|
Report: “Full Spectrum” Mass Murder Likely Against Iran Iran, Neocons
by Kurt Nimmo
 Increasingly, people in the know are revealing what some of us have realized for months, even years: the United States, under the pernicious control of Muslim-hating neocons, will attack Iran, and sooner before later.
As Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane write, citing a report authored by a “well-respected British scholar and arms expert Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament,” the United States is ready, willing, and eminently able to reduce Iran to a smoldering ruin, much the same way Iraq was reduced.
“The United States has the capacity for and may be prepared to
launch without warning a massive assault on Iranian uranium enrichment
facilities, as well as government buildings and infrastructure, using
long-range bombers and missiles,” write Alexandrovna and Kane, citing
the report. “The study concludes that the US has made military
preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed
forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not
hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not
publicizing the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to
make confrontation more likely.”
In fact, for those of us who have
followed the neocons, an attack against Iran is not “likely,” but
indeed imminent. It is part and parcel of the neocon master plan to
decimate the Muslim world and may be considered the crown jewel, as the
neocons believe Iran is far too cheeky. As well, the kissing cousins of
the neocons, the neolibs, want to bring the Muslim world down a few
pegs, as the tenets of Islam preach against ruinous usury of the sort
neolibs love to impose on the world at large. Neocons, on the other
hand, simply hate Muslims, as all reactionary and racist Zionists
viscerally hate Muslims.
“Any attack is likely to be on a
massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks
focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory
options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little
force and leave the regime intact,” Alexandrovna and Kane summarize.
Of
course, as we know, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, unlike
“Samson Option” neighbor Israel, and all the hysterical neocon
bellyaching—and histrionic predictions of Tel Aviv withering under the
pall of a mushroom cloud—is nothing more than propaganda, albeit flimsy
and transparent propaganda. In fact, Iran’s “nuclear
facilities”—completely legal under the terms of the NPT—are secondary,
even third or fourth tier targets. More important to the murderous
neocons is Iran’s “economic infrastructure,” as the point is to make
the average Iranian suffer terribly, as the Iraqis have suffered and
continue to suffer, with apparently no end in sight.
“Plesch and
Butcher dispute conventional wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be
confined to its nuclear sites. Instead, they foresee a ‘full-spectrum
approach,’ designed to either instigate an overthrow of the government
or reduce Iran to the status of ‘a weak or failed state.’ Although they
acknowledge potential risks and impediments that might deter the Bush
administration from carrying out such a massive attack, they also
emphasize that the administration’s National Security Strategy includes
as a major goal the elimination of Iran as a regional power.”
Or,
as eluded, eliminate it as a viable state altogether, thus ushering in
untold misery, disease, and mortality, again a mirror of the situation
in Iraq.
Plesch and Butcher continue:
This wider form of
air attack would be the most likely to delay the Iranian nuclear
program for a sufficiently long period of time to meet the
administration’s current counterproliferation goals. It would also be
consistent with the possible goal of employing military action is to
overthrow the current Iranian government, since it would severely
degrade the capability of the Iranian military (in particular
revolutionary guards units and other ultra-loyalists) to keep armed
opposition and separatist movements under control. It would also
achieve the US objective of neutralizing Iran as a power in the region
for many years to come.
However, it is the option that contains
the greatest risk of increased global tension and hatred of the United
States. The US would have few, if any allies for such a mission beyond
Israel (and possibly the UK). Once undertaken, the imperatives for
success would be enormous.
Sort of like the “success” of Iraq?
But then the “imperative” is not taking out Iran’s military and
government per se, but rather, as stated above, reducing it to “a weak
or failed state” of the sort amenable to yet another brutal
dictator—the Shah’s son, in waiting, will do—imposed by the neocons,
and wide open for neolib fire sales and loan sharking schemes.
Iran
has a weak air force and anti aircraft capability, almost all of it is
20-30 years old and it lacks modern integrated communications. Not only
will these forces be rapidly destroyed by US air power, but Iranian
ground and air forces will have to fight without protection from air
attack.
British military sources stated on condition of
anonymity, that “the US military switched its whole focus to Iran” from
March 2003. It continued this focus even though it had infantry bogged
down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.
But then the
“insurgency” in Iraq is not really a problem for the neocons, as the
point is to continue the process of eroding any prospect of civility
and peace, even a modicum of humanity. In fact, the U.S. will stay in
Iraq until the process is complete and the country is split into three
disparate pieces based along ethnic, religious, and tribal lines, and
thus more easily managed as weak and malleable vassal states. Iran
faces a likewise future, including a ferocious “insurgency,” actually a
general form of resistance against occupation, an entirely normal
reaction.
Again, this hardly matters, as the point is order out of
chaos—that is, chaos for the average Iranian, order for the neocons and
neolibs. For our reigning war criminals, on par with the Nazis, order
is achieved through mass murder, disease by way of depleted uranium and
a greatly degraded civilian infrastructure, infant mortality, and the
mass exodus of people of somewhat higher means, as most Iraqis able to
flee their homeland have done so.
Plesch and Butcher write about the domestic political aspects of the impending Iran attack:
This
debate is bleeding over into the 2008 Presidential election, with
evidence mounting that despite the public unpopularity of the war in
Iraq, Iran is emerging as an issue over which Presidential candidates
in both major American parties can show their strong national security
bona fides. …
The debate on how to deal with Iran is thus
occurring in a political context in the US that is hard for those in
Europe or the Middle East to understand. A context that may seem to
some to be divorced from reality, but with the US ability to project
military power across the globe, the reality of Washington DC is one
that matters perhaps above all else. …
We should not
underestimate the Bush administration’s ability to convince itself that
an “Iran of the regions” will emerge from a post-rubble Iran. So, do
not be in the least surprised if the United States attacks Iran. Timing
is an open question, but it is hard to find convincing arguments that
war will be avoided, or at least ones that are convincing in Washington.
