Iran about to get wiped from the pages of history

[Elrohir]

Not America.

It was the British that started the Iranian agents nonsense

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1796566,00.html

to distract attention from the SAS planting bombs in the South.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20050925&articleId=994

They sent someone to investigate and

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=3307

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/oct2005/basr-o21.shtml

These emoticons don't do it justice.

How else to explain this except by trying to stir up ethnic troubles?

No America is getting the shaft almost as much as the Iranians will be and the Afghans and Iraqis are now. This is a war against America as much as a war against Iran.

You think England is manipulating the US into attacking Iran, and you bring up the World Socialist Website to prove it? Good grief.

 

[innonimatu]

It has been my opinion, since early 2004, that the real American plan for the Middle East involved destroying both Iran and Iraq as independent, sovereign countries. Iraq is already well into the process of being destroyed (mission accomplished indeed) and every post-invasion policy carried out there seems to have been designed to lead the country into civil war. Stupidity alone cannot justify what has happened.
I’ll post my own idea of what may have been the plan of at least a part of the American administration.

The real goal, I think, has always included Iran. The purpose was the control of oil and gas. Whoever controls those resources can dictate terms on China, India and even Europe. An independent Iran, and even a nominally independent Iraq, could sell energy directly to China, India or Europe, bypassing political control by the US. And, bolstered by investment from these blocks (either of which would be perfectly happy to build infra-structure in Iran and Iraq, at the very least, to get that energy flowing), they could become regional powers with the capacity to capture local american allies (most importantly Saudi Arabia and Qatar) into their sphere of influence. The US saw this as early as 1991, and moved immediately to keep control over the energy resources of the area.

Installing client regimes on Iran and Iraq would be the perfect solution, but an unfeasible one. Maintaining any installed regime would require either a modicum of local popular support, or continued military occupation.
Any regime kept by popular support would soon realize that it could chose among interested “sponsors”, from Europe, India or China, besides the US, and manoeuvre to achieve full independence. Ant it would be driven to do so, because any regime in Iran or Iraq simply cannot afford to look like an ally of the US and keep any popular support.
The other option, maintaining a puppet government by military force, has been shown to be unfeasible in the long run – too expensive and too unpopular at home.

So, what are the options left? The next best one for the US is destroying these countries altogether, denying access to those energy resources to competitors, while maintaining a hold over other supplies from Arabia and Africa. Any competitor wishing access to these resources must work by establishing alliances with local governments, as none possess the power projection capacity to compete with the US. If there is no local government, no stable government, such deals are impossible. Whoever has the military power to intervene in the power struggle between factions on a civil-war-torn Iraq and Iran will effectively control those countries. And by ensuring they are surrounded by client-states (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia) the US ensures it will have no competition in the role of power-broker in Iraq or Iran, after destroying them.

This is the fundamental difference between Iraq and Vietnam: in Vietnam the US lost because Vietnamese factions (the communist north) had allies to turn to, capable of helping them, and was therefore capable of ending its civil war without opportunity further american interference. In Iraq the very same thing can happen, if Iran is allowed to play there the role the USSR played in Vietnam. So the whole strategy for Iraq (destroy the state, place it on the brink of civil war, and play the factions) can only work if Iran, too, is destroyed in the same way.

I don’t know it this Machiavellian plan (well, it's divide et impera only) was the original one, but I m convinced that, due to the situation on Iraq, it is the current one. Avoiding defeat in Iraq (in fact, turning what looks like a defeat into a strategic victory) requires at the very least the destruction of Iran as a state capable of exercising power outside its borders. The US is not capable of occupying Iran, but it is well capable of destroying Iran.

 

[Solver]

It's attitudes like that that infuriate me. US soldiers are real people, not expendable assets.

That's not an attitude, that's a numerical fact, which I mention to show that the sometimes-cited assumption that "the US doesn't have enough manpower left to invade Iran" is wrong.

I'm also afraid that most military commanders do see soldiers as expendable, but that's another issue entirely.

 

[EdwardTking]

You think England is manipulating the US into attacking Iran, and you bring up the World Socialist Website to prove it? Good grief.

Is this the plan to get the USA to send its troops overseas to
invade all countries beginning with "I", and then when they are
defenceless send in the Canadians to recover the 13 colonies?

 

[Xenocrates]

You think England is manipulating the US into attacking Iran, and you bring up the World Socialist Website to prove it? Good grief.

That's not what I said. And what has Socialism got to do with this? One thing that you ought to understand is that teh British are masters at 'divide and conquer', it worked for us so well in the past that we can't adopt a different strat.

Are you disputing that British SAS were dressed as Arabs and driving a booby-trapped car full of explosives? Or are you suggesting another explanation? If so I'm all ears.

 

[Gilder]

Man, and I think I'm stoned past three 'o clock.

 

[Phlegmak]

2) Bush's surge plan is demonstrably ludicrous. This means that it can only be meant as a distraction.

