Log In Registration

Nuke the Middle East, especially Iran

by on February 2, 2012 in Economy, Featured, Most Read

Nuke the Middle East, especially Iran

Here is the attached article from the Washington Post released earlier this morning and my quick take…

Is Israel preparing to attack Iran?

By , Thursday, February 2, 8:42 AM


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months.

CG: This is complete propaganda. The United States and Israel know exactly what they are doing and whether or not they intend to attack Iran. The recent fear-mongering and rhetoric being spewed by the Mainstream media gives us every indication that an attack on Iran is imminent. Also, an attack by Israel is an attack by the United States plain and simple. By positioning Israel as the scapegoat, this allows Obama and the current administration to point fingers elsewhere. Remember how they pitched the Libya invasion and brutal assassination of Moammar Gadhafi a NATO led attack? Let’s be clear here. Just like Libya was a U.S. led invasion, any attack on Iran will be U.S. led as well. The United States is the aggressor, not the victim.

Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

CG: A U.S. led invasion of Iran has nothing to do with its nuclear capabilities but everything to do with the oil trade and stealing other independent sovereign nations black gold. This is the sole reason for the U.S. led invasion in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now soon to be Iran. The United States is terrorizing the Middle East and Northern Africa in order to steal oil. As a consequence it has left millions of people dead. A decade long war in Afghanistan and nearly ten years in Iraq has completely destabilized the region which was the goal in the first place. Destabilization means it is easier for the United States to steal oil and stake their claim of the region. Also, Iran’s oil contracts are set to expire around June-July which means this has been the unofficial deadline set for physical attack. Remember, the embargo being enforced by Europe and the United States is the equivalent of dropping an economic time bomb and is clearly an act of war against Iran (think Japan with Pearl Harbor). Also, note that India and China have started to buy oil from Iran in gold and other alternatives outside of the U.S. dollar. This threatens U.S. control of the oil trade and provides incentive for military intervention.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t want to leave the fate of Israel dependent on American action, which would be triggered by intelligence that Iran is building a bomb, which it hasn’t done yet.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon when he asked last month to postpone a planned U.S.-Israel military exercise that would culminate in a live-fire phase in May. Barak apologized that Israel couldn’t devote the resources to the annual exercise this spring.

CG: This is just political posturing. A military attack is imminent.

President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold. But the White House hasn’t yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack.

CG: More propaganda. The United States does not oppose an attack on Iran but instead supports it and is only posturing and manipulating the perception of a U.S. led invasion.

The Obama administration is conducting intense discussions about what an Israeli attack would mean for the United States: whether Iran would target U.S. ships in the region or try to close the Strait of Hormuz; and what effect the conflict and a likely spike in oil prices would have on the fragile global economy.

CG: The United States actually welcomes a temporary spike in oil prices. This will provide a great excuse for Washington to relay to the public and scapegoat the current economic Depression. The U.S. will point fingers at the Middle East for being the sole reason for our economic woes, blame Iran for the economic Depression as well as help rally support of the American people for the war when ordinary Americans are crippled at the gas pump. The administration will say we were in a recovery until Iran instigated war. As a result, millions of conned Americans will support the attack against Iran and its allies.

The administration appears to favor staying out of the conflict unless Iran hits U.S. assets, which would trigger a strong U.S. response.

This U.S. policy — signaling that Israel is acting on its own — might open a breach like the one in 1956, when President Dwight Eisenhower condemned an Israeli-European attack on the Suez Canal. Complicating matters is the 2012 presidential campaign, which has Republicans candidates clamoring for stronger U.S. support of Israel.

Administration officials caution that Tehran shouldn’t misunderstand: The United States has a 60-year commitment to Israeli security, and if Israel’s population centers were hit, the United States could feel obligated to come to Israel’s defense.

CG: Israel controls the United States, not the other way around.

Israelis are said to believe that a military strike could be limited and contained. They would bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz and other targets; an attack on the buried enrichment facility at Qom would be harder from the air. Iranians would retaliate, but Israelis doubt that the action would be an overwhelming barrage, with rockets from Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. One Israeli estimate is that the Jewish state might have to absorb 500 casualties.

