IF IRANS FACILITIES ARE BOMBED

IF IRANS FACILITIES ARE BOMBED

GLOBAL RESEARCH

The Iran response includes activating trained cells within Lebanon’s Hezbollah; it includes activating considerable Iranian assets within Iraq, potentially in de facto alliance with the Sunni resistance there targeting the 135,000 remaining US troops and civilian personnel.

Iran’s asymmetrical response also includes stepping up informal ties to the powerful Hamas within Palestine to win them to a Holy War against the US-Israel ‘Great Satan.’ Alliance.

Israel faces unprecedented terror and sabotage attacks from every side and from within its territory from sleeper cells of Arab Israelis.

Iran activates trained sleeper terror cells in the Ras Tanura center of Saudi oil refining and shipping. The Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia around Ras Tanura contains a disenfranchised Shi’ite minority which have historically been denied the fruits of the immense Saudi oil wealth. There are some 2 million Shi’ia Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Shias do most of the manual work in the Saudi oilfields, making up 40 percent of Aramco's workforce.

Iran declares an immediate embargo of deliveries of its 4 million barrels of oil a day. It threatens to sink a large VLCC oil super-tanker in the narrows of the Strait of Hormuz, chocking off 40% of all world oil flows, if the world does not join it against the US-Israeli action. The strait has two 1 mile wide channels for marine traffic, separated by a 2 mile wide buffer zone, and is the only sea passage to the open ocean for much of OPEC oil. It is Saudi Arabia’s main export route.

Iran a vast, strategically central expanse of land, more than double the land area of France and Germany combined, with well over 70 million people, and one of the fastest population growth rates in the world, is well prepared for a new Holy War. Its mountainous terrain makes any thought of a US ground occupation inconceivable at a time the Pentagon is having problems retaining its present force to maintain the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations. World War III begins in a series of miscalculations and disruptions. The pentagon’s awesome war machine, ‘total spectrum dominance’ is powerless against the growing ‘assymetrical war’assaults around the globe.

Clear from a reading of their public statements and their press, the Iranian government knows well what cards they hold and what not in this global game of thermo-nuclear chicken.

Were the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis to risk launching a nuclear strike on Iran, given the geopolitical context, it would mark a point of no return in international relations. Even with sagging popularity, the White House knows this. The danger of the initial strategy of pre-emptive wars is that, as now, when someone like Iran calls the US bluff with a formidable response potential, the US is left with little option but to launch the unthinkable-nuclear strike.

There are saner voices within the US political establishment, such as former NSC heads, Brent Scowcroft or even Zbigniew Brzezinski, who clearly understand the deadly logic of Bush’s and the Pentagon hawks’ pre-emptive posture. The question is whether their faction within the US power establishment today is powerful enough to do to Bush and Cheney what was done to Richard Nixon when his exercise of Presidential power got out of hand.

It is useful to keep in mind that even were Iran to possess nuclear missiles, the strike range would not reach the territory of the United States. Israel would be the closest potential target. A US pre-emptive nuclear strike to defend Israel would raise the issue of what the military agreements between Tel Aviv and Washington actually encompass, a subject which neither the Bush Administration nor its predecessors have seen fit to inform the American public about.

Global Research Contributing Editor F. William Engdahl, author of ‘A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order,’ Pluto Press, is an Associate Editor of Global Research. He can be contacted via his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

Posted by Ted Belman at January 30, 2006 12:56 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/12304


Comments

1. Bill Levinson said:

"The Iran response includes activating trained cells within Lebanon’s Hezbollah; it includes activating considerable Iranian assets within Iraq, potentially in de facto alliance with the Sunni resistance there targeting the 135,000 remaining US troops and civilian personnel.
Iran’s asymmetrical response also includes stepping up informal ties to the powerful Hamas within Palestine to win them to a Holy War against the US-Israel ‘Great Satan.’ Alliance."


There is an excellent line from the movie The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The bandit Tuco Ramirez is in a bubble bath when his enemy comes in with a gun and makes a long-winded speech about how he has been waiting for this moment of revenge, and so on and so forth. Tuco then shoots him dead with a pistol he was holding under the bubbles and says, "If you have to shoot, shoot and don't talk."


If the Iranians could have done it, they would have done it. It's time for the U.S., Israel, and/or the United Kingdom to pull the trigger.

Posted by: Bill Levinson on January 30, 2006 01:53 PM

2. Charles Martel said:

Ted, are you being an agent provocateur by posting this guy Engdahl's garbage? Iran depends on oil exports far more than the West depends on their imports. Just how long does one imagine the mullahs would stay in power with 80% of Iranian export earnings, 50% of government spending, and 20% of total GDP eliminated via a self-imposed oil embargo?

Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski sane voices? Lol!

Posted by: Charles Martel on January 30, 2006 02:33 PM

3. Bill Narvey said:

Global Research Contributing Editor F. William Engdahl states in his article, "Were the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis to risk launching a nuclear strike on Iran, given the geopolitical context, it would mark a point of no return in international relations."

In making that statement, William Engdahl envisions that the Bush administration would find it necessary to make a nuclear strike. If that were the only option, I might be inclined towards the views of Scowcroft and Brzezinski to the extent of concerns with caution, though I reject their views as being borne of fear rather than strength and therefor find their way into the views of appeasement and accomodation.

A military option against Iran need not include a nuclear option, so long as that option is taken now as opposed to later.

I frankly do not understand why Engdahl fears that international relations will reach a point of no return, unless he inexplicably believess that the state of international relations is working well enough as is to deal with world problems in general and to counter the threat and perils from radical Islam that endanger the West.

Reaching the point of no return for current international relations and replacing that existing order with a new order for international relations that will allow the West to defeat all Islamic forces poised and acting against it both from outside and the 5th columns inside, cannot come too soon.

Posted by: Bill Narvey on January 30, 2006 03:28 PM

4. Ed D said:

Bill, you nailed it. We need to act now because sooner is a lot better than being beaten to the punch.

Posted by: Ed D on January 30, 2006 04:52 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)