by Ghassan Kadi for The Saker Blog
As the American military build-up continues around the Strait of Hormuz, and as a potential American-Iranian war looms, many analysts are convinced that war is imminent. I beg to differ.
Ever since the “War on Syria” started, I kept reiterating that America would never launch a full-on attack on Syria, and for very good reasons, and not long ago, I finally felt compelled to write a series of articles explaining that in as much as America would love to be able to pillage Syria, it is unable to do so.
Here is the link for one of the articles for those who might be interested.
https://10.16.86.131/war-on-syria-not-quite-according-to-plan-part-3-a-usa-unable-to-bomb-syria/
Those predictions, which stood the test of time, were made long before the Russian involvement in Syria, and now, after Syria’s triumph, the chances of a decisive victory that America is able to score by way of a military gamble anywhere in the Middle East have been shrinking and reduced to the level of zero chance. If anything, the “War on Syria” was the surrogate war that America could not launch directly either on Syria or on Iran, and even by turning its war into a war by proxy, America was still unable to win.
To recap briefly, some obstacles that stood against an all-out American NATO-led assault on Syria back in 2013, I argued that America would never risk a retaliatory attack against Israel by both Syria and Hezbollah.
An American attack on Iran will not eliminate the risk of a Hezbollah retaliatory attack on Israel, and if anything, it will bring in a new risk; the risk of a retaliatory Iranian attack on Saudi soil.
Whether or not an American-Iranian show down will directly involve Saudi troops, given that Saudi Arabia is still unable to win in its war against Yemen, even though it has the third largest military budget after the USA and China, a direct Saudi role will have little in effecting any significant input. However, with or without a direct Saudi intervention, an American attack on Iran will immediately put American interests in Saudi Arabia under the Iranian target list.
In the event of such an attack, the first thing that Iran will do is close marine traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. As a result, the whole world will be affected and the price of a barrel of oil may jump to $200 and beyond, but the relevant issue here is the impact on the feasibility of American military success.
An American attack on Iran cannot be seen as an event that is independent from the wars on Syria and Yemen. It will be seen as an upscaling that directly involves Iran. Any such turning point will sooner or later involve Saudi Arabia directly. And given that Iran will more than likely close the Strait of Hormuz and thereby putting all Saudi oil exports to halt, whether or not Iran intended to intimidate America alone, the Saudis will see it as an act of war; and they will be “forced” to retaliate.
But the moment the Iranians see that Saudi forces are involved in military action against them, they will have a huge array of critical soft Saudi targets to hit; all the way from oil wells, ports, and more importantly perhaps, water desalination plants that are all scattered on the east coast of Saudi Arabia; ie across the gulf from Iran.
Those sites are undoubtedly protected by ground to air defence shields, but in the face of thousands, tens of thousands of cheap rockets fired from Iran, much more expensive and harder-to-come-by Patriot missiles will not be able to totally stop waves and waves of Iranian rockets.
The Saudi desalination plants feed all cities in the east; including the capital Riyadh. Without them, Saudi citizens will have no water. And without oil exports, they will also lose their income.
Power stations are also in the east, if they get hit, eastern Saudi Arabia will plunge into darkness, and as summer approaches, without air-conditioning, today’s Saudis who are not any longer attuned to the harsh climate of the desert, will suffer greatly from heat exhaustion; especially without water and fuel.
America may not give a damn about Saudis, but it cannot afford to lose Saudi revenue.
But this is only on the eastern front.
On the southern front, a weaker Saudi Arabia will have to relent in its attack on Yemen. Where will this leave the battle front?
On the western front however, an all-out American attack on Iran will be seen as a bigger existential threat to Hezbollah than the “War on Syria”. Hezbollah will retaliate by hitting back at Israel; not only using its rocket power in a retaliatory manner, but also for leverage and the ability to trade-off a cease fire against Israel by an American one against Iran. A scenario like this can become a game of playing chicken and seeing who blinks first; and more than likely, faced by potential civilian casualties, Israel will be the party to relent.
