an extensive operation or sphere of activity controlled by one person or group

One group today has more foreign military bases than any other in world history, spends more on violence and domination than the rest of the world combined, and has overthrown or attempted to overthrow some 60 governments, most of them democracies.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

If Iran Made Plans like These, US Would Nuke Iran

US corporate and government funded think-tanks put out careful reports, like the one linked below, that are instruction manuals on how to achieve US domination over Iran.


If nothing else, I urge you to look at the Table of Contents of this 2009 Brookings report, which is titled (mixing some lovely literary consonance with casual racism and casual murderous aggression) Which Path to Persia?  Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran (Imagine a similar Iranian report titled "Into the Yard of the Yankee - Options for a New Iranian Path Toward the United States".) 

In the Table of Contents, you will see the list of options for achieving domination over Iran that are considered and planned in the report, which include: 

  • "An Offer Iran Shouldn't Refuse: Persuasion" (note the Godfather mafia-movie reference ["I'll make him an offer he can't refuse."] and the dark, depraved connotation it gives the word "Persuasion", as these are real lives and deaths being discussed, not movies)
  • "Going All the Way: Invasion"
  • "Airstrikes"
  • "Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike"
  • "Toppling Tehran: Regime Change"
  • "Inspiring an Insurgency: Supporting Iranian Minority and Opposition Groups"
  • "The Coup" (this chapter lays out plans to carry out a second US coup against Iran, the first being in 1953)
  • "Containment"

The report details the key value of Iran's massive oil and gas reserves, and its location next to Iraq's oil and near the "lynch-pin" of the world's oil supply, Saudi Arabia, and gives a cost/benefit analysis of and instructions on how to carry out an aggressive US invasion of Iran, do a regime change, and install a "pro-American" regime, as the US did in Iran in 1953, overthrowing Iran's then democratically elected parliamentary government and installing a pro-US king.  The report also discusses other military and coercive options on how to re-achieve North American domination over Iran.

Diplomatic (or "coercive") means for encouraging Iran to submit to US demands are discussed, too, but the report laments that "diplomatic options share a fatal flaw: they require Iranian cooperation." - pg. 61, paragraph 1

Therefore, says the report, the advantage of US military aggression against Iran is that "force... is wholly under American control and can succeed without Iranian cooperation..." - end of pg. 61

Wouldn't that be nice.  I want you to give me your sandwich, but if I have to convince you to give it to me, you might not.  Therefore, the best way for me to get your sandwich is for me to shoot you, and then take it.  

Easy.  Nothing wrong with that.

Here, the report delves more into the possibilities for a US aggressive, unprovoked invasion of Iran:

"Part II begins by looking at the most extreme military option, that of invading the country to depose the regime, as the United States did in Iraq and Afghanistan. ... In 1998, there was almost no one who favored an invasion of Iraq or believed it likely, but five years later it was a fait accompli. Certainly stranger things have happened, and so we cannot simply ignore this option." - pg. 62

The above quote highlights that 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  Therefore, the report suggests, some event having nothing to do with Iran may well be used as a reason for the United States to invade Iran, or at least give the US that option, since it is something that the US has plans to do, and will do if a suitable pretext arises.  (That the US gives itself the option, if it so decides, to commit the highest crime in the world, aggression, is not questioned.)

I can tell you one thing that would be used as an excuse for Washington to invade Iran: If US spies intercepted an Iranian report in which Iran considered carrying out an aggressive invasion of the United States to overthrow the US government and install a pro-Iranian regime, as does the Brookings report:

"In particular, as American failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have underscored, the critical question that the United States would need to address in the event of an invasion of Iran is how to build a stable, secure, and at least relatively pro-American state after toppling the government." - pg. 63

Imagine an Iranian report that said, "the critical question that Iran would need to address in the event of an invasion of the United States is how to build a stable, secure, and at least relatively pro-Iranian state after toppling the US government."

Very calm, very measured.  Nothing to see here, right?  Just a casual, everyday consideration of aggression, which was defined at Nuremberg as the supreme international crime, which encompasses the combined evil of all other crimes.  

If it strikes you as no big deal that the US does this kind of thing all the time, let it serve as an illustration of how indoctrinated we are into the extremist, imperial military culture of the United States.    

When we read reports like this one from Brookings, we should really feel for the Iranian people, who have been the victims of US brutality since 1953, without a moment's cessation.  Because what this Brookings Institute report is doing is planning the second US invasion and overthrow of Iran's government to replace it with a government that serves American imperial and business interests. 

The instructions on how to do this include suggestions such as: "A ground invasion of Iran designed to overthrow the government would be onerous but rather straightforward. ...a US Marine force would first have to seize control of a regional port, after which the United States could establish a logistical base and build up its ground and air forces before embarking on a "march" of several hundred miles north to Tehran." - pg. 66, paragraph 1

No qualms about the US, Iranian, and other lives that would be snuffed out by this highest of all crimes.  That is no concern to these corporate and government funded imperialists as they write up their plans to further their world hegemony and raise the numbers in their bank accounts.  What are a few dead peons when there is money at stake?  Those who will die are not people, but merely tools for or obstacles to wealth accumulation.  Nothing more.   

