In march 2008 alone, a considerable amount of evidence has emerged suggesting that the likudnik dominated bush mafia is actively working towards launching a war against iran: to such an extent that some commentators suspect it might be willing to fabricate an incident leading to such a war. And yet the evidence against bush being able to launch such a war is also stacking up.

William S. Lind speculates there will be war

Lind suspects the bush mafia will attack iran and that, as a consequence, the american military could lose its army in iraq. "Adm. Fallon's (forced?) resignation was the last warning we are likely to get of an attack on Iran. It does not mean an attack is certain, but the U.S. could not attack Iran so long as he was the Centcom commander. That obstacle is now gone. Vice President Cheney's Middle East tour is another indicator. According to a report in The American Conservative, on his previous trip Cheney told our allies, including the Saudis, that Bush would attack Iran before the end of his term.


If that report was correct, then his current tour might have the purpose of telling them when it is coming. The purpose of this column is not to warn of an imminent assault on Iran, though personally I think it is coming, and soon. Rather, it is to warn of a possible consequence of such an attack. Let me state it here, again, as plainly as I can: an American attack on Iran could cost us the whole army we now have in Iraq. As I have warned before, every American ground unit in Iraq needs its own plan to get itself out of the country using only its own resources and whatever it can scrounge locally. Retreat to the north, through Kurdistan into Turkey, will be the only alternative open to most U.S. Army units, other than ending up in an Iranian POW camp." (William S. Lind ‘Operation Cassandra’ .


Lind had issued such a dire warning to the american military in iraq over a year ago. "As I have said before and will say again, the price of an attack on Iran could easily be the loss of the army we have in Iraq. No conceivable action would be more foolish than adding war with Iran to the war we have already lost in Iraq. Regrettably, it is impossible to read Mr. Bush's dispatch of a carrier and Patriot batteries any other way than as harbingers of just such an action." (William S Lind ‘Cliff Ahead! Stomp on the Gas!’ .


There are, however, three big differences between now and the last time he made such a statement.


Firstly, the kurdish peshmerga is better trained and armed than it has ever been. It may well be willing to fight alongside the americans in an attack on iran or help to defend the american military from an iranian attack if bush launches a war against iran.


Secondly, in conjunction with the ‘surge’, the american military adopted a new counterinsurgency approach - "clear, hold and build". It decided to bribe sunni militias into attacking al quaeda rather than the american military. The success of this u-turn may have tempted the americans to believe that the sunnis might fight alongside them if iran retaliated against the american military in iraq for an american attack on iran. "U.S. Marines in Iraq, who are mostly in Anbar province, are the only force we have left. Their lines of supply and retreat through Jordan are intact. The local Sunnis want to join them in fighting the hated Persians. What do they do at that point? Good question." (William S. Lind ‘Operation Cassandra’ .


Thirdly, the american, and british, militaries have been training and arming the iraqi military for the last four years. The bush regime may have come to believe that this force is now powerful and loyal enough to fight alongside the american military if it launched a war on iran.


Although there is incessant talk of america’s army and marines being seriously battle fatigued, the bush regime had reasons to believe the american military was in a far more powerful position militarily today than it was prior to the surge. Bush’s best case scenario was that the american military could use the peshmerga, sunni militias, and the iraqi army, to attack iran or, at the very least, to defend american troops if iran retaliated against an american attack on iran.


But just how feasible is such a best case scenario? Would the peshmerga be willing to join in an attack on iran, perhaps in the hope that this would enable them to liberate iranian kurdistan, knowing that their participation in an attack might trigger a response from the turkish military which opposes any extension of kurdish sovereignty? Would sunni militias be willing to fight alongside the peshmerga in an attack on iran or iranian forces in iraq? Would sunni militias be willing to fight alongside the shiite iraqi army in an attack on iran or iranian forces in iraq? Would the shiite iraqi army be willing to support an attack on iran or iranian forces in iraq? Would the shiite iraqi army be willing to fight alongside sunni militias in an attack on iran or iranian forces in iraq? Would all three militias fight alongside each other and the american military against iran? It is difficult to imagine this. Even worse from america’s perspective is that the iraqi military’s recent failure to defeat the mahdi army seems to suggest that it is simply not skilled or committed enough to make a substantial contribution to an american war against iran.


