible Israeli attack on Iran

• Haaretz poll: Israelis evenly split over attacking Iran
• Iran says united and 'ready for war' with Israel
• Iran military head warns of 'heavy damage' should Israel attack
• Decision to attack Iran must be made with a clear mind
• UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears
• US fears uncoordinated Israeli strike on Iran
• Halper: Israel may attack Iran so that we won’t hear the word ‘Palestinian’ for another 5 years
• Netanyahu trying to persuade cabinet to support attack on Iran
• Let’s bomb Iran: old song, new lyrics
• US planning Iran attack? Tehran ready for worst

Senior WP editor calls for war with Iran to rescue US economy

A truly seminal editorial by David Salzer Broder in the Washington Post:

-------
The war recovery?

David S. Broder
Sunday, October 31, 2010; Washington Post A27

When the midterm election cycle began, the prevailing opinion was that Barack Obama was cleverer and more inspirational than anyone else on the scene. As it ends, nothing appears to have changed.

OH, YES, I know that Democrats have fallen into a peck of trouble and may lose control of Congress. But even if they do, Obama can still storm back to win a second term in 2012. He is that much better than the competition.

In what respects is he enduringly superior? Let's start with the basics. He is much smarter than his challengers in either party, better able to read the evidence and come to the right conclusions.

Over time, his conclusions are likely to stand scrutiny better than those of other politicians.

The crucial case in point is his analysis of economic forces. No one would pretend that this is anything but a daunting situation. The nation is suffering simultaneously from high and persistent unemployment, lagging investment, massive public and private debt, and a highly inefficient tax system.

The steps that have been ordered so far in Washington have done nothing more than put the brakes on the runaway decline. They have not spurred new growth.

But if Obama cannot spur that growth by 2012, he is unlikely to be reelected. The lingering effects of the recession that accompanied him to the White House will probably doom him.

Can Obama harness the forces that might spur new growth? This is the key question for the next two years.

What are those forces? Essentially, there are two. One is the power of the business cycle, the tidal force that throughout history has dictated when the economy expands and when it contracts.

Economists struggle to analyze this, but they almost inevitably conclude that it cannot be rushed and almost resists political command. As the saying goes, the market will go where it is going to go.

In this regard, Obama has no advantage over any other pol. Even in analyzing the tidal force correctly, he cannot control it.

What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy.

Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.
-------

Some people are simply and plainly *evil*.  Folks lie Broder (or his mentor Kissinger for that matter).   The really interesting question is this: once the attack on Iran turns into a disaster (and it will, you can bet on that) will the Israel lobby again deny that it had anything to do with causing the war on Iran just as it now denies having had anything to do with the invasion of Iraq?

The Saker

Americans for Peace Now interviews Yossi Alpher - ex IDF and Mossad analyst

Americans for Peace Now interviews ex IDF and Mossad analyst Yossi Alpher:

Alpher answers questions about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program, and the status of Israeli civil-military relations.

Q. Jeffrey Goldberg's "Atlantic" article on the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program is causing quite a stir. What's your take?

Yossi Alpher

A. The article contains a lot of interesting perspectives and is worth a read. But I believe Goldberg inadvertently exaggerates or misunderstands a number of issues.

First, he cites the consensus assessment of the 40-some Israeli decision-makers, past and present, that he spoke with, to the effect that "there is a better than 50 percent chance that Israel will launch a strike by next July", then adds, "They were not part of some public-relations campaign." I beg to differ; they were. Most of these people knew exactly whom they were talking to and how influential he is in certain circles in Washington. Most of them without a doubt believe that it is possible to influence President Obama's ultimate decision--if and when sanctions fail--as to whether the US itself should attack Iran. They understand (as Goldberg himself notes) that the US can do the job far better than Israel and that an Israeli attack not coordinated with Washington that Goldberg writes about would be disastrous for Israel's relations with the US as well as the rest of the world. 

So, some or all of Goldberg's interviewees didn't "lay it on thick" for him in an effort to increase the pressure on both Iran and Washington? That's a naive supposition. After all, as Goldberg recognizes, the Israeli strategy for dealing with Iran is premised on the need to persuade the international community to deal with Iran as an international, not just Israeli, problem. Goldberg's article is one more tool for achieving this objective.

Second, had Goldberg spoken to Iran experts and not just "decision-makers", whether in Israel or the US, he would have heard that, overall, the Iranian leadership (and not just President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad) for the most part is not based on "a messianic apocalyptic cult" as Netanyahu is quoted as opining and that the messianic types are not at the center of Iranian decision-making. And those Iran experts, including in IDF and Mossad intelligence, can be expected to have a say in any decision to attack Iran. It is no accident that current IDF Chief of Staff Gaby Ashkenazi is described by Goldberg as being skeptical about the wisdom of an attack.

