Guest Post: Iran: Oh, No; Not Again

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by ChrisMartenson.com

Iran: Oh, No; Not Again

In each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010, significant worries emerged that Western nations might attack Iran. Here again in 2012, similar concerns are once again at the surface.

Why revisit this topic again? Simply because if actions against Iran trigger a shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world's daily sea-borne oil passes, oil prices will spike, the world's teetering economy will slump, and the arrival of the next financial emergency will be hastened. Even if the strait remains open but Iran is blocked from being an oil exporter for a period of time, it bears mentioning that Iran is the third largest exporter of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Once again, I am deeply confused as to the timing of the perception of an Iranian threat, right now at this critical moment of economic weakness. The very last thing the world economies need is a vastly increased price for oil, which is precisely what a war with Iran will deliver.

Let me back up. The US has already committed acts of war against Iran, though no formal declaration of war has yet been made. At least if Iran had violated US airspace with stealth drones and then signed into law the equivalent of the recent US bill that will freeze any and all financial institutions that deal with Iran out of US financial markets, we could be quite confident that these would be perceived as acts of war against the US by Iran.

And rightly so.

U.S. imposes sanctions on banks dealing with Iran

Dec 31, 2011

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama signed into law on Saturday a defense funding bill that imposes sanctions on financial institutions dealing with Iran's central bank, while allowing for exemptions to avoid upsetting energy markets.

The sanctions target both private and government-controlled banks - including central banks - and would take hold after a two- to six-month warning period, depending on the transactions, a senior Obama administration official said.

Sanctioned institutions would be frozen out of U.S. financial markets.

(Source)

The impact of this law was quite pronounced and immediate, with the Iranian rial falling sharply against the dollar in the first few days after the bill was signed into law.

Iran's rial falls to record low on U.S. sanctions

Jan 3, 2012

Jan 3 (Reuters) - The Iranian rial fell to a record low against the dollar on Tuesday following U.S. President Barack Obama signing a bill on imposing fresh sanctions against the country's central bank.

The new U.S. sanctions, if fully implemented, could hamper the world's major oil producer's ability to sell oil on international markets.

The exchange rate hovered at 17,200 rials to the dollar, marking a record low. The currency was trading at about 10,500 rials to the U.S. dollar last month.

Some exchange offices in Tehran, when contacted by Reuters, said there was no trading taking place until further notice.

"The rate is changing every second ... we are not taking in any rials to change to dollar or any other foreign currency" said Hamid Bakhshi in central Tehran.

(Source)

That represents a more than 70% decline in just a month. Assuming that Iran trades its oil in dollars, this will not necessarily cripple its economy, but the specter of hyperinflation looms large whenever a currency falls by that much. With hyperinflation comes economic, social, and political instability, and these are, of course, precisely the aims of the US in imposing the sanctions.  And of course, everything that Iran imports will become hideously expensive -- quite rapidly.

The US is deliberately poking and prodding Iran right now. Given the glacial pace of nuclear development, we must ask ourselves, why now?

The Story

As with most things today, there is a story created for public consumption that justifies waging war against Iran. The main narrative goes something like this: Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, and this is intolerable, so it must be stopped.

In November 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report, long denied under the prior director's tenure (Mohamed ElBaradei), finally declaring that Iran was unequivocally trying to build a nuclear weapon:

U.N. Agency Says Iran Data Points to A-Bomb Work

November 8, 2011

United Nations weapons inspectors have amassed a trove of new evidence that they say makes a “credible” case that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device,” and that the project may still be under way.

The long-awaited report, released by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday, represents the strongest judgment the agency has issued in its decade-long struggle to pierce the secrecy surrounding the Iranian program. The findings, drawn from evidence of far greater scope and depth than the agency has previously made public, have already rekindled a debate among the Western allies and Israel about whether increased diplomatic pressure, sanctions, sabotage or military action could stop Iran’s program.

(Source)

I've not yet read the report, but I am concerned about the gap between the headlines I've seen that say Iran is building a nuclear bomb and carrying out "activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device."  For example, much has been recently made of the fact that Iran has enriched some uranium to the 20% grade, but there is a huge leap between that and the 90%+ grade needed for a nuclear device.  Iran had told the world it needed the 20% grade for a medical reactor, and then created a fuel rod for that reactor.  To say that enriching to the 20% grade is the same thing as trying to build a bomb is not accurate and possibly deceptive.

As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) treaty, Iran has every legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, such as making nuclear fuel rods for a research reactor, and Iran is claiming that all their current work is towards this end.

Maybe it is; maybe not. But even if a nuclear bomb is being pursued, there's nothing in the NPT that provides for military action to pre-emptively prevent any nation-state from carrying out such development work. In fact, if a preemptive strike is carried out, it will be done without the benefit of any international laws or treaties that could justify the action. 

Also left out of the narrative is any explanation of why it was okay for Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons or why North Korea is permitted to hold them.

The simple answer is because they don't have any oil. A quick view of the US military presence surrounding Iran, coupled with the Iraqi experience of being attacked for supposed weapons of mass destruction that did not exist (nor were used by Iraq to threaten the US), reveals why Iran may be so motivated to develop a nuclear weapon:

If Iraq had a nuclear weapon in 2002, it is quite doubtful the US would have invaded -- a lesson that has not gone unnoticed.

While I am not a supporter of the current repressive theocratic regime in Iran, I strongly believe that it is up to the people of any nation to decide for themselves what sort of system they will choose to live under. The Arab Spring, as messy as it was, is vastly preferable to the blunt instrument of an externally driven war. 

The Curiosity

The most curious thing about this story is the apparent lack of awareness among US officials about how the oil markets work. I know they know better, but the context-free repetitions in articles such as this next one almost literally drive me crazy:

Geithner to Seek China’s Support on Iran

Jan 9, 2012

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner will urge Asia's two biggest economies to cut Iranian oil imports and seek to narrow differences with China on trade and currency disputes on a visit to Beijing and Tokyo this week.

(Source)

The idea that the world can just stop buying Iranian oil, as though it were the same thing as boycotting McDonald's and buying Burger King instead, is just ridiculous. The world oil markets are far too tight for that.

How is it that China is supposed to cut its Iranian oil imports, exactly?  Oil is a fungible product. If China cuts its oil imports from Iran, it will simply have to buy the missing amount of oil from someplace else. The 2.6 million barrels a day that Iran exports cannot simply be instantly replaced at this time from other spare capacity elsewhere in the world. It doesn't exist at the moment. Where will it come from?

Perhaps Geithner is offering something behind the scenes, like providing China with extra petroleum from the US strategic reserve while events unfold (unlikely). But barring that, it is a remarkably naïve request as it stands and is curious on its own.

The Powder Keg

With the Persian Gulf being so small, and so many tense parties crammed into that tiny arena, the chance of some sort of mischief arising is quite high. One twitchy trigger finger -- such as the one that caused the USS Vincennes, thinking it was under attack by a jet fighter in 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war, to shoot down an Iranian passenger airliner -- and the hounds of war may be let loose.

And it's not just the US. Practically everybody who's anybody has naval assets positioned for whatever may happen next:

Western forces react to Iran's Strait of Hormuz threat

Jan 9, 2012

TEHRAN, Jan. 9 (UPI) -- A buildup of Western naval forces in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea is a reaction to Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, military experts say.

U.S., Russian, French and British air and naval forces moved to the Syrian and Iranian coasts during the weekend, Israeli military intelligence Web site DEBKAfile reported Monday.

The Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov anchored earlier than planned at Syria's Tartus port on the Mediterranean Sunday, causing France to respond by consigning an air defense destroyer to the waters off Tartus, DEBKAfile reported. Canada also was sending a warship, the HMCS Charlottetown, to the Mediterranean where it would take over from the HMCS Vancouver.

Meanwhile, Britain has dispatched a missile destroyer to the Sea of Oman, due to arrive at the same time as the French Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier.

And the U.S aircraft carrier John C. Stennis and its strike group are cruising in the Sea of Oman at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz after Tehran announced it would not be allowed to cross through.

(Source)

With all those boats chugging around in those little bathtubs, and with various other forces that would definitely like to see a shooting war develop (a false flag attack is an option here), the risk is quite high of some form of incident that would trigger hostilities.

Of course, there are those in the war rooms of the various OECD countries who think they have a plan for the conduct of that war, but no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy. The one thing we can count on is the war being messier, longer, and more expensive by at least a factor of two than whatever is currently occupying the minds of the war planners.

Iran's Responses

Of course, Iran has been none too happy over the years at being surrounded, poked, prodded, and now finally sanctioned for having done nothing more than cloak its nuclear program in the exact same sort of secrecy that has surrounded literally every other nation's nuclear programs, including Israel and Pakistan, Iran's notable nuclear neighbors.

