US should think twice about Attacking Iran

Obama should think twice about Iran More and more each day appears that the US is inching its way closer to an armed conflict with Iran -- something I think will hurt the US more than Israel in the long term. All because the big bully on the block, Israel is purported to be “facing grave danger.” This is mainly being promoted by Zionist from everywhere this side of the Pecos River. My question is why do we have to defend Israel, a nation with the largest army and only nuclear arsenal in the region?
We all are well aware of the fact that Israel is no friend of Iran, or of any other Islamic and predominantly Arab state in the region. Thus, Israel is the one making trouble yet they want the present administration to decide to launch a pre-emptive war in what are probably the world’s most volatile environs.

If history is any guide, we should be very careful about deciding to attack Iran. Prior to WW 2 it was the Germans who convinced the "enlightened civilization" that it only wants to execute its rights. But one war led to another and country upon country was invaded including France, Belgium, Netherlands and other countries. Now it is Israel, and they will only be happy until all of the other Arab nations are not just a threat, but nonexistent for like Germany, their goal is not defensive but an aggressive offence to conquer the entirety of Middle East Asia.

True, it is hard to assess whether to “confront” or to “contain” Iran without examining more than 300 years of contemporary Iranian history, in concert with the history of conflict in the Middle East throughout modern times. Then we must decide and determine if possible what are we trying to prevent or contain them from doing? Otherwise we will formulate policy, which has become customary, based on anger, fear and hatred singularly. Even worse, one based on Israel must not be allowed to drive the world into chaos, just because it wants to. We need to protect AMERICA's interests, first, last, and always, and America's interests do not include shedding more blood for Israel or carrying their water for them. We lost too many American lives already to satisfy Israel's demands over Iraq. But, apparently, we have learned nothing from Iraq, and Israel doesn't care as long as they get their own way.

The only difference now is that the false flag of preventing a nation from self-determination in the form of developing nuclear capability is the issue. Albeit both the US and Israel have such capabilities and past history reveals that the US vowed that Pakistan or North Korea would never be allowed to possess Nuke. Why should it be different with Iran?

Factually, given our present quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan and our bombing of our present alley Pakistan daily, a confrontation with Iran would also last for years and possibly crush America's economy – especially for the average American. Thus any form of military intervention at all in Iran means that the American taxpayer should be ready to pay $5 plus for a gallon if a war breaks out in the Strait of Hormuz. We are already in a recession at best and depression at worse and hyperinflation is everywhere we look.

Next, we must try and anticipate what will happen as a function if either side wins. After WW II, half of Europe ended up being given to the Soviets. Then due to our wasteful war effort in Iraq, in essence we have succeeded nearly half of this state to Iran. For both of these operation we as a nation have nothing really to show for it, except ending up in bed with the most treacherous leaders in modern times the likes of Mubarak, Pavlavi, House of Saud, Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Assad and yes, the Likud.

The current administration still has Kool-Aid pumping through its veins. Sure, they went into Libya and are now selling wolf tickets about Syria; but the US needs to think about these actions and the global political consequences. We need to stop demanding that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad step down and cease the threats because it shows hypocrisy when we decide and shout to the world who we think should step down from the position of a head of a state, in particular when we aren’t prepared to remove that person. And talking about democracy when to suggest the aforementioned is in contradiction of our own values.

Also, who cares if Israel is our strongest ally in the region, forget a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: the US government should only have that strong of commitment to the US. If they don’t how we do our thing then stop giving them loot. We should stick to our guns that Netanyahu and Israel should use the 1967 borders should be a basis for negotiating of a Palestinian state. And for those who believe that Israel is our friend, they are not and only care about Israel first – even before the US unlike the US. In the past, they have attacked one of our naval ships, killed our sailors, spied on us, and treat us like a vassal state.

I say let’s us pack up the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, and send them to Israel and let them fight their on war. If they do, and if Israel attacks, the United States may get drawn into a war that could set the Middle East further aflame and no telling how bad global markets will get.
Iran is a country of 80 million people, compared with about 30 million in Afghanistan or Iraq. Its territory of 1.65 million square kilometers, including deserts and rugged mountains, gives it impressive strategic depth compared to Israel, which exists on 20,000 square kilometers. Even to attack Iran by air, .Israel would have to strike Iran's four major nuclear sites. The most direct path to do so is across Jordan and Iraq. Will Jordan allow Israel to fly over? Then, Israeli pilots have to fly more than 1,600 kilometers refueling in the air, fighting off Iran's air defense, while attacking multiple underground sites at the same time.

Moreover, Iran is a major oil producer located right by the most critical petroleum and gas supply lines in the world, from the Strait of Hormuz in the south to the Caspian Sea in the north. I’m lost that military intervention is even being considered, because if it happens, it will introduce a whole new destabilizing reality into the Middle East.

And although the US will try not to have a land war, we can’t tell what will happen, or know the outcome. Will it be a war of attrition or an all-out invasion? We do know it will be long, money wasting, US war in the Middle East? We cannot forget that in Europe in 1914, a small and unexpected event began the First World War. Obama really needs to think carefully about this. The sad reality is if America and our national security and safety were placed first – we would not attack Iran. However, he has learned from Bush, who has had US in Iraq for more than 10 years and resulted in a sustained US military presence for 11 years an in Afghanistan as we speak.

Will our Next War Be in the South Pacific With China?

Okay, I didn’t want to but I feel as if it is my duty. Reason waits for no one to present timely analysis in a world in which billions of dollars are spent to wage war on emotions such as terrorism in places like Somalia alone, when poverty continues to expand and metastasize by leaps and bounds her at home. Nor could I wait for common televised media outlets to present breaking news, seeing they are two days behind print media, which is two days behind the internet. Not to mention it is obvious the televised media’s goal is identical to the rule of oppression, based on the incessant rash of treatments inundated with coverage of George Zimmerman, the secret service and any one of several reality shows purporting to display talent, it is unthinkable that the presentation of actual news content is important or possible.

What am I speaking of, well it deals with China and the Philippines and a possible new war on the horizon between the US and China. I have been leery of this possibility for sometimes. Specifically ever since President Obama decided to ramp up U.S. alliances and bases across Asia and in the Pacific. The President basically asserted that the US start to focus on Asian security risks including China and North Korea, which have over the past decade taken a back seat to Iraq and Afghanistan. From this perspective, the United States will maintain large bases in Japan and South Korea and deploy U.S. Marines, navy ships and aircraft to Australia's Northern Territory. It also deals with, if necessary, to be in a position to counter possible efforts by China and Iran to block U.S. capabilities in areas like the South China Sea and the Strait of Hormuz. In essence, this was Obama’s presentation at a special trip to the Pentagon this past January. It was basically his post-Iraq, post-Afghanistan defense strategy.

During his Asian tour, Obama signaled the opening of a military base in Darwin and possibly one in the Philippines. Although we have solid ballistic missile defense co-operation with Japan is well advanced, this has more to do with North Korea and China.

Now things are increasingly becoming more on edge. Just this week the Philippines announced it would be seeking add

itional US military help during top-level talks next week, as it becomes more involved with China over a territorial dispute. Calling on a treaty signed in 1951, Philippines Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario indicated the desire for United States to help it achieve a “credible” defense system. The treaty calls on both sides to come to each other’s aid in times of external attacks. Currently the island nation is in disagreement with Beijing over rival claims to the West Philippines Sea (South China Sea). China claims all of the West Philippine Sea as a historic part of its territory, even waters close to the coasts of the Philippines.

Over the past few weeks, armed vessels from the Philippines and China have faced off at the Scarborough Shoal. The consequences for the US if this occurs would be another undeclared war we would be dragged into; especially if Manila gets its way and obtains the coast guard vessel and F-16 fighter jets it recently requested. The Philippines is leading a push within the 10-member Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) to take a united stand over regional maritime disputes, including the Spratly Islands, an archipelago in one of the world’s busiest stretches of water.

Then there are other geopolitical concerns involved. The Philippines' Malampaya and Camago fields are estimated to hold 4.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and are in waters currently claimed by China. To top it off, as you read this, the US and the Philippines are engaged in annual joint military exercises that have involved 4,500 U.S. soldiers and 2,500 from the Philippines.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced these intentions a week before the start of April, which he said showed US commitment to the strategically vital Asia-Pacific region. But such was in the work as early as last December when the Obama Administration signaled plans for the deployment of 2,500 Marines to Darwin, Australia. Darwin is also an intriguing choice since it is part of a growing energy hub where companies including Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) are planning to spend more than a $150 billion ($156 billion) to develop offshore natural gas fields.

Given all of the aforementioned, it may not be farfetched to suggest a possible future military conflict with China. Already the Chinese state media has advanced that President Barack Obama is doing all of this to distract from US economic woes, which is logical seeing that the Pentagon is placing more troops in the region than at any time since World War II, with military outpost surrounding all of China’s eastern border (the U.S. is sending 4,700 Marines to Guam, creating the largest deployment of troops to the Pacific since World War II). Meanwhile, China is rapidly expanding its naval power and increasing its presence in the South China Sea.

/div>
Moreover, an ironic observation is that China is also increasing its naval power and their new the refurbished Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag is almost fully operational. In concert with a new seaport being built by the Philippine government in the Spratly islands, in which such would be the first step in creating a mini-naval base for U.S. and Philippine troops, we could see more action sooner than later. In particular with Vietnam and the Philippines beginning to develop stronger military ties with the US.

Last year Chinese ships confronted a Philippine oil-exploration ship as well as cut a Vietnamese oil-exploration vessel’s survey cable. In response, Vietnam later conducted a live-fire naval drill in the area. China has also expressed its concerns over statements made by the US chief of naval operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, that China’s rising capability could limit US access to the South China Sea and that Washington would continue its efforts to ensure freedom of navigation there. The comments were interpreted by some observers as confirming that the US has sided with the ASEAN claimants.

The installation in the Spratly islands could also be used as a jumping-off point for counterterrorism operations in the Palawan region of the southern Philippines. The area is home to the Abu Sayyaf, an Islamic terror groups with ties to al Qaeda. Some early reports from France suggest the new facility on Pagasa Island will be the new home for thousands of U.S. Marines scheduled to leave Okinawa within the next two years.