Third, largely because of his father, PM Binyamin Netanyahu is described by Goldberg as being "different" in that (quoting Israel's ambassador in Washington, Michael Oren), "He has a deep sense of his role in Jewish history." Well, so had every Israeli prime minister in the country's history. With or without his father's influence, Netanyahu is neither more nor less committed to preventing another Holocaust than was Levi Eshkol, Golda Meir, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir or Yitzhak Rabin.

Then there is the argument, attributed by Goldberg to Ehud Barak and Ephraim Sneh, that if Israel is obliged to live under an Iranian nuclear threat, the country will suffer a huge brain drain and effectively wither away. I don't buy it. To his credit, neither does Goldberg. Reading between the lines of his article, he didn't hear this from most of his Israeli interlocutors. Accordingly, this certainly should not have been alluded to by Goldberg as a compelling reason to go to war.

On the other hand, what Goldberg does not talk about is that an Israeli decision to coexist with an Iranian nuclear threat would oblige Israel to raise its own nuclear profile. Could this conceivably generate a stable balance of mutually assured destruction that might be preferable to a destructive war? Goldberg doesn't ask.

Then there is a second area of Israeli thinking about war with Iran that Goldberg has neglected. This is unfortunate, because it is important for both Israelis and Americans to punch holes in it. More than three decades after the Islamic revolution in Iran, there are some prominently placed Israelis who actually believe an attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure would somehow bring down the ayatollahs' regime and restore the "good guys" to power in Tehran. This is a dangerous case of nostalgia for the periphery doctrine of Israel's early decades, when we made common cause with Iran, Turkey and other non-Arabs or non-Muslims in the region against Arab nationalism and aggression driven by Nasserism. 

Israel's current outrage at Turkey's regional policies is another instance of poorly controlled periphery-nostalgia. Today, Israel's primary enemy is militant Islam as embodied in non-Arab and non-state actors in the region. The Arabs are potential allies, though due to the weakness of the Arab state system this doesn't mean much. One way or another, there is every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would only strengthen the Iranian regime. Certainly, regime-change in Tehran should not be a factor in Israeli or American decision-making concerning an attack on Iran.

Q. Can you yourself conceive of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure?

A. Yes, but only if all the following conditions are fulfilled, some of which Goldberg seemingly ignores or underestimates:

1. The regime in Tehran continues to call for Israel's destruction.

2. The Iranian nuclear program is crossing a "red line" and the timetable for obtaining the capacity to attack Israel with nuclear weapons has become extremely short.

3. All international efforts based on diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions are understood unequivocally to have failed.

4. All clandestine efforts to slow the Iranian program (which have apparently been very effective over the past 15 years) are understood to have failed.

5. It is clear to Israel that neither the US nor any other international actor is prepared to deal militarily with Iran. If possible, Israel obtains at least a "yellow light" from the US.

6. Israel has safe physical access for its aircraft via one or more of the countries separating it from Iran.

7. An Israeli attack can set back the Iranian military nuclear program for a significant period of time.

8. A sober cost-benefit analysis persuades Israeli planners that the benefit of significantly damaging the Iranian program outweighs the very heavy potential ancillary costs of the strike: rocket attacks on Israel from the north and south and missile attacks from Iran; regional and international outrage and isolation; an historic crisis in Israeli-American relations; dangers to Diaspora Jewish communities from terrorist attack; etc.

If indeed, all these conditions are fulfilled at some time in the future, I can imagine any Israeli leader, even one who hails from the left or center and whose father is not Ben Zion Netanyahu, concluding that the future of the Jewish people and certainly of the Jewish state rests on his/her shoulders.

But we are not there, and are not likely to be there next spring.

Q. One of the subtexts of your analysis above is civil-military relations in Israel. Civil-military tensions appear to have surfaced in the course of the Turkel commission investigation into the Gaza flotilla incident and, separately, concerning the "Galant document". Can you elaborate on the ramifications?

A. In the course of the past ten days, the Israeli public has indeed witnessed two very graphic and troublesome illustrations of the tensions inherent in the country's civil-military relations. Of course, such tensions exist in virtually every country that has an army. But because Israel is on a near-constant war footing, they are particularly sensitive and significant in its case.

In the Turkel commission investigation of the mistakes and misjudgments involved in the violent interception of the Mavi Marmara last May 31, the public testimony offered last week by the leading figures in that drama was disturbing. Essentially, PM Binyamin Netanyahu placed responsibility on the shoulders of Defense Minister Barak and absolved his own informal decision-making body, the "Cabinet of Seven", of having discussed anything but public-relations aspects of the affair. Then Barak testified that the Cabinet of Seven had discussed operational aspects in great detail, but he nevertheless dumped most of the responsibility on the IDF. 

