Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 25, 2020

Israel Is (Again) Pushing For War On Iran

There is a campaign to push U.S. president Donald Trump into attacking Iran before he leaves his office. It is likely that Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahoo, with the help of Secretary of State Mike Pompous, is the brain behind it.

The campaign started on November 16 with a New York Times piece which claimed that Trump had asked for options to bomb Iran:

President Trump asked senior advisers in an Oval Office meeting on Thursday whether he had options to take action against Iran’s main nuclear site in the coming weeks. The meeting occurred a day after international inspectors reported a significant increase in the country’s stockpile of nuclear material, four current and former U.S. officials said on Monday.

A range of senior advisers dissuaded the president from moving ahead with a military strike. The advisers — including Vice President Mike Pence; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Christopher C. Miller, the acting defense secretary; and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — warned that a strike against Iran’s facilities could easily escalate into a broader conflict in the last weeks of Mr. Trump’s presidency.

It is unlikely that Trump will want to ruin his legacy by launching another war in the Middle East. He will want to run again for president in 2024. 'America first', avoiding wars that are of no value for the U.S., was and is one of his major selling points.

There is precedence for such an Israeli campaign. Back in 2008 Netanyahoo had also tried to push the outgoing Bush administration towards a war on Iran:

During the last days of the Bush administration in 2008, Israeli officials, concerned that the incoming Obama administration would seek to block it from striking Iran’s nuclear facilities, sought bunker-busting bombs, bombers and intelligence assistance from the United States for an Israeli-led strike.

Vice President Dick Cheney later wrote in his memoir that he supported the idea. President George W. Bush did not, ...

While Israel has the capabilities to attack Iran it would never dare to do so without explicit U.S. backing.

Mike Pompous, the Cheney in the current attempt to drag the U.S. along, also wants to run for president - if not in 2024 then later. He is 56 years old and can wait a few more years. He is currently trying to catch the Evangelical vote and Zionist campaign support by pleasing Israel as much as possible:

On his recent visit to Israel, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo added new sanctions against Iran while also releasing a State Department statement defending Trump’s “maximum pressure” against the Islamic Republic. He boasted about the damage being done to the Iranian economy: “The Maximum Pressure campaign against the Iranian regime continues to be extraordinarily effective. Today, Iran’s economy faces a currency crisis, mounting public debt, and rising inflation. Prior to the Maximum Pressure campaign, Iran was exporting nearly 2.5 million barrels of oil per day. Now it struggles to export even a quarter of that volume.”

The Israeli campaign for a new war has come with several rather sensational 'leaks' pointing to such an event:

The United States this week rapidly deployed several heavy bombers to the Middle East this week in an apparent threat to Iran, amid swirling speculation that US President Donald Trump plans to take military action against Tehran before President-elect Joe Biden enters office.
...
In a highly irregular move, the B-52H Stratofortress planes were seen flying toward Israeli airspace on Saturday en route to the base where they will be stationed, likely in Qatar. The aircraft were spotted on civilian tracking software approaching Israel before they apparently turned off their transponders, rendering them invisible on those applications.

The rotation of B-52 bombers to Qatar is far from irregular:

It was the third time in the past year and a half that B-52 bombers, which are capable of carrying nuclear weapons and other powerful munitions, have been deployed to the region in tacit threats to Iran.

The base in Qatar is the B-52s' launching point for air support in Afghanistan. As the U.S. is currently reducing its troop numbers in Afghanistan amid a surge of Taliban activities the additional air support is called for to cover the retreat.

In typical Netanyahoo manner a recent 'secret meeting' between Pompous, Netayahoo and Clown Prince Muhammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia was leaked immediately after it had happened. The fact that it was intentionally leaked makes it unlikely that the meeting was about an imminent attack on Iran:

[T]he contradictory news on Monday about such a meeting — with unsourced Israeli media reports saying it had taken place clashing with a denial from the Saudi foreign minister — highlighted the domestic politics in each country and signaled how far apart the two countries remained from the prospect of exchanging ambassadors.
...
Mr. Netanyahu, who has often been accused of leaking reports for political gain, had ample reason to trumpet any incremental steps in building relations with Saudi Arabia. He is eager to improve his standing at home as a leader who can turn Israel’s foes into friends and to divert attention from corruption allegations.

The calculation is different for Prince Mohammed, who has told American visitors that he does not consider Israel an enemy but that opening official relations too quickly could inspire extremists and be used against him in a region where Israel remains unpopular.

Another Israeli 'leak' today is also designed to create the impression of an imminent attack on Iran:

The Israel Defense Forces have in recent weeks been instructed to prepare for the possibility that the U.S. will conduct a military strike against Iran before President Trump leaves office, senior Israeli officials tell me.
...
Senior Israeli officials tell me they expect Israel will get prior notice ahead of any U.S. strike against Iran. But they're concerned that won't be sufficient to fully prepare. Thus the order to the IDF to start taking preparatory steps under the assumption that such a scenario is possible.

Iran has responded to the Israeli campaign by highlighting that any attack on it would escalate into a wider war:

An adviser to Iran’s supreme leader who is a possible 2021 presidential candidate is warning that any American attack on the Islamic Republic could set off a “full-fledged war” in the Mideast in the waning days of the Trump administration.

Speaking to The Associated Press, Hossein Dehghan struck a hard-line tone familiar to those in Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, a force he long served in before becoming a defense minister under President Hassan Rouhani.

(Why is a warning of potential escalation, should Iran be attacked, characterized as a 'hard-line tone' instead of a matter of course?)

Iran also asked its 'resistance' allies to avoid provocations that could be used as an excuse for an attack:

Iran has instructed allies across the Middle East to be on high alert and avoid provoking tensions with the U.S. that could give an outgoing Trump administration cause to launch attacks in the U.S. president’s final weeks in office, Iraqi officials have said.

The order, delivered personally by IRGC foreign proxy commander Brigadier General Ismail Qaani, came a day after seven rockets had hit near the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Publicizing the order allows to characterize any further incident as a false flag provocation.

During the last 20 years all of the many rumors about imminent attacks on Iran were products of Israeli propaganda. I do not see why this time is any different.

Israel is deterred and does not dare to attack Iran. Hizbullah, Iran's ally in Lebanon, has enough missiles to destroy Israel's industry. Then there is this:

Aᴍɪʀ @AmirIGM - 8:39 UTC · Nov 4, 2020

Iran shows off what is essentially a Clip for launching missiles in quick succession from its underground missile cities. This mitigates the low number of launch ports at these bases and adds more possibility of overwhelming ABM systems. - video


bigger

Attempts by Netanyahoo to goad the U.S. into attacking Iran have been manifold. But Trump's legacy is on the line. I doubt very much that he will risk it for an attack that would have wide ranging and unpredictable consequences. How would it benefit him?

Posted by b on November 25, 2020 at 18:08 UTC | Permalink

Comments
next page »

b

I doubt very much that he will risk it for an attack that would have wide ranging and unpredictable consequences. How would it benefit him?

I agree, especially since amongst Republican voters he is the leading candidate to be the 2024 Republican nominee
Poll: Majority of Republicans would support Trump in 2024

He has too much to lose and nothing to gain by striking Iran.

Posted by: Down South | Nov 25 2020 18:33 utc | 1

@ b who asked about Trump
"
But Trump's legacy is on the line. I doubt very much that he will risk it for an attack that would have wide ranging and unpredictable consequences. How would it benefit him?
"

While Trump has a very large ego, he also knows he is a cog in a bigger machine that has goals that might even conflict with Trump's. That bigger machine is in a civilization war with China/Russia and Iran because they represent a viable alternative to the global private finance centered social contract of the West.

We have seen before that Russia has made it quite clear that Iran is under the protection of Russia which means this is all keep-the-fear-levels-high bullying and BS.

If Trump is going to further any part of the civilization war we are in before he leaves office, it will be in the financial area, IMO. I believe the elite want to move sooner, rather than later, to try and stop China, et al. That would be another "attack that would have wide ranging and unpredictable consequences." But this is a civilization war at the existential level, socialism or barbarism?

Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 25 2020 18:37 utc | 2

Long ago, Occupied Palestine hitched its wagon to what was at the time a mighty steed. But over the decades, that mighty steed has morphed into a dilapidated donkey as the significance of Occupied Palestine in the strategic thinking of the Outlaw US Empire has also diminished as global reality has changed its goals.

During TrumpCo, The Outlaw US Empire has become more closely aligned with the Arab Gulf States, and any war it instigates with Iran will destroy those relations along with those Gulf states's governments. The big change few have noted is making war on Iran is an immediate strategic defeat for the Empire regardless the damage done to Iran. As pointed out in many discussions here, Iran's army could quickly take over the lands of the ruined Gulf states thus liberating their populations. Iran wouldn't need to keep occupation troops stationed in any of those nations. Not only would the Empire lose its bases it would lose its dictatorial allies, maybe even Occupied Palestine itself. It's almost as if Nuttyahoo was asking Trump to shoot him in the head.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 25 2020 18:44 utc | 3

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality." --Dickhead

The empire wants war with Iran, but whoever is in office in the US when that war starts will go down in history as a criminal and a monster. Who would the imperial elites rather have saddled with that legacy, Harris/Dead Guy whom they have been trying to sell to the American public and the world as saviors of decency or the Great Orange Ogre that they have spent the last four years hyperventilating over?

