This article was written for the Unz Review: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/u-s-against-iran-a-war-of-apples-vs-oranges/
One of the most frustrating tasks is to try to debunk the Hollywood myths imprinted on the mind of Americans about warfare in general and about special forces and technology in particular. When last week I wrote my column about the first SNAFUs of the Trump Presidency I pretty much expected that some of the points I made would fall on deaf ears and that indeed did happen. What I propose to do today is to try, yet again, to explain the vast difference between what I would call “the American way of war” as seen in propaganda movies and the reality of warfare.
Let’s begin by the issue of the use of special operation forces and immediately say what they are not: special operation forces are not SWAT or anti-terrorist forces. The US propaganda machine has imprinted on the mind of people in the West that if a force is “elite” and looks “tacti-cool” it is some kind of special force. By that criteria, even some riot cops could be considered as “special forces”. This is, by the way, not only an American sin. The Russians have gone down the exact same ridiculous road and now you have “spetsnaz” forces all over Russia – even the Russian equivalent of the US department of correction which now has “spetsnaz” forces to deal with prison riots! Likewise, the famous anti-terrorist unit “A” (mistakenly called “Alpha” as opposed to the US “Delta”) is exactly that – an anti-terrorist unit and not a military special force. So what are, stricto sensu, special forces? They are a military force which participates to the overall war effort but autonomously and not in direct support of the main/conventional fighting force. Depending on the country and service, special forces can deal with a variety to tasks ranging from providing “advisors” to what Americans call direct action operation such as the recent ill-fated attack on the al-Qaeda compound in Yemen. Just like airborne forces, special forces have often been misused, especially when conventional forces could not be counted on, but that does not mean that SWAT and anti-terrorist forces should be thought of as “special forces”. Special forces are always military forces and they operate in support of military operations.
[Sidebar: some American readers who where miffed by my assertions that US special forces have a terrible real-life record have tried to counter with a logically fallacious argument: what about Russian special forces, are they any better? Examples given where Beslan, Nord-Ost and Budennovsk. There are two problems with this argument: one, none of these events can be considered as “special operations” and, two, even if the Russian special forces have a terrible record, this hardly means that the US special forces’ record is good or, even less so, better. Besides, these three tragedies are totally different. The Budennovsk hospital hostage crisis was, indeed, a total disaster which occurred against the backdrop of another total disaster, the First Chechen war, and which resulted in 130 dead civilians out of a total of about 2000. That is a 93.5% of hostages which survived. Considering that the civilians political authorities were arguably the worst in Russian history and considering that the hostage takers were well over 100 hardened Chechen terrorists, I think that this is not the “disaster” that civilians like to think of. Next, let’s look at Beslan. Here we have well over 1000 hostages when 385 fatalities – much more of a “disaster” indeed. But let’s remember what happened that day: a bomb, apparently one of the biggest one held in the sports hall, blew up which resulted in local civilians (parents) spontaneously storming the school. At this point, the anti-terror forces simply joined in to save as many people as possible and many of them died by shielding the kids with the own bodies. There is simply no way that Beslan can be blamed on Russian anti-terrorist forces. As for Nord-Ost, this is one of the most successful hostage rescue operation in history: about 900 hostages are taken by about 45 terrorists. As a result of the operation, all of the civilians are freed, all of the terrorists are killed and all the anti-terrorist troops survived. Not a single bomb was detonated. However, the tragedy happened after the operation when the medical services simply did not have enough manpower to revive the freed hostages, some of whom even died in buses on the way to medical care. In theory, every single one of these hostages had undergone a full anesthesia (without being intubated) and every single one of them needed to be revived by a medical team. In their worst nightmares the Russian anti-terrorist forces had never expected to deal with such a huge number of civilians needing immediate specialized medical care. The civilian emergency medical response units were completely overwhelmed and did not even know what gas had been used. As a result, 130 hostages died, or about 15% of the hostages. Had the Russians not decided to use gas the most likely casualty figure would have been well over 500 if not more. That is hardly what I would call a failure of the entire operation, including the civilian support. In terms of pure anti-terrorist operation is probably the most successful hostage liberation operation in history. Let me end this sidebar with a simple question: when is the last time that any anti-terrorist force in the West had to deal with a situation involving over 1000 hostages taken by a large number of ruthless military-trained terrorists?]
If one is absolutely determined to assess the Russian record on special operations I would point to the capture of the Ruzyne International Airport in Prague in 1968, the storming of the Tajbeg Palace in Afghanistan in 1979 and, of course, the Russian operation to seize Crimea in 2014. But, again, there is no logical need to prove that Russian can do it well/better to assert that Americans can’t.
Now let’s turn to the issue of a possible war between Iran and the United States.
The dumbest possible thing to evaluate the possible outcomes of a US attack on Iran would be to do compare all the technologies available to both countries and come to some kind of conclusion. For an example of that kind of nonsense, check out this typical article. Generally, the obsession with technology is a typical American pathology which is a direct result of fighting overseas wars against vastly out-gunned enemies. I call that the engineer’s view of war, as opposed to the soldier’s view. That is not to say that technology does not matter, it does, but tactics, operations and strategy matter a whole lot more. For example, while it is true that a modern M1A2 Abrams is vastly superior to an old Soviet T-55, there are circumstances (high mountains, forests) where the T-55, properly engaged, could be a much better tank. Likewise, putatively outdated WWII anti-tank guns can be used with devastating effect on modern APC just as outdated air defense guns can by turned into absolutely terrifying assault fire support vehicles.
In the case of the US attack on Iran, only a total ignoramus would suppose that as soon as the Iranians detect the US attack they would scramble their mostly dated air force to try to achieve air superiority or that they would hope to stop the US attack using their air-defenses. Let me remind everybody here that Hezbollah made exactly zero use of their air defenses (only MANPADS anyway) during the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006 and that did not prevent Hezbollah from inflicting upon the IDF the most crushing defeat in their history. Why?
Because generally the American way of war doesn’t really work. What do I mean by “American way of war”? Using airstrikes and missile attacks to degrade the enemy’s capabilities to such a degree that it forces him to surrender. This was tried against the Serbian military in Kosovo and resulted in an abject failure: the Serbian forces survived the 78 days of massive NATO bombing completely unscathed (a few MBTs and APCs were lost, that’s about it). When that failure became apparent to the NATO commanders they did what the US military always does and turned against the civilian Serbian population in retaliation (same as the Israelis in Lebanon, of course) while offering Milosevic a deal: you surrender and we leave you in power. He accepted and ordered the Serbian military out of Kosovo. This was a spectacular political success for NATO, but in purely military terms, this was a disaster (well-concealed from the western public opinion courtesy of the best propaganda machine in history).
In one case only once did that American way of war really work as advertised: during the first Gulf War. And there is a good reason for that.
During the Cold War US force planners and strategist had developed a number of concepts to prepare for a war in Europe against the Soviet Union. Such concepts included the AirLand Battle doctrine or the Follow-on-Forces Attack (FOFA) which I shall not discuss in detail here, but which all placed a heavy emphasis on long-range reconnaissance-strikes systems and the use of air forces to defeat an assumed Soviet conventional superiority, especially in armor. I believe that these were fundamentally sound doctrines which could have been used effectively in the European theater. By the time Iraq invaded Kuwait, the USA had honed these concepts to quasi-perfection and the US armed forces were well trained in applying them. Saddam Hussein then committed a series of unforgivable mistakes the worst one being to give the USA many months to deploy into the KSA (this blatantly contradicts Soviet military doctrine which tells me that Saddam Hussein did not listen to this Soviet-trained generals or that these generals were afraid to speak up).
Apparently, Saddam Hussein believed that having fought the Iranians during the Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988) he was ready to take on the USA. Well, he wasn’t. In fact, the way the Iraqis prepared for a US attack was a dream come true for US force planners and analysts because Saddam gave them the absolutely *perfect* target: large armored formations deployed in a desert with no air cover. The US, who for years had prepared to fight a much more sophisticated Soviet conventional military in the complex central European terrain (“Mischgelende” forests, many villages and town, rapid streams, steep hills and riverbanks, etc.) could simply not believe their luck: the Iraqis deployed in the worst possible manner making them an ideal target, much easier in fact that what was practiced for in US desert trainings. The result was predictable, the USA simply crushed the Iraqis and almost took no casualties.
Guess who observed that from right across the border with rapt attention?
The Iranians, of course.
If anybody seriously believes that the Iranians will prepare for a US attack by trying to out-American the Americans I have a few bridges to sell to them.
What Iranians, and Hezbollah, perfectly understood is that the key to prevail against the USA is to deny them the American way of war and to impose them a type of warfare they absolutely loathe. We can call that the Iranian way of war. Here are a few of its key components:
1) Assume that the American will establish air supremacy in 24 hours or less and deny them any lucrative targets. Sounds simple, but it is not. This requires a number of steps which can take years to implement including, but not limited to, concealing, hardening and deeply burying the most valuable civilian and military assets, creating an highly redundant network of communication and prepare for semi-autonomous operations when communications fail, creating a country-wide system of local civilian-military cooperation aimed at the survivability of essential government services including law and order, have procedures in place to compensate for the disruption of energy distribution and the destruction of key transportation nodes, etc. It might be my Swiss training speaking here, but I would assume that over the past 30 years the Iranians have dug thousands of miles of underground tunnels and command posts which allows the country to literally “go under” for as long as is needed.
2) Develop a number of key advanced technologies such as GPS-spoofing, computer network penetration and disruption, electronic counter-measures warfare, advanced mine warfare, small boat operations and, of course, missile strikes not to deny the US forces any portion of the Iranian territory, but to dramatically increase the risks and costs of US operations. This is were a limited number of advanced air defense systems can make a critical difference, especially if successfully concealed.
3) Engage in “horizontal escalation”: rather than wasting efforts in trying to shoot down US aircraft, use missile strikes to destroy US airfields (and ports) in the region. That is, by the way, official Iranian doctrine. Or strike at US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan. Target Israel or, even better, the Saudi regime. Force the US Navy to either engage in brown-water or, at most, green-water operations (here the Russian Kilo-class subs will excel) or force them to move back and shut down the Strait of Hormuz (the US Navy hates brown and green water operations, and for good reason, the USN is a blue-water navy par excellence) and the Americans are acutely aware of what happened to the US-built Israeli Sa’ar 5-class corvette when it got hit by Hezbollah fired Chinese-built C-802 missile.
4) Play the time card: time is always against the US military as the expectation is a short, easy war, with as little as casualties as possible and then a quick “out”. The Israelis ran out of steam in 33 days, NATO in 78 – so plan for at least a 12 month long conflict. Western forces have no staying power, let them hope for a “quickie” and then see how they react when it ain’t happening.
5) Use the traditional American sense of superiority and condescension for “sand niggers”or “hajis” and don’t bother trying to intimidate them. Instead, try to use that racist mindset to make them commit crucial strategic mistakes as Iran did when it used fake Iraqi “defectors” who spread disinformation about non-existing Iraqi WMDs to convince the US Neocons to lobby for an attack on Iraq to protect Israel. I find the notion of using US Neocons to make the US get rid of Saddam Hussein and basically hand over Iraq to Iran nothing short of pure genius. This is, of course, why it is never mentioned in western sources :-)
6) Force the Americans to present you more targets: the more US forces are deployed near Iran, the more targets they offer for Iranian counter-attacks and the more they get politically bogged-down (as shown by the recent Iraqi threat to revoke visas for US servicemen in Iraq in response to Trump temporary visa-ban; the threat is empty, but clearly nobody in the White House or Foggy Bottom ever considered such an option). Basically, being being everywhere CENTCOM forces are hated everywhere.
The above are just a few examples from a long list of things the Iranians can do to respond to a US attack on Iran. We can expect the Iranians to come up with a much longer and far more creative list. By the way, there is nothing new or original in the list I made above, and the Americans are quite aware of it. There is a reason why even though the US has come as close as being hours away from striking at Iran they always backed down at the last second. So we have that endless tug-of-war: the US politicians (who believe their own propaganda) want to strike Iran, while US military specialists (who know better than to believe their own propaganda) constantly try to prevent such an attack. I want to mention Admiral William Fallon here, a true hero and patriot, who bluntly declared about a possible attack on Iran “not on my watch” in direct defiance of his political superiors. I hope that one day his service to his country in a very difficult situation will be finally recognized.
One more thing: Israel and the other regional powers. They are basically the equivalent of the vegetables served in a steak house: decoration. Just as NATO is a pretend force, so is the IDF and all the rest of the locals, including the Saudis, at least compared to Iran and Hezbollah. Yes, sure, they spend a lot of money, purchase expensive systems, but should a war break out, the Americans will be carrying 90%+ of the burden of real warfare, as opposed to politically correct coalition-building. Iran is a very large country with a complex geography, and the only ones who have to kind of power-projection capabilities to strike at Iran other than symbolically are the Americans. Of course, I am quite sure that should the US strike at Iran the Israelis will feel obliged to strike at some putatively nuclear target, return home and declare yet victory of the “invincible Tsahal”. But to the extend that Iran will be meaningfully hurt, it will be by the US, not Israel.
So does that mean that Iran would come unscathed from a US attack? Absolutely not. What I expect the Americans to do is what they have always done: engage in the mass murder of civilians in retaliation for their military failures. I know that this will, yet again, offend some doubleplusgoodthinking patriots, but massacring civilians is an American tradition dating from the very foundation of the United States. Anybody doubting that ought to read the superb book by John Grenier (USAF Ret.) entitled “The First Way of War 1607-1814: American War Making on the Frontier” which explains in exquisite detail how the US anti-civilian terror operations doctrine was developed over the centuries. This is, of course, what the Anglos did during WWII when they engaged in mass bombings of German cities to “break their spirit of resistance”. And this is what they did in Iraq and Serbia and what the Israelis did in Lebanon. And this is exactly what we should expect will happen in Iran. At least, this is the worst case scenario. There are really fundamentally two basic options for a US attack on Iran and I outlined them in my 2007 article about Iranian asymmetrical response options:
Broadly speaking, we see the Neocon Empire has having two options in an attack on Iran:
-
A short, limited, attack on some Iranian nuclear and government installations. The goals of that kind of attack would be solely political: to appear to have “done something”, give the despondent Americans and Israelis some flags to wave, to “show resolve” and “send a firm message” – the kind of State Department nonsense. If lucky, they could hope to kill some Iranian leaders (although what exactly that would achieve is anyone’s guess). Lastly, it would punish the Iranians for their “bad behavior”.