Surely,
the “debate” is “bleeding over” (excuse the impending pun) into the
presidential selection process, or more accurately the field of
potential selectees, for as we know, almost to a man and one woman, the
gaggle of pre-approved selectees are on record as stating no options
are off the table, in other words they have expressed a willingness to
attack Iran with the devastating and criminal results that entails.
“U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not,
we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,” Clinton
told AIPAC earlier this year. “In dealing with this threat … no option
can be taken off the table,” that is to say slaughtering toddlers and
grandmothers is on the table.
In 2004, Barack Obama said “that
the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes
into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of
nuclear bombs,” the Chicago Tribune reported at the time.
So
eager is Rudy Giuliani to kill Iranians, he has hired the top drawer
neocon, Norman Podhoretz, as his Senior Foreign Policy Adviser. “As the
currently main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we
have been fighting since 9/11, and as (according to the State
Department’s latest annual report on the subject) the main sponsor of
the terrorism that is Islamofascism’s weapon of choice, Iran too is a
front in World War IV,” writes Rudy’s Strangelovian adviser (see
Podhoretz’s The Case for Bombing Iran).
McCain? “For us to say
that the Iranians can do whatever they want to do and we won’t under
any circumstances exercise a military option would be for them to have
a license to do whatever they want to do,” the Manchurian candidate
told Fox News in circuitous fashion.
Mitt Romney, addressing a
large percentage of his supporters in Herzliya, Israel, said in January
“that the United States must keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.”
In the neocon-infested Jerusalem Post, Romney declared: “The military
option must remain on the table. The regime should know that if nuclear
material from their nation falls into the hands of terrorists and is
used, it would provoke a devastating response from the civilized world.”
John
Edwards, darling of the CFR set: “As to the American people, this is a
difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about
what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent
toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if
they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So
Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with
Iran.” Translation: if—no, strike that, rather when—the U.S. attacks
Iran, the American people will be easily bamboozled, as they invariably
are, once again with tales of aluminum tubes or babies pitched on cold
hospital floors. Americans, unfortunately, are bedazzled by cheap lies,
sort of the way a beaten wife is sidetracked by an abusive husband’s
empty promises.
Naturally, the only candidate—and sincerely a
candidate, not a Bilderberger or CFR selectee—against all of this
bloody grandstanding is Ron Paul. “If I were a betting man I would bet
that they will attack Iran before the end of this administration, which
means in the next year or so,” Paul told the Alex Jones show. “The
plans have been laid just like the plans were laid to go into Iraq a
long time before they did but they had to wait for the right
opportunity.”
As the Plesch and Butcher report indicates, the
“right opportunity” is almost upon us and the neocons are ready—more
than ready, in fact chomping at the bit. However, I don’t believe the
neocons will bother with formalistic excuses, speeches before the
United Nations, or dog and pony shows like the ludicrous charade of
chemistry test tubes and helium balloons Colin Powell orchestrated at
the behest of the neocons—or as Powell fondly called them, the “fucking
crazies”—prior to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bush, as the
commander and decider guy, will simply launch a shock and awe attack
against Iran.
Hillary Clinton will be left with the mess.
Incidentally,
as if to simply and inordinately demonstrate that the crop of
“presidential hopefuls,” especially on the Republican side, are flaming
neocons who will, if “elected,” continue the same old neocon
murder-all-the-time policies, note that Daniel Pipes, described by
Harpers as “another neoconservative adviser on the Middle East,” in the
same way a fox might be appointed to caretake a chicken coop, has
“signed on with Rudy’s campaign.” According to Ken Silverstein, “Pipes
is even further out ideologically than Norman Podhoretz, another
Giuliani adviser,” and that is putting it mildly. “Pipes frequently
issues … warnings, declaring that militant American Muslims intend to
mount a second American Revolution, and impose Islamic law. In this
context, he has criticized Bush for suggesting in public that Islam is
a peaceful religion,” notes Michael Scherer.
Pipes’ personal
views on the conflict can be traced back to the early days of the
struggle. In 1923, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, an ideological father to the
Israeli right wing, wrote that there would be no peace until the Arabs
in Israel were psychologically crushed. “As long as the Arabs preserve
a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in
the world can cause them to relinquish that hope,” he declared. More
than a decade later, David Ben-Gurion, who would become Israel’s first
prime minister, echoed those sentiments. “For only after total despair
on the part of the Arabs, a despair that will come not only from the
failure of the disturbances and the attempt at rebellion, but also as a
consequence of our growth as a country, may the Arabs possibly
acquiesce in a Jewish state of Israel,” he wrote in 1936.
Today,
such views are most strongly held in Israel by right-wing political
parties, and in America by Jewish supporters of the Israeli settlement
movement and evangelical Christians, who have found common cause with
the hard-line aspects of the pro-Israel lobby. Those groups were well
represented at the Interfaith Zionist Leadership Summit, which began
May 17 at the Omni Shoreham hotel in Washington D.C. Pipes was greeted
there as a celebrity, receiving standing ovations before and after his
speech.
In short, Giuliani has surrounded himself with rabid,
murderous, and treasonous Israel Firsters, criminals determined to drag
the United States into yet another bloodbath.
Not that it matters because the AIPAC Queen, Hillary, will be the next presidential selectee.
 |
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Marlena Santoyo