Ali’s blog

Mostly quant stuff with occasional digressions

Attack on Iran?

Posted by alifinmath on April 6, 2008

Eloquently written essay by Paul Craig Roberts on an imminent US attack on Iran:

The US Congress, the US media, the American people, and the United Nations, are looking the other way as Cheney prepares his attack on Iran.

If only America had an independent media and an opposition party. If there were a shred of integrity left in American political life, perhaps a third act of naked aggression–a third war crime under the Nuremberg standard–by the Bush Regime could be prevented.

The Iranians don’t seem to believe it, despite the dispatch of US nuclear submarines and another aircraft carrier attack group to the Persian Gulf. To counter any Iranian missiles launched in response to an attack, the US is deploying anti-missile defenses to protect US bases and Saudi oil fields.

Two massive failures by the American media, the Democratic Party, and the American people have paved the way for Cheney’s long-planned attack on Iran. One failure is the lack of skepticism about the US government’s explanation of 9/11. The other failure is the Democrats’ refusal to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush for lying to the Congress, the American people, and the world and launching an invasion of Iraq based on deception and fabricated evidence.

If an American president can start a war exactly as Adolf Hitler did with pure lies and not be held accountable, he can get away with anything. And Bush and his evil regime have.

Iran is a beautiful and developed country. It is an ancient civilization. It has attacked no one. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Iran is permitted by the treaty to have a nuclear energy program. The Bush Regime’s case against Iran is based on the Bush Regime’s desire to deny Iran its rights under the treaty.

The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have repeatedly reported that they have found no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Despite all the disinformation from US Gen. Petraeus and other Bush Regime military lackeys, Iran is not arming the Iraqis who are resisting the American occupation.

If Iran were arming insurgents, the insurgents would have two weapons that would neutralize the US advantage in the Iraqi conflict: missiles to knock down US helicopter gunships and rocket-propelled grenades that knock out American tanks. The insurgents do not have these weapons and must construct clumsy anti-tank weapons out of artillery shells. The insurgents are helpless against US air power and cannot mass forces to take on the American troops.

Indiscriminate American violence has reduced Iraq to rubble. The civilian infrastructure is essentially destroyed–electricity, water and sewer systems, medical care and schools. Depleted uranium is everywhere poisoning everyone, including US troops. There is no economy, and half or more of Iraqis are unemployed. Literally no Iraqi family has escaped an injury or a death as a consequence of the US invasion. Millions of Iraqis have become displaced persons. A developed country with a professional middle class has been destroyed because of lies told by the President and Vice President of the US. The Bush Regime’s lies are echoed by a neoconservative media, and have gone unchallenged by the opposition party and an indifferent American public.

It is important to emphasize that Iran is making no moves toward war. Having tamed, blackmailed, and purchased Congress, the US media, and US allies and puppets, Cheney might delight in the arrogance with which he can now attack Iran free of any restraint or fabricated provocation.

I apologise for pasting an excerpt that is longer than my usual wont. But the gravity of the situation and Roberts’ well-written essay are mitigating circumstances. Paul Craig Roberts is not a wild-eyed lunatic on some ideological fringe: he was an assistant secretary in the Reagan administration and a conservative to the bone (in the real sense). There are few dissenting voices to the venal and autocratic Bush regime. If there were an attack on Iran tomorrow, the American sheeple would complacently continue chewing their cud and US media would either not cover it or swing into their usual propaganda and disinformation mode. There is no opposition worth the name. There is no critical debate worth the name. There is no independent media worth the name. If there’s some fine distinction between US rulers on the one hand and Attila the Hun, Tamburlane, and Genghis Khan on the other, I don’t see it.


5 Responses to “Attack on Iran?”

  1. Anonym said

    Assuming that the official story of 9/11 is accurate, and that the Bush administration is at worst guilty of gross negligence, then I’m of the opinion that NATO and/or U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan was and is justified. If the official story isn’t accurate, I find it worse than pointless, but counterproductive, to include Afghanistan in any criticism of the Bush administration’s aggressive foreign policy for the following reasons. 1) Doing so discredits one among moderates as a “conspiracy theorist” 2) It’s difficult to prove any concrete criminal malfeasance on the part of the administration vis-a-vis 9/11 3) Applying maximum pressure to Bush/Iraq is the best way to crack the neocon agenda (IMO.)

  2. Anonym said

    Attacking Iran would be, to quote Tariq Aziz on the pending American attack on Iraq in 2003, “an act of absolute foolishness.”

  3. alifinmath said

    This is what PCR is saying:

    QUOTE In Afghanistan, death and destruction rains on even the smallest village from the air. America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are wars against the civilian populations.UNQUOTE

    This is factually correct. As for the “moderates” in the USA, they can go drown themselves. They’re a bunch of do-nothing wimps who quibble over inconsequential matters and have no objection to the broad thrust of imperial policy.

    The US adminstration has a history of collaborating with the Taliban in Afganistan. They toppled the regime noit because of “terrorism” but because of geostrategic imperatives, i.e. dominion over the greater Middle East.

    The voices of sanity in the US are few and far between: Paul Craig Roberts, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky.

    Adolf Hitler couldn’t be any worse than the present gang. In fact, he’d probably be better.

  4. Anonym said

    I’m not talking about achieving any measure of historical justice, but rather neutralizing neoconservative power in American foreign policy. To that end, I’m an advocate of focusing on the Iraq war as the most provably illegal war of conquest. On a related note, I agree with this post on mainstream American “concern” for human rights.

  5. alifinmath said

    Yes, I also agree with the post in the blog. Though having read a fair amount of US and European history, I have to add that this hypocrisy and double standard is hardly novel.

    I’m trying to write responsibly but I don’t think any internal hand-wringing or debate is going to change Americain foreign or military policy. Might as well expect a tiger to voluntarily turn vegetarian. I’m not sure Vietnam was any less criminal than Iraq. And the US has a long and sordid history of military interference in other countries. People keep blaming the neocons but they would have been impotent were the tools for imperial aggression not at hand. And these tools — military bases, advanced miltary systems, aircraft carriers, and so on — have been built and put in place since 1945. People keep expecting the system can be “reformed.” It can’t. No more than Hitler’s Germany could.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: