Thursday, 27 September 2012

Israel Lobbyist - "Crisis Initiation is Really Tough. It's Very Hard for me to see how the United States President can Get us to War with Iran"




The guy is talking about initiating a War to stop Iranian WMDs yet Iran does not have nuclear weapons nor programs to make them (according to US intelligence). They do have a nuclear power station monitored by the IAEA, and all the materials in use are accounted for. Also, any move by Iran to start a war could lead to their country being completely destroyed by nuclear armed Israel and the USA. The leaders of Iran are not stupid enough to start a conflict that would turn their country into a glass car park. At stake here is the lives of many innocent civilians and also contamination of other people around the world if the operational reactor is bombed.


[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, September 27th, 2012.]

2 comments:

steven andresen said...

spook,

I don't believe that the issue between the U.S. and Iran is their nuclear weapons program. They don't have one, so we shouldn't be sanctioning them and threatening wars on them.

I am not persuaded that the issue is Israel's wants, either. Yes, the Israelis want us to march in there and bomb them. This action may or may not force the U.S. to fight off Iran's allies, Russia, China, and possibly Pakistan, if not also the Indians.

I wonder whether the goal in this area is to just have the conflict, or the appearence of conflict, in order to bring about other changes. For example, the attacking and holding of other countries in the area, like Iraq, Afghanistan, et al.

There was a big push to make the point that we have conflict in this area because it has oil. I am not sure whether Oil companies want a lot of conflict in this area. Conflict and the prospect of war makes getting the oil out of the ground difficult. And, with wars, it is not clear that the U.S. will maintain control over the oil processes in this region.

I think there might be some measure of chaos going on. The U.S. has certain goals, like control and domination, and with these goals driving their actions, we are now faced with blowback of various sorts.

As for this video, I doubt that the Middle East is the kind of place you could run a "Pearl Harbor" or "Remember the Maine" scenario.

The point of such scenarios as "methods" of getting us into some war we want to fight, is that it leaves us with the moral high ground, that is, we were attacked in the dead of night by ruthless killers. Aren't they bad! Aren't we good!...I'm not sure this would be the clear result of some "false Flag" effort.

s.

SpookyOne said...

S,

I agree that a false flag might not create a clear good/bad distinction for many observers. It might create a half arsed excuse that will be waved about while the bombs are falling.

It is possible to create a false flag situation though. The Israelis have Dolphin Class submarines that can launch cruise missiles. An attack of this sort upon a US warship, originating from the Iranian coastline, would look like some sort of hostile action.

Such attacks may involve multiple cruise missiles followed by jamming of Iranian communications (so denials of responsibility are never heard) and then the US counter attacks would invite a full scale Iranian (defensive) response.

As for the oil, it's not so much about having it as stopping others from taking advantage of it. If the price goes up poorer nations suffer first and the oil companies profit massively.

Spook !