My best guess is that there will be no attack on Iran prior to the election, about 90/10 odds. As we have seen over the past 4 years the Obama Administration can continue its threats, warmongering and assaults on civil liberties with relatively little public opposition as compared to what we saw during the Bush - Cheney years.
Those of us who migrated here from orange know this very well.
Therefore it seems likely that the the oligarchy would be more comfortable with another four years of Obama than with a Republican president. An attack on Iran and a regional war prior to the election could bring unforeseen and undesirable consequences. High fuel prices do not benefit incumbent politicians.
Once the election is over it's a new ballgame. The plan remains in place. It could change depending on what the near future brings and the outcome of current efforts such as the ongoing destabilization of the region and efforts at regime change in Syria.
The concept originated with the NeoCons in 1996 in their policy paper "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". Much has been written about it and doing a "search" will bring up many interesting opinions and points of view. However, history cannot easily be overcome by propaganda.
Israeli political analyst Daniel Levy described the paper and the influence it would come to yield on future US foreign policy: "In 1996 a group of then opposition U.S. policy agitators, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, presented a paper entitled 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm' to incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The 'clean break' was from the prevailing peace process, advocating that Israel pursue a combination of roll-back, destabilization and containment in the region, including striking at Syria and removing Saddam Hussein from power in favor of 'Hashemite control in Iraq.' The Israeli horse they backed then was not up to the task.
Ten years later, as Netanyahu languishes in the opposition, as head of a small Likud faction, Perle, Feith and their neoconservative friends have justifiably earned a reputation as awesome wielders of foreign-policy influence under George W. Bush."
A policy of preemptive wars of aggression had replaced peaceful attempts at resolving differences in this geo-strategically important part of the world.
In early 2007 there was a "redirection". Seymour Hersh described it here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh?curren...In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East.... The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
We all know about the goal of taking down "7 Countries in 5 years" which was revealed to General Wesley Clark "about 10 days after 9/11". The planning and timing has been modified to meet political and military realities but there is no sign that the goals have changed. The end justifies the means to those driven by power lust and greed. The momentum has continued under Obama.
Libya was destabilized and weakened. Regime changed accomplished under the pretext of a humanitarian intervention. Now we seldom hear news from Libya in the establishment media. Checking around the internet we will see that the country remains in turmoil with various tribal groups still fighting among themselves and some opposing the government.
No amount of death and human suffering seems to affect the policy makers. It's a pity none of these chickenhawks have seen examples of what their policies have wrought first hand. If they had then perhaps they would have second thoughts.
Now that it is becoming quite clear the al-Qaeda is being utilized by the US and its allies in efforts to destabilize countries which stand in the way of US - Israeli hegemony, does this mean that al-Qaeda will no longer be useful as a bogeyman? Might we expect to see a new bogeyman appear upon the scene in the future?
Agree or disagree, readers thoughts are welcomed.
Comments
Willful suspension of disbelief is required
To accept the various immediate reasons always given for taking steps in the strategy. It turns out that there are many liberals willing to accept that Libya was about saving the lives of insurgents, that Iraq was about rape rooms, and that Afghanistan was about the rights of women. It is not hard to find out the actual motivations.
I grew up with communism as the bogeyman. The USG committed crimes all over the globe in the name of fighting communism. But when communism collapsed, nothing changed except the reasons given for U.S. interference with foreign nations. Part and parcel of the war mongering has been exaggeration of the threat. The arsenal of the USSR was exaggerated in the 50's; Saddams WMD's were fictional, 9/11 was properly a police matter rather than representative of an existential threat to the U.S. With the ripening of diplomacy and detente during Carter's term, neocons within the government made a conscious choice to sabotage peace initiatives in a revival of bellicosity. It is no accident that Rumsfeld and Cheney were both active participants in this initiative to rescue the world from the brink of peace. The chaos and suffering we see today is in large a part a direct result of the manipulations of these neocons. It is vital to realize, based on what we have seen, that the election of Barack Obama did not mark a victory in the fight against neocon insanity.
Here's hoping for a discussion of this important topic by people more informed than I.
