WHY AMERICA WILL ATTACK IRAN

Netanyahu visits US, Obama orders update of Iran attack plans

With reference to this article, Michael Rivero at WhatReallyHappened.com issued the following challenge:

I challenge anyone to provide a convincing reason for the US to attack Iran (other than Israel has ordered us to).

Iran has not invaded anyone for the last 200 years.

Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and even if they did, they are not a threat to the US, which has thousands of nuclear warheads and delivery systems that can reach Tehran. Iran is not building nuclear weapons according to the IAEA.

Israel, the chief war-monger for an attack on Iran has a past track record of lying about Iraq's nuclear weapons to start a war. Israel is not in any danger from Iran because Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear weapons.

So, with our nation at the edge of collapse, and already mired in three disastrous wars, why go into Iran (other than Israel has ordered us to)?

Anyone?

Anyone?

So here's my answer:

Dear Michael,

You "challenge anyone to provide a convincing reason for the US to attack Iran (other than Israel has ordered us to)."

I believe I can provide one.

The U.S. is now massively in debt, personal, corporate and government, and has no obvious means of relieving the burden. This has prompted commentators to focus on two main possible outcomes for the US economy. One is the Japan Scenario, according to which deflation takes hold, the economy stagnates and real estate and capital markets enter a multi-decade decline, while China, Russia, India, and other countries grow in relative wealth and geopolitical influence.

The other commonly discussed outcome is the Argentina Scenario, according to which the Fed manages to ignite an inflationary firestorm that cancels all debts, wipes out the middle class, reduces the mass of Americans to a third-world standard of living as the cowboy capitalists and banksters enjoy their mega-mansions, their estates, the abundance of cheap servants.

There is another scenario, however, in accordance with which America rapidly recovers both economically and in global influence. According to this scenario, which by all indications the Obama administration intends following, America proceeds with the plan for global empire, the next steps being as follows:

(a) Install a puppet regime in Iran. That way, the U.S. gains control of all Middle-East oil reserves, can set the world price of energy and can ensure that a substantial proportion of the proceeds of world energy sales come back to the US in the form of investment capital, and oil company profits. Here are the numbers: Middle-East oil exports total 25 million barrels a day. Priced at $150 a barrel, that would give the U.S. control over $1.37 trillion of Middle-East oil production annually. Kick back half of that to the US and it pays most of America's defense, i.e., war of global conquest, budget. In addition, the US would reap increased profits from the production of higher priced oil that it controls in Canada, Africa and elsewhere.

(b) Break up Pakistan, a work already in progress, and set up the independent "democratic" republic of Pipelinestan, aka Balochistan, thus obtaining a US-owned corridor between the vibrant democratic republic of Afghanistan and the Arabian Sea. In this way, the US gains unimpeded access to, and opportunity to profit from, the world's other great energy resource area, Central Asia.

The only downside is the possibility of setting off a nuclear war, since the plan, if effected, would weaken Russia's hold over Central Asian resources and condemn China to producing all America's shoes, shirts, computers and cars, at a cost to be balanced by the the monopoly profits extracted from China on its energy imports.

According to this, Empire Strikes Back, scenario, Israel is not calling the shots. Israel is simply an opportunistic, but loyal, American ally.

Yours sincerely, Alfred

Postcript

the following responds to a kind personal note from Michael Rivero.

Michael, I don't think we disagree at all. Your question just clarified the issue for me. If, as seems likely, we are on the brink of a war with Iran, the question for the government is how to sell Americans and citizens of allied nations on a course that will result in the killing or displacement of millions of people for oil and American global domination. If the real reason is stated, large numbers of Americans will rebel, so a false justification is essential.

This has been the challenge all along, and the reason for 9/11, the earlier WTC bombing and all the other fake terror incidents as your coverage of events over the years has amply shown. I think Israel plays an important role now because they have made the Holocaust an all purpose justification for anything Israel wants to do. So by portraying the war as an Israeli project justified by Ahmadinejad's supposed anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, the U.S.'s role as the driving force is concealed. As you have repeatedly noted, once Israel kicks off a war with Iran, America will be drawn in and will play the major role on the side of the aggressor.

If the government of Iran is replaced by a U.S. puppet regime, Israel will presumably reap the reward of greater impunity for its own imperialist actions, and probably some commercial advantages as well. For example, if Iran falls, so also will Syria, in which case the pipeline from Iraq to the Mediterranean, via Israel will go ahead.

Thanks for your interest in my comment. I think WRH is by far the most useful news source on the Web, and trust that it will long continue.

All the best, Alfred

Comment:

Your answer to Rivero's challenge sounds good to me. After all, I'd rather have the US running the show than the gangsters and bandits in Beijing and Moscow. Of course, since you from Canada, a nation not known for courage, it doesn't surprise me that you would rather hand control of the earth over to those bastards.
Dominick

Dominick, at least we agree on what is going on. And we may agree more than you think about the alternatives. But what concerns me is is what the management and justification of the war implies about the nature of American society. Evidently is more a dupocracy or a dumbocracy than a democracy: a society not of free men, but of complacent consumers perpetually deceived.

But the question of how power should be distributed remains: is there any political arrangement that would allow the continued independence of nations? Or must we live under the heel of one bunch of bastards or another?

I fear that any global empire, would confirm Lord Acton's contention that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It would, I believe, mean a new feudalism, perpetual intellectual stagnation with ramifications as bizarre and as foot binding, or under American leadership, the year-round celebration of Christmas, perhaps, or the ever more extreme accentuation of the mammary gland.

As for Canadian courage, I think you will find that during WW1, English Canada suffered more casualties per capita than any other allied nation. That we stood down on Vietnam, seems to have shown good sense. Nothing good seems to have come out of that war, except a bunch of Vietnamese immigrants to Canada, and it is certain that a contingent of Canadians would not have staved off U.S. defeat. As for Iraq, we are America's largest single energy supplier, so obviously we have no interest in creating alternative sources of supply.

As for Afghanistan, another war for oil, Canada was reported to have experienced four times the American casualty rate.
Alfred