The United States
Will Attack Iran
By Dave Eriqat
08 April, 2006
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 Iran?
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: escalation.
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.
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.
Copyright 2006 Dave Eriqat