Will the US Really Bomb Iran?
galway |
anti-war / imperialism |
other press 
Sunday September 09, 2007 12:43
by Pulchra Dooley - Cosantoiri Siochana
"They're desperate. Everything they touch is in ruins" (Noam Chomsky"
In a Counterpunch article, Alexander Cockburn probes the liklihood of a US attack on Iran and yup, looks like, its on? :
Weigh it all up, and you'd be foolish to bet that an attack on Iran won't happen. I knew Noam Chomsky used to be dubious about the likelihood of a U.S. attack and emailed him last week to ask if he is still of that opinion. Here's his answer.
Yes, I was quite sceptical. Less so over the years. They're desperate. Everything they touch is in ruins. They're even in danger of losing control over Middle Eastern oil -- to China, the topic that's rarely discussed but is on every planner or corporation exec's mind, if they're sane. Iran already has observer status at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization -- from which the US was pointedly excluded. Chinese trade with Saudi Arabia, even military sales, is growing fast. With the Bush administration in danger of losing Shiite Iraq, where most of the oil is (and most Saudi oil in regions with a harshly oppressed Shiite population), they may be in real trouble. Under these circumstances, they're unpredictable. They might go for broke, and hope they can salvage something from the wreckage. If they do bomb, I suspect it will be accompanied by a ground assault in Khuzestan, near the Gulf, where the oil is (and an Arab population -- there already is an Ahwazi liberation front, probably organized by the CIA, which the US can "defend" from the evil Persians), and then they can bomb the rest of the country to rubble. And show who's boss.
Cockburn concludes with the warning that: "The peace movement had better pull itself together, remembering that should the bombs start to fall on Tehran, most of the Democrats in Congress will be on their feet, cheering".
Comments (1 of 1)
Jump To Comment: 1The peace movement is incapable of preventing anything that the US government does.
The Petreues Report due shortly is certain to protray US victory in Al Anbar provence - ex-Saddam Sunni officials and Sunni tribal leaders have cut a deal with the US military (that was the whole point of the insurgency anyway) and Al-Qaeda is being side lined and wiped out.
Attacks on US troops have been dramatically reduced elsewhere as Moqtada Al-Sadr has suspended Shia operations for six months - another deal is being struck and British troops have withdrawn to Basra airbase.
The Coalition (what is left of it after European partners deserted) has reached a stalemate - not an out and out victory.
But that can be broadcast to the US public as such - Bush's poll ratings are gradually recovering as the "surge" has shown "results."
Remember the vast majority of the US public supported the 2003 invasion - they thought it was a repeat of 1991 and were overjoyed that the casualties in the initial three weeks were miniscule.
US public support has fallen in direct relation to the growing casualties and the lack of "results."
It is quite clear that when "results" are presented to the US public that their views will change accordingly - this is the phenomenon that appears to be currently emerging.
I predict that the next occupant of the White House either Rep or Dem will continue the same policy but with a sugar coating of change.
Indymedia Ireland is a media collective. We are independent volunteer citizen journalists producing and distributing the authentic voices of the people. Indymedia Ireland is an open news project where anyone can post their own news, comment, videos or photos about Ireland or related matters.