And now, with the aid of enhanced missile technology obtained from China and Russia, Iran has a credible threat to make:

Iran Has Ability to Block Strait of Hormuz, U.S. General Dempsey Tells CBS

Jan 9, 2012

Iran has the ability to block the Strait of Hormuz “for a period of time,” and the U.S. would take action to reopen it, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Martin Dempsey said.

“They’ve invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Strait of Hormuz,” Dempsey said in an interview aired yesterday on the CBS “Face the Nation” program. “We’ve invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that.”

Should Iran try to close Hormuz, the U.S. “would take action and reopen” the waterway, said Dempsey, President Barack Obama’s top military adviser.

(Source)

The admission here by the US military is that Iran has the ability to block the Strait of Hormuz "for a period of time," which they do, is an extraordinary admission (even if it really is stating the obvious) by the US brass.

Anti-ship missile technology has come a long way, and an offensive missile is much cheaper than either a large ship or defensive measures. The Falklands war in the early 1980s taught me that the navy is an outmoded concept if the opponent is armed with semi-decent anti-ship missiles, and such devices have improved remarkably since then.

During the most recent Iranian war exercises, the US military test-fired (more of a demonstration, really) their Qader anti-ship cruise missile, which has a range of 200 km and can be fired from a small truck. To visualize the difficulty of defending against such a technology, just imagine how many hiding places for a small truck might exist within this 200 km radius green circle :

In order to neutralize the entire missile, full air superiority would have to be established and every mobile launcher found and destroyed. 

Further, Iran has a number of submarines capable of firing a new breed of torpedo that can achieve speeds in excess of 200 knots. As far as I know, these are extraordinarily difficult to defend against, let alone evade. 

Of course, China is paying close attention to the developments:

Iranian authorities reiterate threats to close Hormuz Strait if sanctions imposed on oil exports

Jan 8, 2012

TEHRAN, Jan. 8 (Xinhua) -- Iranian authorities reiterated threats to close Strait of Hormuz if Western countries impose sanctions on Iran's oil exports, local media reported Sunday.

(Source)


Conclusion

Once again, regrettably and mysteriously, we find the developed world in lock-step in its eagerness to attack Iran. "Regrettably," because Iran has not threatened any other country, and war should never be used simply because the current art of diplomacy is inadequate. "Mysteriously," because this is a particularly horrible economic moment to go about risking much higher oil prices. 

While we judge the risks of a war, either precipitated by legitimate escalation of frictions or by illegitimate actors seeking to cause the same, to be very high, it is our view that such a war will not go according to plan.  Iran has many more powerful allies, namely Russia and China, than did the extraordinarily isolated Iraq at the beginning of the Iraq war. 

Is it too waggish to suspect that certain Western political powers would love to be able to both divert attention from the crumbling economy and have a scapegoat upon which to blame the next leg of the financial downturn? 

Regardless of such speculation, the risk to each of us and the economy in general from an attack on Iran that closes the Strait of Hormuz is large enough to warrant your attention. Should oil spike in price, you can practically set an egg timer for the beginning of the next leg of the financial downturn.

In Part II: Are You Prepared for $200 Oil?, we explore what likely havoc the high oil prices from a major conflict with Iran will wreak on the financial markets and our petroleum-dependent lifestyle. We also detail specific steps prudent individuals should be taking right now, in advance of such a crisis, to position themselves defensively.

Click here to access Part II of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access). 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

Iran better watch their next move because America is on RED ALERT. Israel will be protected at ALL COSTS, because they are a vital ally in the war on terror.

alien-IQ's picture

my only regret is that I cannot junk your post 1 million times.

drink or die's picture

You do realize he is just trolling you right?

 

Good article though, summing up the situation thus far for anyone with more than a 5 second attention span.

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Like the GOP candidates?

And by the way, Mitt has won!  He has won, because he won two primaries.  Count 'em!  Two.  He has captured 1/25th of America, and that is enough to take the cake.  That's what the news is saying, anyway.

MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

 

Good effort from Ron Paul coming second to Romney. However, he has to seriously work on his credibility before he can expect to get the nomination. The public are rightfully appalled at his radical policies such as:

1. Ending the war on terror and endangering millions of innocent Americans

2. Giving children access to dangerous drugs

3. Interfering with Monetary Policy and impeding this fragile recovery when millions of Americans are facing tough economic circumstances

 

economics1996's picture

I do not understand the support for Iran.  These mother fucker religious freaks killed American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.  If that is not a act of war what the fuck is.

