Thursday, September 06, 2007


Every time I think that common sense might have taken over American political discourse, we suffer another bout of ‘Iran talk’.  It is still complete nonsense, of course, and is intended to accomplish a number of Zionist objectives other than an actual attack, most notably destabilizing the Middle East and playing the Sunnis off against the Shi’ites (the habitual Israeli ‘divide and conquer’).  Continuing to allow yourself be sucked in puts you in the driver’s seat of the bulldozer.  The best case to be scared is made by Jean Bricmont, but it is fatally flawed (unlike some phony American ‘progressives’ I could name, at least Bricmont cares):

  1. Bricmont mows down many of the usual obvious arguments against an attack, but fails to note the cumulative effect.

  2. Bricmont pays insufficient attention to the Chinese problem.  Stopping an attack isn’t an option for the Chinese.  It would put most of their factories out of business, which would cause the legitimacy crisis most feared by the Chinese leaders.  The deal in China is that everybody gives up freedom in return for increased economic prosperity.  The assumption is that the leadership will keep the factories running, which entails a constant source of energy.  An attack on Iran would stop tens of thousands of Chinese factories, and destabilize the whole country.  No matter how much it cost them in the short term, the Chinese would have to stop this.  Standing up for Iran isn’t a ‘non-economic’ issue for the Chinese, who never really act for any reason other than economic anyway. 

  3. The fact that an attack would cost the American Establishment trillions of dollars is also worth noting!

  4. Bricmont pays too much attention to the Europeans, who have completely marginalized themselves by falling in completely, against morality and their own self interest, with every evil American plan for the Middle East.  The Americans don’t care what the Europeans think, nor should they.  The complete absence of European objections to an attack is irrelevant.

  5. Bricmont seems to think that alerting people of the threat will allow American ‘progressives’ to do something about it.  I don’t know whether to laugh or cry! 

  6. Bricmont rightly points out the the Democrats are worse than useless (but politely doesn’t point out that the reason for it is JBC control).

  7. The key point that Bricmont misses is that the adults, the old American Establishment, has re-taken control of the American government.  It takes a conspiracy theorist to see the obvious.  The most recent example is the settlement of the North Korean problem, a big loss for the neocons, who see tension as the key to building up American militarism, all, of course, to benefit Israeli colonialism.  The adults are furious about the Iraq attack, and simply won’t allow a much, much bigger mistake.  If the neocons even try it, it will be heart attack time for Dick, and Dick knows it.

The actual rumor has red flags all over it.  Read it and laugh (from Todd Gitlin: emphasis in red and green):

“I don't see any point to contributing to a cycle of useless panic, but if Victor Davis Hanson is worried about war with Teheran, I'm worried and then some. ‘Don't Bomb, Don't Bomb Iran,’ wrote one of conservativedom's most interesting war analysts on Friday at National Review Online.

It was bad enough that the keen Afghanistan analyst Barnett Rubin took seriously a Washington rumor that the rollout was coming soon after Labor Day – to pick a day at random, say, Sept. 9, or 10, or, what the hell, 11. His source heard the following from ‘someone in one of the leading neo-conservative institutions’:

They [the source's institution] have ‘instructions’ (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this – they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is ‘plenty.’”

Victor Davis Hanson is one of them!  He’s never worried about a war in his life!  Don’t believe his phony concern.  The rest is based on a third-hand account from ‘one of the leading neo-conservative institutions’.  The neocons, out of real power, are trying to help Israel any way they can by stirring up trouble in the United States in order to stir up trouble in the Middle East.  Even Rubin, at the end of his warning, admits he is being irresponsible (note the last paragraph here, where we see the usual intelligence technique of backing up one lie with a ‘corroborating’ lie from the same source, replete with the ‘lunatic’ comment to add credibility to the corroboration).  This nature of this propaganda campaign is even more obvious, coming just before the usual AIPAC destabilization campaign.  Note this attack on the curiously named Kos diarist ‘Maccabee, and the inconsistencies noted here.  Americans are being snowed, again.

There won’t be an American attack on Iran.  Things might get interesting when Rudy/Hillary is elected, when something drastic might have to happen to stop the JBC.  At the moment, I’d be less surprised if the United States were attacked by Martians.  Americans are still suffering from the insanity of Empire.  It is comforting, even to ‘progressives’, to think that the United States can still get it up enough to make another illegal attack on a non-threatening sovereign country.  There isn’t enough Viagra in the world for that to happen.  Take what comfort you can in the fact that the United States is no longer being run by its elected leaders.