Friday, January 27, 2012

Why Iran Won't Back Down and When Might War Between the U.S. and Iran Occur?

by Michael S. Rozeff


Which state, the U.S. or Iran, more likely wants a war with the other? It's the side that thinks it benefits from such a war. That side is the U.S. If this war begins, it will be entirely because the U.S. wants it and has decided that the time is right to instigate it or elicit actions from Iran that provide excuses for instigating it. Any U.S.-Iran war will be entirely the doing of the U.S.

Here's how we know this. Iran has nothing to gain because it will lose such a war, its power being so much less than the U.S. This is why Iran has tolerated, so far and to a remarkable degree, the intrusions of U.S. subversions and covert activities in Iran, the assassinations of scientists, the computer disruptions, the embargos, the sanctions, the U.S. warships, the U.S. threats, and the U.S. troops being placed nearby. By contrast, the U.S., in the view of the neoconservatives who are running foreign policy, stands to gain quite a lot, namely, undisputed hegemony over the Middle East, control of a country perched on central Asia, control of oil, support for Israel, and a rise in global dominance more generally. Therefore, when and if such a war starts, no matter by what incidents it is triggered, we can be 100% certain that the U.S. has caused and precipitated this war because it, not Iran, is the state that foresees the benefits of such a war.


There are costs, however, and these are restraining the U.S. from instigating this war at this time. These include war costs of several kinds, since Iran is not a pushover. Iran, if pushed into a war by the U.S., can respond in nearby regions, such as Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Saudia Arabia, and the Persian Gulf. It can conceivably draw Russia into the war, or perhaps Pakistan. The U.S. will win a war with Iran, but it does not expect an easy win. If it did, it would already have started the war. The war on Libya was a recent warm-up exercise that shows what air power can do in this day and age, but Iran's forces are more formidable.

We can expect that military advisors to the U.S. will tend to be against war with Iran because of these costs, but that under enough pressure they will yield. Another cost is that oil will rise in price steeply, and this will derail economic activity in Europe, the U.S., and elsewhere. Economic advisors to the U.S. will tend to be against war with Iran for this reason, but they too will yield under enough pressure because, like the military leaders, their positions are secure and others will bear the responsibility of starting such a war.

The U.S. will attempt to restrain Israel from causing a war on its own until the U.S. leadership thinks that these costs have become bearable and/or that the U.S. is in a position to beat Iran rather quickly and not have to endure a long war.

Since Iran does not want war with the U.S. and since its forces are what are deterring the U.S., Iran has a powerful incentive to build up its military forces in ways that deter the U.S. and make an easy victory unlikely. This is why Iran issues threats of its own, so that the U.S. will think twice and continue to hold off from attacking Iran, which Washington is ready to do as soon as it thinks the costs of doing so are bearable. This is why Iran continues to develop its missile capabilities. This is also why it makes sense for Iran to take the necessary preparatory steps toward developing a nuclear warhead that can be carried on a missile. No doubt it understands how to manufacture a nuclear bomb and has come a long way in understanding how to ignite explosives simultaneously so as to create the nuclear explosion within. The U.S., in a very real way, is causing Iran to pursue this nuclear development course if only to prevent a U.S. attack and to preserve its own power as a state. And certainly the sanctions imposed by the West for many years now and the concurrent threat of U.S. attack are causing Iran to bolster its military forces so as to deter the U.S.

Read the rest here.

36 comments:

  1. Our government wouldn't instigate a war! It's a shiny city on a hill! LoL!

    ReplyDelete
  2. So it would be a tragic error to remove a repressive totalitarian regime of fundamentalist fanatics from Iran and eliminate a nuclear threat to the US and global security? :))) You people (the isolationist and anti-interventionist, i.e. "ronpaulite" brand of libertarians - there are, thanks God, other kinds too :) ) are as much the fith column of the free world as the communists, the fascists or the anarchists, it's just that most people don't realize it because (and I'm not an exception there) they like the economic segment of your ideas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So bankrupting the country while breeding new enemies like a pack of horny rabbits is the strategy you recommend?

      Delete
    2. So bankrupting the country while breeding new enemies like a pack of horny rabbits is the strategy you recommend?

      Delete
    3. 1) There is zero evidence they are building a nuclear weapon.
      2) Howmany innocent civilians will we murder when we intervene into Iran? We killed over 100,000 in Iraq.
      3) How about we start by removing our own totalitarian regime first? Oh wait, you probably don't think we have a totalitarian regime with a dictator who can assassinate whoever he wants at his own will without trial and has done so already.
      4) Okay, maybe you're starting to lean more toward the non-interventionist position now. So how about just sanctions instead of war? Yes, let's impoverish and starve the innocent people of the country and give their rulers a reason to blame us for their suffering and stifle any chance for revolution the people really have!

