Thread: Why War With Iran? The Real Reason? Paul Craig Roberts

Why War With Iran? The Real Reason? Paul Craig Roberts

Obama Plans More War

By Stephen Lendman
1-6-12

On January 5, Obama held a first ever administration Pentagon news conference. Its thinly veiled hawkishness explained his 2012 military agenda.

Its Asia/Pacific region policy challenges China and Russia. Its Middle East presence stresses confrontation and belligerency. Globally it plans relying increasingly on naval and air power. It also stresses destabilization, confrontation, and war when other methods don't turn independent states into client ones. He stressed counterbalancing China and Iran.

Undeclared strategy includes confrontation and belligerency. Mindful of Republican opposition to defense cuts, he said America will "avoid repeating the mistakes of the past when our military was left ill-prepared for the future. As commander-in-chief, I will not let that happen again. Not on my watch."

Claiming nuclear weapons proliferation, he pointed fingers at Iran. In response, he said "(w)e're going to stay vigilant.....In addition, investments in counterterrorism, intelligence, and cyberwarfare" will be emphasized.

He told reporters that America's "military will be leaner, but the world must know - the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats."

He effectively declared war against rivals. He duplicitously called America "the greatest force for freedom and security that the world has ever known."

In fact, it's an out-of-control menace facing eroding influence because growing numbers of countries are tired of being bullied.

In a recent article, Immanuel Wallerstein headlined, "The United States versus Everybody," saying: America once had many friends. "These days, it seems to have nothing but adversaries, of all political colorations." Moreover, it's less effective confronting them. Saying no to America's getting more common.

In November and December, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, Germany and Latin America showed assertiveness.

Pakistan recognizes its toxic relationship with Washington. Perhaps an Afghan border incident killing 24 of its soldiers and injuring 13 others was the last straw. General Athar Abbas called the attack "unprovoked and indiscriminate." America's explanation was rejected.

China's uneasy about Washington escalating an Asia/Pacific arms race and seeking anti-Beijing partners to enhance its regional strength. Key is establishing military superiority over vital shipping lanes, regional waters, and area resources.

China's growth depends on accessing greater amounts, especially oil and gas. Getting them puts them in direct competition with America wanting unchallenged global control.

Its muscle flexing makes more enemies than friends. Nations are more assertive saying no and getting away with it.

As America's belligerence grows, expect greater disapproval to show up in bilateral relations. Nonetheless, Obama stressed "America's historic investments in our military, our troops and their capabilities...."

He falsely claimed war with Iraq ended when, in fact, thousands of forces remain. Others were repositioned nearby. Additional numbers will join them, and armies of private paramilitaries infest the region belligerently.

He also lied claiming "important progress" in Afghanistan, and that partnered with allies, America is "protect(ing) the Libyan people...." Afghanistan's now America's longest war. Pentagon officials long ago admitted it's lost, but conflict continues daily. Libya wasn't liberated. It was willfully, maliciously and lawlessly destroyed. So were tens of thousands of lives and futures for millions wanting Jamahiriya government restored.

"Now, we're turning the page on a decade of war," said Obama. Unexplained was America's longstanding Iran, Syria, Lebanon and North Sudan regime change project through sanctions, insurgencies, destabilization by other means, or war if other methods fail.

"In short, we've succeeded in defending our nation, taking the fight to our enemies, reducing the number of Americans serving in harm's way, and restoring America's global leadership. That makes us safer and it makes us stronger."

In fact, Washington's only enemies are intentionally made. America's inherently unsafe. US citizens can be indefinitely detained on baseless terrorist charges. Others can be targeted for assassination. Constitutional rights no longer apply, only presidential diktats.

Bush II claimed "Unitary Executive" authority. Chalmers Johnson called it a "ball-faced assertion of presidential supremacy dressed up in legal mumbo jumbo." Obama's even more out-of-control.

As a result, OWS activists believe the only solution is world revolution. Growing protests reflect a nationwide cross-polination for a new nation. America's global leadership is eroding. Waring against the entire Middle East may destroy it. Putting a brave face on imperial arrogance no longer works.

Obama's a serial liar. He's also a global threat. Millions worldwide know it. Angry Americans are catching on.