Let these towel headed mother fuckers fry to death in their own hyperinflation, let the people of Iran be free, let the people of Iran put these religious freaks heads on pikes all over Iran for the people to see.

And I am not a Zionist.  Fuck Israel, fuck the Zionist pigs.  Let Israel fight their wars.  Stop all foreign aid to Israel.  Zero aid to Israel

All I am saying is Iran has had a payback coming its fucking way ever since 1979, and the mother fuckers are getting it.  And the rest of you ZHers tighten the fuck up.

economics1996's picture

We lost good people because these mother fucker pig shit eating Iranians supported the insurgency.  These bastards can rot in hell.

Spirit Of Truth's picture

Iran is simply a bishop in the global chess game of Real Politik being played by the Kremlin.  The Russians are grand masters at the game while Americans can hardly hold up in a game of checkers.

http://thespiritoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-do-you-fail-to-heed-me....

 

"THE FAILURE OF U.S. POLICYMAKERS TO COMPREHEND THE VEILED AGGRESSIVENESS AND HOSTILITY TOWARDS THE UNITED STATES INHERENT IN SINO-SOVIET STRATEGY AND THE BELIEF THAT THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REFORMS IN RUSSIA AND THE PARTIAL INTRODUCTION OF CAPITALISM IN CHINA HAVE FORESHADOWED THESE COUNTRIES' DEVELOPMENT INTO REAL DEMOCRACIES, HAVE ERODED THE EFFECTIVENESS OF U.S. POLICIES IN THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENSE, INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE FIELDS. U.S. POLICYMAKERS HAVE RECKLESSLY ACCEPTED THE PREMISE THAT RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE NO LONGER ENEMIES, BUT ARE RATHER POTENTIAL ALLIES AND PARTNERS FULLY DESERVING OF U.S. SUPPORT. ONLY COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN, (PRE-2003) IRAQ AND NORTH KOREA - WHICH (IRONICALLY, IN THIS CONTEXT) WORK SECRETLY WITH RUSSIA AND CHINA - ARE STILL CONSIDERED POTENTIAL ADVERSARIES." 

KGB DEFECTOR ANATOLIY GOLITSYN, THE PERESTROIKA DECEPTION, 1995, P.230 

trav7777's picture

Uh...the Soviets don't exist anymore

JPM Hater001's picture

FYI- The side banner ad rotation was for your "dream Russian woman."

Hey baby...the dream is over but you are welcome to come to the country that helped destroy your parent 2 decades before it followed them into the gutter...for the same exact reason.

JPM Hater001's picture

For $2.99 the is a site that sells Bumper Stickers that say: I support what you said in response to Trav7777

I'm going to grin just a little about that one as I fall asleep.

Hober Mallow's picture

A guy asks me:

Why shouldn't Iran have a nuclear weapon? Israel has it. Why does Israel think it needs a nuclear weapon and Iran doesn't. Why should Israel have nukes in the 1st place?

This guy, it seems to me, lacks imagination. Why shouldn't Iran have a nuclear weapon? Well, because it's an anti-democratic theocracy that menaces its neighbors, oppresses its own people, and calls for the destruction of another Middle Eastern state. It is profoundly anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-Sunni. It is in the American national interest to see Iran denied nuclear weapons.  Nuclear weapons are dangerous. They are especially dangerous in the hands of totalitarian regimes, especially with fuck-heads like Ahmadineyad. These regimes should be discouraged from acquiring them, with ever-greater intensity.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

It is in the American national interest to see Iran denied nuclear weapons.

 

The Pentagon says Iran has no such weapons. Sending our boys to die for a lie is not in America's interests. What country are you from?

BorisTheBlade's picture

 

KGB DEFECTOR ANATOLIY GOLITSYN

Being on the hit list back home and officially considered traitor in Russia, Golytsin would be ready to say anything that appease Western fears towards Russia to justify his value. He has been out of the loop in terms of insider information within KGB ever since he defected, to suggest there was no change in strategy, especially post his defection is delusional. He might provide some insight as to the methods of KGB, but he is likely clueless as to the final goals, especially these days. Russia and China may cooperate, but sense of mutual distrust is rooted deeply in their relations and this is part of the reason Nixon was successful in bringing China closer to the West back in 70s.