They will start the war while Trump is still in office. This discussion in the Mockingbird mass media about Trump having to be talked down from launching an attack is either gross stupidity on Trump's part or it is nonsense intended to prepare the population to believe that Trump really is responsible when the attack is launched. If Trump has any wisdom he will immediately disavow any rumors of an American attack on Iran.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 25 2020 18:46 utc | 4

Isn't it strange that the tribe of self-chosen with their self-ordined "Better god than others'" always gang up to attack those who helped them:
1: Egypt, which let them out
2: The Persians (actually Medæan kings) who let them leave Babulin (which they never did)
3: Germany, where their lives under the Kaiser was better than ever before
and:
4: The US of North A, where never hounded nor hearded like swines
What's wrong with these -- I've been to posh restaurants in the middle east where the only pork chops available came from kibbbuzzes in the uccupied parts of Palestine called "Izraël"!

Posted by: Tadlak Davidovitsh | Nov 25 2020 18:57 utc | 5

William Gruff @ 4

Absolutely right! They want Trump for the fall guy. In the process the MSM will demonize all populous leaders.

I am, however, puzzled that the oligarchs think they can benefit from blowing up the entire Middle East. Wouldn't more sane individuals want to play out their Covid Lockdown Great Reset first? Sane individuals? Oops! forgot who I was writing about. As for clinical psychopaths...

Posted by: EoinW | Nov 25 2020 18:59 utc | 6

... Trump's legacy is on the line. I doubt very much that he will risk it for an attack that would have wide ranging and unpredictable consequences.

And yet he has pushed for war with Iran before. Immediately after the downing of the USA drone, Trump wanted to bomb Iran and Trump and Israel implored Russia to allow them to do so.


Russia Warns U.S. and Israel That Iran Is Its 'Ally' and Was Right About Drone Shoot Down

Russian National Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev was the sole voice defending Iran in historic trilateral talks Tuesday alongside White House national security adviser John Bolton and Israeli National Security Council Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat in Jerusalem. As the U.S. and Israel hardened their stances against their mutual adversary amid heightened tensions in the Middle East, Russia has sought de-escalation and dismissed attempts to liken Iran to jihadis such as the Islamic State militant group (ISIS).


And Trump-Pompeo pinned the Houthi drone and cruise missile attack on a Saudi oil installation on Iran (apparently hoping to justify an attack on Iran).

In fact, war with Iran is the only thing that Trump hasn't yet delivered to Israel/Netanyahu. The Trump Administration has already: moved the US embassy to Jerusalem; declared Golan Heights to be Israel territory; practically handed the West Bank to Israel, withdrawn humanitarian assistance from the Palestinians; continued to work on toppling Assad; declared that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization; assassinated Gen. Soleimani; and pressured Persian Gulf monarchies to normalize relations with Israel.

=
How would it benefit him?

Those who helped Trump to win the Presidency included Russia Jewish oligarchs (which was turned into "Russiagate"). We don't know what Trump promised them but Trump given Israel everything they might've wanted and seemed intent

Plus Trump doesn't necessarily care about running in 2024. He's already had his Presidential ticket punched and will get Secret Service protection for the rest of his life (along with other perks). At this point, Trump cares about collecting his chips and cashing in.

Also: Trump is still working on the current election (which is looking dicey) and his somewhat nefarious efforts in that regard may taint any future run. Seems much more likely that Trump pulls out a win against Biden than that Trump is planning a 2024 come-back.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 25 2020 19:03 utc | 7

@4 gruff

Agree, completely. That was my thought as well.

Was Vox not involved with the leak of this story? The same Vox that tried to cement the narrative that the federal gov't under Trump was single-handedly responsible for 200,000 deaths of our precious, interned (abandoned) elderly?

Seems painting outgoing POTUS as a loose cannon is what is really going on.

Talked down by Mike Pence? Yeah, sure.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Nov 25 2020 19:10 utc | 8

Did anybody notice the small fins at the top of the Iranian missiles in the video? Ballistic missiles usually don't have steering fins at that spot. Those war heads are guided.

Posted by: m | Nov 25 2020 19:10 utc | 9

"Attempts by Netanyahoo to gaud the U.S. into attacking Iran have been manifold."


The word is goad.


Posted by: Jay | Nov 25 2020 19:13 utc | 10

EoinW @6

You have studied the plans for the Great Reset at the World Economic Forum, right? Blowing up the Middle East fits with that like hand in glove. The "Great Reset" is by definition a massively disruptive event, part of which involves discontinuing use of fossil fuels and shifting to electric vehicles. This isn't a bad idea, but how do you incentivize The Market to do that?

Remember that the WEF and proponents of the "Great Reset" are global business elites, and as such they want capitalist (market) solutions to prevail in this "Great Reset". Oil prices going through the roof due to the Middle East being engulfed in war will drive up demand for electric vehicles "naturally" (capitalistically) with no need of state intervention in the transportation and manufacturing markets.

These WEF people are not super geniuses or anything, but they are smart enough to piece that together.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 25 2020 19:18 utc | 11

Hyperventilating loudmouthing as the team prepare the ground for the great liberators within the Harris/Biden team. So when the great liberators and their ziofascist heros come running in 2021 they will have a fully prepared war to play with. This is what they think is a functional foreign policy handover.

I would expect nothing less from any of these murderous insults to humanity.

Frankly I do not give a dam what the NYT has to say. There are more informed and less ridiculous news outlets to source better information from.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 25 2020 19:20 utc | 12

Did anybody notice the small fins at the top of the Iranian missiles in the video? Ballistic missiles usually don't have steering fins at that spot. Those war heads are guided.

Posted by: m | Nov 25 2020 19:10 utc | 9

Yeah, as near as I could figure it they must be able to reliably get within a few meters, which is damn good. Tens of meters at most. They have demonstrated that a couple of times now. That attack on the base in Iraq in particular. Your basic rocket, if you get within a half mile at any sort of range, you did good. If you want to avoid nukes, you need that sort of precision, a few meters. I'll be a lot of people would like to know what the Iranians have.

Posted by: Bemildred | Nov 25 2020 19:23 utc | 13

NemesisCalling @8: "Talked down by Mike Pence? Yeah, sure."

Yeah, I choked on my tea reading that too. They're setting this up so all the blame can be directed straight at Trump, which is why he had better get ahead of this plot right quick.

And of course once the war is started they will argue that it cannot be stopped. Endless excuses will be offered for why it must continue even though everyone will agree that the war is wrong.

Crazy, but that's where we're at these days.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 25 2020 19:26 utc | 14

"Why is a warning of potential escalation, should Iran be attacked, characterized as a 'hard-line tone...?"

Because they are vermin we tolerate, not human beings entitled to normal dignity. Another commenter pointed out the absurdity of Axios saying that Trump was contemplating a 'Preemptive attack on Iran'. No, it's an attack driven by Trump's personal agenda and last chance opportunity. Iran isn't massing troops on anyone's border or deploying missiles.

I always considered Trump bombing Iran as a seriously high possibility:
1. Trump loves doing the opposite of what the 'experts' said was dangerous, moving the embassy to Jerusalem, visiting N.Korea, withdrawing from the JCPOA.

2. A chance to atone for his moment of weakness for backing down the last time. Bullies hate it when others think they are weak.

3. He is a narcissist and Pompeo / Netanyahu know how to play him, 'this is your chance for a momentous legacy, crushing the #1 terrorist nation and killer of U.S. troops, and agent of evil in the M.E. before they acquire nuclear weapons. This will prevent Biden from going back to the agreement that gives Iran nuclear weapons in 5yrs'.

BTW do not discount that he believes the lies I put in single quotes. He wants to be put into the history books as the heir of Cyrus.

Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Nov 25 2020 19:38 utc | 15

Wow! I'm surprised my view is that of a party of one. Or perhaps I shouldn't.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 25 2020 19:47 utc | 16

It is not "again." It is "still." Israel has never let up in its constant drive for the US to attack Iran.

Posted by: Mark Thomason | Nov 25 2020 19:48 utc | 17

Karlofi @ 16

Party of Two? I agree with your assessment. I simply jumped ahead to wonder why the USA, Israel or the various factions trying to run the West would want such insanity now. Don't take that like I doubt it's possible. Doubtless there are many players in the West who are insane and want such a war.

Posted by: EoinW | Nov 25 2020 20:03 utc | 18

Trump lost because he wanted to get out American soldiers from the Middle East.

Israel cannot accept that.

Posted by: rolland | Nov 25 2020 20:05 utc | 19

m @9 and Bemildred @13

Yep, those ballistic missile very obviously have terminal guidance for the warheads. They will hit what they are aimed at.

I keep reposting this (different source this time) because many in the West have not wrapped their heads around it yet.

STEM graduates:

China: 4.7 million/yr
US: 0.56 million/yr
Russia: 0.56 million/yr
Iran: 0.34 million/yr

Keep in mind that more than half of America's STEM grads are not American; they are international students. America's actual domestic STEM grad rate is closer to 0.25 million/yr.

Other than Russia, no European country is even in the top ten. Even Brazil and Mexico each produce nearly twice as many STEM grads as Germany and Britain.

It cannot be overemphasized what impact this has on technology now and will have over the coming decades. What we see in the video our host linked is not a mock-up. It represents capabilities beyond what most Americans (and likely most Europeans) can imagine, and that is due to the development of real human potential in Iran.

When the empire recedes enough to no longer be able to keep its boot on Iran's neck, that country will blossom much like China has these last couple decades. As Putin keeps saying, a nation's real resources are the skills and abilities of its people (or something close to that).

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 25 2020 20:09 utc | 20

How would it benefit him?