Well, I'm no Chalmers Johnson or Seymour Hersh,
but I've read a heck of alot the last five years, and although geopolitics are extremely complicated and confusing, the overall agenda for US foreign policy appears simple and clear - to be the world's leading hegemon by any means necessary. Obama had to buy into that or he wouldn't have become President. They're trying to create the New World Order where they can dictate to every country on earth and bring all nations under the western financial plutocracy.
This includes direct confrontation with China and Russia while militarily encircling both of those countries with the Full Spectrum Dominance approach developed by the Pentagon under Bush.
Are we really going to see WWIII? The path we're on certainly provides for that option. Perhaps the only way to stop it is if other countries band together and convince the US and the world that they will not accept global US hegemony and demand changes. There are coalitions of countries developing now in that direction. Or perhaps a financial crash could stop it although more likely that would instigate it. It doesn't appear the American public can do anything about it. There are people included in the Powers That Be that have ideas and plans more than grandiose and that are downright evil in their quest for power.
"Full spectrum dominance"
This is an openly declared goal. As I say, it is only by willfully ignoring this stated goal that people manage to see continuing U.S. brutality as stemming from concern over the welfare of world citizens or a sensible response to immediate events. The US has a goal of establishing full spectrum dominance over the rest of the world. This is the guiding principle. And that dominance will be utilized to exploit human and natural resources while keeping the good stuff for a small group of obscenely wealthy and powerful people and to a much lesser extent, the citizens of those countries these powerful people rely on for their bases of operation. Pinter was not using hyperbole or poetic license when he called widespread ignorance of this state of affairs the result of "a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis."
In his Nobel Lecture, Pinter observed that the U.S. is now more open about its intentions. For decades, "we" preferred "low intensity conflict", which involved limiting public awareness of our meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations to work against the interests of the people in favor of those of multi-national corporations or seemingly anyone who would exploit people and resources rather than further the enlightenment ideals on which the US was founded.
Pinter points out that in recent years, the methods have been more open, although the goal remains the same. Along with traveler, he asks, what has happened to our moral sensibilities? Is anyone thinking about the victims of U.S. aggression, including women, children, the elderly, anyone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? "Collateral damage" is as evil expression as "final solution". Rather than define or clarify, it serves as a cover for evil, allowing the spell of U.S. rectitude to continue unbroken.
Remember the famous quote from the last administration--while you're reacting, we're creating our own reality?
This speech was delivered in 2005. The U.S. has moved on in the intervening years, but the methods remain the same. Can we take a minute off from expressing outrage or approval of the latest public pronouncement or event to notice the pattern, to notice the underlying realities? Once these plain and obvious realities are accepted as real, then one recognizes the emptiness of public debate over U.S. responsibility toward Libyan or Syrian rebels; one awakens to the stark fact that those making decisions at the highest level of the State and Pentagon are not well-meaning public servants channeling the good hearts of average Americans, agonizing over how best to serve the interests of the citizens of the world. Few things have created more suffering than this commonplace naive view shared by most U.S. citizens.
What would it take to open eyes? One is hard pressed to imagine a larger outrage than the ones already committed and continuing to be committed every day.
As a specific aside, if one accepts that the goal is full spectrum dominance, then one understands perhaps the insistence on a system of more or less secret, fully illegal prisons all over the world. In fact, analyzing any U.S. foreign policy actions in the absence of the goal of full spectrum dominance is purely and simply nothing more than a fantastical adventure in a nonexistent wonderland.
I've thought about this often.
"In his Nobel Lecture, Pinter observed that the U.S. is now more open about its intentions."
The fact that the U.S. is now expressing things openly that it once hid does not have to mean that the U.S. is more open.
It is at least as possible that the things which the U.S. wishes to hide are just that much darker.
Look at opium addiction in Iran, the Oxycontin addiction in the Florida-Kentucky-West Virginia belt, and the history of opium production policy in Afghanistan going back to 1978.
Deep politics, man. I hope I have the heart to write a piece about what I've found.
Yeah, not more honest just more overt.
To me, it speaks to the extent to which full spectrum dominance is being achieved. They can torture in the open and invade sovereign nations on easily disproved pretexts. But because they have such firm control of the conversation, and because they enjoy such military and intelligence superiority, they don't have to behave in a manner that is difficult for those of us who are interested to watch precisely what they are doing. Nixon tried to keep the bombing in Cambodia secret. They don't bother to try to hide the drone attacks in Pakistan.
