Will the USA attack Iran?
There’s been a lot of speculation about whether or not the United
States will attack Iran. Roughly equal numbers of people believe the U.S. will
and will not attack. Disregarding the public blustering from both governments,
I believe the U.S. will attack Iran in 2006. Here’s why.
The master plan of the United States is to control the oil in the Middle
East. Only two countries stood in the way of that plan: Iraq and Iran. Iraq
has been neutralized and will remain impotent
for the next decade because of civil war. Iran
alone now stands in the way of the U.S. master plan. But before proceeding
with this line of argument, let’s take a side trip.
Iraq is clearly a disaster from a humanitarian perspective, as well as on the
military front. Iraq is also becoming a political disaster for Republicans in
the U.S. Not only do Republicans face losing control of Congress, but with President
Bush’s approval ratings in the toilet, Republicans may well lose the White
House too. The lesson of the staged 9/11 and the ensuing war in Iraq is clear:
Americans will rally around the president and his party during distressing
times. What could be more opportune for this president and his party than another
staged 9/11-like event, followed by another war of retaliation, this time against
I don’t believe another fake 9/11 is actually necessary for the
president to launch another war in the Middle East. Just when I was beginning
to think that the precipitously declining support – down to about one
third of the public – for the war in Iraq was an indication that Americans
were wising up, recent polls suggest that more than half of Americans
support a new war against Iran! How can they favor starting a new war
even as their support for the last one is declining? I was baffled by this inconsistency
until I realized that the declining support for the war in Iraq is not a rejection
of war, but a rejection of losing wars. Americans are perfectly fond of war
as long as they’re winning. In any case, there seems to be ample support
from the American public for a new war against Iran. Another fake 9/11 attack
is not necessary, though it may occur anyway in order to further the totalitarian
ambitions of the government.
Withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq is out of the question. Such an action would
be tantamount to an admission of defeat by this administration, an admission
that will never be forthcoming. Besides, the U.S. expended great effort and
resources to go into Iraq and build permanent military bases there. It is simply
not going to leave for at least a few decades. Maintaining the status quo in
Iraq is also untenable, as the voices calling for withdrawal intensify with
each passing day. That leaves only one avenue of action to this administration:
A new war against Iran would divert attention from Iraq and firm up public
support for the president and his party, as will be evidenced by renewed passion
for red-white-and-blue and yellow magnetic ribbons.
Another good reason for a war against Iran is to divert attention from the
economy. It’s obvious now that the U.S. housing bubble is deflating. It
may continue to deflate gradually or it might snowball with spectacular consequences,
it’s anybody’s guess. How it plays out is largely subject to people’s
perceptions. People are still fairly optimistic about the economy, so perhaps
that’s why the housing bubble is deflating slowly right now. But that
could change. In any event, with the housing bubble being the driving force
behind consumer spending of late, and with consumer spending driving the economy,
as the housing bubble deflates, consumer spending will go down. An imminent
decline in consumer spending,
coupled with other indicators, such as converging bond yields, hint at a recession
late this year. A new war would be a great diversion from economic woes and
afford the government a chance to pump “liquidity” into the economy.
The U.S. Government recently discontinued reporting the broadest measure of
the money supply, M3, perhaps in order to hide future liquidity injections.
Getting back to the master plan. Many have pointed out that attacking Iran
does not stand up to a cost-benefit analysis. They argue that attacking Iran
would cause Iran to retaliate by stoking the insurgency in Iraq and threatening
oil shipments through the Persian
Gulf. The implication is that the U.S. will not risk the lives of its soldiers
in Iraq or risk soaring oil prices, all for the sake of imposing its political
will on Iran . They argue that not even this administration is that irrational.
These people are missing the point, however. The single-minded goal
of the United States in the Middle East is control of the oil, regardless of
the cost. Let’s examine the potential costs more closely. Would
the U.S. endanger its soldiers in Iraq ? Absolutely. Just look at Pearl Harbor
during World War II. The U.S. Government unquestionably knew the Japanese were
going to attack and deliberately let it happen. The U.S. Government probably
even abetted the attack by clearing an unobstructed flight path for the Japanese
attackers. So would they sacrifice a few thousand more soldiers in Iraq? Sure.
What if Iran manages to slow or stop the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf
? Again, that could work to the advantage of the U.S., as I will explain below.
In the meantime, who would benefit from reduced global oil supplies? Oil
companies. As oil has gone up in price during the last few years, the profits
of oil companies have skyrocketed into the tens of billions of dollars per year,
for each company. We also witnessed this administration look the other way when
energy companies rapaciously exploited California’s nascent “deregulated”
electricity market, so we know where its allegiance lies.
Another “rational” argument against attacking Iran is that the
U.S., by virtue of its constrained manpower, can only feasibly attack Iran by
air, which would not be very effective if limited to “military”
targets. This is true, but it misses the point. The initial air assault against
Iran would be merely the first step in what the U.S. probably hopes will become
a larger war. Why? Because the only way the United States can successfully neutralize
Iran is by dropping a couple of nuclear bombs on its civilian population, forcing
Iran to surrender unconditionally.
Even the U.S. will not dare to unilaterally break sixty years of nuclear
taboo and drop a nuclear bomb on an Iranian city. However, it probably can get
away with using “tactical
nuclear bunker buster” bombs against ostensibly military targets.
The world will be outraged, of course. But after a few months of media spin,
the U.S. will probably quell the opprobrium.
In the meantime, Iran will foment Shiite insurrection in Iraq, resulting in
a dramatic increase in casualties among American soldiers. Iran can also sink
a few U.S. warships
and oil tankers in the Persian Gulf , and indeed slow or stop the flow of oil
through the gulf. Of course, the U.S. will spin this Iranian retaliation as
a reckless and fanatical escalation of the war. Americans, angry at seeing their
soldiers killed and their warships sunk, will rally even more fervently around
their president. The U.S. Government will point to the world’s growing
economic problems ensuing from the shortage of oil as evidence that Iran needs
to be stopped, whatever the cost. The world’s industrialized nations that
are so dependent on oil will publicly renounce taking harsher action against
Iran while privately hoping that the U.S. does whatever it takes to get the
oil flowing again.
Then, without warning, the U.S. will drop a couple of nuclear
bombs on a couple
of medium sized cities in Iran, just like it did in Japan sixty years ago. The
justifications will be the same as before: to bring a speedy end to the war.
Of course, the world will be outraged, but its reaction will be muted because
the U.S. will have already broken the nuclear taboo when it used the “bunker
busters,” and besides, what can the world really do about it? Iran will
surrender, and the U.S. will be fully in control of the Middle East and two
of its most important sources of oil: Iraq and Iran .
The U.S. can then withdraw its soldiers in Iraq into its new massive, city-sized
military bases and wait out the civil war, while keeping a close eye on the
oil. The U.S. will be a pariah nation, but so what. It will control the bulk
of the world’s oil.