Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 21, 2008

Cheney and Friends

by Antifa
lifted from a comment

While it is heartening to hear that bombing Iran is not an act reasonable people would take, that has no bearing on the state of mind within the Cheney bubble. Cheney and Friends are logical and dedicated and skilled about their crazy ass plans. Cheney and Friends look at consequences like reasonable people do, in fact they look at consequences first and foremost, and all consequences come second to keeping America on top, period and permanently.

If the fall of America is to be the consequence, well then a whole lot of hell will have to go down on its enemies first.

The people who want to bomb the hell out of Iran are supremely logical about it, and have been since '79, and have been pushing American hegemony by military means since '89 in the halls of government, and have been actively planning it to the last nut and bolt since 2000.

They've drawn up the several thousands of targets, set a perfectly logical order for them, set aside the fuel and spare tires and chow for the sailors, and parked the carrier fleets on station in the Gulf and the Mediterranean. Ready to shoot. Tomorrow will do, or the next day, or the next. Ready.

Meanwhile, they keep the PR and diplomatic chaos and military position in place until any reasonable excuse arrives to pull the trigger. Any reasonable excuse will do. Polish troops attacking a German radio station will do just fine ...

In 1941, President Roosevelt put an oil embargo in place against Japan to rein in their military adventurism. At that point, it became an absolute economic imperative for Japan to break that stranglehold. War or collapse were their options, and time was short.

America faces a similar stranglehold in the coming decade, yea even now. It was not put in place by an enemy nation, but by the relentless squeeze of peak demand for oil. If America is to keep its place atop the global economy, others have to accept that unipolar world.

Not a likely scenario, absent overwhelming force to put it in place. America is a great, debt-ridden, bloated, staggering economic powerhouse, "too big to fail" and yet it can collapse as quickly as the Soviet Union did. Just as fast, and just as thoroughly.

What would bring on that rapid collapse? Losing the petrodollar, the reserve currency status of the fiat dollar that has let America live way beyond its means for nearly half a century. We get to print endless money, with no apparent consequence to ourselves. Other nations that do that hit the canvas, real quick.

Cheney and Friends, Cheney and the amoral, apolitical elites who simply want to see this economic empire remain a going concern look at the Middle East as America's right, and property. The idea of sharing, or competing fairly for those resources, is beyond the pale. It is something sweet and reasonable people would discuss on a blog somewhere. Not the real world.

In Cheney's world, reality involves tactical nukes, and the will to use them. That act alone will send a message that will reverberate throughout this New American Century.

Like Japan in '41, the oil crunch impends. Either that Iraqi, Saudi, Kuwaiti, Iranian, and Caspian petro wealth all gets sold under the fiat dollar regime, or America has to start living within its means, all of a sudden like.

And America as it exists now, as it is currently owned and operated, simply cannot do that. The current political arrangements cannot survive that.

It was completely unreasonable of Japan to attack America in 1941, as in "What the hell were they thinking?" unreasonable. But they saw no other choice. Like Cheney and Friends now, the Japanese honchos sat around and said things like, "Just 24 hours of decisive action will change the whole world."

To the honchos atop our government and economy, America has no other choice but to defend its economic role in the world, even by nuclear means if necessary. So the rational option is . . . take our oil from whomever is in the way.

If the American people get in the way, that's their problem. Hence we see all the domestic impoverishment and repression coming rapidly into force at home. The American population needs to be under control.

Both political parties know this crunch is coming, long since, and both parties know the option is stark. If there was a gentle way down off this pole, the time to exercise it passed many years ago.

To the people atop our government and empire, there is only one reasonable course, and that is force.

The fact that other reasonable people find this option unlikely and irrational means precisely nothing. When 24 hours of decisive action will change the whole world, what reasonable honcho can resist it?

Posted by b on June 21, 2008 at 13:51 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Wouldn't this to be the gist of a winning campaign speech by McCain? Or even by Obama? I mean, what percentage of voters worldwide would not find a way to rationalize such an action, if it were the only way to prevent a huge, personal economic comedown?

Gee whiz.

Posted by: ferd | Jun 21 2008 15:06 utc | 1

Admire and enjoy Antifa’s posts. On many topics in dark moments I tend to agree or slot the op. at least as a valid possible.

