Paul Rogers on War With Iran

Comment by Larry Ross, April 8 , 2006

Dr. Paul Rogers is very thorough, very informed and can be trusted to give a considered view on war/peace issues.

He believes the U.S. is preparing for a war on Iran - that it would be sudden and without warning and could happen anytime. He reminded us that most commentators before the Iraq war, believed a peaceful diplomatic solution would be found. How wrong they were.

Today many think the U.S. is bluffing over an Iran war, because it's military is already overextended in Iran, and the consequences of a U.S.-led war on Iran (4 times bigger with 3 times the population, much better prepared and able to retaliate and cut off oil etc) would be much more disastrous than with Iraq. That's all true. It seems insane and militarily crazy, that the U.S. would invent a series of lies and exaggerations to justify a new war on another phoney threat - Iran, when the consequences would be so counterproductive against real U.S. interests. However we are looking at the Bush Administration, which, unfortunately for the U.S. and the world, seems capable of committing any crime in pursuit of it's dream of World Empire.

However Paul Rogers does not take into account the planned use of nuclear weapons against Iran which could open up a Pandora's box of hellish consequences.

Surprisingly, Dr. Rogers does not mention the nuclear possibility, even though many informed U.S. commentators on the Internet have written about it in detail and that a U.S. nuclear attack is likely before the end of April 2006. This has been well-covered in our website.

However, whether the attack is in April or later in 2006, there seems increasing certainty that an attack, nuclear or conventional, will happen if the Bush Administration remains in power.
As Dr. Rogers article shows.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The Countdown to War

by Dr. Paul Rogers, April 6, 2006

The timing and nature of a United States attack on Iran can be gauged by a close look at air traffic and base security in western England.

In the months before the start of the Iraq war in March 2003, most commentators expected that the developing crisis would end in some kind of diplomatic settlement, and that war would be averted. But not everyone took this view, and a few specialists attempted to assess the likely outcome of the United States's infliction of "regime termination" on Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Among them were some experienced analysts at the US army war college, who pointed to the difficulties of any post-war occupation and the probability of an insurgency developing against occupying troops.

The views of such dissidents (a term appropriate in the context of the overwhelming balance of opinion at the time) were ignored, and the Iraq war went ahead with the results now evident in the daily stories of shattered lives and polarised communities.

Today's equivalents of the more sober and far-sighted analysts of Iraq in 2002-03 are equally clear about the consequences of a war with Iran. Indeed, several studies suggest that Iran's military capability to create problems for the United States and any coalition partners might make the outcome there even more violent......

Continue...