Simple, but scary. It would leave a foreign policy quagmire that would consume the Democrats and create an internal environment where the "neo" faction within the party (elected and un-elected)would attempt an internal party coup.

Posted by: james | Nov 25 2020 20:22 utc | 21

"...a New York Times piece which claimed that Trump had asked for options to bomb Iran"

Which means that the opposite is true.

Posted by: Mao Cheng Ji | Nov 25 2020 20:29 utc | 22

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 25 2020 20:09 utc | 20

"It cannot be overemphasized what impact this has on technology now and will have over the coming decades. What we see in the video our host linked is not a mock-up. It represents capabilities beyond what most Americans (and likely most Europeans) can imagine, and that is due to the development of real human potential in Iran.

When the empire recedes enough to no longer be able to keep its boot on Iran's neck, that country will blossom much like China has these last couple decades. As Putin keeps saying, a nation's real resources are the skills and abilities of its people (or something close to that)."

Agreed. We can do that here too, and we did once, but we will have to get some boots off our necks first as well.

Posted by: Bemildred | Nov 25 2020 20:29 utc | 23

First of all think about possibility of an attack from military point of view.
An attack to Iran will go beyond a terrorist incident, a sabotage, it will be an open war. There is no country able to prepare logistics in two months period for such war. No army general will take responsility for a such stupid start.
It is better we do not amplify stupid zionist propaganda, here.

Posted by: Arata | Nov 25 2020 20:36 utc | 24

It's not unusual for a president to ask about military options. It's in his job description, and he has to appear interested in what the gang at the Pentagonal Puzzle Palace have been up to.

Iran has proven before (against Iraq) that it knows how to take a hit and strike back. That's why the US attack machine has attacked many other "enemies" but not Iran, despite Obama's oft-repeated all options are on the table.

Iran is well-armed with bunkered missiles, along with artillery, fighter planes, and submarines plus Iranians are motivated by US sanctions and the assassination of General Soleimani. We can be assured that the Iran missiles are dialed in to the roughly 50,000 US troops in the Gulf area, including a major CENTCOM HQ on Bahrain plus any ships in the area. . Also Iran's ally Hezbollah has tens of thousands of missiles aimed at Israel.

There are no US aircraft carriers in the Gulf area at this time. There is only one carrier (of eleven) deployed, USS Nimitz in the Indian Ocean.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 25 2020 20:44 utc | 25

Netanayahu is in the process of being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Clearly, like Obama, he will have to start a war to justify it.
(Not a joke! It is for "his efforts to get Israel recognised by the Gulf states". Report from The Daily Mail)

Israel has been hitting targets in Syria, mainly Iranians and SAA but I suspect that the last one hit some Herzbollah. They are doing anything they can to provoke a reaction. But what about the 2x B52's in Qatar, the "freedom of the seas" near Vladivostok and the US missile tests (400 km range) from Roumania, 250 km (miles?) off Crimea? The US is doing the same aggravation.

The "next" US sanctions are supposed to be "connected" to Iranian nuclear production and include 80 Chinese, several Russians, several companies and include a Russian Defense Minister etc.: (If they mean Shoigu, then that is a very deliberate move to hit the Bear on the head with a barge pole, if they can run fast enough). I am not sure that there are ANY Iranians included.

OK. Provocations everywhere, presumably because they (whoever they are) want a war to start before Trump excapes and Biden becomes the responsable.

One answer to why now is that during the Bush era, the US military decided that they had a military superiority, which gave them a "window of opportunity" for world domination. The ziocons who are arriving with Biden must think they still have that superiority.
------

Other news; recently Israel passed the cap of 3'000 children killed since 2000, not including the tens of thousands maimed.

RE Shoigu; Note that Anatoly Churkin, a personal friend of Putin, was assassinated at the same period that another 9-10 Russian Diplomats met suspicious ends. However, Putin has a long memeory, so the C**/Mi* would be unwise to try something similar nowadays.

Posted by: Stonebird | Nov 25 2020 20:46 utc | 26

@Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 25 2020 19:03 utc | 7

In fact, war with Iran is the only thing that Trump hasn't yet delivered to Israel/Netanyahu.

Exactly! He attempted to do it, but army generals scolded him and forced him to make shameful TV show while he was trembling under army generals watch. It was his inversion of Pearl Harbor.

Posted by: arata | Nov 25 2020 20:50 utc | 27

Arata | Nov 25 2020 20:36 utc | 24

However, the "Reset" (Schwab/Davos/Soros et al) is supposed to start with a massive cyber attack that will literally go all around the world. Some sort of FF or non nuclear war would be ideal.

Posted by: Stonebird | Nov 25 2020 20:54 utc | 28

Hot war with Iran is unlikely.
There is already a war designed to weaken the regime but actually consolidating the unlikely alliance of Islamic Iran, Communist China and neo-Tsarist Russia. As geo-political moves go that is quite a trick; and its taken several successive iterations of the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight to accomplish it.
Trump will only attack Iran if the Military OK the move and the Military have more sense.
As to his "legacy" what has Trump Tower got to do with anything?
And as for running again in 2024, there is more chance of van Buren running again than the Donald: the powers behind the Republican Party (and we're not talking about the voters) made the mistake once, they almost lost control. It won't happen again.

Posted by: bevin | Nov 25 2020 20:55 utc | 29

karlof1 @3

You are correct that the empire attacking Iran will be self-destructive. I greatly fear that you may be wrong that the risk (Risk? It's a certainty) will dissuade America.

I led off my first post in this thread with a quote from Dickhead Cheney, but there is more to it than just the empire creating the false reality that they are the good guys after having just started a shockingly horrible war. We now have decades of the empire making its own false reality and imposing it on the world, but so long as the strategists for the empire can tell the difference between that false reality and objective reality then they can still make rational decisions. Unfortunately the imperial elites have long been buying and consuming their own false narratives about the world. They are no longer capable of making rational decisions.

I will repeat: It doesn't matter that in the real world any attack by the empire on Iran (or indeed China) will be a disaster for the empire. The decision makers for the empire are not functioning in the real world. Their decisions are based upon the logic within an artificial alternate reality that they themselves have created. In that alternate reality they can bully Russia and the Russians will fold like a cheap suit; they can "bloody China's nose" and the Chinese will meekly accept it; and they can thump the Iranians hard and those ignorant sand people won't be able to do anything but shake pointed sticks at the empire's invulnerable and awesome weapons systems.

Crazy? Yeah, but that's where we are.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 25 2020 20:58 utc | 30

A nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize may be submitted by any person who meets the nomination criteria, a large variety of people including university professors and national assembly members.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 25 2020 20:58 utc | 31

When he was president, Obama has sent his then Chief of Staff Mike Mullen to Israel to let the israelis know that the US didn't approve a strike on Iran.

Posted by: Willy2 | Nov 25 2020 21:02 utc | 32

"When he was president, Obama has sent his then Chief of Staff Mike Mullen to Israel to let the israelis know that the US didn't approve a strike on Iran."

Hey, maybe that's what Trump did when he sent Pompeo to talk to Netanyahu and MBS ... BU-WA-HA-HAH-HAH-HAH. Just trying to lighten the mood. I think Pompeo would burst into flames before actually trying to stop a conflict.

Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Nov 25 2020 21:23 utc | 33

I have no doubt that the US military has advised against an attack on Iran as not doable. If Trump, in his last days in the White House, orders a suicide style attack nevertheless, it's a question whether the military will obey. I would say, not certain.

Posted by: Laguerre | Nov 25 2020 21:34 utc | 34

@WG 30
There are several reasons why the US decision makers underestimate their appointed enemies.
>American Exceptionalism, they are the appointed ones
>Recent experiences have been against third-rate opponents, no need to gain air superiority, etc.
>The "war on terror" has really been regime change wars, fighting against the "terrorists" who would be "freedom-fighters" if they came from France
>Many of these campaigns have been losers, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan -- but the live ones profit from it and the dead can't speak.
>The hokey US propaganda system masquerading as news sources, that the people involved are "heroes" who are "keeping us free."
> and probably more

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 25 2020 21:42 utc | 35

Commander of IRGC responding to Israeli rumors don’t see any possibility of a hot war on Iran. Nut and The shitpump and for that matter Trump can suck on it all they want but I don’t see anybody with balls on Iran. Was hitting bone saw’s oil tank in Jadaeh in the day of this meeting a shot over the bow, meaning any point in Arabian peninsula is not out of reach.
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – The commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps ruled out the possibility of a war against Iran, saying the enemy has become disappointed with military action on the Islamic Republic.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Major General Hossein Salami said the enemy has lost hope in the possibility of harming the Islamic Republic’s establishment physically.

https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2020/11/25/2397174/military-action-on-iran-off-the-table-irgc-chief


Posted by: Kooshy | Nov 25 2020 21:48 utc | 36

William Gruff | Nov 25 2020 18:46 utc | 4

It's very seldom I disagree with anything William Gruff writes. However, I think he and the other writers before him, underestimate the well-justified fear that the US military has of attacking Iran. The politicians may agitate to attack Iran as much as they like, but the Pentagon has done its war-gaming and they do not like the results they get. They much prefer bombing countries defended, if at all, by goat-herders with Kalashnikovs and without sophisticated air defense systems and highly precise ballistic missiles. Iran? IRAN?? Too Risky!!