-
A more significant military attack, which could not be limited to an air campaign and one which would have to include at least some insertion of ground forces. That would be similar to the strategy outlined in my How they might do it article. The goal of this option would be radically different from the first one: “to punish the Iranian population for its support of ‘the Mullahs’ (as the expression goes in the USA) via the ballot box. This is exactly the same logic which brought the Israelis to hammer all of Lebanon with bombs, missiles and mines – the same logic by which they killed over 500 people in Gaza – the same logic by which the U.S. bombed all of Serbia and Montenegro and the same logic which explains the bizarre embargo of Cuba. The message here is: if you support the bad guys, you will pay for it.”
The option I discussed today is the 2nd one, because this is the one which would get most people killed. But make no mistake, since neither one of these options would result in anything remotely resembling a victory (this is a political concept defining an achieved political objective) one would have to conclude that both of these options would result in failure and defeat. Such an attack would also seal the end of the US political role in the Middle-East unless, of course, being a despised elephant in a porcelain store is considered a “role”. But make no mistake, even if the Iranian casualty figures go in the hundred of thousands, or even over a million like in Iraq, the Iranians will not surrender and they will prevail. For one thing, terrorizing civilians has never worked. Genocide can be a much more viable option, but there are too many Iranians to do that and they are too well dug-in in their country to contemplate such an option (sorry, Israelis, even nuking Iran will not result in a “victory” of any kind). The Iranians have been at it for, what, 3000-9000 years (depending on how you count) and they will not be subdued, submitted or defeated with 200 or 70 year old states, or by an AngloZionist Empire in terminal decline.
I suspect that by now quite a few readers will be thoroughly irritated with me. So what better way is there for me to end this discussion than by adding religion to the mix? Yes, let’s do that!
Most Iranian are Shia, that is well known. But what is less well-known is one of the key motto’s of the Shia which, I believe, beautifully expresses one of the key features of the Shia ethos, is: “Every day is Ashura and every land is Karbala”. You can find an explanation of this phrase here. It basically expresses the willingness to die for the truth at any time and in any place. Millions of Iranians, even those not necessarily very pious, have been raised with this determination to fight and resist, at any cost. And now think of Donald Trump or General “Mad Dog” Mattis and try to imagine how hollow and grotesque they and their threats look to their Iranian counterparts.
Should I write an analysis of Chinese response options to a US attack? Nah – let’s just say that if the US doesn’t have what it takes to prevail over Iran, an attack on China would be simply suicidal.
Next week, alas, I will probably have to turn back to the dramatic events in the Ukraine.
The Saker
This are the kind of articles which makes me come back to the saker again and again: Analytical, sharp and logical.
Excellent work. Cheers from southern France.
Absolutely!
Simply too beautiful an article, I saved it to read it again, again and again. The Saker really make my day with this brilliance, thanks as always. ☺
Agreed! Bravo Saker.
BTW, Canada here…
Agreed. This is a very good analysis of who and how might win an Iran-US conflict. Your knowledge is very broad Mr Saker.
BUT the wars of empires are rarely about winning conventionally. They are more to do with domestic politics, domestic population control, dividing coalescing vassals, and maintaining a status quo where winning in the conventional sense is not the objective at all. People who fight against empire seek and need to win outright.
A few snatched examples: an important aspect of the Crusades was keeping the feudal barons and their sons busy to stop domestic fighting and rivalry; among other factors the First WW came at a time of English government bankruptcy and diverted a political implosion; the Falklands war singlehandedly earned Thatcher another term; Vietnam was hardly about winning. It was much more to do with domestic politics than that.
Winning in Iran may not be the goal at all. If the Iranians run the US out after 10 years, as the Syrians have done after 5, the US might withdraw with Iran’s trade in tatters, its men dead and its cities in ruins. I would argue that that is the win.
Rather than win or lose, the discussion might be, what are the global, domestic and trade ramifications of the US doing this, yet again.
You are quite right about the show put on abroad to amuse and engineer the locals.
Rome called them ‘Punitive Wars’. They were a kind of ‘watch what we can do’ kind of thing, always with the implied ‘…to you.’
Guantanamo Bay too was, apart from being the greatest scientific experiment on humans since Dr Mengele or
‘Mysterious Island’, mostly to terrify the hoi-polloi of the United States (neither ‘united’, nor states).
Very level and balanced. Thanks again, Saker. I learn things that are very useful and most interesting every time I read one of your analyses. Please keep them up! I loved especially your comments about “…massacring civilians is an American tradition…” and consider it to be most appropriate in this analysis, for it underpins the approach of the US military to war: Americans should all read about and study Custer’s defeat as recorded by the Sioux for a real eye-opener in this regard. I would highly recommend starting with “The Long Knives Are Crying.” by Joseph M. Marshall III. This account as related by the Sioux warrior Cloud, is a fascinating insight into the first defeat of US Army forces on American soil.
The whole story around Custer & clowns sounds fishy at every instance, on every level, and was most likely a cowardly false flag to bring more Americans on board with an all-out genocide of the Natives.
Miles Mathis – Custer’s Last Stand Was a False Flag
http://mileswmathis.com/custer.pdf
“This account as related by the Sioux warrior Cloud, is a fascinating insight into the first defeat of US Army forces on American soil”.
I quite agree, but US Army forces were first defeated on American soil by the British during the war of 1812 (when they burned Washington DC among other achievements). Later there was Fort Sumter in 1861, and the many Confederate victories in the “Civil War”.
US Army forces were first defeated on American soil by the British during the war of 1812
We (USA) won very few during the Revolutionary War : )
Not to dispute your general point, but, on Custer, see
mileswmathis.com/custer.pdf
Real history is full of surprises — sometimes, surprising surprises.
The first defeat of American forces upon US soil was probably George Washington’s failed attempt to defend New York City early in the Revolutionary War.
Actually, Washington never really won a signle battle as a commander, or not one of any significance. Trenton was more of a skrismish and a surprise attack on an outpost.
If you get technical and claim that this was not the “US Army”, I could point you to multiple defeats during the American Civil War. 1st Bull Run, 2nd Bull Run, the end of the Penisular Campaign, Chancellorsville all come quickly to mind.
Just to be accurate about such things. And I’ve recently been reading Gore Vidal’s “Aaron Burr”. :)
Saker, as always a thoughtful analysis. There is a dimension that you have omitted to discuss. Both Russia and China have recently entered into defence agreements with Iran. There are a number of motives behind these agreements, but Iran’s central role in the One Belt, One Road program that Xi is heavily promoting is one factor. Similarly, Iran is a crucial link in the north-south economic corridor, from India to Russia via Iran and Azerbaijan.
In short, I do not think that either Russia or China will sit idly by and let the Americans carry out their (crazy) attack that so many of them seemed determined to do.
Neither will Trump and Americans. The US has been Zionist banksters & synagog of Sate’s biggest whore (esp. since 1913 – Fed), like the Germans from 1933-1945, the French, the Brits, the Dutch and so forth before them.
No doubt the Roth-child Nazis, who run the US system, would want to destroy Iran, as they did to e.g. Iraq & Libya (which they can’t, anyway – Saker’s article makes that perfectly clear), but Trump & his supporters are actually very anti-Nazi establishment.
It’s actually also a good diversionary manoeuvre to let his Nazi ‘educated’ generals (system) talk the same Orwellian Newspeak crap as always, for the time being (foreign affairs are hardly Trump’s priority). It might scare the Iranians in voting their 5th column out, the Fake ‘leftist’, ‘anti-war’ JM$M has something to criticize, and there’s no way Trump is going to attack Iran or China, anyway. However under the charlatans Hitlery, Sanders, or Stein, the Nazi system almost certainly would have escalated ‘humanitarian’ terror wars all over the world, including Syria.
At last! Could you please write an analysis for the Chinese case as well?
Dear Saker,
Wow, thoroughly honest and penetrating – priceless!
Merci mille fois
Very good article dear Saker, as always expected.
You should have added also the massive Russo-Chinese support (as a vital link in the newly OBOR, Iran will have all the support needed), the massive spec-ops raids on the Saudi petroleum infrastructure which would send oil to 200 or 300$, the massive influx of weapons to the talibans wich would spell the end of the NATO narco-state in Afghanistan, the acceleration of the de-dollarization of the world as China and Russia now view the US as an existential threat not just a bully.
And between us, do the US can really afford another large scale war ??? the printing machine is already working at full capacity just to prevent the house of cards from collapse.
the US can really afford another large scale war ??? the printing machine is already working at full capacity just to prevent the house of cards from collapse.
When the economy is hopelessly FUBAR, the stimulus of wartime spending comes to the rescue. It took WW II to pull the US out of the 1929- Depression.
War is an artificial stimulus that loses actual wealth — unless winning allows exploitation of other countries, which happened with WW2, and that won’t now. You don’t need war to put people to work when the government can pay for it.
They were pulling out the depression from New Deal programs which did produce real wealth, but then the politics interfered and the economy stalled again. If the US had kept up the Keynesian type of stimulus and producing real wealth it would have recovered fine without the massive destruction of Europe and Russia (which was supported by some in the US supporting the nazis — Ford, IBM, etc.). If the US and European oligarchs were sane and honest WW2 could have been avoided — and WW3 can be avoided too with honesty and sanity.
@blue — not disputed. But US politicians do not think that far ahead;nor would they care about what happens to us after their turn at the feeding trough is over.
It is not unlike corporate management, which obsesses only on meeting this quarter’s dividend target. They do not plan to work somewhere for 35 years and retire from there, but to jump from their current jobs to better jobs as often as possible, accumulating as much as they can in the process.
The stock acronym (talking their peers in other companies into making terrible long-term deals for short term profit : YBGIBG — “You’ll be gone (by then), I’ll be gone.”
Is there a solution? I think so. It’s like worker run companies who take into consideration those things which CEO, etc. don’t, and especially when they don’t line in the area. Workers are also management and spend some time of their week at management meetings, and they also learn about all the different aspects of the company, often rotating in jobs. If expert specialists or managers are needed, they are hired by the other workers and approved at the general meetings. The spread of pay scale usually runs less than 10 to one from best paid to worst — not this 500 to won in big corporations. You can often hear Rick Wolff talking about these — and there is a web site democracyatwork.info.
So what we need is a citizen run government — otherwise known as democracy. The same sort of conditions would prevail as in worker run business. A ‘king’ would be hired by the people and accountable to them, could be fired by them, and would be paid at most 5 or 10 times minimum wage. And, of course, government would be completely open, with major policies and decisions agreed on during the general meetings (and all of of this can be easily done now through the internet with good organization). If someone wants a war it has to be passed through referendum, with everyone having access to all the information, and no lies. News companies who do not tell the truth would get fired and dissolved. Yeah — it’s called democracy, or anarchosocialism. — we should try it sometime.
Your analogy with WWII is not entirely correct.
A war economy is only good if all your competitors are also at war, otherwise it will divert critical funding from Education, Health, Industry …. to basically a huge bottomless pit, That is what basically spelled the end of the USSR, from it’s beginning it was in a state of constant war economy.
The US gained so much in WWII simply because all of their direct competitor (USSR, Germany, Great Britain & Japan) were reduced to a smoking pile of rubble, that is what gave the US it’s adavantage over the rest of the world (and how do you think the other countries paid their debt to uncle Sammy …. GOLD)
Now a war on Iran will not be the same thing, it will be basically the US bleeding alone while the others reinforce themselves and accelerate their de-dollarization process wich would inevitably weaken the US economy more and more, and that’s without counting that the US can basically at any moment tore itself apart thanks to some greedy bankers.
@ Riahd
“That is what basically spelled the end of the USSR, from it’s beginning it was in a state of constant war economy.”
Please read the economic history of the USSR before spouting nonsense. The economy was fine in 1980s and the dissolution came about from purely political decisions taken by an elite who started believing being entitled to the privileges of the capitalist elite.
The soviet economy was on a permanent productivity rise from 1927 to 1989 and GDP per capita rose by a factor of 5 during the same period. There were imbalances and accumulation of social capital was reduced in the later period due to greater consumption and the emerging inequalities of private savings, obviously the result of an entrepreneurial class sponsored by the leadership. In fact until the mid 1970s the Soviet economy was on track to achieve Stalin’s promise of catching up and overtaking the advanced capitalist countries.
There is a permanent and mindless cacophony on the “economic collapse of the USSR” fostered by the ideological divide to reinforce the dominant trendy slogan that there is no alternative to capitalism. There is and the USSR proved it. And the alternative can also eliminate poverty.
It is you who should check your facts again,
In the 80’s USSR was spending between 15 to 17 % of its GDP on the defense industry (and this without counting all the foreign support and “free shit” provided to their communist allies) and compare it to the current Russia defense Budget, which is in the middle of a huge modernization program, who is barely 5.5 %, and this without taking into account that most of ZATO countries are barely struggling to meet their 2.0 % obligation. You add to that the bleeding they took in Afghanistan (remember my former example of one country bleeding alone and other reinforcing themselves ??). Now the trick with the USSR is that it had a lot of Oil, but unfortunately for it, the price collapsed at about the worst moment (we had the same situation here in Algeria and it lead to the same result, an economic collapse of the Algerian state and a nightmarish 90’s decade).
Now the trick with investing so much on the defense industry (17% of the GDP) is that you take for exemple 10 millions $ invested in Defense and 10 millions $ invested in productive economy.
For 10 millions invested in the defense, you will get let’s say one tank, now the tank will only either sit in a storage depot and keep bleeding you with maintenance cost or be blown up in a war, now basically those 10 millions are lost.
On the contrary for the 10 millions invested in a productive economy, you will get 100 truck who will transport good across your country, stimulate your economy, create jobs, pay taxes that will improve roads …. Etc.