America indeed faces an energy ‘stranglehold’ and this fact is often downplayed or not understood by leftists, the right understands it far better. However the perceived bind is an outcome of a static world view, a resistance to change, the incapacity to explore alternatives. Indeed, for Americans to continue to live in MacMansions, buy ‘my stuff’ from China, and drive Suvs for recreation, as a stereotyped example of the middle class, requires a maintenance not of the status quo (the situation has already changed radically) but of returning to a past world - say under Clinton 1. (Billy deregulated the financial markets, opted for globalization, and created ersatz ‘growth’, so even that might not apply.) Domination, hegemony seem the only option - do or die, follow thru on investment, use that military might. Won’t work, that is not germane here.

What has to be examined is the counter forces; realists, paleo-cons, wall street, biz community, the military itself, even the Oil Cos. as commercial Cos. and not part of Gvmt, etc. (Maybe even some International events.) I am not capable of judging their clout but influence there is. In a strange way, the corrupt and covert nature of US politics (rigged elections, personal influence, money, think tanks, the media, contracts, etc. a confused elite on the phone all da time..) keeps underground broiling in play amongst the PTB in spirals of deals and pressure moves - the outcome is rationalized by Fox for the ppl, but it is sometimes in fact unexpected. (Then ppl scrabble to re-adjust. That is, toe to the pundits lines.)

Many(?) will prefer not to cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face. And limp along.. for a while...and let Obama take the blame. Or sumptin. Simply, they may prefer to hang onto US hegemony (relative, whatever) than to give it up in one ME fireball, so seek ways around it. I also feel the picture is distorted by the media who are subservient and clueless - they bow down and rave as demanded - amplifying the presumed Gvmt. pov, the nasty glitch, horrific incident, etc.


Posted by: Tangerine | Jun 21 2008 15:31 utc | 2

Humanitarians, welfare queens and statesmen agree.

Posted by: biklett | Jun 21 2008 17:07 utc | 3

The one thing which amazes me about the decline and subsequent break up of the USSR is how peaceful it was. A few days of attempted military coup, a few deaths, but no major action, really. It will be interesting to see if the decline of the US will be as peaceful as this.

Now, as Antifa correctly wrote, the US has major problems, and it is easy to see that the decline of the US is approaching fast. However, if there is any important difference between the US leaders of now and the communist leaders of the USSR, it is the latters ability for long term plans.

A US politician thinks only until the next election, maximum. Cheney and his crowd are even more prone to this than others.

Because of this they will talk tough, both to impress their own crowd as well as to sway some voters. But any military action against Iran would cause the oil price to rise even more, and might cause the oil supply to decrease (Iran no longer able or willing to sell its oil). This in turn will be felt by the voters, who will ignore any atrocity but only as long as they benefit and do not suffer because of it.

A long term plan along the lines Antifa sketched might be discussed in certain circles - but it will not be implemented as long as there are short term concerns. Especially since Iraq showed that the high-tech weaponry can conquer but cannot pacify. Right now the reaction to the US dilema is: close the eyes and hope for the best.

Now, the above paragraphs are only valid using a major assumption: That the US can get what it needs using the dollars its prints as needed. Should this no longer be the case, then the US will use whatever force is available, including nukes, to divert resources like oil to the US. But only then, not before.

Posted by: No So Ana | Jun 21 2008 17:19 utc | 4

And the people keep on their knees for their rulers...

Bank of America Writes it own Bailout Bill.(pdf) Marked Confidential and Proprietary, the Bank of America document essentially writes the Dodd-Shelby housing bailout bill. Of course, since Democratic Senator Dodd received preferential treatment from Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozillo, is anyone shocked by any of this?

The document points out that Ginnie Mae should be the government entity that backstops bad loans. Of course, since Ginnie has an explicit mandate from the Feds, that ultimately means taxpayers will be on the hook for hundreds of billions worth of bad loans. Perhaps, you might care to give up your stimuli package for the good of... you know, our masters.

Read through some of the recommended taking points and marvel at how our democratic process truly works. I'm pissed.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 21 2008 17:39 utc | 5

How overwhelming all this has become, 'I don't know what scares me more, the madness that smashes people down, or their/our ability to endure it.

How much more can we/they take?