Posted by: foolisholdman | Nov 25 2020 21:51 utc | 37

foolisholdman @37

Agreed 100%. The US military is rooted in reality and have no illusions that an attack on Iran would be anything but a nightmare for everyone concerned. Militaries rarely, if ever, start wars, though.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 25 2020 21:59 utc | 38

@foolish. 37
underestimate the well-justified fear that the US military has of attacking Iran
The subject target was decision makers, not military. You're correct to some extent on military but the "can do" attitude sometimes over-rides decisions even at that level, as in "I'd lose fifty men to take that hill" etc.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 25 2020 22:01 utc | 39

thanks b... too bad about the usa being led by the nose with israel.... i know it is not all true.. there is still a small bit of independence, but elections are decided on the basis of this kind of stuff and at no point is the usa media or public worried about israel influencing the usa election.. i do find that interesting...

i agree with @3 karlof1.. i don't see the usa doing this.. i see israel doing this.. there sense of hubris is very high.. if they can't convince the usa, they might be stupid enough to do some subversive acts - on top of all the others one they presently do, and get caught too.. it is rather sad how beholden to israel the usa is... and yet, i don't believe @ william gruff is correct on his thinking this is going to happen.. trump is irrelevant... so is biden for that matter..

greenwald had a few interesting things to say in a link someone shared on the previous thread A">https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-long-forgotten-cia-document-from/">A Long-Forgotten CIA Document From WikiLeaks Sheds Critical Light on Today's U.S. Politics and Wars

here is a quote from it - "It’s not just Trump who infuriated powerful U.S. actors by revealing the true face of the U.S. to the world. It’s also Julian Assange who did so, by founding an organization that published documents like this one that revealed such vital truths.

For that exposure, the CIA relentlessly attacked Trump starting from before he was even elected, and for the same reason, Assange is sitting in a British prison on espionage charges from the U.S. Department of Justice. Few things infuriate U.S. foreign policy elites more than those who, unwittingly or otherwise, show the true face of the U.S. security state to the world."

Posted by: james | Nov 25 2020 22:05 utc | 40

forgot to hit the preview button.. here is the link

A Long-Forgotten CIA Document From WikiLeaks Sheds Critical Light on Today's U.S. Politics and Wars

the preview option is your friend!

Posted by: james | Nov 25 2020 22:06 utc | 41

This piece strikes me as a little schizophrenic, b.

You accept that the Israelis **legitimately** tried to pressure George W. Bush into attacking Iran's nuclear sites with the Israelis in the lead during the lame duck period of his presidency* but you casually dismiss the recent "leak" as one of many Israeli propaganda pushes (with what aim? you never tell us if in fact the goal is NOT to actually goad the Americans into participating in an attack) in a long-running PR campaign to "justify" strikes on Iranian nuclear sites like Natanz.

The calculus is still basically the same. While at present the U.S. (as you note) is drawing down in Afghanistan and has a much smaller footprint in Iraq, the idea of a widespread war in the Middle East is as unpalatable now as it was then, with perhaps a thousand or less fewer American military lives on the line in the region.

So you're giving "peacenik" Trump way too much credit again. After all:

1) If Mike Pimpeous is such a war monger threatening to tarnish Trump's legacy of "no new wars" (itself a drastic simplification of Trump's own record), who hired and continues to support his agenda publicly and behind the scenes? That's right - Donald J. Trump

2) Which President has caved into both Saudi and Israeli demands more than any in recent memory, including pointlessly (or with the point of provocation) moving the embassy at great potential risk for a third Intifada? There have been massive arms sales to the Saudis and even more importantly, a peace and cooperation agreement between those two countries (and other Gulf monarchies) brokered by the Trump administration. b, himself has shown this to be merely a stunt to lay the groundwork for a more broadly supported (and executed) war on Iran, in a more multilateral fashion than prior to the agreements rather than some true "peace" treaty between nations that were NEVER going to attack each other in the first place.

3) In fact it was also "European intelligence officials" who publicized the alleged Israeli attempt in 2008. It's the same thing this time with the addition of well armed Saudi Arabia to the anti-Iran fold.

4) Considering his age and the unlikely possibility of a run in 2024, with Jared in his ear, a history of bending over backward to publicly push hardline ISRAELI policies - AND - the fact that he employs a man who said (as you excerpted) this:

“The Maximum Pressure campaign against the Iranian regime continues to be extraordinarily effective. Today, Iran’s economy faces a currency crisis, mounting public debt, and rising inflation. Prior to the Maximum Pressure campaign, Iran was exporting nearly 2.5 million barrels of oil per day. Now it struggles to export even a quarter of that volume.”

Which is itself an admission of guilt in waging a brutal (mostly) non-military WAR against Iran's people and government, which should demonstrate to anyone paying attention that Trump probably really did consider attacking Iran. Whether it was Nutty-Yahoo and the Clown Prince behind this consideration is irrelevant because, again, it's nothing new and b acknowledges this. Further, no mention is made of the Soleimani assassination which was, itself, a blatant tactic to PREVENT peace in the region if Iran was going to be involved. Finally, as I've said for a while now - Trump WAS GOING TO attack Iran if he got a second term. I would have bet the mortgage on it in a heartbeat.

As far as the B-52 angle, I'm with b completely. It's nonsense to think that any American/Israeli/Saudi bombing campaign would rely on B-52s in this day and age and they're only there for the reasons b outlined. But I'm no expert on the capabilities of that fleet, so maybe someone with more direct knowledge of American B-52 deployments in the last decade or so can correct my logic. All of that said, b is correct and the media is probably being fed Israeli propaganda on that front.


* notably you only link to the NY Times pieces from 11/16 and 11/23 of this year again (with comments about an immediate leak) to back that up instead of actually current reports in 2008 that are easy to find online - hence "leaked" at that time as well, immediately after some meeting or another during Bush's lame duck period.

Posted by: _K_C_ | Nov 25 2020 22:08 utc | 42

I should have noted that I agree with all who are saying that the U.S. military has no appetite for an actual war with Iran and that neither does Nutty Yahoo or the Clown Prince if they're reasonably intelligent men. I should also have noted that I agree that the "deep state" (largely influenced if not controlled by Israeli interests) and its media arm could in fact be exaggerating the desire on Trump's part (being pushed by Nutty Yahoo and Clown Prince) to launch an attack. But that would mean that this was the case in 2008 as well, minus the Saudis and PLUS the much larger number of American boots on the ground in the region within reach of Iran's missiles. Hence, if it is to be believed that Israel genuinely tried to get Bush to launch an attack during his lame duck period, considering the things I outlined above (fewer American boots, non-aggression and other agreements btwn Israel and Saudi Arabia) plus the fact that Iran's economy is on the brink due to American sanctions, it's actually much MORE likely that Trump would have taken the ...ahem....suggestion from the aforementioned parties more seriously than the calculus at the time in 2008 allowed Bush to.

Just my $0.02

Posted by: _K_C_ | Nov 25 2020 22:18 utc | 43

And to correct, clarify and summarize my penultimate point:

There are now fewer American soldiers within reach of Iran's missiles than there were in 2008 (or during much of Obama's terms).

There is now an official "Abraham Accord" which made peace between the UAE, I believe other countries and Israel - NOT Saudi Arabi*, BUT Saudi Arabia and Israel have long held to mutual non-aggression and cooperation policies, so while the former held out of the Trump peace deal, it was on the grounds that Israel make peace with the Palestinians or something ancient and far from new like that. All of which makes a joint strike on Iran (or at least one which draws no official opposition from Saudi/UAE/etc.) more likely (albeit how much more is the question) than it was in 2008.

* Speaking of, I'd like for there to be some discussion on this ALLEGED secret meeting that was reported on in the past few days. Saudis deny it even took place but something weird is indeed going on immediately following Trump's more and more apparent electoral loss.

Posted by: _K_C_ | Nov 25 2020 22:25 utc | 44

I should think that Netanyahu's move to push the US into attacking Iran is part (maybe even the main part) of a plan for the IDF to reinvade south Lebanon, in the belief that with Iran tied down in defending itself, Hezbollah forces will be cut off from Iranian assistance and presumably easier to defeat.

With Lebanon also in political, financial and economic crisis especially after the August port explosion (and some people do not rule out that Israel may have had a hand in that incident), the temptation to stage another invasion must be difficult for Israel to resist.

One thing we need to know is how stable is Israel's current unity government and whether Binyamin Netanyahu is planning something to upstage it so that he continue to remain PM indefinitely. I thought he could remain PM until November 2021. Has something occurred or is there something on the horizon that suggests he might not be allowed to stay PM for another 12 months?

Posted by: Jen | Nov 25 2020 22:32 utc | 45

The reason US military never started a large scale direct military war with Iran is in two folds, first, Iranian history has shown any foreign attack on Iran will mobilizes and unifies Iranian to form a martyr style resistance no matter what the cost, I don’t think any non Iranian can understand the sense of pride and nationalism boiling inside Iranians, which comes from pride in their culture and history, even cooking.
That sense is what is truly forming the desire for true sovereignty and independence that really brought the foundations of 1979 revolution while Iranians had their best economy and growth in recent history. Is this national sense of pride that wants true independence for Iran, which makes Iranians willing to pay the price at any cost, this the true reason why Iran is resisting US hegemony. Iranian know It would have been much easier and cheaper on them if like Europeans or some Asian states would become another vessel state of US and accept her hegemony over their affairs. Origin of this pride is in part from a shih mentality mixed in Iranian culture and history.
The second reason is that Iran is a really big mountainous geography which forms the “crossroad of old nations/history” with 15 neighboring countries US military knows to win a war with Iran and reducing Iran’ retaliation capability, will need to block and control Iran’s supply lines, that is not a capability US military or any military currently has, as matter of fact due to this reason, any war with Iran, like the Iran Iraq war becomes a war of attrition which US military will avoid due to her many past and recent experiences, including Vietnam, Iraq etc.
Best Regards

Posted by: Kooshy | Nov 25 2020 22:43 utc | 46

William Gruff @30--

Thanks for your reply, Bill! I made note of the considerations you named @30 and then wrote my comment. I'll elaborate:

The Empire's defense doctrine names China and Russia as its two primary adversaries. An attack on Iran that it cannot win will only further weaken the Empire versus those two competitors along with the other damage it will do to its strategic position. Many NATO nations will leave NATO if such an attack occurs, thus weakening even further the Empire's position. The Empire's #1 asset is the Petrodollar and its linked Dollar hegemony, both will be lost if it launches such a war. Finally, there's what little remains of the Empire's positive reputation with the rest of the world's nations; that will be reduced to near zero. All of the above tremendously weakens the Outlaw US Empire strategically and might even bankrupt it with the dollar's implosion.