All of this sounds similar, a military buildup in the name of counter acting emotion in the name of terrorism; making enemies we don’t need, with a nation that hold the largest portion of U.S. debt, 68 cents for every dollar or about $10 trillion; and a currency battle that is still in the frying pan, all makes sense to me – our next war will probably in the South Pacific.

Obama Administration Desire for Iranian conflict not well thought out

Unlike some folks, I remember the day the people of Iran overthrew the Shah of Iran in 1979. Looking at our current contrived grievance with Iran, I wonder if our current administration does. Over the past year, due to the omnipotent pressure and power of the US Zionist lobby, we have seen multiple military attacks on Iran nuclear facilities and even the kidnapping and assassination of leading Iranian academics and scientist. We have even seen pressure placed on democrats by this lobby in particular, the loss of the New York 9th district congressional seat vacated by Anthon Weiner, to such an extent that the present administration sent bunker buster bombs to Israel to appease their supporter. In fact just this New Year, Obama signed into law sanctions against Iran oil exports. I guess it was designed to show America’s Jewish lobby and Israel that we are hard on Iran.

I have been taking my time writing on this because I want to see how all the chips fall. Just last week Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner attempted to get Chinese policy makers to join an American-led campaign to reduce oil exports from Iran because of its nuclear program. However like Russia, they have rejected to participate in the US/European sanctions or the oil embargo directed toward the Persian nation. This will be problematic since it will be the Treasury Department responsibility to enforce sanction laws, especially given that the new legislation, which would prevent access by nations who do not support sanctions on Iran to the American financial system. Although loop holes in the law allow for selected exemptions, in all honestly, I do not think that the President, just as presidents past, is ready for this may proffer in an election year or to our economy. Currently, China's trade surplus with the United States widened 24.2 percent to $17.4 billion in December.

China exports $1.5 trillion of its production and ships 20% of its exports to the U.S., which created a $252 billion trade deficit in 2010.Not to mention that as of last year China owned $1.16 trillion in U.S. debt in the form of Treasury bills, notes and bonds - 26% of the total of $4.5 trillion held by the public. Consequently, this makes China is America's largest banker, giving it leverage over the US as evident when China threatens to sell part of its holdings whenever the U.S. pressures it to raise the value of the yuan. It is no wonder that the U.S. trade deficit with China in 2010 was 27 times larger than it was back in 1990.

Another concern is that some fear Russia fears Israel is pushing America to war on Iran “which could retaliate by blocking” Persian Gulf oil shipments. It is clear that Russia will do what it perceives as necessary to protect its strategically important Tartus, Syria base, its only Mediterranean one (there is as we speak a Russian aircraft carrier battle group is positioned nearby). Then we have 15,000 combat troops in Kuwait, inclusive of two Army infantry brigades and a helicopter unit along with two aircraft carrier battle groups remains in the region.
It is clear that the Obama policy is another political divertissement of imperious old men who have never been to war and like to say they have a right to prevent other nations from self determination, especially when it comes to developing nuclear power. Even it is in the form of weapons, history shows that the only folk who have used nuclear weapons have been the United States. So important is this that we will assist in the assignation of scientist – an act that if implemented by the Taliban or Iranians we would call terroristic. Now we have even indicated to them that any effort to control their own geopolitical borders via the Strait of Hormuz would evoke a swift response from the US military. France’s Le Figaro said “the US and Israel have carried out multiple acts of sabotage against sensitive nuclear installations, while ordering targeted killings of Iranian nuclear experts.” Meaning that both Israeli and US recruit Iranian assets to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program, “which includes targeted assassinations of Iranian nuclear experts….”Again strange since we say one reason we are hard on Iran is because they are a vehicle for state sponsored terrorism.

As it stands, Obama will likely find some excuse to save face, and maybe even attack Iran. As we speak, he is trying to gain support from Middle East allies in preparation for an impending US-Iranian confrontation. This is hard to understand for two reasons. First, we just got out of Iraq and are trying to get out of Afghanistan, why do we want another war so soon with a country of 75 million in which historically, sanctions have never worked. Moreover we as a nation cannot distance our self from targeted assassinations and other subversion in Iran.
He may as well give up on any support from China and when they and Russia do not go along, he will have do-do on his face because he will be powerless to do anything against them: Russia could damage our economy by artificially raising the price of crude oil and China by stop purchasing our debt and/or selling US papers in bulk causing more devaluation of the dollar. I hope the Obama administration thinks this out, for every indication suggest that Washington, Israel and NATO allies cannot wait to bump heads with Iran and Syria. This even when the fact remains that no evidence whatever suggests an Iranian nuclear weapons program, according to the latest March 2011 US intelligence assessment.

Strange, since while the White House is plotting against Tehran, the living standards of the American working class continue to fall. According to Reuters, 23.7 million American workers are either unemployed or underemployed right now. I can figure out why spending billions on another military effort (war) is more important than spending that money here at home where it is needed.