This is what created the current Russian paradigm, a country which have the best military technology, the only country right now able to send men to space, awesome mathematicians and physicist. But on the contrary still relying on Germany or China for industrial or agricultural machinery and unable to build a (Removed MOD) decent car.
Now your talk about the best economic system is rather pointless simply because every country have it’s own specifications and should adopt the ideology that suit it the most (Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, a mix of the three …. ), the only conditions is to not have an usurious banking system run by some Zionist Satanist globalists bankers.
Now for your love of the USSR, i suggest you to start reading this book http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/, don’t you find it convenient that the current Russian flag is exactly the same as the white movement, and before it the Russian empire ?? this speak highly of the love the Russians have for the USSR.
Now please this the Saker not CNN or (Edited MOD)book, try refrain from talking to peoples as if they are some uneducated moron and try to explain your ideas with politeness. Thank you ;-)
As an anti-nuclear activist, I take the unusual position of claiming that the huge costs of the Chernobyl accident were the final straw that broke the Soviet back.
They had to destroy much of their food supply as it was contaminated. As it was, they probably didn’t destroy enough (from a health point of view), but that was because they were already operating at the edges of the limits of what they could afford.
They had to replace the energy from 20 or so nuclear power stations that were all shut-down after the accident.
They had to construct the huge concrete containment structure at Chernobyl and expend other emergency funds that just had to be done after such a huge nuclear accident.
Just my theory, but to me the timing says that this might have been the last straw that broke the camel’s back.
Interestingly, we are now seeing Japan try to move on after another major accident while spending much less on keeping their people safe and healthy. It will be about 50 years before we truly learn whether that has worked or just created a giant public health disaster down the path.
Its certainly US mythology that Ronny Raygun’s military spending broke the Soviet Union. But, since the people who peddle that have since been shown to be serial liars, I take that with a grain of salt.
Classic Saker.
Common sense, unheard of and self-evident.
Please read these three articles as a supplement to the Saker’s analysis, although two of the articles are more than six years old they are still relevant today.
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-6/
https://972mag.com/finally-israel-wakes-up-to-the-israeli-threat/26931/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/03/israelis-impressive-fight-against-iraq-war-push.html
@ Anon
“Please read …..”
What for? The Saker said it all – most of it anyway. Diversions?
@Anonymous
“Please read ….”
What for? The Saker said it all – most of it anyway. Diversions?
The articles that I have provided are not meant as a diversion, but they are meant for those of us who enjoy researching and fact checking information that we have read.
The first article is an investigative report by The Intercept that shows the dysfunctions that exist in one of America’s most elite special operations forces Seal Team 6 that have contributed to many atrocities in the Middle East.
The second and third articles prove that powerful members of Israel’s military, IDF Intelligence, Mossad, and Shin Bet retired and active have gone against Netanyahu because they are afraid that a war with Iran will be a catastrophe for Israel.
The question you ask is “What for?”
My response is Why not? Read and verify, it will help foster critical thinking skills!
Thank you!
In this modern age of instant propganda and fake news, I abhor relying on any single person or any single source for anything. The best thing to do is to read and read and read some more. And to do so from as wide range of sources as possible.
Who knows, Seal Team 6 could ‘neutralize’ the Saker and take over his website and start spouting proganda? I don’t want that to happen, of course. But if it did, those who rely only on the Saker’s wisdom would then be misinformed.
It is not beyond the Iranians to “release list of countries covertly supporting US invasion” of Iran and rain over 3 decades of anger (missiles) on Israel (oops…. I meant them… As in the countries on the list).
In fact, if I were the Ayatollah, I would direct all my ballistic missiles at Tel Aviv. 10 days of non-stop missiles rain would force Bibi to find a way to stop the Americans lol.
On a more serious note though, Iran is not Iraq. I do not believe the Americans will attack Iran. The war will quickly escalate beyond their imaginations. Do they really think they can protect all their bases and allies which they will heavily rely on for an effective strike from Iran? Israel is the balls of America FFS! If the Americans drag Iran to an all out war, they will be kicked out of the Middle East militarily and politically. It is as simple as that. Those who do not get it should just go back to Hollywood. Their comments irritate me. They write rubbish and try to convince us that their arguments make sense. It does not!
“I would direct all my ballistic missiles at Tel Aviv. 10 days of non-stop missiles…”
Wipe that smug look off of Nuttyahoo’s face!
You are dreaming! Israel would just nuke them out! If you think they will stand there without a word for 10 days, you are smoking the pipe.
Mitch,
Israel did not use a nuke in the first Iraq war either, you don’t seem to be aware of this. Saddam rained down as many Scud missiles on Tel Aviv as he could, some took out entire city blocks, Israel could not respond with nukes even though they had scores of them and the means to deliver them.
Similarly, 2007 war on Lebanon, saw Hezbollah hitting Israel with rockets, causing Haifa and northern Israel to stay in a lock down, paralyzing their economy for the 33day duration of that debacle (for Israel).
Israel will be precluded from using nukes based on an Iranian conventional missile strike. And they can’t take the risks of radiating any US military personnel. Nukes are not meant to be used in this manner.
James Baker as one of the last competent US Sec of State did a huge amount of work concerning Israel during the Gulf War (1st Iraq War). Since he was putting together an ‘Arab coalition’ to attack Saddam, he knew that Israel joining the 1st Iraq War would shatter that. So, Mr. Baker went to great lengths to convince the Israeli leadership of that time to stay out of the war and not (openly at least) fire back.
Today, it seems like a ‘US v Iran’ war would quickly turn into a Shite-Sunni, Iran v Saudi Arabia war, and I’m not so sure that Israel joining in would have a huge impact this time around. I can’t see the Saudi-Sunni allies deciding not to fight Iran just because Israel was also on their side. We’ve seen a bit of a shadow Israel-Saudi alliance over Syria in recent years.
I would rather suspect that the Isrealis would have a sub with nuclear missiles not too far from Iran, and would indeed fire them off if Iranian missiles started getting through the missile defense and doing serious damage.
Then we might get to find out the answer to the question of “how many nuclear explosions does it take to cause a nuclear winter?” Maybe when the cockroaches take over a 100,000 years from now their archeologists can find the answer and tell us.
Israel doesn’t exactly have a history of caring much about harming US military personel.
Use your favorite search engine to find out what happened to a US ship called ‘Liberty’ off the coast of Lebanon.
And then the whole Middle East would become massively radioactive, and would cease to exist as a place people could live.
Iran is even too sophisticated. The US Army could not even defeat rag-tag bands of irregular non-state fighters in Somalia. As chronicled in the movie “Black Hawk Down”, the Somalis produced so many American military casualties that Clinton had to quickly recall the “boys home”
Omo naija na so jare. rough translation: it’s not funny – Mod
Hollywood is Hollywood. Iran is part reality. Common sense!
@Super Eagle–Great to meet another Nigerian on this forum. I thought I was the only one
I’ve been here since 2015. Someone shared a link to this wonderful site on Nairaland (I suspect you are the one) and I was amazed with what I saw/read. I have been a regular visitor since then.
Iran’s missile technology and strategy should not be overlooked. The Iranians have emphasised their missile development capabilities over the years as an asymmetric answer to their regional enemies, including the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Do not think for a moment that Iran will not use its missiles against anything from a major Saudi oil processing station to American bases in the region to one or even more, American aircraft carrier fleets. They have a wide variety of missiles they have developed and I am certain they have manufactured literally tens of thousands of these preparing for this eventual war. They have indicated on many occasions their intent to attack in full force asymmetrically, raining down on their opponents their supply of missiles.
And it would not surprise me at all if during this conflagration, Hezbollah decided it was time to make mischief on Israeli soil.
And it would not surprise me at all if during this conflagration, Hezbollah decided it was time to make mischief on Israeli soil.
Only if they forgot who they work for : )
@ TtC
What are you implying? Hezbollah is a Zionist outfit?
Please watch this video of former United Nations weapon inspector Scott Ritter’s interview on the folly of an attack on Iran as a supplement to the Saker’s analysis, although the video is dated it too is still relevant today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan1qo8T4
Thanks a lot for the analysis. One thing that I noticed was the description of the IDF as vegetables in a steak house, I really liked it. I believe the reason for this is simple: the Zionists – Mod prefer deception. Their doctrine is infiltration and subversion. They would never want to get in a fight where they will exchange their precious lives for that of the worthless goyim. Let the USA fight instead.
The part that makes no sense to me is how destroying Iran is gonna help america at all. Even if it was something that the empire could still do. What does it accomplish? It does not make their huge financial problems disappear.
What I am considering is that America is sort of reacting to the Iranian problem, they have no real plan. When those Houthis ( or was it Iran) destroyed the Saudi ship the other day, everyone at the white house was so offended. Being offended is not a strategy though. I wonder what they seek to accomplish, what is the winning scenario for america if not to negotiate a share of the silk road plan?
Why would Israel get into a potentially damaging war when it can make its big, dumb sidekick do all the fighting and take all the risks?
The US has been going around leaving huge piles of fetid excrement all over the region, each pile bigger than the one before it:
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Syria
Yemen
If they are deluded enough – under Zionist and Saudi pressure – to believe that they can take a dump on The Islamic Republic , they will have made their biggest mistake to date!
Iran, will not sit around and be shit upon.
Instead, the US and those goading it to impose war on Iran, will have their arses violently ripped off and handed to them in plastic bags.
And no corrective surgery will be enough to restore their anatomy to it previous state.
I can gurantee that they will be horribly scarred for life, and the psychological trauma will also be permanent.
Pls. excuse the analogy deployed, but I thought it would be effective..
You, everyone here thinks that Iran would not be easy to defeat. They may well win. Add in support from Russia and China and I agree with you, the US would have their ass handed to them in short order.
So why is no one supposing that this is a very good time to start a war with the US? It is Iran goading the US, not the other way around. They are not taunting them like Sadam Hussain and Gafaffi thinking that the US wouldn’t dare. They know very well what happens when an mid east country ditches the dollar and lets off some fireworks.
Would you consider the possibility that Iran, with the backing of Russia and China, are calling the US into a war that will kill your empire? What does that mean to you?
Excellent point !
And just how is Iran “goading” the US, pray tell?
By telling them that all options are on the Table?
By calling them the No.1 sponsor of terrorism in the world?
By telling them that JCPOA was a lousy deal that ought to be torn up?
By constantly patrolling their coastal waters?
By finding ways and means to renew old sanctions and impose new ones?
What you are positing is the equivalent of someone standing on your feet, and when you try to gently point this out to them, they turn around and loudly shout:
“are you threating me?”
Was it Iran that killed Israeli scientists?
Was it Iran that froze US funds?
Was it Iran that launched STUXNET against US/Israeli infrastructure?
There is no moral equivalence between the Islamic Republic and its blood-soaked enemies.
None!
What has to be first acknowledged is that, the US views Iran primarily through the prism of Israeli interests.
Israel does not wish for relations between Tehran and Washington to improve, its that simple.
Consequently, a confrontation between Tehran and Washington only serves the interests of Zionists.
Everyone knows that the so called “Islamic Extremism” that Trump and others love to rail against does not emanate from Iran.
Infact, it poses an existential threat to Iran.
Yet, in a glaring case of Cognitive Dissonance, Iran that has been at the forefront of the fight against terror, gets singled out and slapped down, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar get a free pass.
Despite the wailing of the Zionist-controlled MSM, Iran does seek war with the US, and Iran will not start any war with the US – or any other country, for that matter .
However, if war is imposed on Iran, those who have been cheerfully clamoring for it will be in for a rude awakening.
They will be denied the tidy little skermish that the seek, and instead find that they have stumbled into a huge war, the scope and intensity of which will, to quote Hezbollah, “shake the region and shock the world”.
Selah
Hello Selah. I understand what you are saying. Even from over here in the UK I absolutely hear and feel the injustice and brutality of US imperialism on the Middle east that has been endured. It has been 35 years of on-an-off, increasingly intense holocaust. I worked with Palestinians for a while, in Palestine. I am first hand conscious of the long suffering determination of people under the cosh from US imperial doctrine.
But the point I was making is related to the reason the US has had to repeatedly demolish the middle east to survive: the US survives on debt issuance. It neither mines, extracts nor builds anything like as much as it consumes and the difference between its productivity and consumption is made up by forcing the world at the point of a gun to swap local currencies and goods for dollars printed by the Federal Reserve out of thin air. In fact it showers its people with far in excess of its needs, all extracted by threat of economic, politician or real death, from the rest of the productive world. The UK, Australia, Canada, Japan and Europe all survive by this means too, to a lesser extent.
To further explain what you already know, perhaps, but to make clear my reasoning, the method by which the dollars forced onto foreign entities and nations is kept relevant and circulating in the global economy is by linking it to energy trade. This is the petro-dollar. Countries must have dollars because they are also forced to buy and sell energy in dollars. The mines here in Wales had to sell their coal to Nottingham power station, just up the road, in dollars.
If major energy producers started to sell their products in anything other than dollars the US would go bankrupt. Period. Total economic death.
And this is what I said in brief: Saddam Hussein said he was ditching the dollar and trading with Europe in euros. Invaded in 1 year. Qaddafi said the same: invaded in 6 months. The head of Total Oil, France, said it was time to ditch the dollar in energy trade in 2015ish: dead in 3 weeks. Now we have 3 rouge nations – Russia has recently signed a huge long-term deal with China for gas in local currencies. China advocates dollar free trade in local currencies. Iran has just formally ditched the dollar in oil transactions. These countries must die if America is to survive. All four nations involved know this. It is a fight to the death for the US.
So, I propose, if a fight is inevitable – and in my view it is – why not start it when it best suits the rouges and is worst for their enemy. Like right about now, with the American aristocracy fighting each other for the best end of the trough, their military leadership and command in disarray. Seems like a good plan to me. Smack the bully between the eyes while he is wiping his nose. It always worked for me!
Excellent post Gander.
I think this fear of bankruptcy explains almost all major geopolitical events going on, especially within the US, but also among allies.
Trump, as self-described debt king, has referenced how to avoid bankruptcy on a national scale many times.