Dodd Denies Loans Deal...

Of course, it isn't merely just this, but a unfathomable amount of economic oppressive and unreasonable things. They really have done what they set out to do. Grover Norquist's bathtub must be full by now. And he and his elite ilk must sleep like babies at night.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 21 2008 18:03 utc | 6

I have been reading The Iliad, I just finished the twenty third book and what has impressed me most is the tragic sense of life that Achilles and Hector have. They both know they are going to die and nevertheless they continue to strive to do their assigned task without pity but with many regrets, that Achilles in particular drowns in blood. I have the feeling of tragedy, of being pushed by fate to where I would not want to go but I know that I must go. So is for the USA at this moment, we know that we are going towards destruction and nevertheless we advance towards it. These ideas are heavily conditioned by reading of Hegel and Unamuno. I make the avowal so that I may not be accused of plagiarism.

Posted by: jlcg | Jun 21 2008 18:17 utc | 7

Okay, so you're digging into this idea. I don't disagree with the Cheney/Nixonian "I'm crazy and don't give a fuck" characterization of the administration, or the circumstances of oil dependency DT's now beginning to shake-up the nations delusion of itself. But again, the whole problem with connecting this to Iran doesn't make sense. In the long run, attacking Iran doesn't add up either as a long term strategy for maintaining or increasing U.S. hegemony and its control over the oil supply, or in the short run, as it entails all the obvious and immediate risks of creating a cascade of events it cannot control. In order for the U.S. to extract any meaningful (and lasting) gain from attacking Iran, the U.S. would have to either occupy it (which is tactically impossible) or foment a complicit regime change (just as unlikely). So in my view, there is simply no geo-strategic reason for the U.S. to attack Iran, at least from the "resource war" perspective. There are however, a virtual plethora of reasons for the U.S. to assume a hostile and verbose rhetorical position vis-a-vis Iran that may work effectively up and only up to the point that actual hostilities are initiated. At which point the U.S. can only lose lose lose.

Posted by: anna missed | Jun 21 2008 18:45 utc | 8


even if the USA were to gain control of Middle-East oil, as well as Venezuela & Nigeria too, it still does not reverse or even slow down its diminishing economic dominance or help the dollar. In fact, it makes it worse.

the world is a far more distributed place than before. Its a new model & force cannot bring the old model back. So in fact, there is no worthwhile economic advantage in attacking Iran. But do the Iran hawks know this ?

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jun 21 2008 18:50 utc | 9

The bottom line is that the United State of Arrogance acts like a junkie more than ready to sell the Statue of Liberty to a bordell somewhere, anywhere, for just another fix of that glory juice -- just one more fix an' I feel good forever...

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Jun 21 2008 19:03 utc | 10

What is this talk of invading and occupying Iran? Never happen. Not necessary.

From inside the Cheney neocon bubble, Iran is a lovely place, with abundant oil and gas reserves (all nicely concentrated in one province down by Kuwait,) with direct access to the Caspian Basin (which is next on the list), and they have some impressive uranium resources underground as well. What's not to like? In fact, there is only one small problem with Iran -- a few scores of bad apples atop the country, its leaders.

Its regime.

Topple those asshats, and there will be a long line of tribal, political, mercenary and populist politicians eager to become the new asshats in charge of the freshly minted Democratic Republic of Persia, and to conduct themselves as good friends of America.

No need to occupy. No troops, just advisors and trainers. It'll be a cakewalk. Nobody likes the mullahs over there, and everyone loves America. Flowers all around. No troops, just 24 hours of decisive military action.

Iran was rendered friendly before. It worked from 1953 to 1979, and it can work again for the decade or two it will take to extract the oil.

All the diplomatic and economic sanctions in play since '79 -- and especially since 2001 -- have been aimed at making the Iranians hate their own leaders. Toppling those asshat mullahs has been the target.

If, in the end, it takes decisive, pinpoint military action to decapitate the current ruling junta of Iran, then that's what it takes. Decapitate the politicians, decapitate the Revolutionary Guard, and when the smoke clears in the morning the whole country will call for peace under a new government.

America without Iran back in its protection is not going to remain a going concern. This adjustment needs to happen, soon, or the owners and operators of America are going to be owning and operating a much reduced collection of assets, here between the shining seas.

