Support Indy Media

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Read CC In Your
Own Language

CC Malayalam


Peak Oil

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections


Latin America










Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom



India Elections



Submission Policy

Contact Us

Subscribe To Our
News Letter

Name: E-mail:


Printer Friendly Version

On A Potential War With
And Propaganda About Iran

By Vahab

12 June, 2008

Invasion of Iran by a US military force is possibly imminent. Likely many people cannot fully grasp the extreme devastation that such a horrifically brutal attack could bring, especially as mainstream media often covers up much of this sort of news -- news involving shocking vivid portrayals of ruin and torment.

In a very short time, say in three days, the infrastructure of Iran would be shattered, probably much more so than the initial outcome that happened in Iraq. In addition, there would exist absolute chaos.

Tehran, with nearly a twelve million population, would probably be a bloody mess -- scorched, beaten, humiliated, stripped of its human dignity and, to provide a comparative analysis, I'll add that NYC had an estimated population of approximately eight and a quarter million residents in 2006. In other words, bombing by air or invading Tehran on the ground is analogous to doing the same to Manhattan almost one and a half times over in terms of the tragic human toll.

I, myself, know a bit about this sort of human toll as I have lived in Tehran since the start of Iran-Iraq war. On account, I, for eight years, witnessed bombs and rockets falling on crowded locations and heard the sound of explosions around twice a day for many days in a row.

With each air attack alarm, everybody felt distraught and wondered if it were his/her family's turn to be killed under the Iraqi (America made) bombs. Obviously, everyone was beside him or herself and barely able to function under the circumstances. How could conditions be otherwise?

Yet, that war was child's play compared to the ruinous outcomes in any sort of assault from America, which is, I repeat, perhaps imminent. (In any case, Bush has promised that! For example, he stated, "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." At the same time, results of a Zogby poll, taken last year, indicate that fully fifty-two percent of Americans want to bomb Iran.)

This stated, there would be utter torture, misery and terror for years to come as a result, especially if nuclear bombs were used in the event that some leader or other were to get out of control. Could one?

In any case, the entire Middle East would be in utter turmoil were outright warfare, rather than small skirmishes, to include Iran. Aside from the repercussions due to oil disruption, millions of innocent civilians could be killed and maimed during which time Iran would be in complete shambles. In addition, it would be in ruin for years to come -- just as are Iraq and Afghanistan now, and which has resulted in millions of their population fleeing to other countries so as to strain their resources, schools, job market, housing and so on.

Furthermore, Iranians, practically all of us, would fight back, even with a shattered infrastructure and paralyzed military power. Citizens' defense of their nations and countrymen, as can be seen from current reactions in other lands, doesn't even have to happen in typical ways. At the same time, it is clear that Western countries would not be "safe" after raiding Iran as there would be direct retaliations in scale and kind, a dramatic rise in gas prices and other repercussions too ugly to even mention.

All considered, one can conclude that some American administrators seem not to learn from history or present happenings wherein it becomes clear that overrunning an entire nation is simply impossible. Can't it be clearly seen in Iraq, for example? Can one really call it a victory, as Bush announced when he said "mission accomplished?" What does those words really mean relative to actual events that drag on and on and onward for years on end?

In any case, the backlash in Iran could deeply harm the United States of America and any other country that helps it if its government, too, were to invade. As suggested, a conquered nation has its own unconventional ways to oppose aggressors and the real, full scale war starts after a nation is initially crushed. This is because war is not just between governments. As such, this would be a war of Iran's whole NATION of people and all others who'd have the gall to aggress against us.

So under these deeply perilous circumstances, what do you think we, in Iran, should do? Should we firmly stand against those who would attack us or "go after" our own leadership, which we need to support (even if quite reluctantly) during this time of threat of violence from other countries? Which course is the lesser of the two evils?

