New rumours of US attack on Iran
I've seen several stories this evening concerning a planned US attack on Iran - some are mentioning THIS Sunday 6 April 2008. Links: Will America wipe out Iran's nuclear installations? Russia ‘Alarmed’ As US Readies April Nuclear Attack On Iran Insurgency in Iraq to attack on Iran? Russians, Saudis Expect U.S. Attack On Iran

Whilst I don't subscribe to most of the zany and off the wall conspiracy theories, I do think this series on 9/11 raises some serious questions which need answering. The series of short films have been prepared by some accepted writers, journalists and media commentators. The concept of the US Neo Cons seeking to establish a global American hegemony is a hidden but historical fact: as is the core reality that in order to keep the US economy and thus society running along its present lines, it needs annual GDP increases and ever-increasing amounts of crude oil and gas to stand still. Thus the theory of a sort of American Fascist NeoCon power block, along with US oil companies, arms manufacturers and bankers, seeking to invade and control ALL Middle Eastern oil states is neither fanciful, nor new. PNAC (Project for the New American Century) is not new either: it is also historical fact. When you have some time, watch these short films, starting with this one. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw&feature=related My own view is that if the USA was mad enough to invade Iran, then the after effects would be catastrophic: economically (Gulf II has nearly bankrupted America): politically; and logistically. That said and of course, Bush and his cronies are mad (look at his eyes) and have little to lose, now. Don't put it past a mad man to take the decision to employ nukes in a pre-emptive strike................................................

The US will not invade Iran, preferring instead to mount a series of 'surgical strikes'. It would probably make sense for Israel to attack Syria at the same time. It would very surprising (to use typical English understatement) if the US did NOT have plans already drawn up to attack Iran. After all, since the Islamic revolution in 1979, Iran has consistently been out of step with US interests and foreign policy (whether you agree with those or not). In fact the BBC, still a trusted news source in many people's eyes, reported on the existence of such plans back in February 2007 - see US Iran attack plans revealed The scramble for energy resources that defines these early years of the 21st century brings the prospect of an actual conflict even closer. Given the now limited time now available to the Bush government, there will be an optimum time to do this to maximise the chances of 'success'. I personally doubt that the US wants to get bogged down in Iran - it's got enough problems - but 'surgical' strikes that put back its nuclear programme seem logical if you think about this in a cold dispassionate manner. A nuclear-armed Iran will be infinitely more difficult to deal with than it is already. I'm certainly not saying that I personally agree with or condone any of this but high-level decisions will made without much of the emotion that affects the judgement of most of us mere mortals.

US invasion of Iraq was seen to be fairly neutral by the Arab nations, since Hussein was not a member of their "Club". Iran is a wholly different case. Most interesting to me that a number of disparate events have taken place which collectively would indicate a strategic initiative: The Arab League is revitalised: Arabic OPEC members are now rapidly moving away from the US dollar in both pricing oil/gas liftings and as reserve assets: The US is increasingly seen as the Great Threat to a continuum of Arab-Islamic dominance in the region: The US dollar has enjoyed its credibility since the Post WW II era and the establishment of IMF and World Bank: indeed, immediately after the Bretton Woods Conference (which allowed Keynes to realise his brainchild, the IMF to stabilise post war economic recovery), the US$ was the keynote value around which all exchange was based under the Managed Flexibility system. Gold was also pegged to the US$ value as a benchmark: Russia now sits on the largest potential poil and gas resource, globally: increasing number of industry analysts are stating that Russian reserves are in fact LARGER than Saudia's!: The New Wave global currency and capital centre will be Asia: China, India, Japan, Korea et al, need oil and gas MORE than the USA! The Asian industrial economies are growing and will grow far faster than any Western economy: The US Dollar is losing international credibility very rapidly indeed; hence the flights to gold and the Euro in the past 18 months: It is probable, near future, that ALL oil and gas liftings will be predicated in a mix of US dollar excluded currencies, founded on the Euro: It is probable, (now that he has garnered previously privately owned oil and gas assets - post the Boris the Boozer flog off - back to the state), that Vladimir Putin will .i. Join OPEC and .ii. Conjoin with an Sino-Arab pact to reorganise oil and gas assets and exploration away from US dominance: Simultaneously, an economic attack on the US dollar by China, Japan, Korea and Arab oil states (Petro-Dollars) "Dumping" US$ and buying a range of other more stable currencies, would destroy the USA without one shot fired. Whilst this might be seen as self-injury, in terms of capital value loss by the holders of the billons of dollars of paper, in the longer term they would be avoiding further capital depredation on their capital, as the dollar continues its slide on Forex markets. (Here, it has to be remembered that the US $ is a "Fiat" Currency: i.e. its value ias based on trust in the US Economy only. There is little real value backing, such as gold bullion reserves. Additionally, since US dollars can be "Internal" and "External" in treasury treatment, the external dollars save the USA circa 30% of its interest bill in funding its deficits. Just a 10% change to this component - it's called "seignorage", BTW - would cripple the US overnight!). The only "Friend" in the Middle East the USA currently enjoys is the Saudia Royal Family: desperate to maintain their feudal empire on the back of US military and technology support. However, the Saudias are seen as pariahs by every other major Arab-Islamic state. Their time cannot be far away. The USA is currently poised on a knife edge in global relationships, thanks to its idiot leaders, arrogance and the vaunting imperialist ambitions of its right wing. Iran would be a bridge too far!