CG: Casualties will be far greater and many innocent men, women and children will be killed. Gross war crimes will continue to be perpetuated by the United States but most Americans will say ‘nuke the Middle East’ anyway.

Israelis point to Syria’s lack of response to an Israeli attack on a nuclear reactor there in 2007. Iranians might show similar restraint, because of fear the regime would be endangered by all-out war. Some Israelis have also likened a strike on Iran to the 1976 hostage-rescue raid on Entebbe, Uganda, which was followed by a change of regime in that country.

Israeli leaders are said to accept, and even welcome, the prospect of going it alone and demonstrating their resolve at a time when their security is undermined by the Arab Spring.

CG: A global revolution is taking shape around the world that cannot be contained without brute force by global leadership. Expect the growing implementation of the American police state and bills like the NDAA to be enforced. All U.S. patriots are now enemies of the state.

“You stay to the side, and let us do it,” one Israeli official is said to have advised the United States. A “short-war” scenario assumes five days or so of limited Israeli strikes, followed by a U.N.-brokered cease-fire. The Israelis are said to recognize that damage to the nuclear program might be modest, requiring another strike in a few years.

CG: No war is short. The global conflict in the Middle East and Northern Africa will last decades.

U.S. officials see two possible ways to dissuade the Israelis from such an attack: Tehran could finally open serious negotiations for a formula to verifiably guarantee that its nuclear program will remain a civilian one; or the United States could step up its covert actions to degrade the program so much that Israelis would decide that military action wasn’t necessary.

CG: Wrong. Most of the Middle East and Northern Africa hates the United States and they have every reason to. Attacking Iran will only promote more terrorism and spur the growth of additional radicalism.

U.S. officials don’t think that Netanyahu has made a final decision to attack, and they note that top Israeli intelligence officials remain skeptical of the project. But senior Americans doubt that the Israelis are bluffing. They’re worrying about the guns of spring — and the unintended consequences.

CG: The decision has already been made. Pray to God the United States doesn’t attack.


Christopher Greene is the creator of AMTV.

Facebook Twitter Google+ YouTube 

VN:R_U [1.9.18_1163]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
VN:R_U [1.9.18_1163]
Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
Nuke the Middle East, especially Iran, 5.0 out of 5 based on 1 rating

Print article

5 CommentsAdd yours

  • TopherMorrison

    TopherMorrison - February 3, 2012

    I laughed when I saw the title of this article. The U.S. clearly suffers from an Iran War Psychosis: http://www.purpleserf.com/2011/12/iran-war-psychosis.html

    It isn’t the first time the American public has been manipulated to the point where some have wanted to turn the Middle East into a parking lot.

  • Sarah - February 3, 2012

    Hey Chris, have you seen this yet? http://theyfly.com/prophecies/prophecies.htm#henoch

    Its regards a lot on what your saying, particularly about the third world war. It mentions how the powers of the united states seems to know no bounds.

  • falcon15 - February 5, 2012

    I find it particularly telling that the same folks insisting that Iran has the capability of creating 4 nuclear weapons as well as being insistent that Iran has developed a long range surface to surface missile capable of reaching the East Coast of the US, is Israeli Intelligence. These are the SAME bone heads that were adamant that IRAQ had WMDs. We all saw the results of that one. The US is the Israeli’s dog. They are pointing at Iran and yelling “SICK BALLS”. The plethora of “Iran has nuclear weapons capability” articles, and the flow of articles that are focused on “possible” attacks on “US soil” against Jewish people or businesses are nothing more than a media saturation to get the sheeple accustomed to the fact that they (the people) want a war with Iran.

  • Sarah - February 5, 2012

    I’d compare Israel to being more like how Egyptians treated cats during the Egyptian empire. Worship them like gods.:p

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Facebook Iconfacebook like buttonYouTube IconSubscribe on YouTubeTwitter Icontwitter follow buttonSubscribe Our RSS Feed