The move to digital currencies, and banning cash, might be a way to avoid sudden de-dollarization but I am not smart enough to figure out how.
The re-industrialization, as much as can be done, of the US via border taxes and public humiliation, strengthens the US post-de-dollarization, where building things matters.
Trump’s focus on cutting negative trade balances is aimed at stopping the growth of debt. He is also removing all non-essential government functions, like the EPA, to reduce expenditures. He is doubling down on military expenditures knowing war may be necessary.
His closest advisors are the military and goldman sachs – the two you need to confront an existential threat of de-dollarization.
The color revolutions that have been detailed many times circumvent the need for direct military engagement, and have been quite successful in the -stans, some middle east countries, latin America, etc, to change the leadership into one more conducive to the US. Not saying this is morally good, but it’s observed fact. It’s also what is trying to be done to break the Silk Road member states.
Rex tillerson wants to sign a deal between Exon and Russia to bring Russia back into the US orbit, and garner some leverage with the nation.
Finally, the wall is probably to keep americans out of mexico, too, in the event of hysteria and social instability.
I’ve always thought that in response to an attack Iran should call on the Shia in Iraq to attack the US forces. And support a rising and partisan warfare from the Saudi and Bahraini Shia. Coordinate attacks with the Houthi in Yemen against the Saudis. Not even to mention the Shia in Lebanon and Afghanistan. As well as arming the Taliban to strike at the US forces in Afghanistan.Sure they’d have to hold their nose to do that. But in a situation like that,why not hold your nose.
1. Re: “Iran … when it used fake Iraqi “defectors” who spread disinformation about non-existing Iraqi WMDs to convince the US Neocons to lobby for an attack on Iraq to protect Israel. I find the notion of using US Neocons to make the US get rid of Saddam Hussein and basically hand over Iraq to Iran nothing short of pure genius.”
Brilliant if true.
2. Alas, I suspect that war with Iran is on the agenda — if only for the economic necessity of it in the US (military industrial complex) based economy. They need to shift equipment inventory and Trump needs ‘jobs’ for the domestic deplorables. What better way to shift some debt burden to NATO partners not carrying their share than to open the gates of Hell on 3rd rate (compared to Russia and China) non-nuclear recent world-class supplier (and price deflater) of petroleum products. Under this scenario, expect another ‘Arab Oil’ shock of 1970’s vintage with Saudi supplies being restricted (sad that) and US fracking at top-throttle into a $150/b export market price while China is squeezed nicely both as oil importer and (soon to be ex)-cheap price goods exporter. Trump and his clan have a plan for sure.
3. But I believe you are right in seeing the Ukraine boiling over. Trump may be prepared to deal with Putin for a 50:50 win-win line down the Dnieper. A plucky Putin might offer Trump a new referendum on/in Crimea as long as it includes the other disputed south east regions. Trump wouldn’t dare take the risk although sticking the boot into madman McCain would be to his liking I suspect.
As to your third point about Ukraine, I dont see the point of Putin taking over half of that country. Ukraine is being held hostage, you want it to be released from the zionists 100 percent. Half of it will never do. At least that would be my position on that. Not one inch of Ukraine would be my answer to Trump. Not one inch of Iran either. Washington needs to look inside for the solution, clean up those parasites in the congress that are feeding the american tax payers to the military industrial complex.
Quote ” Saddam Hussein then committed a series of unforgivable mistakes the worst one being to give the USA many months to deploy into the KSA (this blatantly contradicts Soviet military doctrine which tells me that Saddam Hussein did not listen to this Soviet-trained generals or that these generals were afraid to speak ”
This is exactly what Russia has done foolishly _allowed NATO to creep into at border and allowed NATO navies to roam in the black sea while pomp g for cease-fire to abort winnable wars in Donna and in syria.
For that Russia will pay a heavy prize for leaving the winnable wars into frozen conflicts.
Dear Saker,
I believe that US would most likely try the strike option 1 as a larger attack would inevitably trigger an Iranian response. However, a small scale attack such as destruction of few of Iran’s missile depots and nuclear sites would probably not trigger a response from Iran.
What is your take on the Iranian options for the 1st kind of attack? Do you, in particular, believe Iran would retaliate by attacking US bases in the persian gulf or smaller scale bases in northern iraq?
Regards,
Those Chechen terrorists are being backed by Germany since WW2:
“German espionage organizations have been involved in the deadly hostage taking by Chechen terrorists in 2002. ”
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/42772
If the US attacks Iran or China they will loose thier fleet.
“U Sank My Carrier!
…
But what van Ripen did to the US fleet…that’s something very different. He was given nothing but small planes and ships-fishing boats, patrol boats, that kind of thing. He kept them circling around the edges of the Persian Gulf aimlessly, driving the Navy crazy trying to keep track of them. When the Admirals finally lost patience and ordered all planes and ships to leave, van Ripen had them all attack at once. And they sank two-thirds of the US fleet.”
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35
That is why the US military can only “win” in fixed war games.
“War game was fixed to ensure American victory, claims general”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/21/usa.julianborger
And why the US military is explicitly targeting and killing civilians. Military targets have the least priority.
“Air Theory for the Twenty-first Century
Col John A. Warden III, USAF
…
Fourth, our rings clearly show that the military is a shield or spear for the whole system, not the essence of the system. Given a choice, even in something so simple as personal combat, we certainly wouldn’t make destruction of our enemy’s shield our end game. Contrary to Clausewitz, destruction of the enemy military is not the essence of war; the essence of war is convincing the enemy to accept your position, and fighting his military forces is at best a means to an end and at worst a total waste of time and energy.
Fifth, and last, the rings give us the concept of working from the inside to the outside as opposed to the converse. Understanding this concept is essential to taking a strategic rather than a tactical approach to winning wars.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20130728005722/http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/battle/chp4.html
“Belgrade will be like this table,” he declared. “We will immediately begin carpet-bombing Belgrade. This is what we will do to Belgrade,” and he repeated the gesture. A moment of silence passed, and then Ahtisaari added, “There will be half a million dead within a week.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ELI202A.html
“Spanish Fighter Pilots Admit NATO Purposely Attacks Civilian Targets
…
They are destroying the country, bombing it with new weapons, toxic nerve gases, surface mines dropped by parachute, bombs containing uranium, napalm, sterilization chemicals, sprayings to poison the crops and weapons of which even we still do not know anything. The North Americans are committing there one of the biggest barbarities that can be committed against humanity.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20010624173936/http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/de_la_hoz_interview.htm
I think you’re wrong about the Gulf War, Saker. Here, the US performance was vastly overrated too. The so-called air war, where Saddam’s tanks were allegedly mauled in the months leading up to Storm was vastly over celebrated. According to Robert Scales (IIRC) there was a rift between the army and airforce about the latter inflating their own kill numbers of tanks ahead of the ground attack. This left the army facing larger numbers of tanks that expected.
Additionally, only one Republican Guard unit was permanently disbanded (Tawakalna, outnumbered 15:1 yet whose tanks destroyed M1s which the Americans won’t admit to), one badly mauled (Medina) and the rest unscathed, pulled out of Kuwait weeks ahead of time.
A comment on the Iranians going underground. The Iraqis did this in 2003;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/09/iraq5
Much of the fighting for Baghdad took place undergound. If you research this, four giant bunker complexes were located in the Baghdad area. Two beneath the city and two beneath the airport. All were linked by a two-lane underground highway system. The ambush at the airport came from underground.
The Americans obviously had some sort of answer to this, the Iraqis claimed it was a neutron bomb but it’s possible they were thermobaric. The airport bunkers were 90ft below the surface, one beneath the opulent suite as well. These were installed by Eastern European Soviets.
“We can call that the Iranian way of war. Here are a few of its key components:”
-What is your source for Iranians intending to fight Americans this way??? I certainly hope you are not just making assumptions and then passing it off as fact.
@ Anonymous
What a silly question … don’t you know The Saker has a direct link to the Iranian High Command?
Seriously, all military plans are based on assumptions and the Iranians have to model their plans in response to the aggressor’s hypothetical plans of attack, of which there are several I’m sure although I have no facts to prove it, just common sense. Maybe it’s getting too complex for you…
“We can call that the Iranian way of war. Here are a few of its key components:”
“What is your source for Iranians intending to fight Americans this way?”
@Anonymous please watch these videos of Iranian generals, and listen to how they would respond to an attack on their country. Yes, these interviews are dated but they are still relevant and they support the Saker’s analysis. In addition, it gives us an opportunity to view the mindset of the Persian military leadership.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e93Foa5Xb0g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehbnYxPgV-I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ivDEHmcotw
Your suggestion that Iran was behind the “planting” of Iraqi misinformation is intriguing; if you are able please provide additional information and sources. The neo-con dual loyalists were salivating to attack Iraq anyway, so how did Iran figure in that fiasco? Gathering information on RECENT history is always a problem. Thanks.
Please read these articles on fake Iraqi “defector” Ahmed Chalabi prominent member of the Iraqi Shia community.
http://www.salon.com/2004/05/04/chalabi_4/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ahmed-chalabi-iraqi-politician-who-pushed-for-us-invasion-dies-of-heart-attack/2015/11/03/07bd3a99-cd43-4f45-ab0f-5d37c9c6bbb5_story.html
” Iranians have dug thousands of miles of underground tunnels and command posts which allows the country to literally “go under” for as long as is needed.”
-The word you’re looking for is “figuratively” not literally…
No literally is right. They are going to go underground literally.
No, he means literally, as in actually below the physical land surface.
NATO wouldn’t really need any staying power, they could just bomb Iran into the stone age and Iran would have lost. Sure the Iranian government could carry on the war, but their economic would be set back to nothing and sanctions would crush them further and Iran would not reach current levels in a 100 years.
This is the kind of ignorance and arrogance that has gotten the collapsing US regime into the mess it’s in today. Pease go and learn a little more before you come out with your idiocy. And re read the article above. You won’t feel so cocky if Iran starts sinking 20 billion dollar warships with speedboats.
I think this @Anonymous has failed to notice that the US ‘rust belt’ now covers most of the US.
He/she/it clearly has more concern for its assumed persona than for any aspect of reality.
@ Mala
This “Anonymous” is not anonymous any more. He’s been asking a lot of silly questions and qualified himself as a serious candidate for the position of the proverbial village fellow… you know the one!
Anonymous is making a very valid point, actually Mala. The article discusses win / lose scenario, as if the US actually wants to wade into Iran and take it over and plant flags on ridges. NATO aka empire only wants nations on their knees and obedient. Iran’s threat is ‘existential’, not physical. ‘Existential threat’ is political code for ‘threatens the economic stability of’ the US, more specifically, de-dollarisation and trade outside the US banking system. Destruction of Iran’s economy and infrastructure makes that threat go away.
He is right, in fact. The US will drone Iran to death without a single boot on the ground, and that will do nicely.
The debate in my view is whether doing so will bring the US against Russian and Chinese missile shields and force an escalation from which the will never re-surface, i.e. provoke a widespread withdrawal of western populations from the MSM narrative.
@ proper gander
“…provoke a widespread withdrawal of western populations from the MSM narrative”
Are you serious? Does that matter? The power elites have already unmasked themselves in 2003, if not before when they dismantled Yugoslavia. They don’t give a damned frigging fig about the populations.
Yes, anonymous, withdrawal of populations from the MSM narrative does matter. It is the canary in the coal mine. It = resistance to propaganda, the end of government control over their subjects and the end of empire. It is occurring everywhere in the ‘west’. Described as ‘populism’ by our frightened governments. As this happens, the biggest threat to you and your fellow citizens, if you hadn’t noticed, is governments turning their military on their own people. DAPL protests, Ukraine, Europe under military guard, kettling of protests. The potential for war in the US and Europe will not be eg France vs Germany but the people vs their governments, at first in narrative and then bodily. That marks the end of empire. Why do you think the UK is getting all party support for Brexit in spite of former all-party commitment to Europe, if they are not fully aware that to overturn the vote risks civil unrest?
Not mount an air defense to American air power? To what extent is Iran air space covered by the S-300 anti-air missile system? Is this not a significant threat to American planes and cruise missiles?
Nuclear attack? And Afghanistan is well within fall out problems – as is Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Iraq, Turkey, India,… I really don’t know if the Pentagon will bend to the pressures to follow the nitwits in the White House to recommend the use of nukes, but I shudder that the neocons would be that stupid – or Israel, as more a peripheral effort in the war.
AAR this is an outstanding piece of work….I appreciate such expertise, that it is singular to the Internet….
Best,
Galearis
As usual a welcome and informative article which stands out in the ocean of media lies due to it’s truthfulness.
Study: U.S. regime has killed 20-30 million people since World War Two
https://www.sott.net/article/273517-Study-US-regime-has-killed-20-30-million-people-since-World-War-Two
The above study also concludes that there are 10 times as many people wounded as killed so we are talking 200 to 300 million people killed or maimed at least by US regime violence and wars.
And we haven’t even got round to the paedophile rings, and people murdered for their organs etc etc.. Then there are the death squads, the CIA black ops. Hell, we just don’t know how many people they’ve murdered.
There must surely be high level discussions going on between Russia, Iran and China about how it’s obvious that Ukraine, Syria, S.China Sea and threats to Iran are all symptom of the same disease and how they can once and for all destroy this beast in a way which doesn’t involve vapourising mankind.
What do other contributors think of this possibility?
Perhaps de-dollarization is the answer. Can it be speeded up?
Noteworthy that the aggro towards Iran coincides with their stated intention to dump the dollar in oil transactions as of 1st March.
In any case we – the human race – simply cannot go on like this. They have to be stopped, once and for all.
@ Oldguy
You are stating what I have been thinking and stating for some time here and elsewhere: “the beast must be slain once and for all”.
Their malevolence is almost in their genes, just listen to their discourse. They talk about nuking Iran in the same way they talk about what movie to watch after dinner.
That country is not a natural creation like most counties are – it was born from the rape and plunder of the native populations, therefore it is an unnatural excrescence that has to be expunged like a malignant tumour.