Hopefully, today's numbers will surge to millions in time to save humanity before he destroys it. There's not a moment to lose.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.rense.com/general95/obpln.htm

Promoting War On Iran

By Stephen Lendman
1-6-12

In June 2009, a Brookings Institution report titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" was a regime change policy paper. Pro-Israeli right-wing ideologues prepared it, including:

(1) Martin Indyk: former US ambassador to Israel, currently Brookings foreign policy director.

(2) Kenneth Pollack: Former CIA analyst and National Security Council staff member; current Council on Foreign Relations member and Brookings Saban Center for Middle East Policy research director.

(3) Michael O'Hanlon: Former Congressional Budget Office national security analyst, currently Brookings senior fellow for defense and military policy.

(4) Bruce Riedel: Former CIA counterterrorism specialist and assistant to the President and senior director for Near East Affairs on the National Security Council; current Brookings foreign policy senior fellow.

(5) Suzanne Maloney: Former State Department policy advisor, currently Brookings foreign policy senior fellow.

(6) Daniel Byman: Former 9/11 Commission staff member; currently Brookings Saban Center for Middle East Policy research director and Georgetown University security studies professor.

Report topics include:

military options for disarming Iran;
invasion;
air strikes;
allowing or encouraging an Israeli attack;
regime change; and containment.

Its introduction stressed "the trouble with Iran," asking what should America do about it? It falsely claimed Iran's well along toward developing nuclear weapons. It also sited "Iranian mischief," including "support for terrorist groups," and its "wider efforts to overturn the regional status quo."

It claimed alleged "incontrovertible" evidence that "Iran has aided groups seeking to overthrow the governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain (and arguably Lebanon and Israel as well) at various times," but didn't reveal it.

In addition, it claimed alleged evidence shows "Iran may have encouraged (perhaps even ordered) various groups to mount attacks that have derailed (Israeli - Palestinian) peacemaking efforts."

It asked if Washington "should (be) willing to accept the Islamic Republic at all."

Iran hasn't attacked another country in over 200 years and threatens none now. However, Brookings called Tehran a threat to America, when, in fact, Washington very much threatens Iran, the region and other independent states worldwide.

Brookings ignoried America downing Iran Air 655 in July 1988 in Iranian air space, killing 290 passengers and crew on board. Instead, it falsely accused Tehran of attacking US Persian Gulf naval forces in 1987 and 1988.

In fact, an Iraqi missile struck the USS Stark in March 1987, and the USS Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine in April 1988 in waters it had no business being in.

Brookings stressed "ticking clock" urgency to act....(I)gnoring Iran is no long a realistic alternative (because) Iran('s) the bane of the United States in the Middle East."

Claiming its position doesn't "argue for one approach over another" dismisses its hawkish stance.

America's Media War on Iran

For months, media scoundrels promoted it. They headlined bogus accusations about Iran plotting to kill Saudi Arabia's US ambassador. They feature stories about Iran's alleged nuclear threat despite no corroborating evidence proving it.

On December 29, New York Times writer John Vinocur headlined, "Clock Ticking for West to Act on Iranian Nuclear Program," saying:

"The Iranian nuclear clock ticks faster and louder in 2012." Israel's defense minister Ehud Barak said they'll have nuclear weapons in nine months and move into a "zone of immunity" safe from attack.

London-based International Institute for Studies anti-proliferation director Mark Fitzpatrick agreed, calling it "a real possibility."

US defense secretary Panetta believes it in a year, saying (i)f we have to do it, we will deal with it." Perhaps he means an election year October surprise after another self-inflicted homeland terrorist attack blamed on Iran.

Instead of responsible reporting, Vanocur encouraged war. So do other MSM contributors in print and on air.

On December 29, a Times editorial headlined, "Iran and the Strait," saying:

Doing it will be countered. "A Fifth Fleet spokesman usefully reminded Iran this week that the Navy always stands 'ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation.' "

According to IAEA "inspectors, Iran has created computer models of nuclear explosions, conducted experiments on nuclear triggers and completed advanced research on a warhead that could be delivered by a medium-range missile."

Fact check

In November, outdated, forged, long ago discredited, and perhaps nonexistent documents were used to claim Iran's developing nuclear weapons.

