And as usual, you can be sure that the globalist-owned corporate media will lie and distort their coverage to help in the effort. Including omitting the all important documented facts that follow.
Shortly after the 2003 Iraq invasion, Iran made a very strong offer to meet at the peace table with the U.S. to talk about getting along. The U.S. told them to hit the road instead.
Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.
But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration officials said.
Remember the "accident" of the fully loaded with nukes B-52 that flew from North Dakota to Alabama before being discovered by the Air Force? Well that incident was not an accident as cooler heads in the Air Force hierarchy stopped the bomber from flying its real mission to the Middle East.
Remember the "incident" in the Strait of Hormuz in 2007, when it was reported that an Iranian naval vessels threatened to attack a U.S. warship? It turns out the official story was a lie. As Seymour Hersch explains in the video below, a really, big false-flag attack lie.
Did you know that since at least 2007, the United States has funded Islamic terrorist groups to wreak havoc in Iran? Well it is true. And the proof is here and here and here and here.
It's should be no surprise that our supposed ally, Israel, has been nipping at Washington's heels to attack Iran. In fact, in 2008, they went so far as to plan it themselves via false-flag attack; but U.S. Armed Forces Joint Chiefs chairman, Admiral Michael Mullen, told the Israelis that another U.S.S. Liberty style provocation would not be tolerated.
Would Mullen still hold to that promise? Is there anyone outside of the War Pigs' gang who really wants to test him?
The war drums that currently beat in support for an attack on Iran talk of how they are working on building nuclear weapons are strikingly similar to the Weapons of Mass Destruction drums that were sounded prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion. Of course, those drums reeked with the stench of propaganda at the time. But nevertheless, the War Pigs got their war as the bloodthirsty U.S. corporate media conned much of the U.S. population into believing the lie that Iraq was connected to the 9-11 attacks and that only an overthrow of former U.S. puppet Saddam Hussein could save the U.S. from another 9-11.
Of course, we all know that Saddam's WMD program was a impotent as Bob Dole on a barbiturate bender, but dammit wasn't the Shock and Awe a fun-to-watch ratings grabber!
But I digress.
A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate from December 2007 said that Iran had stopped their weapons program in 2003, ironically around the same time that their aforementioned peace offer to the U.S. was rebuffed:
A major U.S. intelligence review has concluded that Iran stopped work on a suspected nuclear weapons program more than four years ago, a stark reversal of previous intelligence assessments that Iran was actively moving toward a bomb.
The new findings, drawn from a consensus National Intelligence Estimate, reflected a surprising shift in the midst of the Bush administration's continuing political and diplomatic campaign to depict Tehran's nuclear development as a grave threat. The report was drafted after an extended internal debate over the reliability of communications intercepts of Iranian conversations this past summer that suggested the program had been suspended.
Couple that with the fact that in May, 2010, Iran signed a treaty to send its uranium to NATO member Turkey to be enriched . . .
Under the deal, Iran has said it is prepared to move its uranium within a month of its approval by the so-called Vienna Group (US, Russia, France and the IAEA).
In return, Iran says it expects to receive 120kg of more highly enriched uranium (20%) - a purity well below that used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons - within a year.
. . . and it would seem that the Iranians are doing all they can to keep the Shock and Awe from kicking down their door.
But despite those documented efforts from Iran, the war drums pound on.
Don't be mislead by the warmongering corporate media and the chicken-hawk dolts who occupy their bloody analyst chairs, who tell you that a war with Iran will be quick and easy. Any attack on Iran will be met with major retaliation that would make the highly effective Afghan and Iraqi resistance look impotent by comparison.
Put yourself in Iran's shoes for a moment. If the world's greatest imperial power and their hot-tempered little brother continually threatened to attack you, you would probably prepare to fight back in some fashion, wouldn't you?
A still highly relevant and realistic look at what an attack on Iran might bring was penned by William S. Lind in 2006.
There are two ways, not mutually exclusive, that Iran could attempt to cut our supply line in Iraq in response to an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. The first would be by encouraging Shi’ite militias to which it is allied, including the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades, to rise up against us throughout southern Iraq, which is Shi’ite country. The militias would be supported by widespread infiltration of Iranian Revolutionary Guards, who have shown themselves to be good at this kind of thing. They are the people who trained and equipped Hezbollah for its successful defense of southern Lebanon against the vaunted Israeli army this past summer.