      Delete
    4. Iran building nuclear weapons? Right, just like Iraq supposedly was when the US and UK invaded suggesting they had nuclear capability "within 45 minutes". They found no nuclear weapons in Iraq it was all a complete smokescreen to gain control of oil (US now imports 50% of its oil from overseas). Tony "Bliar" and Bush started the war for no reason. The UK population would be against war i hope the politicans at least listen this time instead of ignoring the 100s of thousands of demonstrators who went to central london before the last Iraq war.

      Delete
  3. "Speaker": It is the agents of the sick U.S. government who have been starting the wars of these past twenty years especially. George H.W. Bush started the war against Iraq in 1991, George W. Bush started the war against Afghanistan in 2001 and the war against Iraq in 2003. Only sick people START wars!

    And it is those war-starters who are the "communists and fascists," in their government expansionism across foreign lands that are not U.S. territories like communists do, and in their domestic police state like fascists.

    In Washington is a "repressive totalitarian regime of fundamentalist fanatics" as you have described Iran. And they are all incredibly sick people, ALL of them (except for Ron Paul, of course).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You tell him; give the Speaker a taste of his tongue ......sorry medicine so he can take back his words.

      Delete
  4. March 19, 2012, U.S. time, just like Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011). http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/83119.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why is the author so confident we will win? Just because we spend the most money? I think we have far more than enough evidence that money will not win a war. I think that Libya fell quickly because the destabilization allowed opposing tribes to start fighting, which doesn't mean a 'victory'. Who knows what kind of government will take shape there? I strongly doubt it will be pro-Western after so many have had members of their extended family or circle of friends bombed.

    When you factor in 5-10 dollar a gallon gas, I think the US public MIGHT start to get the idea, but I'm not hoping for much.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To the writer, you are very pro Iran are you from there or have family ties? You write as if the USA has to always be involve in wars. Why don't you think with your brain... and consider:Iran arm with nuclear capabilities to send nuts/ fanatics as terrorist and place a divice here. Would you like that in your area?

    ReplyDelete
  7. China will not sit by and let the US nibble at the energy resources it's acquired by playing within commercial rules. From a Chinese perspective the turmoil in the Middle East appears instigated by the US and aimed at China's energy security. So a war with Iran easily can spin beyond the control of anyone and far beyond the confines of the Middle East.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. darko: Maybe Obama needs a war to get re-elected.

      Delete
  8. "the neoconservatives who are running foreign policy"

    Are you kidding me?

    When did Barack Insane Osama become a conservative?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When he got elected President, of course.

      You know just after he promised to bring the troops home immediately, close Guantanamo, repeal the patriot act, act like a Democrat (anti-war, man of the people etc).

      Instead, he out did Bush in just about every aspect of the neo-conservative wet dream: including pushing for and ratifying the extension of the patriot act, murdering American citizens (with no criminal records) abroad by executive order, sorry, assassinating "evil terrorist sympathisers" (and no I'm not middle eastern or muslim) and signing into law the power to disappear American citizens right off the main street of your town because they annoy him. Pinochet would be proud.

      Pretty much, then.

      Delete
  9. Ron Paul, You're our only hope! Stop the killing and the endless wars on brown people, on drugs, on poverty, you name it.
    Just leave us alone, Washington busybodies!

    ReplyDelete
  10. All of you should read "No Higher Honor". Maybe you need some insight into what foreign policy is really all about. Learn from a master Condi Rice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your hero should be tried for war crimes and hanged from the nearest lamp post.

      Delete
  11. I'm sorry but the author has not made the case. US wants war, US doesn't want war yet? US doesn't want Isreal to start a war that the US wants etc. A lot of disjointed speculation by the author based on what? He offers no fact, no logic, just his thoughts which are based on what? We don't know , instinct perhaps, speculation? The magic 8 ball? Ouiji board? I ching?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Makes perfect sense to me. Not quite sure what you need to see in order to believe that the US is working overtime to provoke Iran into doing something so the US can beat Iran into submission. How many false flag ops have to be run before you will realize the US government is attempting to provoke the Iranians.
      Oh yeah, that's right our government would never do anything dastardly like a "False Flag Op". Well, except for maybe "Fast & Furious". Perhaps you ought to check into what is standard news fare if you give up the MSM and their lies that permeate the airwaves. Many sources have been saying the same as I am for several weeks and now running into months.

      Delete
    2. Well let us sit back and watch what happens. The U.S. made every excuse to wage a war against Iraq based on "weapons of mass destruction". At the time, the Bush Regime obtained hard proof, no disjointed speculations but logical evidence that Iraq were in fact harbouring WMD. But as we've have seen...the U.S. found nothing, zilch, nada, zero...hmm? the U.S. were better off using Ouiji Boards, Magic 8 Balls, and the I-Ching!!!

      Delete
  12. Iran is trying to initiate a Worldwide Islamic regime. It is the goal of Islam to have the entire world submit to the perverted vision of the man who was know as Mohammad. The leaders of Iran feel it is their role to "bring it on". It is truly the plan of Satan, and must be defeated and will eventually will be, by Jesus Christ when he returns (as it will get really bad otherwise).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent! You are truly on track here!

