MY FRIEND AND SCHOLAR, FRANCISCO GIL-WHITE WROTE THIS ARTICLE 6 YEARS AGO WHEN NOBODY BELIEVED HIM. HE JUST REMINDED ME OF IT
Will the US attack Iran?
An alternative hypothesis
Historical and Investigative Research – 23 Feb 2006
by Francisco Gil-White
The president of the United States has made angry public statements against Iran because Iran apparently wishes to acquire nuclear weaponry. Will the US attack Iran? Some of my readers have asked me to make a prediction.
This is my view: A scientist who pays attention not to the public statements, but to the record of past United States behaviors towards Iran and Israel, will have to be surprised if the US attacks Iran. Naturally, a scientist must predict what she expects, not what would surprise her, so the scientific prediction here is that the US will not attack Iran.
But can we think of an alternative reason, then, for all this media noise concerning Iran’s nukes? Yes: I believe the point of this is to produce a diplomatic effort to strip Israel of its nuclear arsenal.
For example, take a look at the Toronto Star:
“That Iran’s nuclear research program must come back under UN control goes without saying. But for that country’s pride, some counter-weight has to be offered.”[1]
What “counter-weight” will we throw at Iranian “pride” to make the Iranians stop seeking nukes? The Toronto Star drops a hint:
“Israel’s nuclear program is completely unsupervised by the UN.”
I think I can sniff the direction this is eventually going in: Israel’s nuclear arsenal dismantled in exchange for Iranian cooperation with a ‘nuclear-free Middle East.’ In fact, as we shall see below, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has already referred the matter to the UN Security Council with this very recommendation.
I can see, however, one plausible scenario where the US does indeed attack Iran. But it would not be to stop Iran’s nuclear program (though this would certainly be the publicly given reason). Rather, should the US — surprisingly — attack Iran, this will be in order — not so surprisingly — to create the conditions for a Muslim attack on Israel. I will explain this possibility as well.
What a mess! What an absolute friggin mess! the above positions of all these commenters leads to the paralysis of the Jewish state in the face of its enemies. The crisis is within the ideology of Judaism itself, it is unable to defend the Jews from its enemies. Note re Syria not ONE word about the plight of the Syrian Christians and why they support Assad…
Iron Dome: The Strategic Disaster, by Moshe Feiglin
Iron Dome deployment is very expensive to operate, and Hamas & Islamic Jihad, PRC, etc — as well as their Iranian & Turkish state sponsors — know it.
They can spend a few bucks on each rocket launched or mortar shell fired.
But IDF has to spend thousands on each-&-every interception activated.
Therefore Israel will have to make any occasion of such deployment very expensive for the enemy in other ways.
Otherwise, the terrorist groups can bankrupt G.O.I. merely by goading them into using Iron Dome again & again.
doesnt every iron dome missile cost 50k and how much does it cost for a plane to kill one terrorist? Hamas probably is in agreement as their rockets usually fall in empty areas. perhaps all sides want the status quo.
It took Israel over 20 years to recover economically from the Yom Kippur war.
Hamas serves a political function of dividing the Palis and giving Israel an excuse to veto final agreements with the PA if it includes Hamas.
Politically as long as they keep shooting it removes a lot of international pressure on Israel.
Russia and China back Assad just like Felix. What a coincidence.
How nice for you – nobody else to worry about in there.
I didn’t know communists were allowed to think for themselves though.
I am listening to Yamit’s link of the Tamar Yonah show Israel at War and the thought that haunts me is why does’t Israel fire missiles into gaza? What is wrong with the Jews, why are they sitting in shelters when they can destroy gaza at will? Gaza should be bombed from head to toe, Gazans should be warned to flee in boats, their children should be huddled and frightened rather than the Jewish children. Why are gaza civilians lives worth more than jewish lives in Israel to Israeli govt.? What sort of insane leadership is advising the population into shelters when gaza could be completely destroyed by air and turned into cinders. Something is seriously wrong with Jews and Israel. This Jewish masochism is becoming absurd. Israel should bring final solutions to their enemies, Israel should make the world quake in fear.