Betty Swallsack's picture

 

There are more FEMALE serving soliders in China than the ENTIRE US population.  Wrap your noggin around that.  Now lets add into the mix; Russians, Iranians and Pakistanis.  Is war with Iran really worth it?

Then there is the fact that US debt is at an astronomical level and who, in their right mind, would fund such a senseless war that would see the US slip even deeper into the red?  There is already no escape from the current US debt level and the US doesn't want to/can't pay it's creditors already.   Then there is the other simple fact that, due to NAFTA, US manufacturing has been offshored and there would be no way to keep supply chains open after the bombing, er, WW3 starts up. 

Citing those facts, would it be any wonder that the shooting match would be started with the US using nukes in hopes of bringing a quick demise to any retaliation by all aforementioned nations?

Now, for your viewing pleasure....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMS70mgrAcE&feature=player_embedded

 

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

The Iraqi insurgents were mainly Sunnis. The government which the US installed in Iraq is Shiite. Iran is Shiite.  Iran is a natural ally of the Iraqi government, not the insurgents.

But don't let the facts confuse you.

dubbleoj's picture

uh, we lost good people cuz we've been fucking with them for a century

Betty Swallsack's picture

Adding 'fuel' to econ1996's fire...

Did you know that by law the US guarantees israel's oil supply - no matter what?

...even if it causes US a DOMESTIC SHORTAGE???

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/4504


e_goldstein's picture

Why we aren't trading pistashios for whatever the fuck the US produces these days, I have no idea.

 

fnord88's picture

"2. Giving children access to dangerous drugs"

 

Not sure you can blame Ron paul for the pharmaceutical industry pushing Ritalin and Prozaic onto children.

 

Oh, you meant illegal drugs like marijuana? Can't have cheap, effective medicine that competes with big pharma now can we? I mean, marijuana doesn't even have a lobby group lining politicians pockets, which is obviously the best way to determine which drugs work best.

SixFeetFromTheHedge's picture

1. The war on terror is creating more terrorists than it murders. Why? Because terrorists don't just decide one day to blow themselves up, they have seen their mothers and fathers slain by the Americans and have nothing to lose but to get revenge.

2. Weed is not dangerous, go follow the example of Holland, where the crimes/suicide/depression/school flunk-out/prisoner rates are much much lower than in USA

3. Ron Paul is the ONLY one who can save the USA NOW by letting it slip into a recession so that USA can rebuild itself. If Ron Paul is not elected then USA is condemned to endure the painful heart-wrenching depression that eventually has to come (and sooner than you think)

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Behind the checks in your mouth and i won't cum in your mailbox.

The US war on terror  breeding terrorists comes in a close third in incredibly ludicrous myths.

Zero evidence, no present day or historical evidence in the slightest and given the incredibly juvenile train of thought, such offspring of lets say the Japanese should be of age to start launching banzai attacks anyday now. Not only were they targetted militarily but they were subjected to internment camps.

and likewise Holland has banned numerous strains of weed? Did they do that because of the benign effects?

and lastly, sure and Obama was the messiah last time.

supporting a guy who has not once limited the power of the government despite being there for an eternity.

 

dubbleoj's picture

*cough IRAN-CONTRA cough!*

i do believe there are several pictures of brezinski chilling out with bin laden back in the day. perhaps to say, start a militant group?

and internment camps in the 1940's american country-side arent exactly the same as getting your jaw blown off by "humanitarian bombing" when your just a kid. gotta earn that nobel peace prize

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzOM6wkS89A&feature=share

trav7777's picture

holland doesn't have many blacks, so they will necessarily have less people in jail and less crime than the USA

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

The American justice system targets black disproportionately. Just ask Catherine Austin Fitts or Ron Paul. Take a conservative's word for it.

CompassionateFascist's picture

Actually, the Black Undertow is responsible for an enormous disproportion of the violent crime in America. That's why there's such a disproportion of blacks cycling thru the revolving door. Why? Black communities, Black families, Black values destroyed - purposefully - by the Jew welfare/illfare state. Its called: creating a captive group entitlement. Violent blacks function as anti-white stormtroopers. For example, each day an average of 100 white girls and women are variously raped, murdered, or raped and murdered by young black males. Reason you don't hear about it - cf. Knoxville Horror - is Jew media smothering the stories. But when a white man rapes or murders a black woman, it's coast-to-coast screaming headlines. Or would be, if it ever happened. Annual FBI stats on white-on-black rape: Zero (O). Of course, there's always the Duke Lacrosse players...oh, wait, that one didn't happen either.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

It's not the Jews but the Democrats who have made the black population dependent on subsistence level welfare.