Tony Karon speculates there won’t be war

 Tony karon likens the situation that america is in to a monty python sketch. He believes dick cheney is the black knight. "But to put Cheney’s tough talk and saber-rattling in context, I’d suggest those worried that he means business watch the YouTube clip above, taken from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, in which the Black Knight refuses to let King Arthur pass, and continues to issue bloodcurdling threats even as the English king lops off his limbs. The Black Knight hopping about on one leg screaming "I am invincible!" is an apt analogy for Dick Cheney threatening Iran, right now." (Tony Karon ‘Who’s Afraid of Dick Cheney?’ March 17, 2008).


However, karon may be mistaken in believing the american military in iraq is still as vulnerable as it was prior to the surge. The more the americans can win the allegiance of the peshmerga, sunni militias, and the shiite iraqi army, the greater would be their military capabilities to attack iran or to defend itself from iranian retaliation inside iraq after an american attack on iran. It is highly unlikely they could win over all three militias but two out of three could be counted as a success. So perhaps dick cheney wouldn’t find himself legless or armless after all.


M K Bhadrakumar believes reconciliation with Iran is on the way

 During his radio farda interview, bush seemed to have taken his usual, highly aggressive, stance towards iran. However, the great geopolitical analyst mk bhadrakumar, who thrives on diplomatic nuances, has a contrary interpretation. "A phase of subtle, reciprocal, conceptual diplomatic actions may be beginning. An indication of this is available in the two radio interviews given by Bush last weekend and beamed into Iran, exclusively aimed at reaching out to the Iranian public on the Persian New Year Nauroz. Significantly, ahead of Bush's interviews, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger spoke. Kissinger, incidentally, is a foreign policy advisor to the Republican Party's presidential nominee, Senator John McCain. For the first time, Kissinger called for unconditional talks with Iran. That is a remarkable shift in his position. Interestingly, Kissinger's call was also echoed by Dennis Ross, who used to be a key negotiator in the Middle East, and carries much respect in Israel. Bush's interviews with the government-supported Voice of America and Radio Farda, especially the latter, were a masterly piece in political overture. He held out none of the customary threats against Iran. This time, there was not even the trademark insistence that "all options are on the table". There were no barbs aimed at President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Least of all, there were no calls for a regime change in Tehran. Bush simply said something that he might as well have said about Saudi Arabia or Egypt. As he put it, "So this is a regime and a society that's got a long way to go in reform." Arguably, Bush's interviews signify that "unconditional talks" may have begun with Iran. Thus, from Washington's perspective, the new Iranian Parliament will have a preponderant share of "hardliners" and will be more radical and more "loyal" to the regime, to use Western cliches. Bush's interviews on the occasion of Nauroz are a grudging admission of the emergent political alignment in Tehran. The Bush administration is pragmatic enough to estimate the need to engage Iran." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US moves towards engaging Iran’ March 27, 2008).


Bhadrakumar believes there are grounds for a reconciliation between bush and iran. Firstly, it is in america’s geostrategic interest to use iran’s vast fossil fuel resources to undermine russia’s fossil fuel grip over europe. The construction of the nabucco gas pipeline is the key to such a strategy. Secondly, iran supports the construction of such a pipeline and would welcome a more co-operative american strategy. "Besides, Tehran remains on the lookout for a shift in the US stance on the Nabucco gas pipeline sourcing Iranian gas via Turkey for the European market. Without Nabucco, the US strategy to reduce Europe's dependence on Russian gas supplies will remain a pipedream, and without Iranian gas, Nabucco itself makes little sense, while Nabucco will be Iran's passport to integration with Europe." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US moves towards engaging Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC27Ak04.html March 27, 2008). It should also be added that it is also in america’s geostrategic interests to win over iran as an ally as a means of containing the dramatic rise of china as a global player. The proposed construction of the nabucco pipeline would not merely undermine russia’s geostrategic interests it would also undermine china’s geostrategic interests by piping iran’s fossil fuels westwards rather than eastwards. If america and the west could understand their own national interests, they would have to conclude that iran is pivotal in boosting their own interests at the expense of both russia and china.

There are a number of factors which undermine bhadrakumar’s thesis that bush is putting out ‘peace feelers’ to iran. Firstly, even bhadrakumar admits that bush’s funding and arming of sunni militias is having a negative impact on iran. "The Bush administration needs to count on Tehran's tacit cooperation with the US to use its formidable influence with Iraqi groups. Belligerence toward Iran is hardly the way the Bush administration can realize this objective. But after a recent visit to Iran, prominent US author and commentator Selig Harrison wrote in The Boston Globe newspaper, "Tehran is seething over what it sees as a new 'divide and rule' US strategy designed to make Iraq a permanent US protectorate". He was referring to the current US strategy of building up rival Sunni militias, euphemistically called the "Sunni Awakening", so as to fence in the Shi'ite-dominated government in Baghdad. But, as Harrison recounted his conversations in Iran, "The message was clear: Unless US General David Petraeus drastically cuts back the Sunni militias, Tehran will unleash the Shi'ite militias against US forces again."" (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US moves towards engaging Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC27Ak04.html March 27, 2008). Is it really feasible that the bush mafia would be seeking peace with iran after spending so much time funding and arming sunni militias?