Both leaders made a lot of irrelevant remarks, too, about international terrorism and the like, as if seeking to overwhelm the commission and whitewash their failures. In passing the buck of responsibility, they seemed to be unaware of their constitutional responsibilities regarding national-security decision-making. Moreover, that neither Netanyahu nor Barak realized that IDF intelligence, naval intelligence and the Mossad were not working in tandem on understanding the aggressive nature of the flotilla activists is surprising and disappointing. Nor was mention made by them of the National Security Council, which was set up specifically to coordinate inter-agency planning for operations like this. 

Within a day of their testimony, when Netanyahu and Barak became aware that in the public eye they were understood to be passing the buck of responsibility, their PR advisers sought to spin their testimony to make it look better--which only made them look worse. 

Then along came IDF Chief of Staff Gaby Ashkenazy and lived up to his far more credible image in the public eye by humbly taking full responsibility. He even avoided pointing the finger at Israel Navy commander Eli ("Chiny") Marom, though the latter undoubtedly bears a good part of the blame for the botched operation. 

But then Ashkenazy made a remark that underlined the entire problematic nature, particularly for civil-military relations in Israel, of the Marmara operation. The lesson he has drawn from the unfortunate bloodshed, he stated, is that next time around, the IDF should employ snipers to take out the thugs waiting on deck for the naval commandos to land. That's all. As if, from Ashkenazy's standpoint, the only problem being investigated is how the commandos landed directly into a lethal brawl. As if the IDF is unaware that combating a variety of non-state Islamist antagonists in the twenty-first century requires a far-reaching rethinking of its tactics.

It is generally understood that the Turkel commission was appointed by Netanyahu as an alibi for avoiding an international investigation of the flotilla affair and that, accordingly, the prime minister severely limited its mandate and manned it with three "geriatric" personalities (and two international observers). Meanwhile, Netanyahu has been obliged to acquiesce in an investigation sponsored by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Worse (for the prime minister), Justice Turkel has surprised many by demanding an expanded mandate and adding two (slightly younger) commissioners. (He also now faces a High Court demand that, in accordance with Israeli law, he appoint a female commissioner too; but that's a different story.)

The best thing Turkel could do now is to further expand the focus of his investigation to where it should have been all along: not asking "who gave the order?" or "how would you do it better next time?" but rather inquiring as to how we ended up enforcing an economic embargo on the Gaza Strip, primarily on land but also by sea, that was clearly counterproductive at least a year before the flotilla incident. That is a question that concerns only Israel's civilian echelon and one that it obviously would rather not deal with. But the answer would go a long way toward explaining how we got into the flotilla mess in the first place.

This is not likely to happen. Instead, the Turkel commission will, at best, end up releasing a list of persuasive measures that should be taken to repair a faulty government decision-making process regarding issues of national security and to improve civil-military relations in Israel. As such, it will follow in the footsteps of the Agranat commission that investigated the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and the Winograd commission that investigated the 2006 Second Lebanon War. Not a lot has changed in government strategic decision-making since those problematic wars and the important recommendations they generated.

Turning to the "Galant document", we encounter the presentation of a set of PR measures, many of them mendacious and nasty, that a well-known Israeli PR firm ostensibly recommends be adopted clandestinely to advance the candidacy of Major General Yoav Galant, currently OC Southern Command, for the job of IDF commander-in-chief (Ashkenazy's replacement). The document was leaked to the media ten days ago. Both Galant and the PR firm deny any connection to it and allege it to be a counterfeit attempt to make mischief. 

The entire issue is relevant because Defense Minister Ehud Barak, whose poor relations with Ashkenazy are public knowledge, has decided that the popular and generally successful chief of staff will not serve a fifth year and that his replacement will be chosen not three months in advance, as usual, but six months, thereby turning Ashkenazy into a lame duck and severely constraining his capacity to make senior appointments. Moreover, Galant is thought to be Barak's preferred candidate.

Why would an Israeli general seeking advancement within the IDF need a PR firm? Who has an interest in "spinning" this or any other candidate? Can the relations among Barak, IDF generals and the army of civilian "consultants", lobbyists and spin doctors in the civilian sector that live off politics conceivably be deemed healthy? The attorney general has decided to investigate. Meanwhile, Barak has been instructed to put on hold the process of prematurely choosing a new IDF chief of staff.
-------
Commentary: as with Gareth Porter's article, Yossi Alpher makes a very interesting case, yet I am still convinced that Israel will attack Iran and that the USA will fully support such an attack.  Porter and Alpher focus on the rationale of logical and rational people - but the presence of such people in Israel did nothing to prevent flaming idiots like Olmert and his cabinet from attacking Hezbollah in 2006 even though it was absolutely clear from day 1 to any military expert that this operation would result in a disaster.  The same socio-political mechanisms which resulted in the 2006 war as still present today, both in Tel Aviv and the White House.


Make no mistake - the aggression on Iran is on, even if this is a totally crazy thing to do.


The Saker