Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

[SIZE="5"]The prominent US lecturer Noam Chomsky says 'despite all the saber rattling, it is unlikely that the US administration will attack Iran'.

Perhaps he should have said - it is unlikely that the US will 'invade' Iran. The US will attack Iran, in someway or another, sooner or later. Simply put, Iran cannot be allowed to become a major power in the region, especially a nuclear power, outside of Washington's influence. Thus, as long as Iran and the US stay on opposite sides of the political fence, as long as Iran is threatening Israel, as long as Iran is competing against the US backed Sunni dictatorships in the region, the US will try to destroy Iran.

The prominent American scholar in his new book Interventions, says that in the energy-rich Middle East, only two countries have resisted Washington's demands: Iran and Syria.

Precisely, unlike Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and various other puppet governments along the Persian Gulf, the nations of Syria and Iran (and Iraq prior to the invasion) have been the only major entities within the region that the Washington DC does not directly or indirectly control. In essence, that is what the whole mess in the region is all about.

However, we still have idiots who believe in the "Islamic Fascist" bogeyman. We even have some idiots who actually think that the US is genuinely attempting to "liberate" oppressed peoples.

Chomsky adds that with the Cold War-like mentality that prevails in Washington, resorting to violence is regularly justified as a reaction to the influence of Iran, often on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Its not a "Cold War" mentality per say. The problem, in my opinion, is that the West (primarily the US) needs to somehow secure its economic and political primacy within the 21st century by grabbing onto strategic areas of the region before China, Russia and Iran gets to do it.

The book dwells at length on the fact that 'The Bush administration will not attack Iran' because the world is strongly opposed to the idea.

The US is hesitating to attack Iran because Iran has outsmarted them diplomatically and Tehran has forged solid economic/military alliances with Russia and China. Also, the Iranian military is quite large and powerful, Iran is a vast country, and US forces are stretched very thin and are on the verge of breaking. Nevertheless, since there is so much at stake, geostrategically speaking, Iran will be attacked, somehow, sooner or later.

"It appears that the US military and intelligence community is also opposed to an attack," he said.

The military elite in America in particular are against another war in the region because they see the US heading fast towards a major disaster. Thus, within the halls of Washington DC, it will be a struggle between J-e-w lead Neocons and real American patriots. However, once you realize how much power and influence the Zionist have in the US you will realize that American Patriots will be silenced.

According to recent polls 75 percent of Americans favor diplomacy over military options against Iran.

As ignorant as they may be, the average American today is beginning to clearly see what a disaster the bloody debacle in Iraq turned out to be.

Thus, what chances do American forces have to control Iran?

[Mos]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

if America would attack Iran we will be thorn on both sides Iran a major trading partner or America a dominant power in the world. We would have to also take in mind that Iran borders Armenia and helping the US could put a blockade on us which would be devestating for our economy

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

if America would attack Iran we will be thorn on both sides Iran a major trading partner or America a dominant power in the world. We would have to also take in mind that Iran borders Armenia and helping the US could put a blockade on us which would be devestating for our economy

Why do you think Armenia would help the US millitarly. Russia is our ally not America

[Mos]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Why do you think Armenia would help the US millitarly. Russia is our ally not America

well thats true but we let America use our land to spy on Iran, there is some cooperation there pertaining to the military

[Lucin]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

if America would attack Iran we will be thorn on both sides Iran a major trading partner or America a dominant power in the world. We would have to also take in mind that Iran borders Armenia and helping the US could put a blockade on us which would be devestating for our economy

Armenia helping the US? Why, as long as there are Azari dogs?

[Lucin]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Precisely, unlike Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and various other puppet governments along the Persian Gulf, the nations of Syria and Iran (and Iraq prior to the invasion) have been the only major entities within the region that the Washington DC does not directly or indirectly control. In essence, that is what the whole mess in the region is all about.

So why do you think 'Saddam' attacked Iran mercilessly? Since the two countries had obviously common enemies thus some common interests.

The US is hesitating to attack Iran because Iran has outsmarted them diplomatically and Tehran has forged solid economic/military alliances with Russia and China. Also, the Iranian military is quite large and powerful, Iran is a vast country, and US forces are stretched very thin and are on the verge of breaking. Nevertheless, since there is so much at stake, geostrategically speaking, Iran will be attacked, somehow, sooner or later.

So it'd only be a matter of method- to attack Iran- and probably nuking Tehran will not be out of question...

Thus, what chances do American forces have to control Iran?

Like the famous saying goes; Iran is not Iraq nor the Iranians are Arabs-- but the Americans' goal might only be to overthrow the current regime and not necessarily 'control' or 'occupy' the country which seems impossible.

And, in my opinion, there is no hope for peace in this region as long as Israel and Turkey continue to exist and pursue the same policies.

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Lucin, Saddam was precisely the type of dictator to be controlled by Washington DC. Of course, he decided he wanted to have his own interest, that's when he turned bad.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

So why do you think 'Saddam' attacked Iran mercilessly? Since the two countries had obviously common enemies thus some common interests.

Lucin jan, Saddam attacked Iran while Iraq's interests in the region coincided with that of Washington DC's. However, that does not mean that Iraq was a puppet government serving Western interests in the Region. When Iraq stepped over the line, that is when they invaded West-backed Kuwait, the US and its allies happily declared war on Baghdad. I believe that the US was looking forward to such an operation because Iraq's ruling party, the Baath party, was a pan-Arab nationalist party. And in the Middle East all pan-Arab nationalists either get killed or isolated. Also, the early 90's was the best time to invaded the region because the Soviet Union was collapsing and there was a vacuum to be filled.

So it'd only be a matter of method- to attack Iran- and probably nuking Tehran will not be out of question...

Sadly, yes. They can't invaded Iran, as a result, they will attack from the air. As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, I highly doubt that such weapons will be used. I think such threatening rhetoric is being used primarily as a means of psychological warfare.

Like the famous saying goes; Iran is not Iraq nor the Iranians are Arabs-- but the Americans' goal might only be to overthrow the current regime and not necessarily 'control' or 'occupy' the country which seems impossible.

Yes, Iranians are not Semites and there is a world of difference between the two peoples. And, as you have insinuated, the real danger Iran faces today is internal. The US is doing its best, with Azeri, Kurdish and Israeli support of course, to foment social unrest within Iran. Here in the United States, Iranian Shah sympathizers, and Iranian J-e-w-s (who are very wealthy and numerous here) are being used by the US State Department and the CIA to spread propaganda. Sadly, we even have idiots within the Parska-hai community in southern California who are participating in this endeavor.

They play on the sentiments of the ignorant public towards the unpopular ruling clerics in Iran to garner public support and create unrest. As a result, many brave souls have risen to help bring freedom, democracy and the American way to an oppressed Iran... We even have such ignorant individuals here in this discussion board. You know, the fairy tales about wanting to topple the oppressive Islamists and place into power a freedom loving democratic government so that all can live happily ever after.

Nonetheless, we all know that as soon as the current rulers are forced from power in Iran the Iranian nation will descend into bloody chaos, after which it will be taken over by pan-Turkists, Zionists and US Imperialists. And I don't even want to think of the serious dangers such a situation can potentially pose to the Armenian Republic.

And, in my opinion, there is no hope for peace in this region as long as Israel and Turkey continue to exist and pursue the same policies.

Precisely. Thank you for that very accurate statement.

[Armenian]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Israel's J-e-w-ish Problem in Tehran



So why hasn't Iran started by wiping its own J-e-w-s off the map?

Iran is the new Nazi Germany and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new Hitler. Or so Israeli officials have been declaring for months as they and their American allies try to persuade the doubters in Washington that an attack on Tehran is essential. And if the latest media reports are to be trusted, it looks like they may again be winning the battle for hearts and minds: Vice President xxxx Cheney is said to be diverting the White House back on track to launch a military strike.

Earlier this year Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's opposition leader and the man who appears to be styling himself scaremonger-in-chief, told us: "It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs." Of Ahmadinejad, he said: "He is preparing another Holocaust for the xxxish state."