You're giving way too much credit to Bush. The "surge" is basically this, in my opinion:

1. Bush refuses to take the troops out of Iraq. This means he won't be seen as wishy washy or a flip flopper.

2. Bush wants to be treated nicely by history. Remember what he said would be said about the Iraq war? "In the history books, it'll be just nothing but a comma."

3. Bush wants to add more troops to Iraq, meaning he wants to be seen as tough.

4. He refuses to admit the entire war was a mistake. That way, it's not politically bad for him. Admitting the war is a mistake would be far worse for Republicans than the war itself.

5. Bush cares absolutely nothing about American soldiers' lives nor Iraqi lives. He cares far more about the political nature of the war and how history will view him than he cares about people's lives. His indifference toward human lives can easily be seen in a) the fact that he wanted the war in the first place, b) "Bring 'em on!", c) readding the 20,000 troops to the force deployed in Iraq. The war is hopelessly lost at this point, so adding 20,000 more troops to Iraq is just sending them to the meat grinder.

 

[Xenocrates]

Well said Innonimatu.

History is a long game and empires aren't forged in a day. Everyone in positions of power understand that but we, the saps with memories like goldfish, are presented with fairy tales and some of us believe it.

Destroying or damaging Iran would damage Iran's hydrocarbon customers as well as Iran. The main oil customer should be India. They have signed a pipeline agreement with Iran and Pakistan and it could be that the US are desperate to scupper it. Hence trying to buy off India with that nuke technology treaty.

 

[Kozmos]

I'm not sure that North Korea has demonstrated that they could nuke anyone outside of their own territory yet.

Still do you want to invade a country that could nuke you in their territory? Getting nuked is a bad feeling and it hurts quite a lot from what I've heard.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Getting permission to declare war and invade Iran from congress and the international community should be possible, if not easy. Nobody likes Iran anyway.

Reaching Tehran and any other objective should be easy.

The occupation, though, would/will be a slow and painful bloodbath.

I can't see the U.S. doing this on its own, and there is NO way the international community would agree to help.

We (Canadians) are still busy, cleaning up the mess in Afghanistan.

 

[jimbob27]

Iran has proven itself to be nothing but a troublemaker in the world theater, and does no good..

The same can be applied for the USA.

 

[EdwardTking]

You're giving way too much credit to Saddam. The "surge" is basically this, in my opinion:

1. Saddam refuses to take the troops out of Kuwait. This means he won't be seen as wishy washy or a flip flopper.

2. Saddam wants to be treated nicely by history. Remember what he said would be said about the Iran war? "In the history books, it'll be just nothing but a comma."

3. Saddam wants to add more troops to Kuwait, meaning he wants to be seen as tough.

4. He refuses to admit the entire war was a mistake. That way, it's not politically bad for him. Admitting the war is a mistake would be far worse for the Baathist Socialists than the war itself.

5. Saddam cares absolutely nothing about Iraqi soldiers' lives nor Kuwaiti lives. He cares far more about the political nature of the war and how history will view him than he cares about people's lives. His indifference toward human lives can easily be seen in a) the fact that he wanted the war in the first place, b) "Bring 'em on; it will be the mother of all battles!", c) readding the 20,000 troops to the force deployed in Kuwait. The war is hopelessly lost at this point, so adding 20,000 more troops to Kuwait is just sending them to the meat grinder.

Pardon me for stealing your text, but there seem to be a number of parallels.


i) Saddam fought a war in Kuwait that he knew he would lose.
ii) But he reckoned that to withdraw without fighting would be worse.
iii) And guess what he remained in power for 12 years after his defeat.


i) George Bush cannot see how to win in Iraq.

ii) But he knows that if he voluntarily withdraws without a military defeat,
his future will be much worse. The neo-cons ill turn on him as a traitor
and the liberals and small government conservatives will arrest him.

iii) So he wants to keep fighting, possibly even escalate it, probably reasoning that a successor president will be too embroiled in the conflict, to arrest him.

 

[JollyRoger]

Please, there's no need for personal attacks against President Bush though.

There most ceratinly is until he gets on board with the majority of the American people.

 

[Whomp]

Well said Innonimatu.

History is a long game and empires aren't forged in a day. Everyone in positions of power understand that but we, the saps with memories like goldfish, are presented with fairy tales and some of us believe it.

Destroying or damaging Iran would damage Iran's hydrocarbon customers as well as Iran. The main oil customer should be India. They have signed a pipeline agreement with Iran and Pakistan and it could be that the US are desperate to scupper it. Hence trying to buy off India with that nuke technology treaty.

There's some problems with that gas pipleline deal.

Annual demand growth is 9.2% domestically due to the subsidies (which generates a loss).
Any export of natural gas will create a problem where their oil wells need it for reinjection and it has not been available for maintainence issues in the past.
They flare enough natural gas to fuel four nuclear power plants.
The Majlis, an anti-gas-export faction, has arisen and casts doubts on their ability to execute gas export contracts even with the South Pars gas field coming on stream.