Indeed, it is quite certain that both Russian and Chinese leaders have discussed the issue of defanging the beast without severe consequences for mankind and have chosen the “soft” option of neutralising the US$ as the source of US capacity to keep the money printing presses working endlessly, keeping the plebes in a parasitic high standard of living and the elite in luxury and a limitless war budget to enforce the current order of vassalage by “friends” and foes alike.
This “order” is similar to the one enforced by the Zionists in the Middle East and propounded by their infamous general Moshe Dayan: the “Mad Dog Doctrine”.
“Israel must be like a mad dog too dangerous to bother”
It means leave the mad dog alone otherwise he’ll bite you and everyone else. It is also called the Samson Doctrine by the Zionist theoreticians and we, simple people, call it the bully in the playground, the elephant in the china shop and the mafia protection racket all combined.
The US and Israel. Such a sorry, predictable affair.
It is always a really bad idea for a nation to take your advisors, military strategists and economists from among a people with a long history of interest rate excess, abnormal aggression, a sense of supreme god-given right, and simultaneously with a track record of failure to hold onto a small scrap of semi-desert for more than a few hundred years at a time before having their ass kicked, yet again.
You can’t learn anything from folks that don’t learn.
In three weeks, the Trump administration has attacked Yemen.
They have also threatened my home city of Chicago, threatened China, Mexico, University of California, Berkeley and Iran.
What a great start, huh?
Any possible war with Iran will most certainly not be with any ground forces, unless the U.S want the embarrassment of POW’s in large numbers. Iran could call up about 5 million men under arms if they needed to. A strategic attack with cruise missiles, Air Power and Ships is all they can hope for, but then Iran would unleash its doctrine that it has prepared for over thirty years. There would be automatic attacks on all U.S. assets in the peripheral of the region. Like I have said before, Saudia and Israel are going to come under attack. Saudi can kiss there oil refineries and oil facilities and fields goodbye, this alone would be disastrous to the petro-dollar.
Israel’s Achilles heel is the threat of ballistic missiles carrying conventional incendiary warheads. Since the Israeli’s foolishly uprooted so many farms and orchards, and in place of them has planted dense forests mimicking Europe where most Israeli’s come from(to give them a sense of home); the Iranians can set huge , undistinguishable fires on a biblical scale. We have seen the effects of a few such fires in Israel.
The role of the U.S. Naval fleet in the Persian Gulf is useless, being that evasive or war time maneuverability of said fleet would be ineffective and they would be boxed in ready to be sent to the bottom of the Gulf.
Saker, you are correct in that North Korea and Iran have underground facilities of vast size and depth precisely for such an attack.
The U.S./Israel would gain little, and stand to lose so much. It doesn’t add up for them to go forth with such a drastic measure. Iran is ready, and they are confidant. If the Israeli’s decide to send a message and strike with , say one nuke, the Iranians would tear up their no-nukes doctrine and quickly reply in kind to Israel. They know this.
The U.S./Israel would take a diplomatic, strategic and military loses that would be enormous. They would have to go at it alone, since China and Russia would block any U.N. Resolution on Iran. The U.S. /Israel would open a pandoras box they wish they never, ever did.
One thing that’s going on in the world today that very few know about. International Zionists (Jews)are deploying a massive world wide pincer movement on the east. They are not only out to build a ‘Greater Israel off the backs of the Arabs, but the whole fiasco and conflict in the Ukraine , Donbass and their constant crying about Crimea is all about the Jewish desire to create also a Kingdom of Khazaria, which they believe it is their right , as chosen people, to revive, on the backs of the Slavic, Russian people.
They(Jews) want a large part of resource rich Russia and the Ukraine as there own, and are using the might of the U.S./Nato to fulfil this twisted messianic dream, of a Greater Israel(from the Nile to the Euphrates) and the old Kingdom of Khazaria(where todays Ashkenazi European Jews originate from).
The real Islamic world and the Russian Orthodox are in essence fighting against the same belligerent, bellicose and hegemonic forces. Time to unite, and watch eachothers back, as we see today with Russia help in Syria.
I believe the Iranian and Russian leadership know of this grand conspiracy against the freedom loving people of the east. Also, it seems Hindu India has been manipulated and has joined the U.S./Israeli axis in this nefarious endeavor. India has even given Israel a launch pad for their nukes in the Indian Ocean periphery.
So the game is on. China’s turn to raise the stakes and play their hand, not entirely though. Just get off the fence officially. The Jews have an ancient hatred for the Chinese as they see them as the Mongols who, with the Slav’s, took down the Kingdom of Khazaria.
Historians will write that the two causes of America’s downfall were born in the Middle-East, and south-western front of Russia.
This is an ideological battle more than an economic one.
The Chinese have no guilt of any kind, they are hardworking and industrious and energetic, they value education and family, worship wealth, and feel that they are a supreme chosen people.
Hmmm, now that you mention it, the Jews of the East do sound rather like the Jews of the West.
If taking conventional warfare so called “elite troops” have never played crucial role because they are just tiny minority of all military power. Hardly more than 2-5%. War have been won and lost by “dimension”. The moral – understand the meaning of war is very important. To win the war you must disarm enemy forces. Best thing is to make its soldiers understand that “this war is not our war”. Then you must have strategic forces to take material and military superiority in certain vital sector of front. In this case it’s all the same if enemy had what ever rambos there. They are few men and never any kind of game changer.
So here we go once again ….
“The MORALE, DISCIPLINE and battleworthiness of the U.S. Armed Forces are, with a few salient exceptions, lower and worse than at anytime in this century and possibly in the history of the United States. By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having _refused_ combat, murdering their officers and non commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous. Elsewhere than Vietnam, the situation is nearly as serious.”
THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES
By Col. Robert D. Heinl, Jr.
North American Newspaper Alliance
Armed Forces Journal, 7 June, 1971
This is the greatest art of warfare. Making your enemy gradually understand we have all moral strengths behind us while they are suckers, invaders fighting for tiny group stupid warmongers and corporate rulers. When they have reached this level all their hope and power has gone away. They have been disarmed and starting to love peace.
Shared on Facebook, thank you The Saker, love your work.
Mountainous, vast Iran cannot be invaded. It would be like invading California. Yet Trump can bomb Iran. Regardless of their air defenses … when you have submarine and surface cruise missiles hitting you, along with on the deck bombing runs of B1 and B2 bombers — there isn’t much you can do but shoot things down things.
The good news for Iran is that they can easily block the Straight of Hormuz. That is the only thing stopping the West.
@ Jamie
The Saker has already addressed the issue in his article when he said that Saddam Hussein’s greatest mistake was waiting for the aggressor to gather the forces for the attack – at least six months. That was folly. What he should have done was to destroy as much as possible of the logistics chain to support the invasions, namely in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf fiefdoms (probably in Syria as well). Probably it would not be sufficient to prevent the war or win it, but it would be a better strategy to leaving most of the army exposed as sitting ducks and be mercilessly slaughtered even when they had ceased to be a fighting force.
Iran is in a much stronger position than Iraq was and can easily reduce to smithereens the aggressor’s bases in the region. Added to the fact that it can (maybe with some Russian intelligence support) take out many of the aggressor’s naval assets in the neighbourhood, it is quite possible that Iran could inflict a humiliating defeat before the enemy could put a pair of boots on Iranian soil.
Of course, the Iranian leadership would have to think about the nuclear threat to their country by a vindictive loser who is capable of the highest crimes imaginable and it would be the high point of Russian historical deeds to draw a thick red line with the words: NO NUKES.
I’d like to make a correction to your Gaza statistics if I may:
Operation Cast Lead yielded 1,400 casualties while Operation Protective Edge yielded 2,250 on average because the Israeli figures are about 50 to 100 lower while the UN and Palestinian figures are 50 to 100 higher than what I averaged here. Roughly, out of that, slightly less than two-thirds are civilian casualties. However, if you consider the kinds of weapons Hamas have compared to those Israel has, and the disproportionate force applied – they’re all civilians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War_(2008%E2%80%9309)
Considering that Trump is actually looking at Elliot Abrams for second in command at the State Department, and that this position is being upgraded because of the fact that they’re phasing out a 2nd Deputy Secretary for management, and considering that Tillerson is a neophyte in the ways of state policy; Trump’s Deputy Secretary would have unprecedented power in creating foreign policy much greater than any past 1st Deputy Secretary. You have to ask yourself, WHY, why would Trump even look at Elliot Abrams sideways, or seriously consider him as is happening for second in command at the State Department if he is honest about seeking a less interventionist agenda?
The truth is he’s lying. Trump has been talking out of both sides of his mouth; saying one thing and doing another. Consider also that he wanted Bolton all along for the top post at the State Department until some Republicans expressed their opposition and it was clear Bolton wouldn’t get confirmed. So now, instead of lung cancer, with Bolton we might get pancreatic cancer with Abrams. Three years ago Abrams wrote an article making a case for war against Iran arguing every point that analysts bring up for advising against it. Why is Trump so attracted to these radical Zionist Neocons if he has peaceful intentions?
So in fact, your article is very timely. The Chinese are fuming because the new sanctions imposed on Iran for that recent missile test directly target Chinese firms supplying Iran and other firms conducting business with those Chinese firms in future will be blacklisted from doing business with U.S. companies as well.
China and Iran responded to the sanctions each holding its own military drill this week.
USA Today has the article but they cover the page with an intro survey so I’m posting another link that addresses both drills.
http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/111255/20170206/china-iran-conduct-military-drills-trumps-sanctions.htm
I just want to add, given the U.S. strategy of punishing civilians, I hope as well that Iran has created bomb shelters over the years and conducts drills like the Zios do in Israel preparing Iranians for an attack. Their preparedness must be top notch as this presidency is very unpredictable and Trump’s relationship with Netanyahu gives me reason for concern.
One more thing, seeing as China is surrounded by U.S. bases much like Iran, and China has been preparing for war for a long time and has military strategies lined up in case of U.S. aggression, I’m hoping they’re sharing not only their weaponry with the Iranians, but also their military strategy and technology. I’m sure China has studied ways it can assist the Iranians. No doubt the Chinese can offer their expertise even with the building of bomb shelters and underground weapons depots.
They both better get busy preparing for the worst while they hope for the best, because the best ain’t coming.
@ Circe
Thanks for your input – very valuable and timely. I hope the Chinese and Iranians read the Saker; there are brilliant contributors here.
For the first time I watched yesterday some of Trump’s speeches and I’m not impressed: the man is a con bullshit artist of first magnitude, a lesser urbane version of the black traitor, but sprouting the same platitudes with forked tongues. He’s a sorry joke and the Yanks have shown once again their propensity to have clowns as presidents.
Saker, I’m surprised you missed the US’s greatest weapon. Shipping containers full of 100’s for Iran’s top government and military leaders.
Interests, always interests. From a genuinely national interest POV, there’s zero reason to attack Iran. However, from an Imperial POV, there may be an interest in negating the rise of Eurasia as Pepe describes in his similar article, http://www.atimes.com/article/lots-shouting-tiny-stick/
And given the many recent revelations of bigtime problems with combat readiness of critical components, particularly naval aviation, the Outlaw US Empire is incapable of waging a major war against anyone.
Saker–Thanks very much for the book reference; I was unaware of it!
A++. Thank you. Again, I feel I have attended a high quality University Graduate Seminar for a month.
I read your website daily, and often I wait for something exciting or educational to read. Some weeks pass by where there seems not much new has been added. But I propose this article to be voted as “Post of the Month”.
I agree. This article should get all the attention it deserves. I would like to read more on this issue.
As I recall, the U.S. military has worried about “escalation control” in a conflict with Iran. Such a war could grow larger then they want.
I, and many others have noticed that all of the sober and down to earth (mostly) analysis by The Saker get’s published on other forum’s, almost immediately, and forums with a much larger daily audience.
Example today, as most of you know I assume https://www.sott.net/article/341890-The-Saker-Analysis-of-war-between-US-Iran.
The comment section on this blog is as always interesting, and quite superior compared to many comment sections on Geo-Political issues on the internet.
However, IMO, the very common phrases here, like “Zio-Nazi’s” etc. in many posts here might be to “radical” for a lot of people, a bit scary maybe, and I fear that this kind of language, repeated over and over and over again in quite a few otherwise interesting comments, maybe is not the very best of angles, IF, the overall common goal is “Stop the Empire’s war on Russia”, or war on anything really.
10 cent’s, no less.
But, that’s me.
Take Care
Kent
Yes it is a problem, and there are other words in use, all of which have the same problem e.g. chosenites etc.
What name would you suggest?
@ “Take Care” Kent
“However, IMO, the very common phrases here, like “Zio-Nazi’s” etc. in many posts here might be to “radical” for a lot of people”
I have held my judgement on contributor’s personal tendencies as long as they are committed to our common fight against the global Zio-Nazi” cabal. Once they profess a view which contradicts the Saker’s community vision of who is the enemy and how we label the enemy, then we are faced with the fact that a potential 5th columnist is in our midst.
Of course, this is a blog of opinions, and it is honourable of commenters to state their views when they know they are contrary to our common values, one of which is our naming of the enemy No. 1 as Zio-Nazism – the recognition that a Zionist faction of the US political elite has taken over the political institutions of that country as a tool for a Zionist global order.
The addition of “Nazism” to the depiction of the enemy (because this is war) reflects the racial component of Zionist ideology and its use of military power to impose submission to its goals, namely its hatred for the native peoples of the Middle East (and all goyim in general) and for political groups, parties and governments who follow socialist ideals – exactly the same ideology that Hitler & Co practised as tools for the same Zionist cabal.
Now that you have disclosed your position in this blog, I should also disclose a doubt I have harboured since you joined: that you did not seem genuine, not a true blue as we say round here.
Please don’t take offence; this is only my humble opinion and you are entitled to yours. Besides, what’s in a word? Quite a lot I’m afraid. The Saker adds the “Anglo” bit as it illustrates the alliance of Zionist ideology and Anglo-centric military power.
Perhaps we here are too raw and coarse for sensitive susceptibilities…
Hi there
“ then we are faced with the fact that a potential 5th columnist is in our midst”
Wow, never been accused of that before.
I’ll let you in on a little secret. Actually I’m part of a small exclusive group of 7th columnists.