OT: I'm watching the first part of The Trap.
Excellent summary geomoo
The "communism" bogeyman served us well for many years, especially in Latin American and in Southeast Asia and even in Iraq during the 1960s where we staged two seldom remembered coups to ensure the Iraqi Government would not nationalize its oil. Millions dead, countries destroyed, legacies of agent orange, UXO, depleted uranium left in our wake.
In 1989 the Soviet Union fell. We would need a new bogeyman.
In September of 2000 The neoconservatives organization PNAC published a report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century . In section 5 there was this phrase, ... the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor .
They did not have to wait long. Within one year we had our new bogeyman and "they hated us for our freedom".
PNAC promoted American hegemony and full spectrum dominance in its publications. They argued, as early as 1998, for regime change in Iraq. We could now justify it with threats of WMDs and connections to terrorism. The facts were fixed around the policy and we witnessed some shock and awe.
Recommendations had appeared years earlier In the Clean Break policy paper from 1996:
Other measures included:
Bombing Iran and Syria was also mentioned in this policy paper.
Both Daniel Ellsberg and General Wesley Clark have spoken of a "policy coup" occurring in late 2001 to early 2002. It should be obvious that the neoconservatives became very influential in US foreign policy at that time. PNAC the organization no longer exists but their members have remained on in key positions in successive administrations.
With the policy coup in place we added Libya, Sudan and Somalia to our hit list in addition to Iraq, Syria, Iran and Lebanon which had been mentioned in the 1996 policy paper, The Clean Break. In addition to insuring the security of Israel we would have benefited US interests, (corporate interests) which include unimpeded access to resources and markets of foreign countries.
So, now it is becoming apparent to many that we are using al-Qaeda to help us achieve our goals of hegemony. How will we be able continue to fool the public? One thing for sure, the desired end will serve to justify the means.
Who will be the new bogeyman? Many possibilities exist. For now perhaps those evil Persians and their "nuclear ambitions" will suffice.
I believe it will become less ethnic
Terror serves well, because it refers to the only weapon of the unempowered against the mighty. The dominance is to be a global one--resistance can come from any quarter. As governments are subdued, individuals or geographically indeterminate groups will be the only remaining threats. A kind of person, a DFH, would work. Fool the public? No one is paying attention. They can make America believe almost anything they want within 3 or 4 days. All it takes is a few lines in the news, seconds really. Then move on to the big news item of the day. Who is going to learn the kinds of things you learn? And, more depressing to me, who is going to understand the significance of it--that it explains so much that continues to be debated irrelevantly, as though we did not already have a blueprint of what the neocons planned to do, having seen them accomplish a good percentage of that plan, but also with a horrible lot of suffering and horror yet to inflict. People are curious whether it will come before or after the election. Not sure how important that point is to Iranians.
Yes, I know about 1952 in Iran. I think of it often. As a side matter, that alone should alert people to the fact that U.S. intelligence services manufacture public protest and fake mobs. We've seen this in domestic politics.
Most likely correct.
It would have to be a desperate move and an illegal attack if they do it before the election, not that it wouldn't be after as well. Although I can't put anything past these bastards. I listen to Romney and others talk about his foreign policy agenda and KNOW that it isn't his agenda, he is being fed the exact neocon agenda that Bush was. It would seem Obama would be better than Romney for the oligarchy's agenda but then again, look at the shit they did with Bush instead of Gore, so who knows.
How can a country that has caused the deaths of millions continue to pretend it's a global force for good? It really is absolutely Orwellian, upside down and thru the Lookingglass.
I don't know how they can justify an attack on Iran. They won't be able to get a UN resolution no matter what they gin up. Look at the trouble they're having creating the conditions to justify a US/NATO military attack on Syria? Three tries at a UN resolution, all failed. There are some major coaltions that appear to be forming among many countries that are finally waking up to the dangers of US imperialism. Many are meeting this week in Iran.