A few weeks ago, as Israel's military intelligence claimed – as it has been doing regularly since the early 1990s – that Iran is only a year or so away from the "point of no return" on developing a nuclear warhead, Netanyahu was at it again. "Iran could be the first undeterrable nuclear power," he warned, adding: "This is a xxxish problem like Hitler was a xxxish problem … The future of the xxxish people depends on the future of Israel."

But Netanyahu has been far from alone in making extravagant claims about a looming genocide from Iran. Israel's new president, Shimon Peres, has compared an Iranian nuclear bomb to a "flying concentration camp." And the prime minister, Ehud Olmert, told a German newspaper last year: "[Ahmadinejad] speaks as Hitler did in his time of the extermination of the entire xxxish nation."

There is an interesting problem with selling the "Iran as Nazi Germany" line. If Ahmadinejad really is Hitler, ready to commit genocide against Israel's xxxs as soon as he can get his hands on a nuclear weapon, why are some 25,000 xxxs living peacefully in Iran and more than reluctant to leave despite repeated enticements from Israel and American xxxs?

What is the basis for Israel's dire forecasts – the ideological scaffolding being erected, presumably, to justify an attack on Iran? Helpfully, as George Bush defended his Iraq policies last month, he reminded us yet again of the menace Iran supposedly poses: it is "threatening to wipe Israel off the map."

This myth has been endlessly recycled since a translating error was made of a speech Ahmadinejad delivered nearly two years ago. Farsi experts have verified that the Iranian president, far from threatening to destroy Israel, was quoting from an earlier speech by the late Ayatollah Khomeini in which he reassured supporters of the Palestinians that "the Zionist regime in Jerusalem" would "vanish from the page of time."

He was not threatening to exterminate xxxs or even Israel. He was comparing Israel's occupation of the Palestinians with other illegitimate systems of rule whose time had passed, including the Shahs who once ruled Iran, apartheid South Africa and the Soviet empire. Nonetheless, this erroneous translation has survived and prospered because Israel and her supporters have exploited it for their own crude propaganda purposes.

In the meantime, the 25,000-strong Iranian xxxish community is the largest in the Middle East outside Israel and traces its roots back 3,000 years. As one of several non-Muslim minorities in Iran, xxxs there suffer discrimination, but they are certainly no worse off than the one million Palestinian citizens of Israel – and far better off than Palestinians under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza.

Iranian xxxs have little influence on decision-making and are not allowed to hold senior posts in the army or bureaucracy. But they enjoy many freedoms. They have an elected representative in parliament, they practice their religion openly in synagogues, their charities are funded by the xxxish diaspora, and they can travel freely, including to Israel. In Tehran there are six kosher butchers and about 30 synagogues. Ahmadinejad's office recently made a donation to a xxxish hospital in Tehran.

As Ciamak Moresadegh, an Iranian xxxish leader, observed: "If you think Judaism and Zionism are one, it is like thinking Islam and the Taliban are the same, and they are not." Iran's leaders denounce Zionism, which they blame for fueling discrimination against the Palestinians, but they have also repeatedly avowed that they have no problem with xxxs, Judaism or even the state of Israel. Ahmadinejad, caricatured as a merchant of genocide, has in fact called for "regime change" – and then only in the sense that he believes a referendum should be held of all inhabitants of Israel and the occupied territories, including refugees from war, on the nature of the government.

Despite the absence of any threat to Iran's xxxs, the Israeli media recently reported that the Israeli government has been trying to find new ways to entice Iranian xxxs to Israel. The Ma'ariv newspaper pointed out that previous schemes had found few takers. There was, noted the report, "a lack of desire on the part of thousands of Iranian xxxs to leave." According to the New York-based Forward newspaper, a campaign to convince Iranian xxxs to emigrate to Israel caused only 152 out of these 25,000 xxxs to leave Iran between October 2005 and September 2006, and most of them were said to have emigrated for economic reasons, not political ones.