US invasion of Iraq was seen to be fairly neutral by the Arab nations, since Hussein was not a member of their "Club". Iran is a wholly different case. Not necessarily. Don't forget that Iran is Shia, along with the majority of Iraq, and therefore when it comes to the crunch does not sit alongside Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Algeria etc as easily as might otherwise be assumed. Shia is only about 12% of the muslim population of the world, and if the hardline Sunnis (is there any other kind?) had their way Shia would be wiped out along with Israel.

Even the great divide between Sunni and Shi'ite perspectives would take second place to destruction of the global financial and trading hegemony of The Great Satan! Probably.......................... Otherwise, they would already be locked in martial conflict. Which they aint!

Otherwise, they would already be locked in martial conflict. Which they aint! Which they are in places where they 'co-exist', hence the constant killings in Iraq and Pakistan to name but two. Agreed there hasn't been any 'internecine' wars since Sunni controlled Iraq was scrapping with Iran, but it is an uneasy peace.

There is heightened tension in the area at the moment. The US is said to have removed its embassy from the Green Zone in Bagdad - an obvious target for Iranian missiles in the event of any conflict, while the Israelis are beefing up their forces along the Syrian border. Even the BBC has picked up that there is a lot of 'chatter' around and reports that Israel is trying to calm tensions in order to play things down: Israel calms fears of Syria conflict By Jon Brain BBC News, Jerusalem As Israelis awoke on Thursday they could have been forgiven for believing that another war with one of their Middle Eastern neighbours was both inevitable and imminent. The newspaper headlines warned of ''heightened tensions'' on the Syrian border. Syria was ''beefing up its forces'' and calling up its reservists, they said. In response, the Israeli military is "on high alert". The Israeli Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, has also cancelled a scheduled trip to Germany. A large-scale civil defence exercise will be staged next week and plans have been announced for giving civilians out gas masks which were collected for refurbishment two years' ago. Against this background, the military's Deputy Chief of Staff, Maj Gen Dan Harel, has given a warning to potential enemies. "Anyone who tries to harm Israel needs to keep in mind that Israel is the most powerful country in the region and its response will be hard and painful," he said. Hezbollah threat So are Israel and Syria squaring up to each other ready for a clash? As so often in the Middle East, the situation is not as straightforward as it appears. Any day now, the Syrian intelligence services are expected to deliver their report into the death of a senior Hezbollah commander, Imad Mughniyeh, in a car bombing in Damascus on 12 February. The Lebanese Shia movement has accused Israel of being responsible and sworn revenge, saying it is ready for "open war". If Hezbollah does succeed in carrying out an attack on an Israeli target, Syria knows it in turn could be the target of any reprisals by its neighbour. So, the apparent bolstering of its forces along the border is almost certainly a defensive move. However, the timing of all this is being seen as an indication that Hezbollah may have set a date to exact its revenge on behalf of Mughniyeh. Hence the warnings from the Israel threatening dire consequences for any group or nation that threatens it. 'Low risk' But having ramped up the rhetoric, Israel's politicians are now attempting to calm it down again. A spokesman for the Israeli government told the BBC that the reports of heightened tensions had been exaggerated by the media and insisted his country had no interest in conflict with Syria. "Israel is interested only in peace and tranquillity in the north," he said. Vice-Premier Haim Ramon said Israel had no intention of attacking Syria and that Syria had indicated it had no intention of attacking Israel. "So the risk of a military confrontation is very low," he explained. Tensions may remain on the Israel-Syria border, but it seems that, for now at least, neither country is itching for war.

reports that Israel is trying to calm tensions in order to play things down: That's an assumption based on an assumption.

What we can conclude, is that currently, the World is entering a highly dangerous phase in its history: perhaps the most dangerous. Why? Well, since weapons have never before been so technologically advanced and capable of exterminating so many in one throw. Next, economically if not socially, the World has become a global village, thanks to globalisation of markets and the instantaneous nature of communications. Finally, Western leaders have never ever been so divorced from their subjects (the term is used advisedly!) and so unaccountable. Perhaps finally, all societies have become amoral, driven by either greed or desperation. A heady and potentially disastrous mix! :roll:

For the record, in spite of the internet 'chatter' I don't believe that anything will happen for the next few weeks but I still think that the chances of something happening BEFORE the US elections are high.

Of course Sir P after the election would be far too late for the narrow self-interest focus of the Bush family, Carlisle Group, Halliburton et al, won't it! Nothing better than sticking the cost and ongoing problem of resolution on the Dems!

Nothing better than sticking the cost and ongoing problem of resolution on the Dems! Or John McCain... they don't like him either. Personally, I expect McCain to win, after all, the idiots that voted in Bush will be completely convinced that John McCain is, in fact, John McClane, aka Bruce Willis, and can, as a result of the entirely understandable and desirable confusion sort out absolutely anything in the world whilst wearing a string vest...!

Yippee ki yay, motherfucker!

I suppose philosophically, it doesn't matter who picks up the tab for the Bush family's additional fortune adding projects: all provided it aint them! What is a greater worry, of course, is the chaos they create in the rest of the World in their insane grab for more billions.