Iran
Folks, I'm perfectly aware that perpetual paranoia and constant anticipation of imminent cataclysm -- doomshilling -- can serve to paralyze meaningful resistance. Therefore, in order to protect WTCD from accusations in this vein, I decided to make this entry private -- Cabaleros, I believe the topic warrants careful consideration.
While rumours of imminent war with Iran have emerged time and time again for over a year now, so far, none have materialized, and many volunteering Cassandras have discredited themselves. However, there are now several indications that might confirm that armed conflict's indeed been a matter of when, not if, all along -- as suggested by PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses and Wesley Clarke's "Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and finally Iran" testimony. Apart from relentless demonization of Iran and, as usual, fearmongering of "nuclear holocaust", specifically these are:
- Reports of "orders" from the neocon upper echelon to their subservient "journalists" to catapult the propaganda
- Pentagonian Blitzkrieg Bop, with this british study coinciding
- Reports of navy mobilization
Possibly, the "loss" of 190.000 small arms in Iraq and recent terminations of business relations between Iran and european banks count as well.
Now, as utterly lunatic as the proposed aerial armageddon might appear, it does conform to strictly military logic: Iran possesses limited quantitites of advanced russian missiles, both for air defense and surface attack, which pose severe risks to US forces unless immediately disabled by a sudden, overwhelming attack. The same goes for possible retaliatory measures such as blocking the Strait of Hormuz or attacking US troops in Iraq -- any potentially hazardous asymmetric warfare (must read!) could, in theory, be avoided by a rapid, devastating blow.
The political fallout, meanwhile, seems rather unpredictable. Maybe it would, at long last, mobilize the US public in massive opposition -- and possibly, the deployment of Florida Nat'l Guard troops to DC occurred in anticipation of just that. I won't be holding my breath, however, after all the atrocities that have been tolerated already.
Last but not least, Iran is a preliminary member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, an alliance including Russia and China, both of which clearly observe the US imperialism with growing disdain and, in the worst case, might just lose their temper in case of repeated US aggression.
I'm aware that war with Iran would possibly mark the end of US hegemony, turning world opinion even more violently against it than it already is and finally imploding its currency. But maybe, that is part of the plan of the men behind the men behind the curtain?
Please, discuss!
- bruce1337's blog
- Login to post comments
dangerous territory indeed
I think we're treazding on dangerous ground in part because the perps
are much to happy with their own BS. What happens when people
feel inhibited from having frank discussion is that it's much harder to
accurately gauge public sentiment. Question is do people have a
limit for what they will silently abide, however resentfully. I
think they do. Other question is how effective will the creation
of a "new reality" be this time around? No question but that fire
is being played with here. I've talked to Iranian Americans
(exiles who were fine with the Shah) tell me that no matter how much
they hate the Mullahs, Iranians are not like Iraqis--they will be
united and they will be outraged. And I don't mean into violent
acts, I mean into organized and effective activism. The next move
by the perps may be so outlandish it will make 9/11 look like an open
and shut case.
I'm not sure if they're all that happy with their BS
In fact, I think they're quite aware of having maneuvered their backs against the wall with the sloppy, transparent, indefensible BS that was 9/11. Unfortunately, desperation on their part would make the current situation only more volatile!
I believe (most) people do have a limit for what they will tolerate. That limit, for the unreflecting majority, is probably where banal personal matters are affected -- when the shit hits home, so to say.
The aftermath of a strike on Iran would most likely qualify -- call me cynical, but maybe uncomfortable domestic conditions are just what is required for actual change.
hear hear
I think it's important to note that the perps count on their supporters believing their BS. If their supporters are so convinced of the BS that they don't realize that they are losing and that by being so into the BS they begin to stick out like sore thumbs, then the perps have a problem. their minions are so often such dullards that getting them to change their tune when it's crucial to the success of the coverup may be impossible. maybe their BS was too effective on some, those who didn't even realize it was BS?