I have to agree with Yamit that it does not matter which side is in rule as they always agree to kill the jews. The best thing is that they have an eternal “arab spring” whereby they keep on killing each other.
Irael at War..Tamar Yonah Show
IQ al Rassooli interview about middle of the program.
IQ al Rassooli
Islam in Convulsion Part 231
Felix pls. explain to me why I should care who rules Syria? Since before 1948 all of the main enemy protagonists : Syria, Egypt, Jordan,Lebanon, Iraq and the PLO have been secular regimes and Syria as far as Jew hatred and brutal treatment of Israeli POW’s, has always been the absolute worst.
Tell me why it should matter to me if a secular Syrian wants to kill me or a religious Syrian Muslim wants to kill me?
Let me make a point here there are no true secular regimes in the Aranb world. The whole culture is based upon and revolves around Islamic norms and eschatology. The Arabs first create their myths then begin to believe them as truth.
Clips below by IQ al Rassooli
Islam & Democracy Part 243
Islam Exposed 146A – Two States: Israel & Palestine
Chaos equals power. This is the real root of the alliance between Islam and US
Ted Belman is increasing this chaos.
There is only one correct policy here which is to back Assad to the hilt and totally publicly. Ted is too conservative to do this.
If Assad falls so does secularism in Syria, forever.
To do this Ted would have to step out of line with his Jewish contacts like Geller as just one example. Difference to me, I could care less about any one of them, I am a Trotskyist and I think for myself and only myself.
Hitler made a pact with Stalin, churchill made a pact with stalin, saud’s made a pact with wahhabbis, obama makes a pact with MB. The policy of the US regarding the mid east is based on what benefit the puppet masters, not the puppets, can glean at a time. An unstable mideast is what makes money like an unstable market. If you can create the instability you desire then you are home free. Whenever soros installs a govt, in whatever country, he invests hundreds of millions in organizations which bring him billions from currency, commodities, govt contracts. The MB is able to control its subjects once it attains power. Therefore, it can make deals and make war. Perhaps support is given to whoever can maintain control, and make deals. Islam has the power, and more importantly the ideology , that allows total control. Therefore, it becomes an interesting tool for thepower players. The dog and pony show is obvious when it is the foreigner but what about the dog and pony show for the american subject?
What is the angle here for your Marxism, Felix?
I thought all that stuff went out with the silent movies.
What is the role for Israel and the Muslim countries in the future Marxist World Domination? Which country will run that one? Got a new player on the scene?
Whats the grand plan, man?
Up is down and sideways is backwards. Does anyone have a programme with the player list for this theatre? I don’t know who plays who.
And who is ‘we’, ‘kemo sabe’?
the so called president of the usa is illegall imgrant he is nothing but a muslim facisit
NOT JUST HUMANS ARE ENDANGERED…ALL OF NATURE AND ANIMAL LIFE IS ENDANGERED BY CAPITALIST CRISIS
ARAB SPRING IS STEPPING STONE TO FASCISM
Much water has flowed under the bridge since FGW wrote this article. Give the man his dues it was an important article then.
Things have changed greatly however and the biggest change that I see is that Jewish leadership appears (is exposed) far more clearly to be totally bankrupt.
Ted Belman is actually fighting the war for Obama, Clinton, NATO, the State department and the list is endless which shows what we are up against.
One thing at a time. If Assad is defeated by whatever means in Syria there will be a massacre of the Christians and other minorities and Sharia Law will be on its way very fast.
Yet there are a whole heap of Jews lining up to stick the knife into Assad.
Now Assad for all his badness is a secularist and that is why the Christians in Syria have supported him.
That is also why Saddam was the main barrier to Iran and Sharia.
For the very first time in its recent history Jewish leaders and Jews generally should fight on the basis of principle. The principle here is if Assad falls Christians are massacred.
I am tired of the opportunism and bankruptcy of Jewish leaders and Jewish bloggers who simply in the field of revolutionary politics do not know their arse from their elbow.