One of our very best deceptive tools, is that we always post under our real name, and that anybody with two firing neurons
easily can find out where we live.
“I should also disclose a doubt I have harboured since you joined: that you did not seem genuine, not a true blue as we say round here”.
I’ll refrain to comment on that one.
This one, however, “Perhaps we here are too raw and coarse for sensitive susceptibilities…”.
If, that one was pointed at me as I suspect, , I sincerely doubt that you have seen, or studied more than just a few of my depictions.
Raw and Coarse?? Really.
You have seen Ilse Nuland? http://fotovision.no/GLP1/Ilse_Nuland_SheWolf_Faces_of_Evil_resize.jpg
You know, “The cookie handler” http://telemarksporten.no/Tegneserier/Victoria_Nuland_N1_Faces_of_Evil.jpg
The famous sneer? http://fotovision.no/GLP1/CheneyBuste.jpg
The Livni character http://telemarksporten.no/Tegneserier/Livni02.jpg
The Child Molester: http://telemarksporten.no/Tegneserier/Jimmy_Savile_Faces_of_Evil.jpg
Burning of Zionists flags? http://telemarksporten.no/Tegneserier/BurningFlags.jpg
One of The Kerry: http://telemarksporten.no/Tegneserier/JohnKerry_02_Faces_of_Evil.jpg
And a Blair: http://telemarksporten.no/Tegneserier/TONY_BLAIR_Disgrace_Faces_of_Evil.jpg
One of numerous Hillary’s: http://fotovision.no/GLP1/Hillary_Clinton_Closeup_Faces_of_Evil.jpg
Just one “Obomber”: http://fotovision.no/GLP1/Obama_DemocrazyBomb_Faces_of_Evil.jpg
I could go on with hundreds more, whereof some would be censored here, but why should I, since these
depictions obviously are part of my 7th. Columnist deception policy, right?
Take Care
Kent
K
“like “Zio-Nazi’s” etc. in many posts here might be to “radical”
Yeah, I agree, “Zio-Nazi” is a bit too radical. This is why I use the term zionazi. ;D
Kindly allow me to point out that Control begins with language.
Voltaire famously pointed out that, to understand who rules you, you need only know who you are forbidden to criticize. Gilad Atzmon brilliantly carried this one step further, saying that the surest proof of Judahist control is that it is forbidden to mention it.
The previous agreement that mentioning the elephant in the livingroom is off-limits is gone now. It was repealed by widespread popular defiance of it — to such an extent that the MSM was forced to acknowledge the idea in order to attack it, thus acknowledging it as an explicit topic of discussion.
Previously, one “voice in the wilderness” could be isolated and silenced if it ever did manage to reach public attention. But matters reached the point where “Comment” sections after MSM articles had to be eliminated because they were filled with angry people calling spades “spades.”
The principles of linguistic warfare — even any acknowledgment that it existed, and had been in daily use for decades — reaches us here in the US only belatedly. Explicitly, that is : any oaf can see it by now only too clearly by “politically correct” (taken word-for-word from the Bolshevists) language conquest attempts.
Underlying principle : extinguishing a word extinguishes acknowledgement of the reality it communicates. Replacing it with another word eliminates communicating what the old one connoted and substitutes a new set of assumptions about it. (For a neutral example, choice humor here watching “colored people” –> “Blacks” –> “Black people” –> “people of color” as the current officially non-“racist” noun). (For another, watching the snowflakes squirm because even personal pronouns “trigger” them, leading to increasingly sweeping efforts to impose an entirely new, “value-free,” properly “inclusive” language).
Struggles are initially won in the sphere of language. Understanding this, and that success in establishing terms that adequately connote their intended sense (i.e., are not euphamisms), without this being convincingly attributable to lack of intelligence, information or culture concludes the first phase of the struggle, I think we are going in the right direction.
Vividly descriptive terms may have the effect of a splash of cold water to the faces of newcomers, but once they come to understand their use in the context of obvious intelligence, keen thought, manifest goodwill and illuminative information, it might be one more small-scale success.
One thing for sure is that you cannot convincingly advocate for something you are apologizing for (by using circumlocutions) at the same time.
A Scottish phrase I grew up hearing : “Speak the truth, and shame the devil.” Being afraid to is allowing him to prevail by default.
FWIW
Thanks for the breakdown Saker – excellent.
I was wondering about Russia – when you did your projection, should the American Basement Crazies get their way and attack Iran – do you have any opinion on what Russia would do??
Secondly – I knew about that policy of the UK in WWII for some years. My father was in Bomber Command and sadly, on the Dresden run.
After he discovered what they had done he told us “that’s when I knew we were no better than the Nazis. We were Nazis”. He suffered mentally from that for the rest of his life.
It’s an additional factor, and one which you’d think the Generals might give some thought to, although they never do seem to. Given the high suicide and homeless / mental breakdown rate of American Forces Vets, they don’t seem to take into account that slaughtering innocent civilians also destroys their own.
I’ve only ever seen one American movie which depicted the truth of this: – “The Last Samurai” with Tom Cruise. Not saying there aren’t others. I just haven’t come across them.
@ Isabella
I’m glad your father had the courage to say that. A friend of mine’s father, who was also at the Dresden bombing, did not have courage nor compassion. And he knew at the time what they were doing: killing as many people as possible “to teach the Jerrys a lesson”.
From my readings, the worst killers were the American Mustang fighter-bombers who mercilessly strafed the survivors from the firestorm who jumped into the river Elbe to escape from the unbearable heat. There were consecutive waves of planes until they run out of ammunition and the big river turned red. Perhaps the worst single massacre in history, even more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Your father was right – “we are all Nazis” and the current crop of warmongers keep on reminding us of that. After all, it is now a tradition and they earn accolades, promotions and medals followed by political appointments and directorships in the industrial-military-financial complex. What a sordid Zio-Nazi world!
The fire bombing of Tokyo and Yokohama come to mind….
movie catch22 is honest…and surreal…
yes, we’re in 4th Reich, nazis pity. maybe temporary…
About w2 bombing, ready what happened at Bari with mustard gas.
It seems to me that American military tactics have not progressed all that much from WWI. A bloody huge bombardment then send the troops over the top, on the false assumption that you have destroyed the enemy with the bombardment.
As you noted, it worked a treat for Gulf War I because they were up against an incompetent enemy.
Now, they do not want to send any troops in, they just want to rely on a f’kn big bombardment of high tech weapons.
As you also note, it has never worked and never will, short of complete annihilation through nuclear weapons…….
Can you imagine the response of Russia and China if America nuked Iran?
It would be on for young and old and I would huddle here at the bottom of the southern hemisphere and hope like crazy our useless politicians do not side with America and piss off the Iranian diaspora.
SunTzu counselled not to extend your lines, that war was basically defensive, except in clearly defined circumstances. Note the difference between America and China …. which country do you think intrinsically understands SunTzu and which country in its arrogance runs around the world wasting money and killing people for no discernible gain.
We do indeed live in interesting times. Lets hope Trump does not make it too interesting.
“I find the notion of using US neo-cons to get rid of Saddam Hussein and basically hand over Iraq to Iran nothing short of pure genius”.
Agreed. Except for the fact that Iraq and the wider region has been irreversably polluted, read, destroyed for all future generations due to – officially, 300 tonnes of depleted uranium – being dumped on an unsuspecting and innocent civilian population and region!! In Serbia/Kosovo, it was – again officially,11 tonnes! When you consider that the half life of uranium-238, the most prevalent isotape in uranium has a half life of 4.46 billion years, this certainly, is the mark of true evil!! To dump depleted uranium on a targeted region/population because, well, we have it and well…we can, and to turn a blind eye to the consequences, is truly barbaric, monstrous. I am in agreement that the neo-cons, the gravest danger of “the human sort”, the planet has ever faced, do need to be defeated. Human calculations such as war etc. in the larger context of survival of the species, destruction of our shared habitat etc. do seem rather trite. Oh well, there goes the planet, but ah what the heck, chalk up another victory…
Saker
Have you taken into account the vast superiority of everything americanus exceptionalis, as in this?
F-35 War Games: Beleaguered Fighter Jet Commands Skies with 15:1 Kill Ratio
https://sputniknews.com/military/201702081050446239-f35-war-games-kill-ratio/
“In realistic battle simulations held at an airbase in Nevada, the F-35 demolished expectations after losing just one aircraft for every 15 enemies eliminated.
During desert drills, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter faced potent threats, including radar jammers, surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, and mock opposition aircraft. The F-35’s avionics software was “the star of the show,” Popular Mechanics reported.”
Popular mechanics. :D
Well done analysis on pindo vs Iran war. The americans probably won’t be ready for a serious attack on Iran this year due to the state of their existing military and their geopolitical means to follow through. I think their initial focus will be on Yemen.
Interesting that the trump regime has blown its wad so soon regarding Yemen, with the lies and the obvious preparations of another Tonkin Gulf pretext to use to get much more heavily involved. The zionazis apparently are on a very tight time schedule.
Tight schedules are easy to mess up, especially for “evil Putin’s”.
Secret weapon of The Russian defense, results in the nervous breakdown of NATO pilots (because they just couldn’t figure out what hit them), and render the aircraft irreparable.
See for yourself: http://fotovision.no/GLP1/FighterJet01.jpg
Take Care
Kent
At the risk of being thought a sycophant, I am truly in awe of your knowledge, understanding and analytical skill.
RF lost a national treasure when you left !
Although I agree that the US would not be able to attain “victory” in a war with Iran. I think it is also important to say that Trump will probably never start a war with Iran because he knows that the MSM will not “be on board” and will not be cheerleaders for any Trump wars and will instead be critical of every aspect of the war and of every event that takes place during the war.
@ Anton
“Trump will probably never start a war with Iran because he knows the MSM will not “be on board”.
That is a curious statement, particularly when reams of msm war propaganda have been written urging an attack on Iran! They don’t care who gives the frigging order to fry Iranians as long as they are toast. They are not going to get pangs of conscience if the new Czar gives the order, he may even become their hero!
Some people haven’t got it yet: the MSM is the trumpet for war. Not only that, it will also sell the war to the sheeple and report it straight from the Pentagon’s jaws.
.
Anonymous, I,of course, do not think that the MSM will ever get a pang of conscience. Also, I realize the MSM are trumpets for war but I think they are trumpets for wars that the faction of the Zionist mafia that they work for wants. Although, I certainly don’t know all of the machinations within this mafia, it seems to me that Trump (and the faction he represents) is taking a harder line against Iran than Obama (and the faction he represents) .
Do you not agree that the MSM were very critical of the recent Yemen raid, which is an act of war?
If the US gets bogged down in Iran, like they did in Iraq, they will not have the forces to prevent Russia from taking eastern Ukraine up to the river and China will take Taiwan. Just my SWAG of how it would shake out.
At that point the US would have to choose between giving up or going nuclear. My guess is that they won’t attack Iran despite all the tough talk. After all talk is cheap.
Looked up bios for both flynn and mattis, neither appears to have been in actual combat, ever. These are bureaucratic officers.
Hi, sorry for my english write, but, i wanna tell you that this article seems to me a very good study of iranians. Truly, the americans cant win in a war with iran, less on chinese…my opinion is, that americans needs a war. But they will imposs on a tiny country, perhaps african one. This is for maintain warmongers bussy; while trump gets a breath on u.s.
As an Iranian who lived through the shah’s regime, the revolution and the imposed war by Iraq (and the powers behind it) who now lives in the USA, I have a more complete knowledge of both sides than most. I keep up with the news and check this website daily. I can confidently say that Saker is absolutely right in his assessment. He is just a genius to dissect the situation in hand so completely and correctly. The chance of war is at least 50%. Wait for Ayatollah Khameni’s response to the recent threats this Friday. He will not only back down, but he will double down and issue threats. The hubris and hipocracy ruling the beltway is breath taking ( and nauseating). False flag operations anyone?
I think it is Trump who is playing with fire, not Iran. The war will bring the end of the empire.
In case USA engages attack on Iran, USA is no more.
Iran is a great country, larger than Serbia, Cuba, etc…
Iran has “hoots” which could easily sunk naval carriers, and with it the underlying part of the $fdrn.
Interesting article, I was fully onboard until I read your comments on the Iranian people and their attitude towards Islam. You seem well informed on the military doctrine or potential doctrine of Iran be clearly lack even the most basic understanding of the Iranian people or culture.
Trump’s position is very delicate and he is under heavy attack by the Deep State. He is not really safe at this moment. Therefore he must offer some compromise to the establishment. At this point he offers some kind of aggressive rhetoric against Iran and China as compensation to Deep State, which is much better than starting real wars or sending weapons to Ukies. Keep that in mind while commenting his “blunders” and SNAFUs.
Many here are hoping you’re right, but appreciative that someone else says it.
Trump can’t make the same mistake as JFK, and delay cleaning house.
A very dicey situation that can only be improved by a lot more Americans waking up and allowing the non-imperialists (there are some….) more maneuvering room, more guts, more determination.
Great article Saker! (in jest) You were very obliging and gracious to grant my request for a fuller analysis on Iran’s defensive capability against the Hegemon! I was expecting it but it came sooner than I was hoping for.
Now, you did not go into details, just the doctrine and overall strategy and that is as far as one can go because there too many unknowns and the usual imponderables of warfare (e.g. how many aggressors will gang up against Iran, will China and Russia assist and in what way, etc.?)
Yet I detect some curiosity among the readers as to the military means available to the Iranian if hostilities break out. Yes, they are mentally prepared for a conflict and will defend their country resolutely and, after years of constant demonization, have no doubt prepared the infrastructures to defeat an invasion.