Overall as I wrote earlier this year, Trump, Pompeo and crew have painted the Empire into a corner where there's no positive exit--only negative outcomes will ensue, some not as bad as others. Its system is the cause of that pickle, and ultimately the only way out is radical change to the system that favors the public's interest but not that of the Neoliberal Parasites. And so they persist. Interestingly, the Parasites's fortunes are directly tied to the strategic position of the Empire--their holdings are denominated in dollars. So, even the Parasites cannot afford a war with Iran or any other near peer nation.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 25 2020 22:50 utc | 47

i will say this... using the official mouthpiece of the israel gov't - NYT - to support a particular story strikes me as dubious.. using WAPO or WSJ is no different, fwiw..

Posted by: james | Nov 25 2020 22:55 utc | 48

Happy Thanksgiving, y'all !

Posted by: librul | Nov 25 2020 23:26 utc | 49

@45 Jen

Interesting speculation but I don't think that even a feint by the US against Iran would serve to help the IDF invade Lebanon.

As we have observed ourselves, and as Nasrallah has pointed out very recently, the Israeli soldiers are in a strange funk of psychological paralysis. I don't think anything could induce them to go against Hezbollah ever again.

~~

And as for feints, it would have to be a very, very wisp of a feint. If Iran's tripwire gets triggered, it will respond with massive retaliation, and the Pentagon knows it. Don't poke the Phoenix.

Posted by: Grieved | Nov 25 2020 23:54 utc | 50

@30 William Gruff - "The decision makers for the empire are not functioning in the real world."

True, but the strategists in Iran (and Russia and China) definitely are. The wanton foolishness of the US is a large factor, I believe, in all their planning. Iran exhibited a delicate, surgical precision in both its recent responses to the US - shooting down the drone, and targeting the US base.

The objective seems clear for all parties of the resistance that aggression from the US will be countered with true force, enough to frighten the Pentagon seriously, but also scaled with great precision so that the US itself is not emotionally forced to escalate. We've discussed how there are many thin slices of escalation that exist to employ in the theater.

I believe that we are still in the time when administering slaps to the US is the form. The time will come when actually defeating the US in direct combat and seizing a former possession will come, but I don't think we're there yet - and I don't know which nation will do that, nor has that battlefield established itself clearly yet, at least to my view.

But I have no doubt that all of these things are gamed for by all parties, except the witless US. And I've come to respect and trust the gaming of those parties to a high degree.

Posted by: Grieved | Nov 26 2020 0:11 utc | 51

@rolland (19). “Trump lost because he wanted to get out American soldiers from the Middle East.”

Say what? Foreign policy barely registered in the minds of American voters in the last election. Trump lost primarily because of his criminal negligence with regard to the Covid pandemic. Polling on this matter is quite clear. Absent the pandemic, Trump probably would have won easily.

Posted by: Rob | Nov 26 2020 0:31 utc | 52

Grieved @51--

The time will come when actually defeating the US in direct combat and seizing a former possession will come, but I don't think we're there yet - and I don't know which nation will do that, nor has that battlefield established itself clearly yet, at least to my view.

I just finished publishing an article announcing China's System as the Winner, which while not the same as defeating it on the battlefield IMO is far more impressive. And the chance of the Outlaw US Empire closing the continually widening gap is very very minimal. China just declared the defeat of poverty within its nation. This article about conditions here says amongst other indicators of fantastical corruption and inequality that "26 million now say they don't have enough to eat, as the pandemic worsens and holidays near." How many homeless people froze to death last week? Real unemployment's still over 25%. And the list could go on and on.

No, the Outlaw US Empire like Rome didn't need to be defeated on the battlefield. It defeated itself plain and simple. As I wrote on the Biden thread, IMO, the only reasonable way to avoid war is to tell the Neoliberals they've already lost in no uncertain terms. That unless they drastically alter their policies--effectively abandoning Neoliberalism--they will never have any chance of competing, never mind catching up with China or other nations we're falling behind.

Do enjoy your Thanksgiving tomorrow. But it will be another bitter day realizing just how many millions of our fellows don't even rate a wooden nickel in our Neoliberal cursed society and the additional suffering it causes globally.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 26 2020 0:49 utc | 53

By 1941, england alone was out-producing germany in fighter aircraft. The us has misplaced its industrial might..... someone forgot to tell the us that military pwer comes from the barrel of a factory ... and they dont have the industrial base to support their profligate wars of conquest and submission. Toughies...

Posted by: James joseph | Nov 26 2020 0:54 utc | 54

@ karlof 47
The Empire's defense doctrine names China and Russia as its two primary adversaries
That was written by the Pentagon which acts on its own, as a sort of "military diplomacy" (I made that up). It wasn't 'staffed' with anyone. It is merely the Pentagon's principal effort to justify a huge military budget -- China for Navy and Russia for Army. The US can't justify a half-million person ground force without creating Russia as a "revanchist" threat. China is more obvious, the Thucydides trap. Gotta go to war with the upcomer to world hegemony.
This defense doesn't include what others in government, especially State, also Congress, see as US policy. (The citizens of course are not allowed any input.) And then we get into Israel, Venezuela etc., places all over the world outside of Russia and China.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 26 2020 1:29 utc | 55

Jen @Nov25 22:32 #45

... part of a plan for the IDF to reinvade south Lebanon

karlof1 | Nov 25 2020 22:50 utc | 47

The Empire's defense doctrine names China and Russia as its two primary adversaries. An attack on Iran that it cannot win will only further weaken the Empire versus those two competitors ...

=

Some thoughts sparked these and other comments:

  • Trump is unlikely to attack Iran without some justification - probably a false-flag. We've already seen the establishment of a basis for a false-flag: the supposed killing of a al Queda's #2 man.

    In that context, Trump's desire to strike Iran and his apparent willingness to be persuaded to not do so, makes Trump look both prescient (if/when a attack attributed to Iran occurs) and peace-loving (he isn't).

  • Any war on Iran is not going to be conventional in the sense that it is not for territory. We keep hearing all the reasons why USA can't attack Iran. Added to that is that the Empire doesn't want to get bogged down when the real enemies are Russia and China. This is true to an extent. War planners, especially neocons, often have a very myopic view that is exacerbated by group-think. To them, Iran is unfinished business.
  • Any planning for war with Iran will certainly take into account its terrain, it's capabilities, and other factors like Hezebollah missiles. These make war difficult, not impossible.

  • The hullabaloo over a possible Iran war might be cover for other wars, or war-like actions, to come. Venezuela? Lebanon? Frankly, I doubt we will know what they are up to until it happens.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 26 2020 1:38 utc | 56

@Jj 54
they dont have the industrial base to support their profligate wars of conquest and submission
That's true, not even enough to maintain the current fleet of ships properly. The Pacific and Indian Oceans that have now become the major naval area of interest is a huge place -- 100 million square miles. And the human base comes up short. Seventy-one percent of young people are ineligible to join the military, and can an infantry unit deploy to combat with soldiers bearing a pregnancy profile? We'll see.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 26 2020 1:45 utc | 57

If there were more Good Jews in the world than Rotten-to-the-Core Jews then the Good Jews would be able to persuade them to stop behaving like arseholes and start acting like Human Beings. But there aren't enough Good Jews for that to happen.

Here's an ex-Jew explaining what's wrong with Rotten-to-the-Core Jews: https://gilad.online/writings/judea-declares-war-on-obama-by-gilad-atzmon.html

It turns out that they believe too much of their own bullshit and it's been getting them into trouble since Jewish History began.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 26 2020 1:47 utc | 58

@53 karlof1

It looked for a while that I would spend Thanksgiving reading "1491" - a supreme irony - which is finally on my shelf and which I haven't dug into yet. Sadly I have other work to take care of.

I have much apprehension about 2021. I'm very aware of the desolation. Someone spoke here of a shock-wave still on its way to hit us, and all we've seen so far is the great flash of light. I don't know anyone, nor have I heard of anyone, in the United States who is happy.

The sadness of this time seems appalling.

We knew it was a broken nation. They seemed to want to break it even more this year. The virus was like the appearance of the monolith in "2001: A Space Odyssey". These barbarians in the US touched it in wonder and trepidation, and all it did was make them more violent.

~~

I bookmarked your article to read later. I saw it in the pandemic thread, where I left a comment for you about one future political possibility that had never occurred to me until now. Very early days.

Be well

Posted by: Grieved | Nov 26 2020 1:53 utc | 59

@ librul | Nov 25 2020 23:26 utc | 49 - happy thanksgiving to you too and to all my american friends at moa!