During his tenure as IAEA director general (December 1, 1997 - November 30, 2009), Mohamed ElBaradei avoided anti-Iranian rhetoric and baseless charges. In fact, numerous times he denied a potential threat.

So do independent nuclear experts and America's Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community as recently as March 2011.

"Tehran's latest threat to block global oil shipping should leave no doubt about its recklessness and its contempt for international law. This is not a government any country should want to see acquire nuclear weapons."

Fact check

Truth isn't The Times' long suit. Baseless charges make headlines. Fingers are pointed the wrong way. America's appalling contempt for democracy, human and civil rights, international law and its own is ignored.

Times contributors dismiss issues of equity, justice, rule of law standards, and peace. Instead, they cheerlead US wars and promote new ones.

Continued Below

Presidential aspirant Ron Paul said sanctions aren't "an effective means to encourage a change of behavior in another country without war. However, sanctions and blockades are not only acts of war....they are most often the first step toward" it.

"Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." No evidence suggests "Iran has diverted enriched uranium for the peaceful and lawful generation of power toward building a nuclear weapon."

"We should be clear about this: sanctions against Iran are definite steps toward a US attack" as they were against Iraq and Libya. Moreover, disrupting Iranian oil shipments will harm "global trade and undermine the US economy, which in turn harms our national security."

"This race to war against Iran and Syria is both foolhardy and dangerous."

Paul added that threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz is a plausible response without "weapons of mass destruction" to deter menaces.

In fact, Paul's record on war is mixed. He supported attacking Afghanistan, but called war on Libya "unconstitutional (and) a loss for our American Republic."
He opposed attacking Iraq because Congress illegally ceded authority to Bush. In addition, he claimed it gave UN members say over US foreign interventions.
He also said GHW Bush sought and received UN authority to attack Iraq in 1991 because UN Resolution 678 permitted "all necessary means," implying military force if others failed.

In fact, US ambassador April Glaspie OK'd invading Kuwait to settle a border dispute over cross-drilling into Iraqi territory. A recent WikiLeaks release confirmed it: the Glaspie Memo known as 90BAGHDAD423.

Saddam was deceived. Iraqis paid dearly and still do. The combination of war, sanctions, more war and occupation destroyed the "cradle of civilization." Millions also died from war, post-war violence, disease, deep poverty, deprivation, a repressive pro-Western regime, and belligerent occupation.
Claiming Iran seeks nuclear weapons is a ruse. At issue is regime change to turn an independent state into a client one. Times writers, op-ed contributors, and editors know it but feature managed news and opinion, not truth and full disclosure.

So do other major media scoundrels.

On November 22, a Washington Post editorial headlined, "More half-measures from Obama administration on Iran," saying:

"By now it should be obvious that only regime change will stop the Iranian nuclear program. That means, at a minimum, the departure of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei...."

In other words, whatever it takes is OK, including war against another nonbelligerent state posing no threat.
On December 30, a Wall Street Journal op-ed headlined, "Iran's Hormuz Threat," saying:

"The US and Europe are at last mustering the gumption to target Iran's multibillion-dollar oil industry, and almost immediately Tehran is threatening to bring Persian Gulf tankers to a halt."

Around 40% of sea-borne oil passes through the strait or about 15.5 million barrels daily. Disrupting it, of course, affects all regional producers, including Iran. Catastrophic economic consequences would result, including skyrocketing oil prices. So would war by bringing America and Iran into direct confrontation.
"Iran's leaders are trying to see if they can intimidate (Washington) into backing down. The Western response should be to tighten sanctions further to show such tactics won't work."

"The episode is also a reminder (of Iran's) character and intentions....wholly in character for the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism." Disrupting Hormuz shipments should "be considered an act of war that would be met with a military response (against) Iran's military and nuclear assets, perhaps even its regime."
A Final Comment

Iran poses no belligerent or terrorist threat. In contrast, America, key NATO partners and Israel are global menaces.
Initiating war on Iran and/or Syria could be catastrophic, especially if nuclear weapons are used. Yet major media scoundrels promote it, mindless of the potential consequences.

Nonetheless, more war in 2012 is likely because Washington, Britain, France, and Israel want it, no matter the risks.
Perhaps a September or October surprise will become pretext to launch it. It wouldn't be the first time.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.c...ive-news-hour/.

http://www.rense.com/general95/promo.htm