Al Qaeda, the alleged killers of over 3000 people in the 9/11 attacks, an amazing attack that Al Qaeda hasn't come close to replicating in any of their operations since then, is being used again and again by the US for their geopolitical purposes. What does that say about what really happened on 9/11?
How important is it when the U.S. attacks Iran?
How much should we care whether the expected and long-threatened attack comes before or after a U.S. election? What does it mean that we can expect neither candidate to resist this move? How many Americans are even still aware that unprovoked war with a sovereign nation ranks as among the most serious of international crimes? More subtly, how many Americans understand the fundamentally offensive nature of exertion of will by a large and vastly superior military power over a smaller country with nothing approaching such strength. This aspect of U.S. immorality in Vietnam is one of the less recognized lessons that should have been learned from that conflict.
I think an attack on Iran is remarkably unlikely
I don't think that Israel, either with, or without our help, will attack Iran. The big boys in the room that make these types of decisions (even the real raving Curtis LeMay types) always do a cost-benefit analysis before they make a decision on going to the freaking bathroom. You can bet that this scenario has been played out in war rooms in every NATO country, and a million different ways in Tel Aviv. What would the benefits be of an attack on Iran? Ok, you set back their nuclear ambitions for a year, two years, five years. Permanently? Not a chance. Will an attack lead to the overthrow of the current government and the establishment of a government more friendly to the US and Israel? Not a chance. So, which leader will make the call for an attack on Iran. Obama? There is nothing in his past which indicates he is willing to attack other countries. Netanyahu? I would say, yes, if this was 1984 and not 2012.
Iran can strike back and strike back hard against both Israel and America. They have the ability to do launch missle strikes against every Israeli city, which would result in severe Israeli civilian loss of life. Iran also has the ability to do real damage to our ships (naval as well as civilian) in the area. Iran is a much more cohesive country than Iraq. Hussein was fighting a low grade war with the Kurds, as well as dealing with serious internal opposition when we invaded. The government of Iran is not popular with the people, but it is not on the verge of collapse as was the case with Hussein. Based on everything that I have read/studied/seen, my opinion is that the threat of an attack on Iran is minimal.
Remember the Green Revolution?
Iran is a highly civilized country with a strongly disaffected population kept down through persistent and extensive oppression. They are a lot more aware of what their government is that we are. I know that oppression can be effective, but I do think that is a weakness in terms of external attack.
I wish I shared your faith in the rationality of our leaders. I rather think that they are determined to neuter Iran as a military threat while also isolating Russia from markets which help their economy support military expenditures. One way or another, I expect that within the next four years, Iran will be well on the way to the cultural destruction the U.S. has inflicted on several African and ME nations in recent history. I agree, however, that there is unlikely to be direct, overt attack.
No lie, when I first read this, I thought you were being sarcastic. I had to check context to confirm that you were serious.
There are several things that suggest Obama would attack other countries. He certainly will attack their residents from drones.
There is a distinction between individual rationality and ...
... collective rationality. That is, what makes individual sense in terms of the career paths and perceived available alternative in the context of a given institution can be quite insane in terms of the collective interests of that institution.
Institutions both enable actions that would be impossible to achieve acting separately, and also constraint actions that run counter to the established rules and sanctions in place that make up the institution. But its quite possible for the actions that are enabled to run against the interest of the institution and its membership, and the actions required to serve the institution and its membership to end up among those that are constrained.
This is because an institution is past-bound. It originates as some reasonably effective response to some set of challenges, but by its nature it embeds part of the solution into habitual, reflexive rules of behavior, and so as society and the world system continues to evolve, what was once more or less functional can easily become dysfunctional.
{Or tl;dr version, when we see a dysfunctional or even insane institution, we are normally looking at an obsolete institution.}
Our base network Empire was founded on the strategic objective of encircling the Soviet Empire and preventing it from spreading its influence further.
And we are continuing to encircle, even though there is no longer anything left to encircle, and even for those who first priority is maintaining the strategic power and influence of the United States ... the strongest threat to the continued power and influence of the United States is the base network itself. Like a grain of sand provokes the formation of a pearl, those bases demand that those opposed to the local powers that be who have agreed to the bases must also oppose the US, who will back up the local powers that be in defense of their basing agreements.