Posted by: james | Nov 26 2020 2:11 utc | 60

All hostilities must be ceased.
All aggressions must be ceased.
Disengagement must be observed and all unlawfully occupied territories must be returned.
All dead and all prisoners must be exchanged, and open peace negotiations must commence.

Posted by: Josh | Nov 26 2020 2:35 utc | 61

Bombing attack does NOT equal invasion

Trump wants one medium to large bombing attack on Iran to tip over the gameboard before he leaves office. In his mind, this is not starting a war, just poisoning the waters for Biden.

There are people in DC who believe that Iran is too scared to respond or will only give a token response. Didn't you see those chest thumping loons on FOX? I did. Trump might
believe that the worst case response by Iran will still only kill a small number of Americans. After one exchange he will say ...

'Our preemptive attack devastated Iran's illegal nuclear weapons development, by many ... many years and killed many ... many high ranking terrorists who were planning to kill Americans and continue their aggression.

I am willing to stop the shooting now to give the next Administration a chance to decide how to proceed. We have done the next Administration a favor by taking out Iran's nuclear weapons. Something they didn't do for 8yrs while Obama was in office'
[Did I channel his viciousness and smallness?]

If an Iranian response kills any Americans then Biden will look weak if he goes back to the JCPOA and I'm not certain if Iran would even go back and Trump / Netanyahu get the Nobel Peace Prize for increasing tourism between Israel and the UAE.

Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Nov 26 2020 3:06 utc | 62

How about the weather? Adapt 2030 on bitchute talks about a grand solar minimum, that started in 2015, for a 35 year cycle. I think it is a pertinent trump. Lots of proofs to skunk some schemes. People gotta eat ya know..

Posted by: Alias: Zach Waddill. | Nov 26 2020 3:07 utc | 63

Israel/Mossad possibly has a lot of dirty on Trump..If its the plan so the Orange buffoon will atack the Iran before leaving office. His daughter is married to a Kushner boy. NJ real estate family with a lot of connections with Netanyahu.

Posted by: Nick | Nov 26 2020 4:02 utc | 64

I thank your, karlof1, for presenting your case here, and also those that support it. My memory of the severe provocation Trump previously gave Iran is supported by my memory of that whole episode, but also of a statement by Putin that Iran is an ally. Surely there can be no question your arguments are sound.

I am taken aback that Grieved considers an encounter inevitable at some later date. I hope that is not going to be the case. My Thanksgiving won't be a joyful one - those joyful memories I spoke of do sustain me now, and I hope they will come again, but we are in the time in between, meaningful in its own special way. Each member of my family is being as careful as possible, so I can only hope the persons who make such decisions on a larger scale can do the same. This is a time of unity for the nation in a special feast that is unique to its beginnings. Let us all hold it to our hearts.

Thanks to all for your ideas here. And especially to b for providing the subject matter. If indeed Israel seeks this opportunity always in the 'lame duck' session, and other presidents saw the danger and resisted the temptation, I can only hope and pray that will be the case this time as well. There is a discourtesy in the very timing of such pressure; it goes against US tradition to be thinking of war this time of year.

To anyone who is alone, you are not alone. I have many times been where you are. It will get better. We are all here trying to make it get better, poor words, certainly; but I think they are true.

Posted by: juliania | Nov 26 2020 4:34 utc | 65

I'm on the side of no war on Iran. I always ask where are the buildup of forces every time someone brings this topic up. It would take months of preparation, something China or Russia would be more than willing to expose it now. All they have to do is show satellite surveillance photos/video of the areas in question. However, it's still possible for an attack (not a war) on Iran to happen. The trick is to ensure that it doesn't start a war.



William Gruff | Nov 25 2020 20:58 utc | 4:

That quote was from Karl Rove.

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Posted by: Ian2 | Nov 26 2020 4:44 utc | 66

...
We don't know what Trump promised them but Trump given Israel everything they might've wanted and seemed intent
...
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 25 2020 19:03 utc | 7

Every thing Trump 'gave' "Israel" contravened International Law and was NOT Trump's to give. Trump knew that. It was a morality test and "Israel" failed spectacularly.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 26 2020 5:14 utc | 67

Well, thanks b.
People are mostly coming around to my view point which I posted as a response to JR recently. Also, in support of karlof1 @3.

As George Carlin used to say: This is mostly dick waving.
My missiles are bigger than your missiles — that is — incessantly repeated by the phallus-envious lackeys of the empire.

Pipsqueak Israel, says we are strong, but posts cardboard cut out soldiers to guard it’s border to the north. It has — big jets and missiles that make them feel superior, not occupier.
Always ask, what is the news cover for? Mowing the lawn in Gaza perhaps?

No one has to goad anyone in the empire to attack Iran, or start a war for the empire. The empire will have to do the heavy lifting by itself. Israel attacking Iran will only be the start of the war, and the Israel’s association with start of the such war, IS the ending of entity’s existence.

As you can see, I use Israel, and entity interchangeably. I don’t give two shits what you call the apartheid state that oppresses half it’s people, and stands guard on an open air prison called Gaza.

Below, is a lifted copy of my conversation with JR, with extra commentary. Sorry for the repost, but the points in are important.

Iran does not need nukes.
Iran does not need nuke umbrella.
Iran has MAD capabilities. Same as China and Russia.
[Here is the reasoning: when you can blow shit up in the 1200 mile range, from any border, with the accuracy — shown at Ein al Assad — parking a rocket between butt-cheeks— er —two silos — the very range that includes all circling empire’s bases, ships, and assets, you don’t need nukes or nuke umbrella, the first two items on this list. That’s MAD, PLENTY MAD on it own. I haven’t even mentioned other capabilities — sea, under sea, drone, ally, etc., etc..

The dementia inducing bitch-slap — “head trauma” heard-round-the-world is at full display here, where, they just forgot they were, well, bitch-slapped. The orange man even tweeted, “All is well”]

Iran does not need any other country to fight on it’s side.
Iran will go large on the first day of the war, and the empire will sue for peace, or nukes are used to end the war — even that won’t work.

It’s not about ‘the war with Iran’. It’s about how to stop ‘the war with Iran.’

And this: anyone can start a war with Iran, but it is Iran who will finish it.

Posted by: Sakineh Bagoom | Nov 26 2020 5:15 utc | 68

Posted on 17 November, 2020 by Labour Friends of Israel (who "killed" Jeremy Corbyn):

A newly appointed adviser to the US secretary of defence has been accused of making antisemitic remarks after suggesting that American politicians become “very very rich” by supporting Israel.
Douglas Macgregor, a retired army colonel, has been given the post of adviser to Donald Trump’s acting defence secretary, Christopher Miller. The president fired defence secretary Mark Esper last week.
CNN reported that Macgregor gave an interview last year in which he said that the US secretary of state Mike Pompeo “has his hands out for money from the Israeli lobby, the Saudis and others.” Macgregor also said that former National Security Adviser John Bolton has “become very, very rich and is in the position he’s in because of his unconditional support for the Israeli lobby.” Asked if he believed politicians who are known for their support for Israel want to go to war with Iran, Macgregor responded: “You have to look at the people that donate to those individuals.”
Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League said of the comments: “There is no place in our government for these ugly, antisemitic conspiracy theories that wealthy Jews are controlling the government.” Democrat congressman Ted Deutch said: “The only appropriate response from this White House to these antisemitic comments … must be a swift firing and complete condemnation.”

----

Thus we learn that in his waning moments, Trump has some good advisors.

----

On a related note, is it too much to ask our Congress critters like Deutch to have at least "dual loyalty", not just loyalty to Israel?

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Nov 26 2020 5:35 utc | 70

@karlof1

As pointed out in many discussions here, Iran's army could quickly take over the lands of the ruined Gulf states thus liberating their populations. Iran wouldn't need to keep occupation troops stationed in any of those nations.

It's infeasible that after a massive attack by USisrael, Iran would have the capacity, will, or inclination to invade the Gulf Sheikhdoms and overthrow their regimes.

@William Gruff

The empire wants war with Iran, but whoever is in office in the US when that war starts will go down in history as a criminal and a monster.

As if they care. The gangsters who started the Iraq war on lies in 2003 are doing very well today, thank you very much.

@William Gruff

The "Great Reset" is by definition a massively disruptive event, part of which involves discontinuing use of fossil fuels and shifting to electric vehicles.

Interesting; The UK govt. announced last week, all gasoline/diesel vehicles would be banned from sale by 2030.

Posted by: bart | Nov 26 2020 5:54 utc | 71

Sakineh Bagoom #68

You say "And this: anyone can start a war with Iran, but it is Iran who will finish it."

Iran has defeated the USA in Iraq in that brief retaliation at Ein al Assad.

The USAi is closer than ever to total humiliation in both Iraq and Afghanistan and they can choose to depart gracefully or in disarray. Harris/Biden and their gang of testosterone toddlers will no doubt shake their teddy bears and rattle the cot but its the adults in the room that will determine the outcome. The retreat from Kabul can be repeated as often as necessary.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Nov 26 2020 6:22 utc | 72

"China quietly fuels India and Pakistan’s next conflict."

"Pakistan's surprise move to declare contested Gilgit-Baltistan region a province will irk India and please China" as "the move would help to secure the US$60 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which passes through the heart of the disputed region."