Secondly, an even starker contradiction of bhadrakumar’s proposition is that deep within the bowels of the bush regime, two hardline, militant, likudnik fundamentalists are manipulating america’s money laundering laws to financially isolate iran from the rest of the world. "March 20, 2008, destined to be another day of infamy. On this date the US officially declared war on Iran. So who made it official? A unit within the US Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which issued a March 20 advisory to the world's financial institutions under the title: "Guidance to Financial Institutions on the Continuing Money Laundering Threat Involving Illicit Iranian Activity." Among Treasury officials Paulson has used the most dramatic language by making the argument that not only is Iran a danger to the international community but that this danger permeates virtually all of Iranian society. With such language, Treasury lays the groundwork for applying financial sanctions against the entirety of Iran." (John McGlynn ‘The March 20, 2008 US Declaration of War on Iran’ http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2707 March 22, 2008). This could have a crippling effect on the iranian economy. Perhaps bush is not aware of what these extremists are doing. Perhaps bhadrakumar was not aware of what they are doing and did not take such a development into consideration.


Thirdly, as politically sophisticated and perceptive as bhadrakumar may be, he refuses to contemplate the influence of the jewish lobby on the american political system and america’s, especially bush’s, foreign policies. This seriously undermines all of his comprehensive geostrategic analyzes. The jews-only state in palestine, and its allies in the american jewish lobby, are utterly opposed to any reconciliation between america and iran. They would do all they could to stop iran participating in the nabucco project, even though this would doom the project to failure and both america and europe would suffer a considerable geostrategic setback. The bush regime stands no chance of reaching an agreement with iran on the nabucco pipeline when hardline jewish militants in the treasury department are busy trying to prevent any country around the world from trading with iran. The bush regime has just condemned switzerland for reaching a fossil fuel agreement with iran. It is hardly going to turn around now and agree to an even bigger deal with iran on the construction of the nabucco pipeline.


The likudniks’ ability to sabotage the viability of the nabucco pipeline is yet another piece of evidence revealing their domination over the bush regime and their ability to force the bush regime to implement foreign policies completely at odds with america’s national interests. It is in the national interests of america, europe, and iran, to co-operate on the construction of this pipeline but the jews-only state, and its allies around the world, have the political and economic power to stir up anti-iranian hostilities to prevent america and europe from co-operating with iran. The only way america and europe could reach an agreement with iran to further their national interests is if they curb the corrupt political influence of their jewish lobbies. And this is not going to happen. Jewish lobbies are going to continue to set america and europe against iran just as they are also antagonizing america and europe against russia. Their ability to pressure the american government and european governments into islamophobia against iran is so profound they are driving russia and iran together to create a fossil fuel dominance which will significantly boost their economic and political leverage over the rest of the world...


Jewish likudnik extremists have pressured the bush mafia into focussing so much political attention on the middle east for the benefit of the jews-only state in palestine that this has allowed china to flourish around the world considerably undermining america’s status as the world’s superpower. A significant proportion of america’s political, military, and economic, resources have disappeared into the quagmire of america’s zionist inspired invasions of afghanistan and iraq that could have been used around the world to counter china’s rise as a global power. China must marvel at the benefits it has acquired from the likudniks’ manipulation of the bush regime which has become totally locked into the nonsensical war on terror. Basically the likudniks have allowed china to expand around the world almost unchallenged by the world’s hyperpower.


America and europe need iran to enhance their global interests but the likudniks on these continents have generated so much animosity against iran they have pushed iran into developing an alliance with russia and china that will have a seriously detrimental impact on american and european interests. By stirring up american and european islamophobia against iran, the jews couldn’t inflict more geostrategic damage on america and europe to the enormous benefit of russia, china, and iran. In the decades to come, when the world is a much more multi-polar place than it is now, bush may look back on his period in office and be utterly aghast at how much he boosted the political and economic power of china and russia by sacrificing american and european interests to jewish supremacism in the middle east. He will realize just how successful the jewish lobby was in turning him into a complete dupe.