The prize is right there. The cherry is hanging on the tree. Just 24 hours will get us there. The rest is just mopping up.

Posted by: Antifa | Jun 21 2008 19:44 utc | 11

@ Antifa

Well, at least regime change would be a strategy. But any Iran puppet which is seen to be a puppet has a quite short life span. Any "leader" who would make any kind of concession to the US would move fast towards the puppet category.

And if one were really to try this, issuing threats all the time, increasing hostility all the time is exactly the way not to do this. If the CIA tried a repeat of 1953 in this climate, they would have quite a hard time.

@ jony_b_cool

If the US really tried a violent action, the point would be: Universal blackmail... "Either accept worthless green paper, or see a few mushroom clouds from the inside." Not that I think this would work ... but if it would, normal economic considerations would no longer apply.

Posted by: No So Ana | Jun 21 2008 20:06 utc | 12

I doubt - and I am far from the first to say this - that US military action to control Iraqi oil-fields has much to do with peak oil, and US hegemony.

The previous historical examples of military invasions to control oil-fields: Saddam's invasions of SW Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990 were, even if not publicly stated, largely about getting the oil-fields. In that case Saddam simply wanted to put more money in his own pocket; Iraq did not need more oil. Hitler's attack upon the Caucasus oil-fields in 1942 was because of the maritime embargo on Germany, and the Romanian fields were insufficient.

The correct solution (for the US to maintain its hegemony) is to keep the oil routes flowing. It does not matter very much who owns the oil-fields. If Iran or Iraq refuse to sell to the US, others will sell, and the market will even out. The spot-market in oil means that a tankerful may change ownership several times in the course of its voyage. All very obvious. The oil has to be kept flowing, and military action will tend to reduce the flow, and boost the price, as we have seen.

So the oil motive for the US in Iraq is different. It is in fact Saddamian: it is about putting money in pockets. Why else the intense pressure to pass the Oil Law, and the new no-bid contracts for Western oil companies, as the Oil Law has not passed?

Of course oil is not the only issue in Cheyneyite policy....

Posted by: Alex | Jun 21 2008 20:27 utc | 13

the hawks/cold warriors -- neo-con, neo-zi & neo-lib -- are on course, doing whatever they can to instigate yet another civil war, this time in iran, between the west's perceived "good" vs "bad" muslims. the rhetoric & actions are designed for that purpose. if internal civil war cannot be created externally (sorta like in somalia, but not entirely w/o internal instigation), then the application of direct catalysts are likely, as witnessed in the invasion of iraq.

the ideological foundations of these policies have been examined numerous times over the years here. as w/ most entrenched ideologies, in that they rest upon a set of assumptions considered so self-evident they no longer merit examination or even complete comprehension, the role of dualities take on irrational, and illogical, dimensions. it is enough for some to be programmed w/ the good vs evil worldview. that terms such as 'islamofascists' make no literal sense hardly matters to them. indeed, appeals to irrational emotionalism have proven to be one of the greatest tools known to mass manipulators.

however, to the outsider it is readily observable that, at the end of the day, the ideological constructs are indeed manipulated to achieve specific material benefits. the ideological underpinnings of predatory capitalism lead to a zero-sum maximization/monopolization of wealth, security, control & power. in those terms, the fact that islamic countries sit on "more than three-fifths of the global petroleum reserves, and will provide 84 percent of the world's oil exports in 2020" (dilip hiro, blood of the earth, nation books, 2008, p346) posit an us-or-them imperative, the so-called 'clash of civilizations'.

among the fundamental priniciples of sharia ('the path that leads to the spring'), as interpreted by most islamic scholars, are

the prohibition on riba (usury), and the curbs of eploitation, corruption, accumulation of wealth, extravagance, wastage and hoarding and the emphasis on zakat (wealth tax), the equitable distribution of wealth, the reduction of disparities, the utilization of natural resources for the benefit of all, the provision of the basic needs of the poor, and the dignity of labor ... (chandra muzaffar, "islam, justice, and politics", the new voices of islam: rethinking politics and modernity: a reader, uc press, 2006, p229)

the prevailing economic ideology of the west, the 'way of life' that drives economic globalization, holds practically the opposite position:

an entire class dependant upon usury; little if any curbs on eploitation, corruption, accumulation of wealth, extravagance, wastage and hoarding; the abolishment of taxes on wealth; the increasing chasm of the inequitable distribution of wealth; the proliferation of disparities; the utilization of (other people's) natural resources for the benefit of a tiny elite; the social-darwinist policies toward the basic needs of the poor; and the unapologetically disrespectful view of labor as a cheap, disposable commodity

thus the clash of worldviews, an ideological context which we cannot discount altogether as playing a role in the machinations of these networks working to undermine those islamic regimes situated on top of such "prizes." not everything need have a direct linear economic or geopolitical rational behind it. nor should we ascribe logical reasoning to everything that passes, persists or is possibly anticipated. after all, logic did not get them into this predicament (an energy deficit superpower).

Posted by: b real | Jun 21 2008 20:30 utc | 14

Not So Ana@12

normal economic considerations would no longer apply.

precisely the point, And I have'nt seen an explanation of what "controlling Middle East Oil" actually means. Governments are not very good at "controlling" extensive commodities markets. At best they sometimes do a decent job of regulating markets. And it would also take a massive adjustment of the current order to achieve any kind of USA "control" that even remotely begins to make a massive war worthwhile. Maybe the USA plans to issue a new currency to replace the discredited dollar.

the Mullahs may not be very popular, but Iranian nationalism is about as fierce as it gets. I suspect the USA would require at least a million troops to impose a friendly government in Iran. Because, Iran may already have the best infantry in the world and the inevitable resistance has had a lot of time to prepare.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jun 21 2008 20:51 utc | 15

As this thread seems to prefer the ideological:

On a technical level, the model of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 derives from the Israeli experience. As in Dayan's post-1967 remark, "Well, we just have to give the Arabs a bloody nose every ten years". The disappearance of a US political foreign policy, as opposed to a military foreign policy towards the Middle East, is certainly to be attributed to Israeli influence. The Arabs are seen as weak militarily, so they can be invaded without problem. That is true of Arab states, but not of Arab societies, which are extremely resistant. Gaza is the proof.

Personally I think that it was through this Israeli influence that the Cheyneyite doctrine developed: the US has to act militarily in order to maintain its world hegemony.

There is of course also the Wild West aspect: string up the baddies from the nearest tree. Guantanamo is that.

Of course, normally, historically speaking, the consequence of a militarised foreign policy is defeat. Hitler and Napoleon are examples. No doubt the neo-cons think that, as the US is the unique world power, the previous experiences are not a danger.

Once you've launched on a militarised foreign policy, it is difficult to pull back and choose another road, thus the present threats against Iran. The unusual aspect here is the two term limit on the US presidency. Normally militaristic rulers continue to the end. As a European, I wouldn't want to comment on the US elections, but I wonder whether the strong drive to war typical of the Cheyney camp will continue under Obama or MacCain, whatever they may have said to AIPAC. I have no idea what is going to happen, and I leave it to you to comment.

Posted by: Alex | Jun 21 2008 23:14 utc | 16

I am not going to write about the great themes of history, the wars and the destruction of remote countries. I want to bring your attention to the fact that farm workers in California die at a much greater rate than run of the mill workers, that those workers live under conditions of extreme extraction of their labor power, extraction that is brought about or facilitated by the poverty in which those workers already live.It is not possible to continue living socially under the conditions we live, with complete lack of respect for the lives of the poor, for life in general, the Jennins and Fallujahs and Mogadishus, the deaths of the workers that produce our "healthy foods" that allow us to prevent cruelty to animals while we subject our fellow human beings to extreme levels of degradation. The profit motive, a motive for something that does not exist, since someone's profit is the death of someone else, must be abolished. It is time to stop worrying about Iraq and Iran and Israel and devote ourselves to an examination of the evil that our CHOICE brings about. No the evil is not brought about, evil is the motor of society, promoting all the CHOICES that endanger everyone and the planet.

Posted by: jlcg | Jun 21 2008 23:28 utc | 17

This would seem to fit here... at least in the prism of my mind.

Got your 'shit knife', ready?

"Cultures at the far edge of the world" ; The Ethnosphere.