"Harrison also previously reported in the New York Times on 22 tunnels constructed by China in secretive locations in Gilgit-Baltistan that even Pakistani soldiers reputedly are barred from accessing. He has suggested that the tunnels may serve as “missile storage sites” while also providing for a gas pipeline connecting Iran to China designed to cross the Himalayas through Gilgit-Baltistan."

https://asiatimes.com/2020/11/china-quietly-fuels-india-and-pakistans-next-conflict/

Posted by: Antonym | Nov 26 2020 9:37 utc | 73

@William Gruff | 4
My thoughts exactly.

In addition, the agreements that have occurred over the last months are not engineered for aggression against Iran and any attack now would completely undermine those agreements.

Posted by: AtaBrit | Nov 26 2020 9:44 utc | 74

I have absolutely no idea what's going to happen. I guess that spoils the game for some folks.

But I do have a guess that the Outlaw US Empire will pretty much totally socially and economically collapse in one year's time.

These are the good old days. Forty-five yeas ago were the even better old days.

It's Thanksgiving. Yay! Eat, drink milk chocolate, and be merry!

Posted by: blues | Nov 26 2020 11:02 utc | 75

karlof1 @47: "The Empire's #1 asset is the Petrodollar and its linked Dollar hegemony, both will be lost if it launches such a war."

True, and that is a gaping hole in the "Great Reset" notion as well. Of course, the Petrodollar is ultimately doomed anyway, but my tea leaves have not yet informed me if that is a near term crisis or something that is still a few years out. If its end is a little more immediate and the imperial strategists can see that coming more clearly from their higher vantage point in the economy than we can, then they may be willing to sacrifice the Petrodollar if they believe the "Great Reset" leaves them with something comparable.

"Finally, there's what little remains of the Empire's positive reputation with the rest of the world's nations; that will be reduced to near zero. All of the above tremendously weakens the Outlaw US Empire strategically and might even bankrupt it with the dollar's implosion."

Very true, which is why if the empire is going to have its war on Iran anytime in the next decade it will have to be started in the next few weeks while blame can still be redirected at the Great Orange Ogre, leaving the Harris Administration to be cast as the victims saddled with a war that they can pretend to oppose while continuing it.

Note that a big buildup to the war is not needed to get the war started. A few dozen cruise missiles would probably be enough to prompt sufficiently serious retaliation from Iran that full scale military operations can be sold to the public as a necessity.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 26 2020 12:09 utc | 76

So I'm looking at this video of a Russian interceptor taking off:

RT

I know nothing much more than the executive summary on these things but I notice this: the color of the smoke, the explosion out of the pad, and it's gone in a fraction of a second. Not just leaving but gone. The smoke is red like the Beirut blast. That has to be a big interceptor, the Russians are clever about what you get to see. There has to be some very fancy materials science involved just to make it work like that at all.

Smoothie has an article up in which he is discussing the incompetence of the EUcrats, but also comments on the same things:

Symptomatic

Posted by: Bemildred | Nov 26 2020 12:19 utc | 77

Grieved @51

The objective seems clear for all parties of the resistance that aggression from the US will be countered with true force, enough to frighten the Pentagon seriously, but also scaled with great precision so that the US itself is not emotionally forced to escalate. We've discussed how there are many thin slices of escalation that exist to employ in the theater.

I think you are absolutely correct here, and I agree that the US military does not want to dive into the meat grinder. It is not the military's choice, though. Will the military mutiny if ordered to attack Iran? Maybe after some serious losses, but we are not there yet.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 26 2020 12:20 utc | 78

@ Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 26 2020 0:49 utc | 53

Yeah, but, while collapsing from within, Rome was also collecting a lot of Ls to the Goths (and, later, during the Byzantine era, to the Arabs and the European feudal powers).

This is what is happening to America right now: Vietnam was a fluke (America's only defeat during its apex); after that, consecutive losses at Somalia, Afghanistan, Georgia, North Korea, Syria, Ukraine (proxy), South China Sea, Bolivia (ongoing) and Venezuela ("Jack Ryan" and Guaidó fiascos). And I'm not even counting here the Pyrrhic victories in Iraq and Libya.

If we count Israel as a de facto 51st State of the American Empire (and I think we should), then we may add the defeats in Lebanon and Iran to the mix, plus the humiliating capitulation to the neighboring Muslim nations (the recent tour of shame of Netanyahu, which included a humiliating backdoor visit to Saudi Arabia).

Since Somalia, America's victories were: Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile (destruction of the "pinko wave"), other Central American nations, one or other Eastern European nation (color revolutions) and maybe one or two African or Southeast Asian nation that are too irrelevant for me to remember of. Of them, none were direct military operations, but just coups and color revolutions over already precarious attempts to escape the Empire's grip (Brazil, for example, always was 80% at the hands of the USA; all it took was a couple of judges and a prep talk with the dyed-in-the-wool pro-USA Brazilian armed forces).

So, we have this situation: before Somalia (end of the 1990s), the USA only had three unequivocal military defeats: the failed attempt to annex Canada (1812), Korean War (1950-53) and Vietnam War (1955-1975). Of these three, only the first one (against a British Empire at the beginning of its apex) was not an "obligatory win".

Posted by: vk | Nov 26 2020 12:30 utc | 79

What would be the fake rationale to begin to bomb Iran? Iran has not attacked the US, has not attacked any of its neighbours, has not attacked land-grabbing Israel.
The bluster and noise that Iran makes toward the US is no different than the demonising we do toward Iran. What would be the point? Who would benefit? Only those with money invested in the arms manufacturing business, which is not many of us.

Posted by: lizzie dw | Nov 26 2020 13:00 utc | 80

bart @71: "As if they care [who is seen to be a criminal in the eyes of the world for starting a major war]. The gangsters who started the Iraq war on lies in 2003 are doing very well today, thank you very much."

The imperial strategists very much care, and the optics surrounding a new war will be very much more critical than they were in 2003 because the American Empire has lost most of its credibility as a force for justice in the world since then. America's aura of competence, fairness, decency, and infallibility at such a level where it appeared that a monotheistic deity was guiding the nation is now gone. karlof1 @47 pointed out that "The Empire's #1 asset is the Petrodollar...", but this magical image of transcendent greatness; this "mojo" has been very nearly as crucial to America's global hegemony, and America desperately desires recreating it. The empire's mass media megaphobes have been demonizing Trump since even before the 2016 elections so his legacy is disposable where the empire is concerned. In fact, the worse that Trump's legacy can be made to appear then the more favorably that Harris/Dead Guy will be viewed in comparison.

The US can start a horrible and criminal war, but still come out smelling like roses and looking beatific if the crime of initiating the war can be pinned on Trump as he heads out the door.

This is crucially important because with its economy waning, America's alliances and diplomatic leverage now hinge on the appearance of moral superiority and military might.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 26 2020 13:05 utc | 81

Christian J. Chuba | Nov 26 2020 3:06 utc | 62

Thank you for that good news. I've been suffering sleepless night worrying about Israeli-UAE tourism. I can rest easy now.

Posted by: EoinW | Nov 26 2020 13:24 utc | 82

William Gruff | Nov 26 2020 13:05 utc | 81

Don't our rulers believe they control the optics and can project any reality they want others to believe? Isn't that what the fraud of the 2020 election shows? How many people still believe Biden won? I'm certain that in Canada it's between 75% of the population. Of course all those people wanted Trump to lose so they are believing what they want to believe.

What have we all been conditioned to believe our entire lives? That America and the West are good guys who always have the best intentions. The average American is decent, therefore the US government must also be decent. This thinking is still embraced by the majority in the West because it is what they want to believe. Just look at how many people have supported government action against Covid 19. It is human nature to take the path of least resistance. It has always been easiest to have full faith in our government and our media.

Considering that, is it not an easy sell to start a war with Iran? I suspect our rulers believe that if they control the media then they control how people think. After all, if they can turn society upside down with lockdowns and mask laws, then they must feel they can get away with anything. The mask thing is really demeaning to the human spirit. We're no longer allowed to show our face in public! We don't just accept this abuse, many people support it. Even if there is opposition, so what, it's only the unwashed - and now faceless - masses. We've got a vaccine to ultimately take care of them.

I don't mean to suggest that everything is perfectly coordinated - like the Great Reset implies. I'm sure there are many factions within the ruling class and they all have their own agendas. Nevertheless, for the faction that wants a war with Iran now, it would appear to be an objective they could easily achieve. Does such a faction have the boldness to go so far? I guess we'll find out.

Posted by: EoinW | Nov 26 2020 13:43 utc | 83

@ Posted by: EoinW | Nov 26 2020 13:43 utc | 83

Considering that, is it not an easy sell to start a war with Iran?

Oh, it's very easy to sell the American people a war against Iran. That's not the problem.

The problem is that the USA would lose that war.

One commenter here was right on point: Iran would annihilate Israel and, most importantly, Saudi Arabia - effectively destroying the Petrodollar (Dollar Standard). Without the Dollar Standard, the USA - a nation that consumes much more than it produces (I think to the order of more than 10%) - would quickly fall into a hyper-inflationary vortex, collapsing Wall Street and, therefore, its entire economy.

In that light, the current strategy is the best: color revolution/regime change, which would peacefully convert Iran into a pro-USA country. The Pentagon is doing the right thing.

Posted by: vk | Nov 26 2020 13:52 utc | 84

I hope not. Not really sure how it would benefit Jared and Ivanka at this point. They will be returning home to their left leaning Jewish Democrat coalition. Javanka is a major determining factor for Trump's foreign policies. Also we have the added benefit of neocon Fox spurning Trump. Maybe Trump will finally be the SOB I hope he would be in 2016, and pull troops home. Let me dream.