An onslaught of Hezbollah rockets on Israel has been something that the USA has thus far managed to avoid; despite its deep role in the “War on Syria”. But if the carnage eventuates, America will be “forced” to supply Israel with a massive number of Patriot missiles. But these cost more than a million dollars each at least. Such figures are easy to estimate even according to sources such as Wikipedia. But the question is, who is going to fork out the cost? Furthermore, Hezbollah is estimated to have over 150 thousand rockets poised at Israel. Does America have enough Patriots to intercept them? And if THAAD missiles are to be used here and there, the economy becomes more daunting with batteries costing over a billion dollars each, according to Wikipedia again.
This of course brings in the bigger question of economy; ie the economic front. If the invasion of Iraq has cost the American treasury something between 2 and 4 trillion dollars, how much will a war with Iran cost? With the American economy on the brink, can America financially afford a new war with an enemy that it hasn’t tested the fighting prowess of?
Trump was quoted saying that a war with Iran will be the official end of Iran. https://sputniknews.com/us/201905201075143491-trump-iran-threat-fight/. But the United States of America has thus far lost all of its post WWII wars, even though they were all launched against foes of seemingly much less military readiness than Iran. As a matter of fact, if one looks at the regional strategic risks, the military risks, plus the economic risks, an American war against Iran could well become the straw that breaks America’s back.
The above analysis does not even take into account the economic impact of such war on the EU and/or the possibility of Russian, Chinese and Indian roles.
As an energy exporter, Russia may gain from inflated petrol and gas prices, but strategically, it is not going to sit idle as America wreaks havoc and imposes superiority in an area that is of high interest to Russia. But China and India, and the EU, are highly dependent on fuel that has no way out of its origin to their ports other than via the Strait of Hormuz. Some EU nations may give America some grace if convinced by big brother that the attack will only last a matter of days, but what if it takes weeks, months, or years? What if the norm becomes a $200 oil barrel? Which world economy can survive such a calamity?
The only logical scenario here is that not unless America is able to incinerate Iran in a single knockout blow, any attack on Iran will result in a series of independent repercussions that have the potential of turning the attack into a nightmare for America.
The days of bottomless pockets that allowed America to launch wars on Korea and Vietnam under the guise of fighting Communism are no more.
The days of the so-called “New World Order” of the post-USSR period and which gave America a carte-blanche to attack Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again and Libya was put on hold in Syria, and Russia has marked her redlines for any such future offensives.
Without international impunity, without a successful military track record, without the risk of retaliation against Israel, with the prospect of losing EU support, with the prospect of turning the Saudi war on Yemen in favour of the Houthis, destroying the Saudi economy and leaving Saudis without power and water, and above all, without enough funds to fight a war that can last a very, very long time, and finally, without being able to hit Iran with a single knockout blow that can avoid all of the above, how can America enter this venture?
Hawks like Bolton may think that any military action is a walk in the park, but the top brass in the American military know better. Love him or hate him, Trump is a pragmatic man, financially pragmatic perhaps, but this is alone enough reason for him not to take stupid financial decisions; and any war against Iran will be judged by Trump on its financial merits.
On paper, Trump will see that this war is impossible to win, and just like his White House predecessors who have eyed Syria in the hope of being able to attack it, he will be the chicken who will blink first and find a face-saving exit. At the end of the day, if on the scale of one to ten, America’s decision to not attack Syria scored eight, the decision not to attack Iran will score ten.
“an American war against Iran could well become the straw that breaks America’s back.”
When will analysts start to acknowledge that we are not dealing with rational common sense. And more importantly, the Zionists pushing for war have a goal- and isn’t one of their end goals to bring about the collapse of the US? So why do we think that because a war is against US interests, they won’t. They’ve been working against their own national interest since the very day the zionists occupied their country.
Those evangelists and zionists wanting a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem are a worry. I hope the author is right, but there’s plenty of scope for the “end-timers” getting their way.
There are not any good American reasons to attack Iran, but individual Americans may see it as good business – they plan to work for Israeli think tanks. Plenty of US foreign policy is bad for the country as a whole, but good for certain individuals or corporations.
That all depends on what side of the economic fence you reside on, if your goal is to destabilize the BRI and ding China(which seems to be a priority these days), then blocking that route through Iran is the easiest way to succeed in doing that. It provides a cover for real intentions and at the same time throws political weight around intimidating Iran by any means possible. The Generals say we come out economically unscathed in battle, the naysayers say look at the Iraq disaster and how good are you at gambling.
No one really knows what will happen, or what the outcome of offensive actions will produce. Human capital in the form of lost lives is always abundant, political capital is just perceived and announced through state controlled media and is an end to a means, whatever those means are.