A 'shit knife'... can I get an amen?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 22 2008 1:42 utc | 18

I found this via antiwar.com;

"Special forces find proof of Iran supplying Taliban with equipment to fight British

British special forces operating on the border between Afghanistan and Iran have uncovered fresh evidence that Tehran is actively backing insurgents fighting UK troops.

Documented proof that Iran is supplying the Taliban with devastating roadside bomb-making equipment has been passed by British officials to Tehran, prompting fears that the war in Afghanistan may escalate into a regional armed conflict. ..."

And from the Guardian, no less

In all honesty, its plausible that Iran is indeed holding its nose and assisting the hated Taliban. After all, they are not likely to wait patiently for America and Britain to use Iraq and Afghanistan as a base from which to attack them. That said, its also entirely plausible that the U.S. and Britain will look for any excuse to either attack Iran or to shift blame for their own failures. We cannot know which is true for sure.

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 22 2008 2:14 utc | 19

@ Alex 15

And I have'nt seen an explanation of what "controlling Middle East Oil" actually means.

This may mean nothing or everything.

This may mean controlling the regimes in the area - which is not likely to suceed.

It might mean controlling the sealanes by military means - meaning bombing any ship which violates an arbitrary set of rules. Why would someone do this? Well, one rule might be: for every exported and paid barrel one free barrel must be sent to the country doing the controlling. However, the possible backlash would be quite extensive, where state-sponsored terrorism is just the weakest answer.

It might also just be a rethorical device to disguise the fact one does nothing.

the Mullahs may not be very popular, but Iranian nationalism is about as fierce as it gets.

I agree completly.

@Lysander 19

Thanks for the interesting link.

If Iran would really want to make troubles to the US, they would not deliver roadside bombs, they would deliver guided missiles of a type which cannot be traced back to them...

Besides, in Afganistan there are fellow shiites who would suffer if the taliban came back into power.

Note, that in the piece you linked to, at the top they wrote "insurgents" and later they wrote "Taliban". As long as there is no direct link to a specific group, insurgent might as well mean shiite tribe.

What really happened is hard to see, the tribe politics are quite murky in the region, and I am in no way an expert on the topic. However, considering the past record, pro war arguments should be assumed to be fabricated unless backed up with real proof.

Posted by: No So Ana | Jun 22 2008 6:31 utc | 20

The Taliban probably got the Iranian parts through an Israeli arms dealer selling them to a Paki metal dealer, financed through a Dubai bank, come on! The Brits are clearing wondering what sock puppet Brown is doing, setting their boys up as clay pigeons, so Dick Cheney can make another $100M in Halliburton "delayed compensation" before the end of his term, after which he moves to Dubai to become an arms and oil dealer like Bush's old man. You're talking about throwing rocks at the godfather of all mafias.
In all honesty, "Iran" isn't doing any such thing. It's a free country, free trade,
and numerous tribes and nationalities living there, any one of which can sell copper
discs to their uncle's friend from Hebron. That doesn't mean the US can nuke Iran!!
The copper was probably ripped out of empty homes in S.Cal, and shipped to Israel.
The garage door openers likely came from China. Let's nuke Beijing, or nuke Hebron!

Posted by: Toto Pornada | Jun 22 2008 7:02 utc | 21

Comment from another board I read...

Got to see some TV news from Greece tonight.

Greece added 10 of its own planes in the Israeli exercise of 100-plus planes pretending to bomb an area of Greece similar in landscape to the areas around Iranian nuclear facilities. The distance of the exercise target from Israel would correspond to a bombing run on the relevant locations in Iran, and the games included several in-flight refuelings. Greek defense types denied this was a rehearsal for Iran, pointing out that much of the route was over the sea. (Duh.....) An Israeli AF officer was more straightforward, saying that time is running out for Iran, Israel cannot wait much longer for the farce of the international blah blah let's get'em boys! The piece harped on Greece's possible exposure to "terrorism" for cooperating (somehow I think they're fine). It is certainly unusual for Greece to cooperate militarily with Israel, which has in the past done joint exercises with Turkey. The Greek TV news seems to have no doubt a hit on Iran is coming.

By my map, such a strike would have to go over Syria and Turkey or Jordan and Iraq. I'm betting the latter, though maybe not because of the likely reaction in Iraq. But Turkey didn't join the "Coalition" and I can't see them being happy about this. It's interesting that US officials were the ones who broke the story to the Times that the Israeli wargames were a rehearsal for hitting Iran.