However, an assault on Iran will rely heavily or even exclusively on air bombardments from afar, possibly or even likely depleted uranium bombs. As usual (Iraq, Serbia) they will strike at civilian infrastructure (roads, bridges, railways, dams, water supply, power stations, factories, radio/tv stations, air raid shelters, ports and so on) as well as the obvious military targets (air and naval bases, rocket installations, air defence systems, command centres, troop concentrations, etc.) These strikes will originate from known US bases in neighbouring countries (Saudi Arabia, Gulf states, Turkey), long-range bombers and naval assets in the Indian Ocean. This means, contrary to the attack and invasion of Iraq, Iran will not have timely “warnings” that it is going to be attacked and, therefore, won’t have time to strike at the aggressor’s bases and ships before being hit. Given such scenario, I fear the coming war on Iran is going to be sudden and massive, in fact a repeat of Israel’s attack on the Arab countries in 1967which destroyed their air forces on the ground and became defenceless.
Iran is between a rock and a hard place: it cannot deliver a pre-emptive strike against the aggressor because that would be undiplomatic and aggression. And it cannot defend itself properly because the attack will be sudden and brutal. Exactly the position Japan was in in 1941.
Is there any way out of this horrible predicament? That’s the reason I hate injustice.
None the less, surely the Russians and Chinese, even if not directly supporting Iran militarily , would do so with signal intell……
Personally I feel it clear there will be direct military aid coming from both as they all realise they stick together or fall alone….
The fact is that at this level of cooperation it’s about the individuals, running these organisations. About their personal relationships, that’s what leaders are for…..
It’s a question of timing.
Will an attack on Iran (quite likely from Israel, now in the hands of complete fascist loons) be of sufficient strength to annul any chance of counterattack – especially towards Israel?
From what I have read – no.
China won’t standby on the sidelines either.
By the same token, it would be interesting if the airplanes doing the bombings & air-to-ground missile attacks were unable to return to their carriers and bases and land because these had been destroyed by Iranian missiles while they were still in the air.
Or do the neocon strategists even think of such possible outcomes ?
I suspect that, if they do, they ignore them. Because more dead goyim mean nothing, and planes that have to be ditched (pilots bailing out) just mean more war profits for aerospace contractor stockholders to replace them.
The TRULY sick part of this is that stannous flouride is a byproduct of producing aluminium. It was poisoning the environment so drastically that the Mellon Institute came up with the idea (already pioneered by the Nazis on the Czechs and found effective in rendering that population docile) of putting it into the national water supply as a “health benefit” —
http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/fluoride-is-poison/
(There is acknowledged testimony that the US knew of the German experiments in a Congressional Hearing on it published in newspaper reports at the time. Unfortunately, no one can find the transcript of these hearings despite “diligent searches” for it).
Similarly (with a twist) in the case of depleted uranium. How to safely dispose of such perpetually toxic stuff without great expense ?
They found a way.
Some may recall the Persian attempts to subdue the Greeks… But whether those border skirmishes are forgotten and their bloody lessons ignored in the West, or not, it’s a very safe bet to assume that the “Persians” recall them… This has implications.
Both Thermopylae and Salamis, direct engagements essentially trivial in the scope of the Empire, each undermined the Imperial logistical train, which relied on shipping – a substantial control over a navy and merchant ships. Persia withdrew, and in the fullness of time…poof!
Now, if the intrepid and celestial wisdoms that decide these things is pleased to provide Iran with a suitable target set… Well, one assumes that they know how to “do Salamis” to the USN… You start with getting a blue water navy into shallow restricted waters with massive tidal variations and rugged coasts…
And then too, the Imperial ships are not rugged – indications are that morale, training, and design and maintenance is all fairly low quality – but naturally the ships are purpose-built to turn maximum profit, not ruggedness.
What’s worrying is not the naval catastrophe the Empire may fall into, but the Geo-political secondary effect of a massive defeat. Can a nuclear bombing be avoided after a USN carrier group is sunk?
A reminder where the trump regime gets their marching orders from.
Israel ‘Trying to Turn US, Europe Away’ From Iran
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201702081050464066-israel-iran-geopolitics/
“Israel is the main source of all conflicts in the Middle East,” Hossein Ruyvaran, an expert on the Middle East and the Arab world who teaches at the University of Tehran, said. “Since this state was established in 1948, the region has been plagued by many wars sparked by Israel – in 1948, 1956, 1973, 1982, 2006, 2008, 2012 and 2014. The Israeli regime is the main reason for regional tensions due to its ambitions. This regime has tried to change the geopolitical orientation in the region.”
“Claims that Iran is the key threat [in the Middle East] and the main reason behind all troubles in the region are groundless,” Ruyvaran said. “Israel has tried to use these accusations to turn the West against Iran. Meanwhile, the UN Security Council has adopted Resolution 2234 which strongly condemns Israel’s unlawful settlements on occupied lands.”
The source of the aggression against Iran remains the same, the trump regime, by dutifully following the zionazi orders, maintains the now colonial role of the u.s. government to israel.
To the extent that zionist influence creates Policy in the actions of the Empire, it may be worthwhile to examine how this works, and why… And when, if it pleases some to do so, these methods and purposes are discovered, then these methods could then be used to influence the zionist’s own policies…
My cynical, even sarcastic (when I’m tired and tend to be impolite) view is that the only effective way to get the results one desires in geopolitics, and in life, is the indirect method. That’s what happened at Thermopylae and Salamis – in fact it’s what always happens.
Real violence is a sure indication of a serious fubar proportional to the level of violence. An emergency makes for violence.
They may blunder and make many stupid mistakes, but the Junta called Trump set out to save the Country. That’s what they said. This obviously dismisses zionist interests beyond nascent domestic zionist matters – trivial in the large scheme of things, and local.
We shall see who “wins”…but the indirect method will be the method by which one or the other prevails.
Emotion mustn’t override reason’: Churkin questions Trump’s tensions with Iran & China (EXCLUSIVE)
https://www.rt.com/news/376646-churkin-trump-iran-china-tension/
“This outcry about Iran’s ballistic missile launches. I was surprised to hear even American experts speaking on CNN and calling it a violation of bans by the UN Security Council. Those bans were there before, all those bans were lifted,” Churkin said.
The UNSC resolution only “calls” on Iran not to conduct tests of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons but does not impose any ban, he explained. Moreover, any such capability has to be proven before accusations are voiced, he argued.”
Always the diplomat, Churkin nevertheless calls out the lies by the zionazi trump regime about Iran. The Russia are keeping the diplomacy door open, but it is clear that what applied to the zionazi obama regime also applies to the zionazi trump regime.
Well written. Well thought out, very informative. Thank you sir.
Thank you Saker. Excellent article ( read it twice).
You have a gift from God for the written word
I particularly liked the part of Israel as vegetables used on a plate for “decoration”, and nothing else.
That was genius!
Reminds me of this old commercial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0
Regards,
Carmel by the Sea
Another aspect of this : After the Bush gang ended up elbowed out of the oil feeding trough in Iraq that they thought would be theirs when they attacked it . . .
One of the oil cartels (the one which controls the US) in recent years tried to achieve “energy independence” by fracking oil shales (with horrible ecologic consequences). This was/is completely dependent on relatively high oil prices to be profitable.
The response was dumping by the Saudis to maintain market share. (VERY oversimplified but communicates the essential idea). The large number of startups in this field (predictably) went bankrupt and their leases were bought up for pennies on the dollar by the big dogs. As is usual with all first implementations of new approaches.
Now the problem is how to make fracking profitable. The (illegal because it violates the 1971 treaty with the Sioux — no argument possible) pipeline that Trump is ordering the Army Corps of Engineers to approve will help some, because pipeline transmission is much more cost efficient than hauling it to refineries in the far south by trucks, and because this will reduce the oversupply in the north central region that keeps prices depressed in places like Chicago. But these are small improvements. How to reap “yuge” profits ?
Well, what would the result be if Iran took out the Saudi oil production with its missiles ? $100 per barrel ? More ? Much more ?
The Saudis are, at this point, essentially bankrupt as it is, and rely on an army of mercenaries. The House of Saud could be toppled pretty easily, or at least the country reduced to pandemonium.
As ALWAYS : Follow the money trail.
(That most of the Saudis in the oil producing region of Saudi Arabia are Shiites might or might not have consequences).
Funny I should mention . . .
“The carnage continues in the U.S. major oil industry as they sink further and further in the RED. The top three U.S. oil companies, whose profits were once the envy of the energy sector, are now forced to borrow money to pay dividends or capital expenditures. The financial situation at ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips has become so dreadful, their total long-term debt surged 25% in just the past year.
“Unfortunately, the majority of financial analysts at CNBC, Bloomberg or Fox Business have no clue just how bad the situation will become for the United States as its energy sector continues to disintegrate. While the Federal Government could step in and bail out BIG OIL with printed money, they cannot print barrels of oil.”
http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-blood-bath-continues-in-the-u-s-major-oil-industry/
@ TtC
Thanks for the “revelation”. Indeed, there are many dimensions to look for, explore and give meaning to political agents’ actions. A conflagration involving Iran will inevitably lead to the Saudis being sucked into the vortex and 20% of world oil production shut off. That alone would cause enormous chaos, losses to some and windfalls to others. Yes, the fracking bastards would benefit… and Russia.
On the other hand, stocks of crude oil are in major oversupply in the US due to plummeting demand for gasoline. Refiners has been refining more of it in anticipation that they would be able to sell it, reducing the glut of crude in the system. Now, however, tankers filled with gasoline are being diverted away from the US to other destinations.
Despite this, production is being ramped up, and shale oil (fracking) infrastructure is being increased. Which makes no current economic sense.
Looks like Iran is “about oil,” all right. Even MSM “analysts” (propagandists) acknowledge that if the US attacks Iran, everything changes.
When one plans for a large military operation one would first arrange to have one’s own ullage at maximum, comrade.
:lack of demand” is not true, it’s lack of ready cash that’s limiting domestic fuel consumption, ie poverty.
@anon — please !
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Time-Bomb-In-Oil-Markets-Goldman-Sachs-Issues-Warning.html
I should have finished that post.
Lack of demand is relative to supply.
Oversupply is relative to demand.
Supply is driven by speculators in the commodities market anticipating future price swings and companies responding.
Are plans secretly in place to use military intervention in service of oil companies (like Bush with Iraq — plans were laid long before) ?
Other factors (like rescuing fracking operations) ?
Causality is probably moot.
During the 78-day aggression on Serbia, N(orth) A(tlantic)T(erorist) O(rganisation) crews flew 33,000 combat missions over Serbia, dropped more than 20,000 laser or satellite-guided weapons and concluded at the time (not surprisingly) that 99.6% found their targets. Of the more than one thousand planes used in the operation, 725 were American. Four hundred and fifty precision Tomahawk and 90 air-launched Cruise missiles were used (many of them with depleted uranium). All told, 79,000 tons of explosives were dropped, including 152 containers with 35,450 cluster bombs, thermo-visual and graphite bombs.
Yet, despite this tremendous firepower used against a country the size of Ohio and a military that heavily relied on 1960-70’s Soviet technology, the Serbian Army emerged from this bombing campaign virtually unscathed, as Saker pointed out. It is well publicized that Serbian generals used some very clever tactics to achieve that. One can assume their Iranian counterparts have studied them very carefully.
Maybe on a tactical level, Serbia “won”, but Serbia is in real terms very much the loser, and not only Serbia, but all surrounding countries. Due to the malignant nature of the enemy, the region is now, shall we say, radioactive. Slowly dawning, is the heinous nature of the crime by the neo-cons! Will they ever be held to account for such destruction? Yes, but not in this earthly arena. Meanwhile, Serbs, Albanians, Macedonians, even Bulgarians are registering a vertical spike in malignant cancers, but nowhere on the horizon is there an indication that the affected peoples will raise up their complaint in order to demand justice. The region is still enslaved to primitive nationalism. That is why it was so easily conquered.
Superb analysis Saker, no doubt! And many, many great comments too.
I am wondering if there is a translation in Serbian? I wish I can share this with friends who don’t know English. I am more than willing to translate it to Serbian if that hasn’t been done.
Excellent article.
On bunkers and underground defense structures:
The Swedish military cold war organisation had an advanced structure of underground installations. By now most of have been removed from the planning/strategy and have either been filled, blocked, dismantled or sold etc.
One of the lessons Swedish military picked up from Gulf War I is how devastating bunker buster bombs (aerosol or thermobaric) was and thus that these installations were very vunerable to modern air power.
Still underground warfare is nothing new. From medival seigies to WW I trenches, to Stalingrad, Vietnam and Mosul.
But perhaps the underground comes is best on a tactical combat level.
As far as I can think of a large network of installations yet has have to be prove itself being sucessful concept IRL on strategy level. The Maginot Line didnt work out good as example. The Swedish installations costed a lost of resources and became quickly outdated.
No doubt the new-found abilities to ruin underground redoubts do, well, ruin many when the unspeakable takes place.
This evident fact does not materially affect the vital necessity that each ruling cadre has in preventing a “mine-shaft-gap” – I believe this was explained by Peter Sellers when he delivered his Endlösung to the bonzen in the war-room.
Obviously this means they’ll dig deeper and more secretly…who recalls the massive excavations in DC under the Barky fella…
One question or thougt: even if not “winning” – the spread of chaos and destruction in a country resistant to US-primacy – could US-warmongers see it as a sufficiant justification for war?
One point: It would prevent other government resist to US-supremacy as they would know, what they risk. This thougt apply especially on country trying to quit the petrodollar system. The US can hardly accept such behaviour if they will maintain the pressure to adhere with this system.
A second point is, that chaos and ongoing civil war legitimize the us-forces to stay in the country – as in Afghanistan. Willy Wimmer, a german politician say, the US-forces could have win the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and restore peace in the country. But they didn’t because they would have had to leave. Perhaps the same thougt apply to Libya, Irak or every future destroyed country. The US prefere a destroyed country than a hostile one. In Syria it was obvious, that if Asad was gone, the same endless chaos of war between different groups would happen as in Libya. But this seems not to bother the US- “Asad must go” policy.
A third point is, destroying country who are partners of Russia are seeing as steps befor jumping for the real thing – a war against Russia. And this isolate Russia even more, if they lost partners.
A fourth point are the interests of the military industrial complex to maintain or even encrease a level of ongoing war worldwide.
So there seems to be some reasons for the US to engage in wars, they knew they can’t be win. Hopefully Trump don’t step in in such mad and criminal politic.