On another note, there is no "either/or " occurrence in social phenomena, for the most part. However, I appreciate and understand anyone's anger over religious fanaticism and mistreatment of women as is promoted by certain factions of my country's government and other leaders in Iran. Indeed, I don't hate both types of wrong any less than many others do. However, there are so many "buts" and other contingencies. As such, most occurrences are neither totally black, nor purely white.

On account, we, in Iran, need to support our government, even though it is destructive and undesirable in some ways (as is America's, which many Americans ratify even though it is, likewise, so). Especially we must do so while a bigger problem looms near to our doorstep...

Unfortunately, my country is surrounded by many hostile forces in contention with it. Then there are the greedy forces, too. Our oil and gas are a bit too attractive and it is the real reason prompting some, although not all of the ones, who want to pick a fight.

Supposing I have some sort of choice on the way to react in this looming situation of war: Would anyone think I should take a casual stance, a ho-hum cavalier outlook, while the lives of millions of Iranians are at risk? Should I just be at ease because some people, secure and contented in their cozy corner of the world, consider my real concern that war could breakout in my country paranoid on my part?

What if there is only a five percent chance that this new war should happen? Under the circumstances, should I back my government, which will stand up for me and my fellow citizens, or not? What makes anyone sure that certain US leaders are loathe to occupy my country out of concern for the response from a timid US Congress or the general public? How many from the latter group, to date, seems largely apathetic to their country's ongoing military combat taking place in other lands? Would they get out in the streets and march in protest if Iran were added to the invasion list?

At the same time does anyone know what can make a majority of Americans shift 180 degrees? Perhaps it is a false red flag to shatter their feeling of security, to make them feel that they will lose their comfortable way of life. It doesn't even need to be as big as the September eleventh happening, and this is because the mainstream media in many Western countries has done the damage already. It has done so by creating a sense of danger in people's minds.

In short, it has demonized Iranians as much as could be done. Its writers have mobilized Western women already, especially feminists, thanks to boorish masculine ideology on the part of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a few other prominent figures. They, also, made us look positively hungry for a fight with Israel and rabidly hateful of all Jews despite that our own Jewish citizens are quite free from attack and prefer to live here in harmony rather than in Israel. Imagine that!

In any case, I am sure that many people, other than whatever they gained through deliberate propaganda, don't know much about Iranians. They probably imagine Iranian women sitting in their homes, covering themselves like Saudi Arab women (favorite friends of America) while beaten and humiliated by men. Maybe they don't even know that we are not Arabs. Indeed, I am sure that the majority of Americans don't know that or that not all of us unswervingly support the Moslem faith.

All the same, the nasty mainstream media have made sure to lambaste Ahmadinejad and our way of life, not because news writers care for Iranian women and the manner in which we chose to exist, but because they have to make a very nasty monster of somebody who is easy enough to use to affect the lethargic minds of certain Western people. Doing so, of course, helps get the public supportive of "all options [being] on the table," just as the threat of weapons of mass destruction had done for Iraq in the past. What a way to keep the war drums beating ever more loudly!

In addition, we will not be attacked, if it does come to pass, in any sort of slow build up towards war. As such, there are two main scenarios, it would seem, for an invasion of Iran.

One is a conventional battle starting somehow and going on for years. In this scenario, Iran would fight back, Israel would maybe receive missiles, Lebanon and probably Syria would likely attack Israel, many American soldiers would be captured by Iranian and the immediate global energy crisis will be disastrous to say the least. In brief, it could lead to something akin to the beginnings of a WW III crisis, and the whole world would be in a terrible mess.

On account, the alternative, a sort of "Shock and Awe" solution, seems perhaps more feasible to take place if our country is "brought to heel." So it would, hypothetically, involve a secret rapid air strike, targeting major sites in Iran, practically all major areas in my country, with the upshot being their rapid and total obliteration.