Here’s the problem with this analysis: “An American attack on Iran will not eliminate the risk of a Hezbollah retaliatory attack on Israel,”
Not if the US joins with Israel in attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon *before* any attack on Iran.
Hezbollah is the one reason we have not had an Iran war up until now. Israel tried to remove Hezbollah in 2006 and failed miserably. Hezbollah is far stronger now than it was in 2006, increasing its missile arsenal from four to ten times over what it had in 2006, and improving the quality of its missiles. It even has its own tank battalion now. It has more troops and Hezbollah soldiers have gained much battle experience supporting Syria against Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Israel knows it can not remove Hezbollah on its own. The US has two things Israel does not have and desperately needs to fight Hezbollah: 1) thousands of troops to assist Israeli troops in rooting out Hezbollah soldiers, and 2) strategic B-52 bombers – those four B-52s Trump just sent to the Middle East – which can be used tactically – as they were in Vietnam – to deliver heavy bomb loads and “bunker buster” bombs to destroy Hezbollah bunkers and missile caches.
Israel and the neocons know that if they can foment a war with Hezbollah that Trump can be persuaded to join Israel in attacking Hezbollah. Trump will be told that he can get a “poll bump” in the 2020 elections by “saving Israel from a terrorist group.” Also Congress will be willing to go along with an attack on Hezbollah. So even if Trump and Congress are unwilling to attack Iran, they can be convinced to assist Israel in degrading Hezbollah.
And once that’s done (if it can be done, which is not certain), Israel and the neocons can then foment a war with Iran. The war with Hezbollah could be extended into Syria or even Iran depending on how it develops.
What matters is getting that war with Hezbollah. That is the critical precondition – from Israel’s viewpoint – to a war with Iran. And Israel and the neocons will never have a better time than now when they have a US President who can be led by the nose by his advisers in starting the war. And once the war starts it won’t matter what Trump wants or doesn’t want because it will develop on its own. It won’t matter if he gets re-elected or a new President comes in.
So we can expect another “summer war” this year or next year.
I suspect that if the US attacked Lebanon, it would provide the same result as if the US attacked Iran, and Israel would still be attacked by Hezbollah
For Trump politically, now would be an awful time for a war with Iran.
He would get a quick boost from the uber-Patriots who love it when America kills anyone. And of course the paid Israel supporters would stand and cheer. But all of those effects are short-term. They last for at best a couple of months.
By the time next years elections begin, Trump would be bogged down in a war going nowhere with at least an Iraq-occupation rate of body bags coming home. Trump and Obama both won by pretending to be against wars. The candidates who were for more wars, McCain and Hillary, both lost. Trump is already unpopular with most Americans having already made up their minds that he was a mistake. A boost from now to the Fourth of July fireworks does him no good at all. Then the negative effects of being stuck in a quagmire war start to come home.
Politically, Trump can not start a war between now and September of 2020. Doing so means he’s giving up on a second term. And Trump’s support of Israel and the Saudis was always for his political benefit. He had no tradition of supporting either until he needed their money and support to defeat Hillary. I suppose that the Saudis could put $10 billion into an account for Trump’s family in the future, but short of that there isn’t much they can offer Trump if he isn’t running for President. Thus, a war that the Israelis and the Saudis want is a lose-lose proposition for Trump and his children.
By September of 2020, we are into October Surprise territory where there are always rumors of a President starting a war so that the short boost he/she gets from that carries through the voting season.
But Hezbollah still would have time to destroy Israel.
I read somewhere that Hezbollah has 6,000 missiles ready just for Israel nuclear reactors.
The entire region would be destroyed.
Yeah-the area that Hezbollah live in, too. I am pretty certain that Hezbollah will leave Dimona well alone. I tell you another thing. In my opinion Israel will just love bombing Lebanon ‘ …back to the Stone Age’, whereas Hezbollah will retaliate with regret. One side values human life, while the other does not. Not that of ‘enemy’ that is.
From whom exactly will Trump receive this supposed “poll bump” in the run up to the 2020 election, by confronting yet another of Israel’s enemies?
The base that elected him in 2016?
Trump was elected in 2016 by Americans who bought into his campaign slogan of ” Make America Great Again” and his promises to avoid wars and to fix the country’s infrastructure and create jobs.