To step up these efforts – and presumably to avoid the embarrassing incongruence of claiming an imminent second Holocaust while thousands of xxxs live happily in Tehran – Israel is now backing a move by xxxish donors to guarantee every Iranian xxxish family $60,000 to settle in Israel, in addition to a host of existing financial incentives that are offered to xxxish immigrants, including loans and cheap mortgages.

The announcement was met with scorn by the Society of Iranian xxxs, which issued a statement that their national identity was not for sale. "The identity of Iranian xxxs is not tradeable for any amount of money. Iranian xxxs are among the most ancient Iranians. Iran's xxxs love their Iranian identity and their culture, so threats and this immature political enticement will not achieve their aim of wiping out the identity of Iranian xxxs."

However, this financial gesture may not only be unwelcome but self-fulfilling too, if past experience is the yardstick. Israel introduced a similar scheme a few years ago, when Argentina's economy plunged into deep recession, broadcasting an offer of $20,000 to every xxx who settled in Israel. Months later the Israeli media reported a rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Argentina, only adding to the pressure on xxxs there to leave. Of course, there was no mention of a possible causal connection between the attacks and Israel's generous offer to xxxs to abandon their homeland as other Argentinians sank into poverty.

But if financial enticements – and a possible popular backlash – fail to move Iranian xxxs, there is good reason to fear that Israel may resort to other, more dubious ways of encouraging them to emigrate. That is certainly a path Israel has chosen before with other communities of Arab xxxs, whom it has regarded either as a pool of potential spies and agents provocateurs to be used when needed or as "human dust," in the words of Israel's first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, to be recruited to Israel's "demographic battle" against the Palestinians.

In "Operation Susannah" of 1954, for example, Israel recklessly recruited a group of Egyptian xxxs to stage a series of explosions in Egypt in a bid to discourage Britain from withdrawing from the Suez Canal zone. When the plot came to light, it naturally cast a shadow of disloyalty over Egypt's wider xxxish community. Following Israel's invasion and occupation of Sinai two years later, the government of Gamal Abdel Nasser expelled some 25,000 Egyptian xxxs and, after others were imprisoned on suspicion of spying, the rest soon left.

Even more notoriously, Israel went to greater lengths to ensure the exit of the Arab world's largest xxxish population, in Iraq. In 1950 a series of bombs targeted on xxxs in Baghdad forced a rapid exodus of some 130,000 Iraqi xxxs to Israel, convinced that Arab extremists were behind the attacks. Only later did it emerge that the bombs had been planted by members of the Zionist underground, supported by the Israeli government.

Now, Iran's xxxs may find themselves treated in much the same manner – as simple human fodder. Stories are growing of Israel exploiting the free movement between Iran and Israel enjoyed by Iranian xxxs and their Israeli relatives to carry out spying operations on Iran's nuclear program. Such reports have come from reliable sources such as the American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, citing US government officials.

The fallout from such actions is not difficult to predict. Besieged by the US and the international community, Tehran is cracking down on dissent and minority groups, fearful that its own grip on power is shaky and that the well-publicized subversion being carried out by US and Israeli agents is likely only to be stepped up. So far most officials in Tehran have been careful to avoid suggesting that Iran's xxxs have double loyalties, as has the local xxxish community itself, both of them aware of Israel's interests in provoking such a confrontation. But as the strains increase, and Israel's need to prove Tehran's genocidal intent grows ever stronger, that policy may end up being forfeited – and with it the future of Iran's xxxs.

More important than the welfare of Iranian xxxish families, it seems, is the value of Iranian xxxs as a propaganda tool in Israel's battle to persuade the world that coexistence with the Muslim world is impossible. For those who want to engineer a clash of civilizations, the 3,000-year-old xxxish legacy in Iran is not something to be treasured, only another obstacle to war.

Source: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=11394

[skhara]

Re: Consequences Of Attacking Iran And Why Tehran Is Not Worried

Israel's new president, Shimon Peres, has compared an Iranian nuclear bomb to a "flying concentration camp."

Is it wrong of me to wish the NAZis had done what they are accused of.