Joint Statement by the U.S. – Greece

Did anyone see the cover of this week's
Newsweek Magazine ?

A picture of Winston Churchill standing in front of a huge American flag background, like the George C. Scott movie, 'Patton.'

Caption: "What Would Winston Do?"

Quick! Invest in Big Band recordings! Finally, the Good War has returned...

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 22 2008 7:31 utc | 22

Dick Cheney, back in the 90's, was all for U.S. oil companies doing business with Iran, he was especially peeved when the Clinton administration put restrictions on those companies doing business there, including Halliburton, which had offices in Tehran into 2001:

"I think we'd be better off if we, in fact, backed off those sanctions [on Iran], didn't try to impose secondary boycotts on companies . . . trying to do business over there . . . and instead started to rebuild those relationships," Cheney said during a 1998 business trip to Sydney, Australia, reported by Australia's Illawarra Mercury newspaper.

Despite assertions by the vice president that Iran has been trying to build a nuclear weapon since the 1990s, the Bush administration decided it would not punish foreign oil and gas companies that invest in Iran or other countries that allegedly sponsor terrorism.

While no doubt Dick Cheney is a changed man since becoming VP, he does understand the oil business. This business about the evil Iran has only reached its fever pitch post the invasion of Iraq, and I suspect that the opportunities for the oil sector there far outstrip the both any diplomatic and/or military efforts regarding Iran. Except that Iran represents the primary deal breaker in securing the much larger stakes in Iraq, so Iran has to be presented as having a questionable future, along with any potential alliances made with it. This is particularly true (now) considering that critical SOFA arrangements are currently being negotiated with an Iraqi government that has many intrinsic connections with Iran, that are growing everyday in interdependency. Iraq is now Iran's largest export market, expected to top 2billion in 2008, supplies much of its electricity, refined gas, and kerosene, not to mention most of the religious tourism market. This is of course on top of the many religious, political, and social interconnections. The only alternative the U.S. has in countering these many interdependencies is to portray the dependencies as less desirable than having the U.S. as a protectorate. The only way do do this is to hype the international threat that Iran may represent, and keep the pressure on. Should the U.S./Israel show its cards on the threat by military action, then the Iraqi government, and all the impending potential, and all the (so called) sacrifice would collapse into chaos. There would be no guarantee that the Iraqi security forces would not turn on the occupier in mass, given that their SCIRI underwriters in the government turned on Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war.

Posted by: anna missed | Jun 22 2008 8:36 utc | 23

Hirsch On Peak Oil

Robert Hirsch foretells of $500 oil and discusses various alternatives -- none of them especially good -- except for conservation.


Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 22 2008 17:53 utc | 24

The Boys in the Bubble Planning for War

Posted by: Antifa | Jun 23 2008 5:13 utc | 25

We could cut energy by gynormous amounts, except usury (aka profit motive) works precisely to expand and extend these disequilibriums, since usury exists to create, then take advantage of the spread between supply and demand. A day on Wall Street where puts equal calls, a day on Main Street where gas demand equals gas delivered, a day on Global Air, Space and Cyber Force where no bombs blow up but their own, is not just a pretty boring world for mainstream media and its sycophant punditry and warlockery, but quiet harmony and balance is a Black Monday for Mammon.

Since usury exists soley to suck your blood and grind your bones for bread, your best defense is Deet Deet Deeting: more insulation into your attic, double-pane windows, a new 95% efficient furnace, a smaller car or carpooling or telecommuting, no speculation in commodities, avoid casinos and lotteries, avoid the big hotels with their neon lit avenue of energy waste, cutting back on the meat, cut out the booze, vacation at the state park, get into shape, credit balance to zero, trim the sails, set the rudder, steer for calm seas ... and did I mention, kill your TV??

Imagine if someone asked you if you wouldn't mind sponsoring an ex-con speed freak crack addict just out of the slammer, for $65 a month, and then added, oh by the way, can they sleep on your couch, eat out of your refrigerator and ramble away about sick shit 24x7? TV is your brain, on Big Brother's bad acid. Any questions?