So it remains open to question whether Iran will continue gas exports should their oil exports decline due to lack of reinjection.

This doesn't even touch on the subject of gasoline being imported where it's subsidized at $.08 per liter and has 11% demand growth.

This is why, like the Soviet Union, we don't have to do anything.

Listen to NPR's interview with Roger Stern.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6722166

 

[Kozmos]

Until Bush stops saying words like the internets he is most definitively a target for personal attacks.

 

[Katheryn]

They are already at financial war with Iran.

Oil prices are below that where Iran can make a profit.

Because of sanctions, Iran is finding it nearly impossible to find parts. Their
last recourse was Japan, who said no to the parts for the rigs.

Iran is in a whole world of hurt right now, look for a coup. It is coming.

This was an arrangement made between Cheney and the King of Saudi Arabia last month. It is all falling into place now.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I
I don’t know it this Machiavellian plan (well, it's divide et impera only) was the original one, but I m convinced that, due to the situation on Iraq, it is the current one. Avoiding defeat in Iraq (in fact, turning what looks like a defeat into a strategic victory) requires at the very least the destruction of Iran as a state capable of exercising power outside its borders. The US is not capable of occupying Iran, but it is well capable of destroying Iran.

So we back the Iran backed shira majority sunnis
the minority shites ex bathest allied with the jihardies (<-- lmao)
The Kurds ? maybe ?

Ooppsss

“We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem,” said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. “We are being played like a pawn.” - By JOHN F. BURNS Published: January 15, 2007

 

[Katheryn]

Hint:


Sunday, Jan. 28, 2007 3:40 p.m. EST
Saudis to Keep Oil at $50 Barrel


Good news for American motorists: Saudi Arabia is hinting that it will keep oil at about $50 a barrel.

According to the New York Times, that price is the lowest in nearly two years and about $27 less than a barrel fetched during its peak last summer.

Although the Saudis did not make an explicit announcement, oil industry experts took notice of two recent incidents, the Times said: In Japan last week, the Saudi oil minister said his nation was committed to maintaining "moderate prices." A week earlier in New Delhi, he opposed an emergency meeting of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. That proposed meeting was intended to discuss boosting prices after oil dipped below $50 a barrel.

Last year's surge in oil prices sent a gallon of gas in the U.S. above $3 a gallon. That caused consumers to cut spending in other areas, triggering a ripple effect in the national economy.

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/1/28/155027.shtml?s=ic

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Please, there's no need for personal attacks against President Bush though.

What kind of a constituency would we be if we couldn't ridicule the powers that be?

 

[Katheryn]

And this, today from Gulf News (United Arab Emirates paper)

Published: 21/01/2007 12:00 AM (UAE)

Rice: More Iran sanctions may come
Agencies



Berlin: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said companies should beware of doing business with Iran and think about the possibility of more sanctions.

"I think people ought to think about the risk of doing business with Iran," Rice told Der Spiegel magazine according to an English transcript of the interview.

"I think people ought to think about the risk of further sanctions. The United States is clearly sanctioning Iranian banks and our laws are very tough on those who deal with banks that we have sanctioned."

The UN Security Council unanimously approved a resolution on December 23 at the behest of the United States, Britain, Russia, China, France and Germany. The resolution gave Iran 60 days to suspend nuclear fuel-enrichment activity.

Rice repeated Washington considers Iran a troublemaker in neighbouring Iraq by supporting insurgents with money and bombs. But she insisted Washington was not looking for an escalation of the conflict with Tehran.

"We are not trying to escalate this. Our plan is to try to respond to Iranian activity that is harming us," Rice said in Der Spiegel in an interview published on Sunday.

She also repeated Washington was not interested in talking with Iran and Syria about the future of Iraq. To believe that Damascus or Tehran would suddenly be ready to help stabilise Iraq, simply because the United States would talk to them, is false, Rice said in the interview to be published on Monday.

"If the Iranians and the Syrians wish to support stability in Iraq, there are plenty of ways for them to do it," Rice said.

"The only reason to talk to us would be to extract a price, and that's not diplomacy, that's extortion."

European Union foreign ministers meet on Monday in Brussels to consider how to ensure the sanctions are fully implemented, government and diplomatic sources said on Friday.

The UN sanctions resolution bans transfers of sensitive nuclear materials to Iran, freezes financial assets of those associated with the nuclear programme and asks countries to pass on information about the whereabouts of individuals on the list.

The EU may expand the list of people linked to Tehran's nuclear programme targeted by the UN resolution, sources said.

The US Treasury has also named Iran's state-owned Bank Sepah as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and no US company or citizen can do business with it.

Separately, European diplomats have said the United States is already thinking about next steps, one of which may be an oil embargo against Iran and U.S. officials have been consulting allies for months about this possibility.

Asked about what kinds of sanctions Washington would like imposed if Tehran ignores the 60-day deadline, Rice told Der Spiegel: "We'll talk to the allies about what do in the next round."

-------------------

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/01/21/10098429.html

This could be a very effective move against Iran, and no invasion.