As for Pompeo's political aspirations, no one can win with just the vote of the Evangelical death cult. I might be reading the Evangelical side of this wrong, but the younger ones don't seem into Israel as much as their elders. So yeah, I can see Pompeo pushing this to get his beloved Rapture and Tribulation without losing his political future.

Posted by: Old and Grumpy | Nov 26 2020 14:11 utc | 85

Scenario:

  1. Trump pulls out a win in the U.S. Presidential election.

    Giuliani has just had a successful presentation in Pennsylvania and Sidney Powell has now released the Kraken by filing lawsuits in Michigan and Georgia.

  2. Terrorist attack occurs on Inauguration Day (Jan 20th).
  3. USA blames al Queda and claims that Iran supports al Queda, citing the recent killing of al Queda's #2.
  4. Trump authorizes a limited air/missile strike to punish Iran citing the precedent of Iran's missile attack on a US base in Iraq.

    Trump provides Iran with a list of 6 possible sites/facilities that may be attacked and 2 days time to evacuate those sites/facilities.

  5. Iran refuses to accept blame.
  6. US air/missile strikes are carried out.

    For arguments sake, lets say 4 missiles hit each of 3 sites. There are no more than a few human casualties and possibly none at all.


What happens next?
  1. Iran launches full-scale war.
  2. Iran launches a limited strike against US military installation in ME - despite USA warnings that doing so may bring further retaliation.
  3. Iran does nothing but complain to the UN while Iran's Zionist enemy loudly celebrates Iran's humiliation.
  4. Something else?

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 26 2020 14:14 utc | 86

EoinW @83

Yes, you are correct that the empire still retains decisive control of the narrative within the imperial core, but the empire's influence outside the core has been becoming more tenuous as the empire's economy has declined.

Consider the simple example of buying off government officials in one of the empire's vassal states. When America is the unquestioned moral authority in the world then little more than a pat on the head from an imperial official might be enough to buy unwavering loyalty in the imperial hinterlands. Just look at Australia.

When the empire has its "mojo" then people in the world make sure that things go the empire's way. People excuse the empire's "mistakes" and overlook when the empire's new clothes are not visible. They ignore criticism of the empire and indulge the empire's fantasies about itself.

Without that moral authority then the imperial official's visit is more likely to be accompanied by dread. Think Darth Vader stalking into your office rather than JFK. The loyalty that the vassals offer is now very much conditional and subject to change along with conditions. Loyalty to the empire becomes more expensive for the empire to secure and less reliable. Criticism of the empire is now entertained by the vassals and the empire's warts and flaws are more closely examined.

A chief task the empire has for the Harris/Dead Guy Administration is to restore the empire's "mojo".

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 26 2020 14:34 utc | 87

Netanyahu is dreading the return to the JPCOA as it will allow Iran to quickly return to pre-Trump economic situation. The 4 years of hard sanctions will be nullified in a jiffy. It is yet to see if Blinken been a Jew would be as nice to Netanyahu as Pompeo. My guess is that Blinken took a hard lesson on his ill fated approval of the Yemen war. He will probably think twice about what would best serve the USA special role in the world: Negotiations or threats of war. Pompeo, like Bolton, is a bully and has achieved nothing in North Korea and Iran, when Trump with someone else could have. Pompeo, like Condoleeza Rice is finished

Posted by: Virgile | Nov 26 2020 14:37 utc | 88

If Trump is mysteriously allowed to retain the presidency, then there will be no war with Iran. Loud barking and aggressive posturing, but no war.

The imperial elites will not allow Trump to remain president for this and other reasons, though.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 26 2020 14:39 utc | 89

1) Trump tends to verbalize thoughts that do not necessarily are what he wants to do. That is why the 2 day rule.
2) How do we know that, really, Trump was pushing for anything and had to be dissuaded? Pompeo?
3) The election is not over and Trump may get his 2nd term as POTUS.
4) Trump attacking Iran will lose him a lot of support, including mine. Although, with Biden, what are options?

Posted by: JaimeInTexas | Nov 26 2020 14:44 utc | 90

@ Posted by: JaimeInTexas | Nov 26 2020 14:44 utc | 90

Americans - be they Democrats, Republicans or independent - are all in favor of a new war, as long as it satisfies two conditions:

1) it's a guaranteed win; and

2) it enhances their material wealth (i.e. more cheap goods flooding their Walmarts and gas stations).

As long as those two conditions are met, the Americans don't care about who the POTUS is, how many people in a distant "shithole" die and how much the principle of Human Rights is raped. That's why, for example, the American people was so euphoric on the invasion and destruction of Iraq in 2003 - a war that gave George W. Bush a comfortable reelection.

Posted by: vk | Nov 26 2020 14:53 utc | 91

Considering an attack on Iran is a periodic event. It is mostly to generate press leaks proving to the population that leaders consider VERY SERIOUS THINGS, and in this case, the most receptive target is Israeli public. So Trump makes a favor to his in-laws who make a favor to Netanyahu who proves his power in Washington to his own sheeple.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Nov 26 2020 14:56 utc | 92

"2) How do we know that, really, Trump was pushing for anything and had to be dissuaded? Pompeo?"

Posted by: JaimeInTexas | Nov 26 2020 14:44 utc | 90

Almost certainly Pompeo, who has been busy piling up airline miles.

I'd like to know why Trump puts up with it.

1.) He doesn't know
2.) He knows and approves

Either way he is incompetent. This is stupid policy from any point of view.

The election is over, it's just not done yet. If Trump thought it would do him any good to keep resisting, he would not allow the transition to begin. We all know how little he cares for the "norms". He will keep "resisting" because he needs the money, but he knows he lost this one.

Ms Powell appears to have embarassed herself. Something strange going on there.

Posted by: Bemildred | Nov 26 2020 14:57 utc | 93

Oh, it's very easy to sell the American people a war against Iran. That's not the problem.
____________________________________
It would be easy for trump to sell a war if he gets another 4 years.

But...

if Biden becomes the next president he will have an extremely tough time selling a war to the 72 million Americans that voted against Biden. And those 72 million that oppose Biden's war are the ones with the guns and the main source of the cannon fodder the military needs. Also, most of the law enforcement are members of that anti-Biden demographic.

Biden is going to face tough opposition for just about anything he wants to do but to get the needed support for a war he will need a huge provocation and Iran is unlikely to provide that provocation.


Posted by: jinn | Nov 26 2020 15:00 utc | 94

4.Something else?
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 26 2020 14:14 utc | 86

Yes, JR. 4. Get bitch-slapped yet again.

With all your scenarios, you are, REACHING.

Where is your mendacious mentor? Oh, he would love this thread. He has written an encyclopedia worth of words on this subject.

You must be a bot. Apparently, you did not read any of the comments above, and are trying to suck people into a non-sense conversation.

Posted by: Sakineh Bagoom | Nov 26 2020 15:09 utc | 95

@ Posted by: jinn | Nov 26 2020 15:00 utc | 94

Not if the conquest and subjugation of Iran drops the price of the American gas to USD 0.90 a gallon.

In that case, you would see those 72 million become pro-Biden instantly.

Economics always trumps ideology.

Posted by: vk | Nov 26 2020 15:09 utc | 96

Not if the conquest and subjugation of Iran drops the price of the American gas to USD 0.90 a gallon.
___________________________________________

Even the most stupid understand that a war with Iran will raise the price of gas and will never result in conquest and subjugation. The US has been at war with neighboring Afghanistan and no evidence of anything resembling conquest or subjugation of Afghanistan is yet in sight.

The only war that the US can win is against a completely powerless country like Grenada.

Posted by: jinn | Nov 26 2020 15:17 utc | 97

“The Maximum Pressure campaign against the Iranian regime continues to be extraordinarily effective. Today, Iran’s economy faces a currency crisis, mounting public debt, and rising inflation..."

Cross out Iran in the above quote and replace it with the US and the American people might realize that they too are being attacked. Sadly, unlike the Iranians, they have not woken to that fact.

Posted by: LJS | Nov 26 2020 15:37 utc | 98

Sakineh Bagoom @Nov26 15:09 #95

Thanks for participating in the scenario exercise.

I think the scenario that I've proposed is one has not previously been envisioned so I'm a bit taken aback at your criticism.

Mendacious mentor ... Bot? It seems that are reaching for a way to discredit any speculation about a possible attack on Iran.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 26 2020 15:40 utc | 99

“It is not "again." It is "still." Israel has never let up in its constant drive for the US to attack Iran.” - Mark Thomason @17

“... The big change few have noted is making war on Iran is an immediate strategic defeat for the Empire regardless the damage done to Iran.” - karlof1 @3

“... Iran is a really big mountainous geography ... with 15 neighboring countries US military knows to win a war with Iran and reducing Iran’ retaliation capability, will need to block and control Iran’s supply lines, that is not a capability US military or any military currently has ...” - kooshy @46

I believe karlof1 and kooshy deliver two of key arguments why a Hot War scenario can not be considered realistic. ZioImperialists are rather going to continue the Cold War that is going on since 40 years.
That a Hot War where bombs are falling, missiles are cruising and casualties are reported has not been initiated yet doesn’t mean that there is no war. Economical war, Financial war, Trade war, Info war, Cyber war, Psychological war started right after the 1979 revolution in Iran and still going on.

It’s again the same story with USSR and Warsaw Pact, many haven’t noticed yet that the fall of the real existing socialistic system was due loss of the Cold War. Those countries didn’t had a change of system during peace time and caused by popular revolutions. Cold War: Large scale set of combined regime change operations.

Posted by: Framarz | Nov 26 2020 15:43 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.