Waging war for Israel was not part of his election platform.
Since his election, his seeming preoccupation with Israel and its interests, have not gone unnoticed by those who voted for him, and not in a positive way.
He tore up the JCPOA for Israel
He “gave” Jerusalem to Israel
He “gave” the G. Heights to Israel
He is now confronting Iran for Israel
None of these acts – not a single one – is in America’s interests, or contribute positively to MAGA.
And the trade war with China that is suppose to “bring back American jobs” are starting to hurt his base with increased prices for US consumers and US farmers seeing the lucrative Chinese market closed off to them.
So how could joining Israel in attacking Lebanon/Hezbollah give Trump a “poll bump”?
Israel is a huge burden to America and its taxpayers. Its an albatross around the neck of the US with no strategic value that can be objectively identified.
Trump’s base wants nothing to do with Israel.
Selah
Good analyses…the war against Hezbullah is more like this summer, especially, when the longest running bull market in US stocks is running out of steam now (end of May 2019)…so the international bankers need some external events to blame for the collapse of the stock market and tightening of credit condition, and finally the collapse of the global economy. Hopefully, we will not get a world war.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/do-iranian-threats-signal-organized-u-s-israel-subterfuge/
Absolutely no surprise here-of course, the israelis are hyping the threat:
—————————————-
The New York Times revealed the answer to the mystery on May 16: “In meetings in Washington and Tel Aviv in the past few weeks,” the paper’s Jerusalem correspondent wrote, “Israeli intelligence warned” U.S. officials that “Iran or its proxies were planning to strike American targets in Iraq.” The report cited a “senior Middle Eastern intelligence official”—the term traditionally used to describe an Israeli intelligence official–as the source.
Newsweek unearthed another clue as to the provenance of the claims. The magazine said that it learned from one Pentagon official that the satellite imagery of loading missiles into fishing dhows was not produced by U.S. intelligence but rather had been provided by Israel.
Reporting by the leading Israeli diplomatic correspondent Barak Ravid, now of Channel 13 but also filing for Axios, provides more detailed evidence that Israel was the original source of all three alleged Iranian threats. Ravid’s story reports that an Israeli delegation, led by national advisor Meir Ben Shabbat, met with Bolton and other U.S. national security officials in the White House on April 15 and passed on to them “information about possible Iranian plots against the U.S. or its allies in the Gulf,” according to “senior Israeli officials.”
Russia which exports 14mbpd oil/gas equivalent at $70 per barrel stands to make an extra $400 BILLION a year if the price increases to $150 in a conflict, trump will have made Russia great again !! Russki is known for his treachery in Iran during WW1, pimpeo and putin appear to have made a deal under the table, the outward argybargy was just a show, but Iran is safe unless the US PULLS the carrier fleet out of the PG, its missiles can raze bagram,centcom,fifthfleet,Kuwait/Iraq airbases,greenzone,and the carrier fleet etc in a 4 hour spell, and 80 patriot antimissiles will be of no use against a 500k missile onslaught. 60k hillybilly goyim dead, more than in Vietnam, but does shylock adelson care?
Yes and no on the $150 billion. I’d imagine that takes current rates of sell and multiplies by the new price. But the problem is that with oil at $150 a barrel, there is a world-wide recession, at least, and oil demand then starts to fall.
Economists are already warning that
— the world economy is slowing down, and has been for several quarters now. Agencies like the IMF have been downgrading their forecasts for the economy for the last few quarters.
— the “goods-based” economy is definitely slowing down in all major manufacturing nations. The “services” sector is still providing growth. Germany for one example is already in a deep recession in its manufacturing.
(Nobody in the business press connects this to German politicians shooting themselves in the feet by cutting trade with a rebuilding Russia.)
— Economists are already warning that the current tariff hikes might already be enough to tip the world into a recession, and that if Trump escalates from here then a recession becomes a certainty. Trump can always take off or delay tariffs that he has imposed by imperial decree, but that’s more an election issue with him at home than anything involving Iran. Trump has so painted himself into a corner on China and trade that backing down would also kill him politically and send him back to being a reality-tv show host.
So, into that already teetering economy that looks like its at the peak of a long delayed curve in the business cycle, add in the economic shock of the price of oil suddenly doubling or tripling.