Moreover, this course is the only way to paralyze Iran from forcefully fighting back. Even so, it, like any other sort of incursion, would lead to great strife throughout the Middle East -- one involving several nations. At the same time, it would generate repercussions around the world relative to oil deliveries, further contention amongst other nations and some major decisions in alignments amongst various countries like Russia, China, US, Venezuela, Great Britain and others.

Now, do you think Bom-Bom McCain would be upset were this sort of offensive to occur *? Do you think that most of the American public would care either way? Do they even now care about the Iraqi people -- people already in deep, barely manageable pain?

In an analogous vein, do American feminists care about Iraqi women and girls being forced into prostitution as a direct result of invasion in the name of an American type of democracy? Is there real concern whatsoever? If so, why have they not risen up en masse over this issue rather than discuss ad infinitum the general repression of Moslem women?

All considered, Iranian women say: "No thanks, we don't need your democracy. We are witnessing it already in Iraq. We can see the situation of Iraqi women. We prefer to support our disagreeable President with his silly obnoxious views on women's place in life."

Largely educated, these Iranian women, also, realize that subjugation of women is a global dilemma, part of a bigger problem -- that of universal human oppression, which often is supported by administrations of Western "civilized" countries, as well as silently supported by their peoples, who do not speak up. So if some individual were truly worried about suppression of women, that person should try to solve the bigger problem, the root problem, which surfaces in many societies all across the globe, rather than look to Middle Eastern women as the be all and end all of tyrannical domination.

At the same time, many Americans have not been able to accept that they have been fooled, lied to and misinformed about the reason that their country engaged in warfare in Iraq. Analogously, they could right now be starting to fall in the same old trap: The trap is one of castigating a leader, such as Saddam or mine, a country, a religion and a way of life so as to make them all appear evil, illiterate, wild, barbaric, ugly and even threatening.

This stated, I'll add that I am so sorry that this unpleasant Ahmadinejad and his fanatic religious friends made it easy for the American administration to affect American minds so that our country and its people are viewed as terrible. Why, though, can't the masses see this as a method to prepare the ground for nasty actions against us? I'll add, just as ignorant Saddam made it easy for an excuse to be fabricated to invade Iraq, so doesn't my country's President offer the same -- except that mine refuses to be caught off guard.

In the end, I apologize to any readers if any of these opinions seem insulting. They are not meant to be so. At the same time, I do know that there resides, in the US and elsewhere in the world, a dedicated minority of peace seekers and human rights advocates -- people who are truly humane and ethical.

It is fortunate that they exist as these are the ones on whom I count to make the world right, including in the prevention of war, more than any others, especially any disliked governmental leaders who come and go. Furthermore, I know they they are the people who understand well that compassionate, moral and outreaching people, assuredly, are present everywhere across the globe -- even in Iran!

On account, they are the first to be truthful about the state of affairs in and value the people of my country. They, also, remind me of Nelson Mandela's words, "As I have said, the first thing is to be honest with yourself. You can never have an impact on society if you have not changed yourself... Great peacemakers are all people of integrity, of honesty, but humility." Indeed, this thought and way to be provides hope for us all!

* What does this say about his capacity to make good versus poor judgements when a potential leader of a powerful country imagines that it is comical to sing a crude ditty condoning slaughter? What sort of sound assessments would such a person be capable to apply in his role of Presidential leader? What sort of values and principles does he exemplify when he shows that he thinks that it is an amusing clever joke, rather than a serious problem, to casually murder people, including innocent children and elderly civilians, which would assuredly happen if bombs are dropped? All the same, John McCain, obviously, delights in such an outrageous tragic vision: YouTube - Bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran and YouTube - McCain laughs, Sings Bomb Iran (

Vahab is a person interested in environmental and humanitarian affairs. He has lived most of his life in Iran.


Leave A Comment
Share Your Insights

Comment Policy


Digg it! And spread the word!

Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page of and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So, as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.


Feed Burner

Support Indy Media


Search Our Archive


Our Site