A Strike on Iran would signify the Beginning of an Epoch of Nuclear War

[laststeamtrain]

A Strike on Iran would signify the Beginning of an Epoch of Nuclear War

By Dmitriy Sedov

Global Research, February 10, 2007
Strategic Cultural Foundation (Russia)

In my paper entitled “2007: Opening a New Page in the World’s History”, published in September, 2006, I examined the possibility that a US strike on Iran using small-scale nuclear munitions would to be launched, and that the strike would become the beginning of an epoch of nuclear wars. There were various responses to the paper. Some authors, including recognized experts, doubted the possibility of such a development. At present, few people doubt that there will be a strike on Iran. Rather, the question is whether nuclear or conventional weapons will be used in the offensive.

In this context, I would like to present the following considerations.

1. An attack on Iran is motivated by nothing but the US domestic political expediency and the unlimited appetites of the country’s military-industrial complex. President G. Bush has no choice – his only option is a breakthrough. The problem does not originate from the total failure of his doctrine of the “war on international terrorism”. If the US political elite represented by Bush based its decisions solely on the estimates of the damage to its public image that might be caused by the fiasco of the global anti-terrorist campaign, it would have extremely serious reservations about starting a new regional war. However, they are motivated by something else – they need to continue Bush’s politics backed by a conglomerate of weapons suppliers, who established control over the country’s oversized military spending. Should Bush recognize being defeated and withdraw the US military forces from the Middle East, the Democrat’s elite would overtake the financial leverage, and a major redistribution of the military commissioning would follow. When such enormous funds are at stake, people’s lives and those of entire nations become tokens in the game. For these operations, the destiny of the Middle East and its nations means absolutely nothing, just as the lives of the Vietnamese and the Cambodians showered with napalm and defoliants meant nothing either. One must be naïve to suppose that the Pentagon machine will stop and miss the new incredibly high profits.

2. The coming war between the US and Iran has to conform to certain parameters defined a priori. The US is tired of Iraq, and the public opinion in the country is turning increasingly anti-war. Therefore, the offensive against Iran has to be swift and victorious. This will save Bush’s political group and give it a higher rating in the country. There can be no doubt that a successful aggression will make Bush extremely popular in the US – in this anti-Christian society the pagan god of victory has long taken the place of the Savior. A triumph will make the US public blind and deaf – it will remain unaware of the price of the US victory for the nations of the Middle East. The crucial circumstance is that only nuclear weapons can guarantee the US victory in this war. Knowing that the US failed to win even in Iraq, a country plagued by religious and ethnic strife, one cannot expect it to prevail in the united and spiritually strong Iran. Only the use of nuclear weapons can make it possible to cause severe damage to the Iranian control system hidden in bunkers and, importantly, to behead its leadership no matter how deep underground it might be hiding. Iran without its leaders and with a paralyzed system of control, with an army devastated by “baby nukes”, is the only option which suits the US - it agrees to talk about peace only to a totally subdued offender. Such talks would let the US leaders’ old dream of a Middle Eastern Disneyland, mastered by the US and Israel, come true.

<snip>

The question is – will such a “breakthrough” do G. Bush any good? The idea of attacking Iran was born in the primitive minds of those who, just for the sake of their profits, can sell the rope on which they will be hanged. This time it will be neither they nor their children who will perish in the nuclear Holocaust, and they’d rather not worry that by this they will take the entire mankind a step closer to the total catastrophe.

<more>

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SED20070210&articleId=4729

I don't mind saying that I spend some days nothing but scared.

[GreenTea]

1. Without a doubt in my mind.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I don't buy this analysis.

For starters, WHAT Democratic miltitary-industrial complex? The author seems to conceive of American politics as a game between a war machine fronted by Republicans and one fronted by Democrats.

Second, I don't think a swift victory is in the cards, even if we use nukes.

I gues, though, the fact that this analysis seems to be very much flawed doesn't mean that Shrub might use nukes. The only part he needs to be right on is Bushco's belief that they can win quick and big with nukes.

[NashVegas]

4. Think of the Capitalist Party, Less Than Dems v Pubs

Hilary is being treated with kid gloves by the press right now, and the main reason for this is her willingness to carry the spears.

I don't believe a swift victory is in the cards, either. I believe all hell will break loose, but I also believe that's what PNAC wants. An unstable country is one that is easily ridden over. This is something that has been known and practiced since the end of WW1. Great Britain, in particular, had a terrific way of pulling out of colonies in such a way that things were left unstable, to its strategic benefit.

[scarletwoman]

3. Why should our entire planet be hostage to these psycopaths?

How is that these madmen have control over the fate of millions of human beings? I can't stand it...

sw

[OneBlueSky]

5. and it doesn't seem to bother BushCo one little bit . . . n/t

.