And now, lets throw into the pot the fact that the Central Banks are short of ammo to fight a downturn this time around. The US is still has historically low interest rates and barely beginning to get QE’s handouts off its books. Europe and Japan are still at Zero or even Negative Interest rates from the Central Banks, and even starting to taper off on the QE handouts is already contentious and threatening already slow economies.
If Trump is dumb enough to start this war, the result would likely make the Great Depression look like a picnic.
Oil consumption will plummet with the economy. The only good thing is that we’d be putting out lower levels of greenhouse gasses with the collapsed economy, so maybe the date when large climate changes on earth tear civilization apart is put off for a decade.
The recent revelation that melting permafrost is releasing vastly more nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas hundreds of times more potent than CO2, than previously imagined, puts Armageddon much closer than thought.
Yet still further away than anyone alive today or far into the future will see.
Would you care to make a bet on that. I’d say 2050 for sure, but possibly earlier.
Can I join in with your bet, Mulga? I’d put it nearer than 2050, and I have a Brit quarter-ounce gold sovereign to put where my mouth is. Stakes to be held in escrow until the agreed decision date – when I’ll probably be dead, being ancient and decrepit right now. But I can at least hope that my heirs can collect my winnings.
how trustworthy is the news of permafrost melt and nitrous oxide?
I see Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics and the USA EPA deeply involved.
and they say ‘may be releasing’..not actually releasing.
I am looking for info on environmental Armageddon I can trust. they worry me but I
cant trust these guys
Yes, we need a trustworthy Armageddon.
The problem is that it is just too easy to explain anything
weatherwise with the phrase, “global warming, you know.”
Confirmation bias is in Armageddon class already.
Spending hundreds of trillions to avert a disaster that
I, a former climate researcher finds unlikely
is threatening to be its own disaster.
Well, Ari-if anthropogenic climate destabilisation don’t get us, any one of dozens of ecological catastrophes eg the disappearance of other Life on Earth in the biodiversity collapse, the omnipresence of pollution of every imaginable type or the warming, stratification, de-oxygenation and acidifying of the oceans, plus the break-down of the thermo-haline circulation will do the job. Let alone the synergistic effects of all of them. Do you wish to deny that little lot, or is it outside your, no doubt extensive, area of expertise? As for ‘hundreds of trillions’, that, plainly is a grotesque exaggeration, by a couple of orders of magnitude, but, I can assure you (if you’re interested) that the costs of doing nothing will be infinite, and, for all intents and purposes, incalculable.
Why can’t you trust them ben? Why on Earth would they lie about such grim news? To what purpose? The ‘may be’ probably means the study by Harvard scientists has not been peer-reviewed yet, but accords with other studies including of ice-cores. Looks pretty much kosher to me. But I’m biased against Near Term Human Extinction, don’t you see.
Is there an advantage in keeping a population in fear and dependent?
The carbon tax will fund the enslavement of your children via one world govt.
There is now a global warming industry with probably hundreds of thousands of people making a living from it. Something like the catholic church if you ask me.
Most think they are doing good while contributing to the slide in to a marxist hellhole of a future.
The whole shebang depends on accurate and honest data collection.
Yet every piece of data is adjusted.
This is where the fraud is committed.
Do you know that the temperatures from 100 years ago have been cooled by 1 degree and the present has been warmed by 1 degree? And if you plot the adjustments you get a near straight line from -1 to +1 over 100 years.
Why do it?
I find it hard to believe that the savvy souls at this site can’t see why they would do it.
When I say they, naturally I mean You Know Who.
At least at the higher prices it would mean that Russia wouldn’t lose revenue totals,even if exports were less. But even in the Depression years,and far more today,oil was needed for many uses. People worldwide,especially in the West,need oil to run private cars as well as much of public transportation. The economies won’t totally collapse.Even in the Depression more people were working,and more of economies functioned,than were not. It was just that the collapse and unemployment was so deep that it caused a worldwide tragedy. Also importantly is that if the Gulf is closed. And as the article talks about, the Saudi (and other) oil fields and oil related infrastructure is damaged or destroyed. That will open up the oil market from other countries. Those countries that were buying Gulf Oil would desperately rush to buy Russian and Venezuelan oil and gas. Because yes, the Iranian and Qatari gas fields wouldn’t be exporting either. I would be a boom time for tanker shipping from Venezuela ,Russia,and other lesser exporters.