MrTown3's picture

lol...just how little is your dick?

MrTown3's picture

well at least you and your wife have something in common...you're obsessed with us...

Manipuflation's picture

Dangerous drugs?  You mean like Vioxx, et al?  I would not lay that one on Ron Paul.  Would you like a nice warm can of STFU?

AldousHuxley's picture

Ron Paul doesn't have to win the election battle to win the war.

Ron Paul knows he will never shut down the Fed. Even North Korea's communist regime has a central bank. However, by taking such extreme views, he gets heard and he gets his message out: FED IS CORRUPT

 

Same with the whole election thing. Ron Paul is not approved by the establishment. But he is being heard now and is shaping the dialogue. He is reaching out to those who were ignorant and helping people get off of the Mass controlled Media and search for truths themselves. Ron Paul has already has won. He got millions of everyday Americans to THINK!

 

No matter who wins the election, an open educated mind cannot be reversed. Just like you and I were motivated to come to seek the truth on ZH, Ron Paul has installed the seeds of inquisition.

ArgentDawn's picture

I dig your sarcasm, fear not...

LOL give children access to dangerous drugs? Yeah, because stealing my mom's xanax & ritalin was always so difficult.

Hohum's picture

Much less than 1/25th of America, as measured by registered voters.

Hober Mallow's picture

I hope he is not. Israel is the last bastion of Western civilization (I meant civilization, period) in that part of the World. We need to defend them. We also need to secure the oil of the region and to keep arabs split between them so that the US can maintain a strong negotiation hand in the region.

An attack at this point becomes necessary. Lets try to get them to attack 1st so we get the right excuse to blow them away. No invasion required, just air superiority and infrastructure damage. The rest should be finished by Iran's own people that are already pissed off with the ayatollahs anyway.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

And when you disagree with American politicians you wish that some foreign army would bomb the US for our freedom, right? I mean you do unto others as you would have them do unto you, don't you?

Hober Mallow's picture

When you disagree with politicians in America, you vote them out. That is one of the niceties of the West. No need to bomb anything.

Dont equate the West to the rest of the world. You can't, its not the fckn same thing.

Accept that there are qualitative advantages. Don't be affraid to say "better" ... "we are better", you can say it, its a free society that allows you to think and say it. It may sound politically incorrect in this weakened culture but it is not: we are better.

 

gmrpeabody's picture

You do realize that you are muscling in on MillionDollarBonus's territory!

Tompooz's picture

A  thoughtful article like this (thanks for reminding us all of that medaled Vincennes captain who shot down the scheduled IranAir flight to Dubai) and the AIPAC trolls come out in force. 

Hey, what's the pay-per-word?

Yousif's picture

The pay is actually surprisingly good.  Here's a glimpse:

Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook

From: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/o6db9/israeli_students_to_ge...

Hober Mallow's picture

thats much better than promising virgins in ayatollah heavens!

mick_richfield's picture

My hope for Israeli propagandists is exactly the same as my hope for myself.

I hope that we will all get exactly what we deserve, and soon.

Demologos's picture

Thanks for noticing.  Looking downthread, it is hasbara night for sure!  They are itching for a ZH-style ass-whupin'.  If we don't tolerate the phony right-left paradigm pushers, why should we put up with AIPAC jack-offs? 

AldousHuxley's picture

Ironically, victory over Iran would mean loss of US support for Israel.

 

Iran colonialization would give US complete control over the Middle East. US would no longer need a base in Israel to stage another offensive. US would leave Israel behind for they no longer serve any purpose.

 

 

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I'm not afraid to say that I'm a far better and more intelligent person than you are. Proud of me?

disabledvet's picture

Sometimes we need to bomb things as well. Still...your sentiment is much appreciated!

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Sometimes we need to bomb things as well.

 

Then expect others to feel the same way and target you back.

Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Like the USS Cole or maybe the first WTC attack?

or maybe the African embassy, or one of the disco bombings,

or the endless list of others?

How many attacks did Al Qaeda target the US exactly over how many decades before there was something beyond some missiles landing in dirt in the Bekkah Valley as a response?

Uh yea.