Bland is right in the above in All of what he says, but also as I understand him Bland is a talker who is not interested in building any alternative leadership that will take on the Ted Belmans, the Spencers and the Gellers of this world and fight these ideas out in the open.
Good question. If the US wished to attack Iran because of its nuclear program, it would have done so years ago; and if not because of its nukes, then why would we want to upset a major trading partner?
A more sensible question, is why Israel hasn’t attacked Iran already. Apparently, Israel thinks the best defense against nuclear weapons is wishful thinking. Maybe they’re also chanting, saying,
Hommmmmmmmmmmmmme.
America may be the “Great Satan” in Iran’s rhetoric; but in this case, we’re the little idiot — The Israelis are the big idiots, because they are immediately threatened with annihilation and are doing
NADA.
I don’t think the State Dept has Tehran in its sights either, but not because of the absurdly fanciful reason set forth in the article.
Nor do I find anything on the order of the “scientific” about these paranoid meanderings from the perfervid imagination of Francisco Gil-white.
Yes, Ray McGovern is a paskudnyak up to no good; if you’ve ever heard him talk, you can fairly hear the slime slipping off his teeth as he speaks.
But he isn’t the govt. He isn’t the State Dept. He isn’t even the Executive Branch generally.
Perceived overload.
We’d been playing-off the one against the other, & vice versa, but weren’t in a position to take on both simultaneously.
We no longer had the capacity we had had before the Cold War was won. The “Peace Dividend” kicked that option to the curb, because gutting the military would make possible lots of new pork-barrel spending for domestic programs that liberals (of both parties) like to use to build their social-bribery plantations.
There were perfectly good reasons for attacking Iraq. The fact that we did a piss-poor job of explaining ourselves does not of itself invalidate what actually was a genuinely worthy effort.
Our mistake was that we waited some dozen years to complete the job we’d started in ’91; timing is important, and missing a moment can complicate things mightily.
Then why did Bush [43] characterize Iran as part of the three-headed “Axis of Evil” — alongside Iraq & N. Korea?
There may well have been individual crackpots, of one stripe or another, who saw a value in protecting Tehran
— but as a general, governmental policy?
Get real.
If I were a betting man (I’m not, but if I were) I’d say it’s more likely that Tehran has got something to USE on us, which is making us gun-shy where they’re concerned — and which, with every day that passes, becomes more formidable as a threat.
Notwithstanding the popular line (which I note Prof Gil-White promptly adopted, just like all the other trendies), I think the WMD’s — the components anyway — were (and are) quite real, but are no longer located in Iraq. . . .
I agree. The invasion of Iraq was to protect Iran. And I believe that it is because that Iran upholds the geopolitics of dominance through high birth rate. Iran is one of the most densely populated countries in the Middle East. Iraq was more secular in embracing the idea of quality over quantity as strategy for national growth and ascendancy. And also its antisemitism was a more virulent variety than that found in Iraq.
An even better question would be, why didn’t we attack Iran instead of Iraq? Answer: we attacked Iraq to protect Iran.
If the US wanted to attack Iran, then why didn’t it do it when it was in Iraq? And if it does, what role will Iraq play?
It never occurred to me that the US might attack Iran in order to enable a Muslim attack on Israel, but that fits the general sense. My imagination led me to conclude that motivation for a US attack on Iran would be to further enable immigration from that country as in Vietnam, Pakistan and Afghanistan to the Western countries. First their are the refugees, then there are “our allies” who no longer want to live in the countries they liberated, these would also include those who enlisted into the military for purposes of immigration. Along with immigration, I imagine that an attack on Iran would also be a huge labor generator for those on the economic edge of the war machine and so whatever is actually necessary to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program would be inflated a hundred times in order stimulate the economy with government funding. But most important, it would, as you say, do something to trouble Israel in some way and further undermine it socially, economically or strategically. For too many people in the world and especially in the White House now, no crisis should ever get in the way of kicking Jews, especially a whole country full of them.