Peter,
Yes, I agree with you very much. The Saker’s analysis about whether we can win a war at various levels against Iran is correct. But, one should not confuse that with an analysis of whether we will choose to go to war with Iran.
Analysis of whether we would go to war with Iran or not should/would include identifying everyone who has an interest in it and how strong their interest is. Take Israel for example. If Assad in Syria manages to turn the tide and regain full control of the country, the Syria emerges with a far stronger military and air defense than,previously existed. I don’t think Israel can accept this and (if they have strong enough influence over US policy) would likely press for military action against Iran. Saudi Arabia would,fully be on board with this and you can add their,influence/pressure for action on top of Israels. Add some European nations to this and Qatar also.
Counter influences. Russia, china, etc..
Since US.gov is so currpted add all the private corporations which would benefit or be hurt by the war. Hint, more big companies would benefit than would be negatively affected.
Now, who pays for our politicians camapigns?
Think you start to get a conclusion which has nothing to do with a military analysis if whether we will win it or not…
The ‘American Way of War’ is because the American elites who want to start these wars is very doubtful that the American people are really fully committed to such a war.
During the Vietnam War, these elites realize that they lost the belief of the American people. For a stretch of time after that, there was talk of the ‘Vietnam Syndrone’. The corporate media trumpets that the ‘Vietnam Syndrone’ was banished back during the Gulf War (1st Iraq War), but these days its rather apparent that the media is both a propaganda machine and very disconnected from its audience.
The bottom line is that the American elites do not believe they can find a long war without the American people doing another Vietnam on them. Likewise, the Vietnam experience of the nightly news giving American casualty reports scares the elites and leads to the tactics that try at all cost to avoid Americans coming home in body bags.
Thus, the air-power, missile-strike heavy tactics employed. They’ve felt confident enough of being safe in the air that they can do this and not risk casualties. And it makes pretty films for the nightly propaganda reports on TV.
These days, the elites have exerted much stronger control over the media than in Vietnam. No more Walter Cronkites who are journalist with ethics. Certainly not on any of the TV broadcasts and not at any of the major papers. You’ll only find that sort of journalism these days in the places where John Pilger and Pepe Escobar and others are published.
On the other hand, American right now is very highly divided. Its always risky taking a divided country to war. Sometimes the risk works for the leaders who try it as the nation unites in wartime, ala Dubya to some extent. But it can also fracture a nation.
The lefty-leaning, Democrat-assotiated groups that oppose the Dubya phase of the wars will be back. The nation is still realing from a Hillary campaign that was willing to divisively fraction the nation by waging a campaign that was essentially name-calling in calling Trump a ‘fascist’ and a ‘racist’ and calling his supporters ‘deploreables’ and issuing racist attacks against ‘whites’. Since this has continued after the election (instead of the American tradition of losers helping to unify the country for the next president), and since the Deep State has also gottten involved in going after Trump, America is currently a very badly divided country.
The American war movies are propaganda films designed to build public support for the military and this age of never-ending wars. But, despite the efforts of the corporate media and Hollywood, America is rather strongly anti-war right now. This has been true since Dubya’s
3rd Iraq War against Saddam’s military morphed into the 4th Iraq War against an insurgency. Polls started showing then that the American people were against this. The Democrats played on this to gain power, then became even more pro-war than Dubya/Cheney.
In the last election, Trump the Candidate realized this and also played into it. By coming out and saying what the American people wanted to hear that the Iraq war and the rest of these regime change ops were a mistake. That the era of interventionism was over.
So, if Trump decides to do a Woodrow Wilson and immediately embark on a major war in violation of campaign rhetoric, he’s going to have a fractured country behind him. He have the pro-Democrat anti-war forces back out against him (after being MIA for 8 years of Obama), and he’ll have a significant minority of the Republican voters against him as well.
I rather suspect this is underneath the assesments that have been leaked of intelligence officials advising not to attack Iran. I rather suspect that Trump will be faced with Vietnam levels of domestic discord, and this time from early in the war (where the Vietnam opposition took years to build).
Its been said that the reason the US military supported finally ending the Vietnam War short of the light at the end of the tunnel was that they were realizing they needed the troops to control the cities and campuses at home.
Its hard to tell what Trump is doing right now. As a candidate, he showed a good touch for connecting with the American people, and a part of that was saying ‘no mas’ to more of these wars. But now he seems to be surrounding himself with generals and republican neocons and of course the Israeli money that came to him after the nomination. So, no telling who he’s listening to right now. But, as an American who doesn’t really want to see his country torn apart because such things are never good, I’m hoping that candidate Trump might reassert himself and realize that this is a really stupid time and place to fight a war while leading a very divided country where half the people, the deep state, the media, and others are against him.
On the other hand, American right now is very highly divided. Its always risky taking a divided country to war . . . So, if Trump decides to do a Woodrow Wilson and immediately embark on a major war in violation of campaign rhetoric, he’s going to have a fractured country behind him . . .
True, of course. But this describes the situation in the US on the eve of WW II. The Pearl Harbor psyop took care of that.
Before WW I (massive resistance) and Desert Storm, lying propaganda sufficed. But if WW I would have dragged on without resolution, war hysteria would have run into the ground. Short duration is the key in these succeeding before opposition can coalesce.
FWIW, I suspect that whenever somebody first mentioned the Ukraine in his presence, he had to have somebody show him where it was on a map. He is good man at heart, I think, but foreign affairs he only sees through the narrow lens of whether involvement with them is “good for business” here in the US. This consideration — especially early on (felt necessity to accumulate “wins” in rapid succession to quiet opponents) will probably shape/determine what advice from those around him he follows.
I think (and hope) he is too smart to risk a lot in his first months on the uncertain outcome of a war that could drag on for years, embroil him in even more opposition (this time spontaneous and from supporters, not paid/brainwashed idiots) and define his presidency the way Viet Nam did LBJ’s. Or, he should.
FWIW
…………….
PS : Curious the way maps of Novorussia don’t generally show what territory is controlled by each side, and those that do (BBC is good) don’t show highways, rail lines etc., making armchair strategic analysis difficult (LOL !)
Very good analysis. Ahura…every day is light as in the old Zoroastrian God Ahura Mazda, and Kabala is where the founders of the faith (Shia) discovered themselves. Not the sort of concept either the Israelis or their cannon fodder in the USA could conceive or understand.
What you failed to mention though is that almost all violent events in the West are false flags operated at the behest of Israel either by the Israelis themselves…9/11, or Charlie Hebdo, or Paris and Nice attacks.
Thus what all your armchair generals fail to understand is that they live in a totally false world controlled by Hollywood, the bankers and those who pull the strings of the Neocons and people like Trump.
Excellent look at the collapsing Ponzi scheme that is euphemistically referred to as the free democratic West. A place where all the people are economic slaves to the materialist bankers and their shills. (I am trying to be polite to everyone!)
Murdering civilians is an old habit of people who steal children, do evil things with them before murdering them and eating some of them. The West is run by people who live only for the abuse of innocents because it makes them feel like Gods.
With these people in power what else do you expect!
I personally would rather the United States, Russia and Iran sit down and discuss how to run the Middle East. However, the United States could hurt Iran badly and then defy it to retaliate in kind. What I mean is that we could simply take out some significant part of their military apparatus on the ground, enough to let them know that we are serious about missile tests, and then defy them to attack the United States in its military installations on American soil.
Then they would have to decide if they are suicidal or not. Chicken is a very dangerous game and Trump is no neo-con. It is like torture by sniper, who as the most emotional control?
Mischa Pennington: would destroying Iran be worth it if the US lost Europe?
Remember, Iran could easily trash the oil fields and ports of Saudi Arabia and close the Strait of Hormuz for good measure. Would the Europeans tolerate the crashing of their economies for no gain? I doubt it.
Their largest countries are already restless, having joined China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in spite of US orders to the contrary. And Brexit is an even louder message that the US’s loyallest vassal is ready to leave. If on top of this an American war causes a large fraction of their energy imports to disappear, the Europeans will become very angry.
Will the loss of Europe be worth it to the US? To Israel, maybe yes, but to the US?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-iran-politics-idUSKBN15P1TH
This may be what’s going on. Either that or Trump has plans for the Shah’s son who lives in Maryland.
My point was that if the US wants to, it could simply torture Iran to the point it destabilizes and there is a revolution. That is how you control Iran, not overt conquest, slow incremental torture. Using that they can keep the moderate president in power or incite a popular uprising or even cause a hardline takeover of the presidency (which we assume no one wants). It all depends on the sanction regime, the extent of the damage done to their military infrastructure and the rhetoric coming out of the White House.
Trump has quite a bit of power if he doesn’t think like a neo-con but like a true Rightist/Monarchist. He seems to be doing the things you would do domestically to create a dominant party system of sovereign democracy like you have in the Russian Federation. If he reforms trade along reciprocal lines and sees that MNC’s are taxed on imports to make up for the difference in production costs AND if he leaves the spigots of welfare redistribution open (though he may want to adjust the flow patterns), he will be establishing a classical conservative government and ensuring Republican rule for decades to come as the new dominant party – much like operated in Japan for much of its post-WWII history. Americans on the left, most of them, believe mostly in money – welfare. That’s the only thing that holds all those crazy idiots together. He’s putting a bullet in that beast by harboring no opposition to redistribution. That’s what his make work jobs program was designed to telegraph.
Spigot’s open.
The checks and balances would no longer have anything to do with partisanship or policy for the most part because policy would be settled: a restrained nationalism, not imperialism. That’s what the three branches of government were originally designed for. There would be minority parties to keep the dominant party focused on what’s good for the nation – much like in Russia.
Well, a long slow torture of Iran would be better for the US than outright military assault. The US wouldn’t survive the likely consequences of an Iranian war for long: the exit of Europe from the Anglo-Zionist empire, and the killing of the petrodollar — especially the latter.
I doubt Iran will be containable for much longer, especially if they continue to get support from Russia and China, as they probably will. The nuclear deal was Obama’s acknowledgement of this fact.
I forgot to mention another aspect. Someone implied that Flynn was really warning Iran to stop their plans to sell their oil for other currencies and stay on the petro-dollar system. Well, if the US strikes Iran, that system will die fast.
Iran could stop the flow of much of Middle Eastern oil to Europe and cause cardiac arrest to the economies there. Remember, Europe’s combined GDP is greater than the US’s, so the continent’s opinion really matters. If they don’t get the petro, they can definitely kill the petro-dollar.
I think (if anybody cares) that several posters in this thread are converging on the actual heart of the matter. I.e., here (as always and everywhere) follow the money trail.
Not as a complicating factor in geopolitics (.g., RF cannot afford to pay for military operations in the Ukraine), or even as a motivator (e.g., Bush’s Iraq conquest, while temporarily pacifying the zionazis in Israel, was schemed long in advance to deliver Iraqi oil to the oil US cartel).
How is outright war averted ? (The public will be kept in fear over this — fearful people are suggestible. e.g., “the cold war” 1945-1989 in essence. In reality the US deep state was helping the SU with advanced technology all along, with regular flights between Alaska and Siberia. Very little known even today).
Moscow on the Hudson. Today no less than in previous decades. But behind both, pulling strings, is the financial empire — either “the Judahists” (a popular idea) or (more likely) “The Empire of the City” (by Knuth : the book that blew its cover in 1946).
No one needs to cite examples of the deep state’s operating as the executive branch of this in the US. But to (probably) no lesser extent, Putin’s hands are tied, and his choices limited by this same octopus. (Notice who controls the RF’s money and banking establishment).
In political affairs, only what can get the consensus of the orcs is actually put into effect. So VP could save Syria — because of the planned gas pipeline through it from RF to western Europe. But he could not have his fingerprints on effective resistance to the hijacking of the Ukraine, so nothing was done.
Look at proposed pipeline routes for delivering Russian gas to western Europe (and at the north-south economic corridor from India through Azerbaijan and Iran to RF. Are not all serious problems on geopolitical transit routes ?)
Just as it is obvious (once considered) that (as always) Beard’s advice to “follow the money trail” explains what otherwise makes no good sense (and violates common decency), going deeper it is no less apparent that the empire behind the scenes, ruling through Herod-like local satraps, is not a monolith.
Through understanding the way of its low-level expressions operates, the modus operandus of the overall organization appears. This accessible (barely, to outsiders) branch operation in the US is the mafia (or la cosa nostra, “the mob” or whatever name you like). It is comprised of various factions, which all co-operate in the common endeavor. But even within these, nobody trusts anybody. (A mafioso I knew in prison was astonished that I understood this when I mentioned it). People (and factions) within it are perpetually on the lookout for weak spots in the others, and will seize control of their operations whenever the opportunity presents itself. The only inhibiting consideration is being able to get away with it. Not different at all from the way royal courts have operated for millenia — factions, intrigues, etc.
For example, internationally, Roosevelt “stuck it to” the City of London in 1933 when he sized the gold owned by Americans, then raised the dollar conversion rate from $20.67 to $35/oz. <and declared contracts denominated in gold null/unenforceable. This screwed holders of such bonds/contracts out of the difference in value (59% !)
Too long already. Short version, I suspect that both RF and US are working from a set of acceptable options, with what is “acceptable” determined by consensus of hidden interests at the table. An aboveground parallel example would be the Iraq war : seizing oil revenue for the US oil cartel ($$$), big profits for defense contractors ($$$), big profits for the bankster moneylenders ($$$), lots of new toys and publicity for the military establishment, big stock price boosts for Wall Street ($$$), opportunities for the arms makers to field test their new gadgets, etc.
Assume that different pipelines (proposed and actual) have different investment factions behind them, with expenses being huge but success translating into wealth beyond dreams of avarice, and I think the crazy manoevring becomes comprehensible — even the suicidal behavior of the EU killing the Bulgarian route to Europe : the wrong faction would have gained control and profits.
FWIW (assuming anything), as usual.
PS : This does not imply that authentic patriotism and humane values are not primary motivators — at least in the case of the RF — just not what makes decisions. What can be done — what permission can be gained for — is the constraint under which both sides operate.
Here, as within the deep state, there are political struggles at the same time, as actual human beings manoevre to gradually get out from under what handcuffs them.