We have it in our power to destroy Mammon, and it's only a off switch click away.
Make February, 2009, Digital TV Day, the day you sink your TV in the nearest pond,
and swear allegiance to a New America, regardless of who's in Washington DC, an
America where you don't go to the mall, you don't buy the lottery ticket, a day where you take the bus to work, eat a brown bag lunch, go for a walk after a dinner salad and come home to the TV off and Ella Fitzgerald singing on the FM in a dark living room, surrounded by your favorite memories, paycheck still in your pocket.

Mammon wouldn't survive the year out. They'd be begging you for $'s by next 4oJ! Pleading! Walk away. If they don't like New America, let them move back to Hebron. "We won. You lost. Get over it, and get the hell out of here."

Because that's exactly what they'll say to you when you're homeless and broke.

Posted by: Yumpin C Hosiphat | Jun 23 2008 5:33 utc | 26

"It became necessary to destroy the Earth,
in order to save it (for ourselves)." ... The NeoZi.con's

Posted by: Shah Loam | Jun 23 2008 5:59 utc | 27

Judging from http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/06/22/hakim-iran-coup-on-the-shiite-coalition/>this little piece from Roads To Iraq, the Hakim SIIC faction has indeed gotten cold feet regarding the SOFA negotiations - and are disconnecting themselves from the DAWA party (& Maliki) in the upcoming elections. What the SOFA and the elections are doing (politically) is to call the cards on the table, with regards to the real influence of Iran in Iraq. And as everybody should know by now, that influence is most felt through the Hakim/Badr alliance to both Maliki the and U.S. efforts to stabilize the country. In this, the U.S. and Iran have had parallel interests, in spite of all the (U.S.) rhetoric to the contrary. Now that the endgame is in play, the Hakim/Badr faction that has so far had a sweetheart deal going with Washington, that has manifested itself in achieving many of the U.S. goals of recreating a monopoly of violence and a stable centralized state - but beholden to whom? Without the Hakim/Badr alliance to the Maliki government, the centralized state dies with Maliki in the elections, and with Hakim/Badr the centralized state may live, but only if underwritten by Iran. I think the U.S. might take the latter deal, thinking that either they could eventually ween the Iranians off Iraq (by making Iran less advantageous) or that a mutual influence could be negotiated, should that fail. All of which sums up as a worst case scenario for the third rail in all of this, Israel. For if Israel should ever be relegated to playing second fiddle to Iran with regards to primary U.S. policy interests (Iraqi oil) no one in Washington gets any sleep. So of course they threaten to fuck everything up and bomb Iran alone, and draw the U.S. into sabotaging their own interests for theirs. In that sense Antifa's bear analogy holds up, but for a different reason.

Posted by: anna missed | Jun 23 2008 10:18 utc | 28

anna missed wrote: there is simply no geo-strategic reason for the U.S. to attack Iran, at least from the "resource war" perspective.

As pointed out that is not the only motive, but onto: The US is trying to ‘consolidate’ Iraq - military bases, puppet Gvmt., co-opting, silencing, paying opponents, oil contracts, and more - and that is its first priority. Any attack on Iran would have to use the Iraqi bases and guarantee the punch of US troops, contractors, and matériel there. (My grandfather used to stick colored pins into maps and that impressed me. He showed me some ww2 exs.) And that won’t work.

Remember the domino effect? It was presented as economic or sweetly cultural - MacDo’s democracy invisibly stalking the desert sands making people love freedom, gabbling into their cell phones, wearing high heels and crooning on Eurovision. (Er, the Iraqis did I recall?) Glitz for the dopes ... but a necessary military strategy.

The smoke about Iran is to keep Israel quiet. So Israel goes and flies some planes about!

alex wrote: On a technical level, the model of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 derives from the Israeli experience.

Absolutely - and that is why it failed (or one of the reasons.) The US and Israel are both militaristic imperialists, practically the only ones left by now, and they have slowly come to a symbiotic embrace while their aims are not congruent, their methods neither. It could be called a passive-aggressive relationship with each party exploiting the other’s violence. (Sorry! for the psycho-babble..)

here is another US-as-mad-dog article from global research:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUC20080622&articleId=9430>link

Posted by: Tangerine | Jun 23 2008 16:19 utc | 29

The comments to this entry are closed.