Not to mention the independents who can make corn ethanol and corn oil diesel, they can power themselves around for quite a while.
There are a few problems with that. Brazil has the most effective program,and it uses 60% of ethanol to a gallon. Also,I suspect the price of those mixed fuels would skyrocket as well.
Perhaps Mr. Trump’s getting a kickback from Lloyd’s, et al. They’re making a killing from the increase in maritime insurance this is causing. These good times for insurers will only last till carriers complain. Then rates will be reduced and they’ll call off their big orange dog. What Lloyd’s does not want is to pay out wartime damages. Iran probably knows this very well and is raising the stakes. (I’d be on the phone with Lloyd’s negotiating the cut if I was the Ayatollah, ;-)) Follow the money as they say.
This is why it technically won’t be Iran that is closing the Straits of Hormuz. It will be Lloyd’s and the other insurers.
Probably all Iran has to do is to credibly threaten to fire on ships. Just say that as of midnight that they will start sinking ships. That would probably be enough to get Lloyd’s to declare the area a “Conflict Zone” or whatever term triggers the clause in all the policies that says that if you sail in there and get sunk then the carrier is on their own for both the loss of the ship and the loss of millions of barrels of oil. At the very most, Iran has to fire at, not hit, but just fire at, one ship to trigger this.
Of course, if there are loans out against either the ship or the cargo, then the carrier would be required to having insurance.
Lloyd’s is probably raising rates right now. First they would always charge everything they could get. I’d suspect they might be pretty good at not leaving any money on the table. They might need to raise the funds to cover having to pay off for one ship, or worst case two ships, that might get sunk before they can declare it a conflict zone and void the rest of the policies.
Never forget that in a capitalistic world, Money rules the world.
What about the “you can not hold a country hostage to an insurance company’s, policy” slogan, works good for gvt when threatened by a terrorist taking hostages.
A complicating factor in this situation is Israel’s nuclear weapons. During the first Gulf War, Israel ordered a nuclear attack against Iraq in response to the SCUD attacks, but was stopped by America. In a contemporary conflict, at what point would Israel use nuclear weapons, and what happens afterwards?
There must be some poor blighter with a mop who has the job of cleaning up the puddles of drool that Bibi leaves behind as he slavers over the prospect of nuking Iran in a ‘New Purim’.
If there is a war, Israel could try to use it as cover to “transfer” Palestinians. Netanyahu has complained that Israel should have done this when the world was distracted by the Tiananmen massacre.
I figure that they would leave the nuking to Trump. I always thought the American/Zionists
intention was/is to nuke Iran. no doubt in my mind that that will be the upshot
of any attack on Iran..early in the game, the first carrier that goes down
this analysis here is very reasonable, and practical, if reasonable people were involved.
those who dominate and appear to have an upper hand on the American/Zionazi side are the unreasonable people in the mix
the Zionists are not prepared to lose. for them even a multi-polar world is a loss. they
are not prepared to tolerate even that. if the Zionists are going to lose they may be set
to blow the planet
but then again the proliferation that is discussed here seems real, certain. there must be nuclear weapons in the most unlikely of places.. as well as the likely ‘unofficial’ places. nuclear war seems a most likely occurrence anytime now triggered from almost anywhere. and for certain if Trump attacks Iran.
I am not supposed to eat steak but I had one today..a nice red juicy rib-eye steak, a steak in all probably nourished on GMO corn. oh my!
it does not look good for the late great human species. we were in with a chance… then capitalism happened
hahahahaha
Nukes don’t stop there, at Israel, but are everywhere there is the money and the interest. Do the Saudi’s have them? Or the Turks? What about Qatar? We admit that any, or every, US base has nukes, but we don’t admit that proliferation has gone beyond just the 900 military bases. I think it is a “safe” assumption that KSA has purchased these weapons from the US, and furthermore, is eager to use them; eager to the point of wanton provocation of Iran.
I’d say that KSA could get them from Pakistan, too.
This could be. I don’t know how hard it is to purchase nukes.
I’d suggest the Cult occupying Palestine would be better off worrying about their own fertility problems
than worring about the arabs.
Destroying the global derivatives market with nuclear saber rattling certainly won’t help with that-
https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/05/hussein-salami-calls-it-an-intelligence-war-ttg.html
Intelligence war.