      Delete
  13. It's about - at least partly - forcing the continued use of US$ in the global oil trade. Preservation of the "petro-dollar economy". Perhaps at any cost.

    The nukes are a distraction. Something popular to rally people against. It's something the propaganda machine can really spin up the rhetoric about:
    "Save the middle east from a nuclear armed rogue state run by Islamist extremists!!!"

    On the other hand:
    "Save the dominance of the US Dollar in the global oil trade!!!" doesn't work. It's just not going get the kind of Rah-Rah support necessary to send GI Joe and 1000's of his buddies off to get killed over.

    North Korea (technically still at war with South Korea!) didn't get this much reaction from Uncle Sam for developing nuclear weapons.

    Uncle Sam had barely a word to say about Pakistan developing nukes either.

    But now Uncle Sam is doing a bunch of shouting and drum banging about Iran developing nukes... just like he did about the [fantasy] WMDs in Iraq.

    So there's something going on, and it's not what it appears to be on the surface. Like that's unusual...

    Iraq was planning to sell oil in Euros.
    Libya's Qaddafi was making noises about accepting other currencies.
    Now, so is Iran. Ironically partly due to banking embargoes.

    The near monopoly of the USD in global trade is being threatened. If it weren't for the requirement that crude oil sales be settled in USD there'd be far less global demand for US dollars.

    Less demand would lessen their value, perhaps catastrophically crashing it if it happened in a fast & disorganized manner. The US would be economically crippled by a large, fast devaluation of the dollar.

    It can't be permitted, or even risked.

    How far and to what lengths will the US govt go to avoid it? I'd bet a lot further than most people would dare think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roy, you have hit the nail on it's head. It is all about the dollar. I believe the only reason we haven't started the war with Iran is because we fear what China and Russia will do. China and Russia are the reason the UN has not intervened in Syria. I fear for mankind.

      Delete
    2. It's darkly ironic that the current banking sanctions against Iran may end up being the tipping point - the beginning of a "defection" from the dollar.

      Time will tell.

      Delete
  14. Has anybody seen the court records of the lawsuit in Georgia to keep Obama off the ballot because of his birth certificate being phony? The bottom line is that Obama will start the war to distract attention away from this lawsuit.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Have any of you jerks thought what it might lead to, some of you talk of war as though its a bit of fun. Its not nice to see guys screaming for their Mums as they die in agony. Russia, China and possibly even North Korea could become involved, World War Three. Might be good for the few that were left though, with all the warmongering crap out of the way.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Who has more weapons of mass destruction -- US or Iran? Duh! So why is US so concerned about Iran's nuclear capabilities? Shouldn't Iran and the rest of the world be worried about the bankrupt US starting yet another war? How many wars have they been involved in the past 90 years? Lets face it... the United States is a War Mongering nation and the biggest Bully in the world who always wants others to do things their way... or Else face the repercussions of their missiles? It just can't leave the world alone to live in peace... always starting new wars on some flimsy pretext to keep their defense complex going. And then pretending to be the heroes of the world. How? By lying, cheating and killing innocent people in distant places. And then wondering why everyone hates them so much? Go figure...

    ReplyDelete
  17. This article is only thought half way through. With China and India buying oil from Iran now with gold and not US Dollars, do you really think that China is going to stand by while their supply of oil is threatened? We need to eliminate those in our government/business (bankers?) who are always war mongering whether to force our form of democracy on everyone else, or pursue oil. At least the Chinese do it in a peaceful fashion. Reminds me of the bankers of years ago who instigated wars, and financed both sides, with the provision that the winner paid the loser's debts (to the bankers, that is). All for power and a buck, and the lives of innocent people on both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  18. America loves to war. They think they are the global police! However they are bankrupting! No need for two young UK citizens to "destroy America", Americans will do that themselves, no need for help.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Name me a country that started war and won it. The US has started at least two wars recently and won what? NONE The people in our government starting these wars have done more damage to our country than any enemy could ever have done.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Getting time now to dump our dollars and convert to gold and silver. The Money Managers are at it again.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Watching the neocons beat the war drums, slowly raising the fever pitch of their calls, floating unrealistic threats of nuclear terrorism and EMP bombs, inciting illogical hate in the already tormented American mind.....to think that they sold us the same BS ten years ago.....its almost silly, if it wasn't so real.

    Instead, it is just tragic.....

    ReplyDelete
  22. I agree with Roy. This is about maintaining global hegemony for the $US. Do you recall that Saddam was going to require that Iraqi oil be sold for currency other than the $US? We all know what happened after that. Once world trade is conducted primarily in a currency other than the $US, it is game over for our empire. That being said, whom do you want as the baddest boy on the block, the West led by the US, or China? Russia? Or perhaps trust you and your family's fate to the tender mercies of the Muslims? Number 2 is not an option for the US. Like it or not, if the US goes down, you pansy-asses in Europe would last but a few years before you earn your fate as Infidels.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The reason America and Israel wants to invade Iran?it's oil! Simple as that. They're thieves!

    ReplyDelete