The Shi’ite militias already lie across our single supply line, and we should expect them to cut it in response to Iranian requests. We are already at war with the Mahdi Army, against which our forces in Iraq have been launching a series of recent raids and air strikes. A British journalist I know, one with long experience in Iraq, told me he asked the head of SCIRI, which controls the Badr Brigades, how he would respond if the U.S. attacked Iran. “Then,” he replied, “we would do our duty.”
Iran has a second, bolder option it could combine with a Shi’ite insurrection at our rear. It could cross the Iran-Iraq border with several armored and mechanized divisions of the regular Iranian Army, sever our supply lines, then move to roll us up from the south with the aim of encircling us, perhaps in and around Baghdad. This would be a classic operational maneuver, the sort of thing for which armored forces are designed.
At present, U.S. forces in Iraq could be vulnerable to such an action by the Iranian army. We have no field army in Iraq; necessarily, our forces are penny-packeted all over the place, dealing with insurgents. They would be hard-pressed to assemble quickly to meet a regular force, especially if fuel was running short.
The U.S. military’s answer, as is too often the case, will be air power. It is true that American air power could destroy any Iranian armored formations it caught in the open. But there is a tried-and-true defense against air power, one the Iranians could employ: bad weather. Like the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge, they could wait to launch their offensive until the weather promised a few days of protection. After that, they would be so close to our own forces that air power could not attack them without danger of hitting friendlies. (This is sometimes know as “hugging tactics.”) Reportedly, the Turkish General Staff thinks the Iranians can and will employ this second option, no doubt in combination with the first.
Perhaps the greatest danger lies in the fact that, just as the French high command refused to consider the possibility of a German attack through the Ardennes in 1940, Washington will not consider the possibility that an attack on Iran could cost us our army in Iraq. We have made one of the most common military mistakes—believing our own propaganda. Over and over, the U.S. military tells the world and itself, “No one can defeat us. No one can even fight us. We are the greatest military the world has ever seen!”
Unfortunately, like most propaganda, it’s bunk. The U.S. Armed Forces are technically well-trained, lavishly resourced Second-Generation militaries. They are today being fought and beaten by Fourth-Generation opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan. They can also be defeated by Third-Generation opponents who can react faster than America’s process-ridden, PowerPoint-enslaved military headquarters. They can be defeated by superior strategy, by trick, by surprise, and by preemption. Unbeatable militaries are like unsinkable ships: they are unsinkable until something sinks them.
If the U.S. were to lose the army it has in Iraq to Iraqi militias, Iranian regular forces, or a combination of both, cutting our one line of supply and then encircling us, the world would change. It would be our Adrianople, our Rocroi, our Stalingrad. American power and prestige would never recover. Nothing, not even Israel’s demands, should lead us to run this risk, which is inherent in any attack on Iran.
On top of that, there is no question that an attack on Iran could spill over into a World War III scenario. That warning comes most strikingly from Russian President Demetri Medvedev earlier this year.
Couple that with the comments from Chief of Russia’s General Staff General Nikolay Makarov:
And analysis from investigative reporter, former Navy officer and National Security Agency employee Wayne Madsen:
And you can see that a U.S. attack on Iran would do nothing but harm to an already staggered United States economy and military worldwide.
Do I even have to mention what an Iranian attack could trigger on the Korean Peninsula?
But despite all of the thwarting, false starts and dire analysis of what a war with Iran could mean for the United States and the world - the push from the War Pigs is still strong, as Webster Tarpley illustrates in his comprehensive analysis from July 21, 2010, which begins with the following paragraph:
After about two and a half years during which the danger of war between the United States and Iran was at a relatively low level, this threat is now rapidly increasing. A pattern of political and diplomatic events, military deployments, and media chatter now indicates that Anglo-American ruling circles, acting through the troubled Obama administration, are currently gearing up for a campaign of bombing against Iran, combined with special forces incursions designed to stir up rebellions among the non-Persian nationalities of the Islamic Republic. Naturally, the probability of a new fake Gulf of Tonkin incident or false flag terror attack staged by the Anglo-American war party and attributed to Iran or its proxies is also growing rapidly.
And ends with this call for action:
It is genuinely appalling to realize that we are now back to something resembling the desperate situation of 2002, with Iran as the target this time around. One rule of thumb which many learned during the Bush-Cheney years is that the attack is likely to start during the dark of the moon. This suggests a possible timetable built around August 10, September 8, or October 7 of this year, or perhaps some time later. It may come as an October surprise, as de Borchgrave seems to suggest. We are back once again to the classic predicament of persons of good will in recent decades: get active or get radioactive. So it’s time to get active
So which are you going to be? Active . . . or radioactive?