It is beyond belief how successful jewish extremists have been in perverting america’s national interests. Within the space of two presidential terms of office they have transformed america from the world’s sole hyper-power and the world’s most admired country, into a country close to financial and military bankruptcy which is detested around the world almost as much as the hideously racist jews-only state.


Bhadrakumar’s proposition about bush’s peace feelers to iran was being rendered obsolete even as it was being formulated. At the moment that bhadrakumar was composing his article, bush was pressuring the maliki government into using the iraqi military to attack the mahdi army. Once bhadrakumar had caught up with events, he explained bush’s objective for the attack as being a desire to gain control over the oil fields in southern iraq for america’s multinational energy corporations. "What has happened is essentially that Iran has frustrated the joint US-British objective of gaining control of Basra, without which the strategy of establishing control over the fabulous oil fields of southern Iraq will not work. Control of Basra is a pre-requisite before American oil majors make their multi-billion investments to kick start large-scale oil production in Iraq." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Iran torpedoes US plans for Iraqi oil’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JD03Ak02.html April 03, 2008). It might have been thought that by now even someone as stupid as bush would have realized that military invasions were not the best way to secure the interests of america’s energy companies. Even if it was the case that bush was hoping to gain control over southern iraq’s oil fields there is no doubt that he supported the attack on the mahdi army primarily because it would keep open the option of an attack on iran.


Did Iran ask the Mahdi Army to launch attacks on the Green Zone to deter an American attack on Iran?

After cheney’s tour of the middle east, the iranian government may have feared there was a dramatic increase in the risk of an american attack on iran. It might have asked the mahdi army to bombard the green zone as a warning to the americans not to attack iran. The bush regime may have decided that the time was now ripe for the maliki government to dismantle the mahdi army. Bush wanted sadr out of the way not merely to keep open the option of an attack on iran but to ensure sadr wouldn’t gain the political power to oppose america’s long term occupation of iraq. Maliki may have complied with bush’s request because he hoped this would strengthen his political power in southern iraq especially with provincial elections coming up in october 2008. The badr militia may also have been willing to support the attack in order to dispose of a major rival militia and to gain control over the lucrative oil industry. When iran unleashed the mahdi army it may not have intended to provoke such a major response from the american, and the iraqi, militaries but it has benefited considerably from sadr’s victory. Everyone now knows that it would take an enormous military effort for the american and iraqi militaries to defeat the mahdi army in southern iraq. This effort may be beyond america’s current military capabilities. So the oil industry in southern iraq will remain under sadr’s control and there is now less likelihood of an american military to attack iran. After all, if the american military can’t defeat the mahdi army just how is it going to cope with iran’s military forces?


Conclusions

 There are two huge factors working against an american attack on iran. Firstly, america would suffer an even greater military catastrophe than it has already suffered as a result of its zionist inspired invasions of afghanistan and iraq. It may be in a militarily stronger position than it was in prior to the surge since it is no longer being attacked by sunni militias and the mahdi army. However, the american military has no real allies in iraq that would join an invasion of iran nor protect it if iran retaliated for an american attack on iran. It has the support of the peshmerga. It has won over sunni militias. But would they fight alongside the shiite iraqi army? America might have come to believe it could use the iraqi military against iran but the iraqi military’s recent failure against the mahdi army must have rendered such a belief delusory. Some commentators believe that america forced maliki into attacking the mahdi army in order to prepare the way for an invasion of iran but after the recent fiasco the americans must have realized that if they can’t defeat the mahdi army how are they going to fare against iran’s enormous military forces. The mahdi army, having been trained and armed by iran, is now powerful enough to take on american troops in iraq if bush is foolish enough to order the american military to attack iran. The prospects for an attack on iran have diminished considerably as a result of this disastrous american inspired attack on the mahdi army.


Secondly, america simply cannot afford a war against iran. It would have to be funded by china, japan, and/or saudi arabia and they don’t want a war against iran. If america invaded iran it would suffer an even greater financial, and political, catastrophe than it has already suffered as a result of its zionist inspired invasions of afghanistan and iraq. A war against iran would be economically and militarily suicidal.


But, then again, we are dealing with a presidential regime which is dominated by traitorous likudnik fanatics who simply do not care what happens to america as long as it benefits the military supremacism of the zionist state in the middle east. The likudniks may have reached the conclusion that america is heading for an economic recession that will necessitate a considerable contraction of america’s military forces. If this is so then the most opportune moment for an attack might be now before america is forced to start reducing its military capabilities.


http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=me_iran&Number=296157847&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21∂=