———————–
The danger in this characterization is that the current IRGC commander already considers us to be at war. It’s just a matter of degree. And a dangerous place to be with a blustering bluffer for a president and a warmongering fool as a presidential advisor.
All sayed here is truth, but what if Deep state and Mosad make theirs favorite provocation -false flag operation? Ilke “atacked” saudi tankers, or rocket “arack” on the empty part of US embasy in Baghdad? I why we all think this is gonna be a war, which US suppose to win? What if they just wonna trigger huge chaos in whole Eurasia? If they nuke Iran, say fck Israel like many times before and just go and leave refugee tsunami for Europe, Russia and China and America become a global island of stability?
Just trying to think global and this is just the few questions which is coming in my mind for now.
As Putin, among many others, has clearly articulated, we live in a multipolar world. This means recognition of multiple power centers, organically formed over very long periods of time, with distinct histories and cultures. One of these is Europe; another is Persia. The two have been in tension for thousands of years, at least since the Persian Empire invaded Greece, followed by the Greek invasion of Persia by Alexander the Great, and so on and so forth. The active arm of European culture today is, like it or not, the USA; aka, the Hegemon, or, collectively, the West. Of course, the West has never been able to completely dominate Persia, and never will, especially since Persia is culturally allied with the rest of the Middle Eastern world and geographically at a pivotal point within central Asia. So a war by the Trump administration, in part on behalf of the European outpost of Israel, cannot be undertaken as just another casual exercise in bullying smaller nations. This is far more serious than the usual racket of war, especially since, to the Iranians, it is a matter of survival of their ancient and venerable society. It is time for the Hegemon to back off and realize that the only sane strategy in the multipolar world is to cultivate the arts of diplomacy and peace.
Very good analysis …. One could hope Trump reads it… Dunford in Pentagon definitely will…. and that is good….
This explains the push to capture Venezuela’s oil. If we blowup the Middle East the price of oil will go though the roof. Venezuelan oil will be our economic security blanket and lever to remain the dominant power and Trump will look like a genius. The only problem is that Russia will also enjoy the same bonanza. China will be economically defeated though.
Trump’s threat sounds nuclear.
It’s likely the only way to stop Iran quickly.
Perhaps he is hoping for an insurrection.
The US fomented this in Ukraine. Maybe Iran also?
Islam is an Arabic religion foisted on other parts of the world.
Talking to people in Iran, Turkey, etc. they are quick to say “We aren’t Arabs.”
“Islam is an Arabic religion foisted on other parts of the world.”
You could say that about all three of the Abrahamic religions. The Jews imposed their faith on the areas they conquered in Canaan during their early rule. And Christians imposed Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. And later in other parts of Europe when they came to power. Islam was the one least interested in imposing their faith in their early years.
“Talking to people in Iran, Turkey, etc. they are quick to say “We aren’t Arabs.”
Of course. Arabs make up only a part of the Islamic religion (and not all “Arabs” are Muslim). Arabic is the religious language of Islam. Just as Greek and Latin used to be the religious languages of Christianity.Though most Christians aren’t Greek or Latin speakers.And last though not least Hebrew is the religious language of Judaism though the majority of Jews don’t speak it (they may understand a few words of it.But then that’s true of many non -Jews as well).
The point is that Islam is particularly bad at cultural imperialism
and a nation like Persia may one day get out from under it.
They are already chafing at the rule of the clergy and tend
to ignore mandates that are clearly Koranic.
Then, there is the pervasive and corrosive influence of Western media
and pop culture, an influence that may eventually cause changes
but not always to my liking.
BTW, recently I sent a performance by a young Russian to
my now retired statistics professor who once taught at Moscow State.
“Does he seem ethnic Russian to you?” I asked.
“Yes, but he acts like an American.”
Muslim’s don’t have to be supporters of strict beliefs to still be Muslim. Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world today. Not being a Muslim I’m not necessarily supporting that,just stating a true fact.
But yes westernization,or more correctly Americanization,has captured the minds of quite a few young people in the non-Western world.The vast amounts of propaganda they are exposed to almost daily is like a cancer.That eats away their ability to reason for themselves.I worry about what will become of them when they wake up and are confronted with the “Emperor without clothes” face of reality.
