Home

Experts Predict Iran War in 2007

Comment by Larry Ross, December 30, 2006

Dr Leupp provides an excellent analysis of the geopolitical situation and the likelihood that the US will attack Iran in 2007.

However like many other US commentators he doesn't mention Bush's probable use of nuclear weapons, or how Bush may use a 'False Flag' type of attack on the US then blame it on Iran , to justify a war on Iran . An attack would frighten, confuse and probably enflame the US public with increased hatred of Iran , thus gaining their support for the planned war in much the same way as their support was gained for the phoney war on Iraq.

Using this strategy, with a parallel psywar programme, the US public and much of the world may be fooled long enough for the unhindered pre-emptive nuclear attack to be implemented. It is likely to be a very sudden, unexpected attack, and turn Iran into a smoking, radiated ruin with millions dead and dying.

Any anti-war protests after the event are unlikely to accomplish much and would be condemned as unpatriotic by the media, the Bush regime and much of the public. For a variety of reasons I don't think that 'after-attack-protests' would attract much support from a numbed, terrified, intimidated community.

The time for action that has a chance of being effective in preventing such a disaster is before the event. Time is running out.

Various types of education about Iran not being a threat, and preventive peace actions could take place, from petitions, to lobbying, to a large ad and publicity campaign. Some peace actions are being organised in the US . 

On a scale of priorities for people I would recommend that this be the number one concern. If a strike on Iran happens, the potential consequences are so calamitous globally for so long, people will wish they had done more and sacrificed more, to prevent it.

Commentators will wish they had at least warned their readers of the possibility of a 'False Flag' staged by the Bush regime. Once the deed is done, they will be no second chances. At that time, anyone who suggests it may have been a 'False Flag' will be rejected and condemned as a traitor. Bush's popularity will soar, and he will be the new hero, as happened after 9/11. His regime will be able to do what it wants and get what it wants - as it did after the 9/11 attack. In any case  the media will see to it that intelligent opposition, analysis and alternatives to the official story, are not printed or broadcast.

If they manage to create this monumental disaster, it is likely to escalate into global war which would terminate life on earth. However if, miraculously, the disaster remains limited to the middle east, the Bush-Cheney cabal and 'Coalition of the Willing' allies may go on to further conquests. China and Russia are in Cheney's sights, and have been mentioned in the Pentagon's 'Nuclear Posture Review' as potential nuclear targets. That also, could escalate to termination of the planet.

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

COWBOYS DIFFER ON IRAN ATTACK:
BUSH/CHENEY VS. BAKER COMMISSION

by Dr. Gary Leupp, Comparative Religion Professor at Tufts University, Counterpunch.org. , December 26, 2006

http://counterpunch.org/leupp12262006.html

The reaction to the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report suggests that a showdown is shaping up within the U.S. power elite between two different sets of cowboys.

On the one hand, there are the George W. Bush cowboys who want to expand their conquests from Afghanistan and Iraq into Syria and Iran. It's a natural extension of the Manifest Destiny doctrine that underpinned the conquest of the"Wild West," the annexation of almost half of Mexico's territory in the 1840s, the "opening of Japan" resulting from gunboat diplomacy in 1854, the Marines' overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893, and the establishment of a colonial empire from the Pacific to the Caribbean following the Spanish-American War.

Bush and Dick Cheney saw nothing wrong with the Vietnam War (except the possibility that they might be personally involved, since they "had other priorities at the time"). They really liked the first Gulf War, but were disappointed it didn't conquer more. Thus Dubya told Mickey Herskowitz, a Houston Chronicle sports columnist helping ghostwrite his autobiography in 1999 that, "My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade [Iraq]---if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it."

On the other hand, there are the James Baker-type cowboys who question the feasibility of further conquest at this time, and want to lasso in their wayward buckaroo buddies and rowdy youngins before they get everybody into deeper horseshit in them foreign parts. The Baker cowboys are saying talk to the natives at least, smoke the peace-pipe if necessary, then ride off into the sunset leaving a fort or two behind proudly waving the tattered flag to help save face.

Dubya's cowpokes say, "No, we don't talk to the natives in those rich lands, overflowing with milk and honey and petroleum products, that God made for us."

Like a spirit-filled country parson, Bush declared (to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in 2003), "God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." Solving that problem of course means making everthing from the eastern Mediterranean to Southwest Asia U.S. and Israel-friendly.

Continue.....