In a world system in which it is not at all intrinsically necessary for the United State to have any enemies, the base network empire creates an endless supply of enemies. Meanwhile China, the closest thing to a geopolitical rival that the United States has, is unencumbered by any base network, and so can gain influence at a far lower cost than the US with the self-imposed handicap of our military base network.
Maybe unlikely in the near term
I have no doubt that attacking Iran and regime change is still a very important goal of US policy makers. The first serious proposal to destabilize and regime change Syria came 20 years ago, along with the idea to do the same to Iraq, Lebanon and Iran.
At present we are attempting to isolate Iran economically and destroy their allies in the Persian Gulf - Middle East region to further weaken Iran. Thus far the results are mixed.
A ground attack would be out of the question. In the meantime we will keep the economic and political pressure applied. As time passes the pressure will increase. Covert operations have been in place since 2007. The stuxnet virus was a cyber attack directed solely and Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities.
One aspect of this scenario is rarely mentioned, the near absence of any reference to international law. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NH23Ak01.html
Any attack on Iran solely because of their so called "nuclear ambitions" would be a clear violation of the UN Charter.
US policy makers is not a homogeneous block.
There are some for which regime change in Iran is an important policy objective, some for whom the current regime in Iran is a perfectly good enemy to have in place and who would lament its loss.
The current administration in its policy to support the Syrian uprising sufficiently to keep it going, but not sufficiently to allow it to quickly displace the current Syrian regime, is not acting like Iranian regime change is any high priority for it. However, the idea that an Iranian regime change can be engineered that will serve the interests of US based corporations is a persistent one in neocon circles.
True enough
however we seem to have been on a neoconservative led foreign policy agenda since early 2002, military power in favor rather than diplomacy and it has been a disaster thus far. The "surge" in Afghanistan accomplished nothing positive. Regime change in Syria is not going well. The Turks are becoming concerned over the possibility of the Kurds taking advantage of a broken Syria and becoming a threat to Turkey.
For now all is relatively quiet as the election approaches. Once this political contest is settled we will have a better idea of what to expect regarding our policies dealing with the Middle East and elsewhere.
State has been subsumed under the Pentagon
This began during the Bush administration and seems to continue today. Foreign governments were appalled to find uniformed military personnel replacing diplomats as they negotiated how to conduct the offensive in Afghanistan. Early in 2009, I was glibly assured by Obama supporters that change was in the air, that State would be taking a lead role in transforming our corrupt, destructive Afghan behavior to something that would help the people of that country. It seems to me that the Pentagon continues to drive foreign policy. It can be argued that this state of affairs was the biggest concern of the founders, who worried about tyranny eventually destroying the democracy they had created.
Turks have multiple concerns about Syrian war
The Turks are still seething over the shooting down of one of their aircraft. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9352113/Syria...
The craft was brought down with Russian hardware which has caused further tension between Turkey and Russia. Turkey is also having to deal with the massive influx of Syrian refugees. http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/08/30/235134.html
As of today it is estimated that over 80k Syrian refugees are in camps along the South Eastern Turkish border. That number is expected to surpass 100k. There are reports that the aid which Turkey will spend on the refugee crisis will top 150 million. This is a real crisis for Turkey. For America its nothing at all. Just a distant headline that takes a few minutes (at the most) of our day. I would be exceedingly surprised if Turkey was not supplying arms to the rebels. They want to see Assad out more than anyone else as his policies are affecting Turkey in a real and direct (harmful) manner.
It's just so embarrassing
not even to have been aware of this refugee crisis, not to mention the important role of Turkey in all of this. Not that the Turkish government can be trusted as an honest broker of the interests of its people. My impression is that the government-as-organized-crime types having such a perverse affect on the policies of both the U.S. and Turkey have worked clandestinely together for at least a couple of decades now to the enrichment of a few people on both sides. Jesselyn Radack's disaffection began with her exposing such illegal collusion and influence trading at the highest levels.
It is really amazing today how millions of people can be disappeared. Five million Iraqi refugees are an afterthought to those Americans who even know about them. 100,000 Syrian refugees count as nothing to Americans in comparison to the effect of Syria on our narcissistic national horse race.
Thanks for bringing this here.