The existentialist used to say, that man is a prisoner of its culture, history, society and self. Coming to places, where people from different parts of the world give their opinion about different matters only proves the validity of it. Someone from Pakistan said a few days ago on an other thread, that the aim of everything happening in west asia was to destroy Pakistan, regardless of the fact, that Pakistan seems irrelevant to the events of the middle east being it the palestinians, the yemenis, the iraqi, the syrians, the resistance…. On the other hand if I as and iranian give you facts about Iran that people in the west dont have an earthly chance to know, it may look as if I am biased…. Maybe it is a nail and hammer thing.
So here we have ari, telling us, that iranians jumpt to defend their persianness. As if when someone by a freak of nature mistakes him self for a chinese, he wouldnt jump to defend his israhelliness! The fact, that most westerners think, we are arabs only shows their deep ignorance, nothing more. Obviously being a jew, you are bred to hate the arabs and us muslims, the same way you are bred to hate christians calling our beloved prophet Jesus son of a whore (may God forgive me for writing these words!) and yes our Prophet, whom you finally killed was an arab and we thank God for the real chosen people The ARABS, the firstborn of our prophet Abraham. We are Shia and everyone, that we love are arabs, our Prophet and our Imams. We weep for them on the anniversary of their death and we celabrate on their birthdays. Everything that we are, we owe to these arabs, yet we are iranians and as we have shown time and time again, we die for our arab brothers!
The hasbara are getting lazy!
Iranians may, indeed decide to leave Islam. Nothing is impossible. Jews might decide to re-join the rest of the human race and cease believing in their status as God’s Chosen People, too. Indeed, over the millennia, many Jews have done just that, converting to Christianity or Islam, or just abandoning ‘religion’ altogether.
Yes, Ari-but in Iran and Turkey they are still, and long have been, Islamic. That rather blows up your ‘foisted’ argument, don’t you think. Should they convert to Judaism, do you think? Or, perhaps Scientology might be more hip.
They could go back to being Zoroastrians!
I had a friend from Iran who had a Zoroastrian-origin given name.
She was given that instead of an Arabic name. Perhaps it was a statement.
The cultural imperialism concept I got from a book that chronicled that
theme from the Middle East to Indonesia in all of its pages.
I read it many years ago and it was an eye-opener, but I regret
that I cannot recall the title.
Some books on Islam are Orientalist. My understanding is Islam spread through trade as much as anything else.
Funny though that I have never heard of a thing called zoroastrian name! Even more funnier is, that it seems everybody has an iranian friend as their witness! Her are the names of some of the children in my family: Neda, Maryam, Parsa, Nima, Nahal, Majid, Ali, Negar, Parnian and Reza. One of my nephews has named his daughter something very old and honestly I have tried but I can´t remember the name. It is that difficult a name! He hasn´t done his daughter any favor by doing that!
Imagine that! who would have thought, that our enemies would even try to use our names against us! Then again, they don´t have much else to muster!
Ari, Iranians have Iranian names, not Arabic. You need to do some more reading, old boy.
thanks Ghassan – great article as always – your aticles are so easy to understand and very moving because of the plain and simple common sense and truth in them. All the really good analysts are saying this too – as well as the Ayatollah himself a week ago. Now – last night there was an article circulating that said the Pentagon too has deemed that the threat of Iran is on hold – whatever that means – how can a victim – the US – deem the threat of Iran is on hold ?
I don’t believe most Americans will mind ruining their futures and their lives in order to carry out an endless war as long as the situation is presented as an “unprovoked attack”, in other words a false-flag event no matter how silly will galvanize the American people who are always ready to be galvanized for war. So don’t count on restraint there–the media is ready to howl for war at a moment’s notice. However, the military has, in recent decades, become more and more skeptical of major war with countries like Iran, Russia, and China. Also, the European attitude is, in my opinion, critical here. If they can make it clear to Israel and the US that a full scale war with Iran just will not be supported then that will stop it more than anything else.
A good assessment of Iran’s very serious mistakes which have left it so vulnerable to a Western attack 🇮🇷 🇺🇸
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/in-america-s-crosshairs-what-makes-iran-a-much-softer-target-than-north-korea-part-one
You have made a lot of rationally valid points, however, neocons and war hogs are so arrogant that their arrogance blinds them of the collateral damages that all aggressing partners wiil face.