If you didn't notice, what this report is planning is the exact definition of imperialism - and in fact the worst form of imperialism:


a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.

To people who try to recognize and temper their nationalistic bias in favor of objectivity, we already know that imperialism is what the US does, and that it is very often done by aggression - the world's supreme crime - the definition of which includes invasion, planning an invasion, threatening force, and the funding of proxy armies in another country.  

But if you were under any illusion that the US is not an extremist military empire, you should ask yourself again: What would you call it if Iran were the author of this report, and it was a study of how to invade the United States, overthrow the government, and install a pro-Iranian state?  Would you call it aggression then?

If so, why?  You would have far less justification to call an Iranian invasion of the US "aggression", as the US has in fact invaded Iran or attacked it through proxy forces multiple times, killing millions, has supported assassinations of Iranian scientists, and has used economic weapons against Iran continually since 1979.

While Iran is alleged, by the US, to be complicit in roughly 300 deaths of US citizens, the US is complicit in the deaths of roughly 1,025,300 Iranian citizens.
This is a ratio of 3,468 to 1.   And the US is writing up plans to continue increasing that horrifying disparity.  Not only is aggression the highest crime in the world, but planning or threatening aggression, which the US does on a regular basis, is equally against international law.  

We can't let this continue.  

If, as Madeleine Albricht says about the US killing 500,000 Iraqi children, you think aggression, genocide, and mass murder are worth it to achieve US imperial goals, you have to ask yourself: Would I sacrifice my mother, brother, father, sister, husband, wife, grandmother, grandfather, son, daughter, child, baby, to achieve the aims of the US government, which are dictated by the wealthiest 1/10th of one percent of the population, as well as US allies such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Qatar?  Or do I only support those aims as long as it is other people being murdered?

It's (disturbingly) easy for some people to say US hegemony is worth genocide when referring to the deaths of people they don't know, but you shouldn't let yourself off so easy.  If you think it's worth it, you have to mean it is worth killing people you do know; your own favorite people on Earth (including yourself), as every person killed in US mass murder campaigns is somebody's favorite person, somebody's friend.  And you do literally have the option: You can become an extremist, too, by joining the US army, convincing your kids and everyone you can to join the US army, and encouraging your family and friends who can't join to self-immolate in protest of the moral obscenity of the US not having yet invaded another non-subordinate country.

Or, you can just be a repulsive hypocrite who, when the opportunity arises and makes it easy for you, supports sacrificing other people, but not yourself or people you like.           

(For details on these numbers and more, see my previous post on US/Iran relations: http://empireslayer.blogspot.com/2013/09/stupid-or-liar.html)

By the way, if you think the Brookings report is insignificant, or if you think calling it "corporate and government funded" is just words, here is a little about the Brookings Institution: 

"In the University of Pennsylvania’s 2012 Global Go To Think Tanks Report, Brookings is ranked the most influential think tank in the world. 

Its largest contributors include the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her husband Richard C. Blum, Bank of America, ExxonMobil, Pew Charitable Trusts, the MacArthur Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the governments of the United States, Japan, Qatar, Taiwan, the District of Columbia, and the United Kingdom." 

One last thing: If you are thinking, "Maybe Iran does make plans like the ones in the above Brookings report."

First of all, the very idea that relatively tiny Iran would make plans to invade the strongest military power in world history is simply without merit.

Here is US vs. Iranian military spending: 

Iran's military spending is less than 4% of that of the US, and this is perfectly in line with the ratio of US-sponsored deaths of Iranian citizen to alleged Iranian-sponsored deaths of US citizens, which is roughly 3,468 to 1. 

But regardless, let's do a Google search for "Iranian plans to invade US", and see what comes up.  Surely, if such plans are known to exist, that would be huge news, and we will immediately find some information about them this way.

Here are the first 10 results of a Google search for "Iranian plans to invade US", in order:

  1. Former CIA Officer - US Plans Nuclear Attack On Iran - Rense
  2. Israel Hayom | 'US planning to invade Syria,' says Iranian Fars TV
  3. US admits it has military plan to attack Iran - Telegraph
  4. Iran's military plans for invasion by U.S. - Washington Times 
  5. U.S. and Israel Planning Joint Attack On Iran Alex Jones' Infowars ...
  6. The US hold secret talks with Israel on plan B: invading Iran
  7. Muftah » The U.S. Invasion of Iraq: Strategic Consequences for Iran
  8. Top US officer admits Iran invasion plan - YouTube
  9. U.S. Iran Attack Plans Shown To Israel: Report - Huffington Post
  10. U.S. Attack on Iran Would Take Hundreds of Planes, Ships, and ...
What we see is that, even if we do a Google search for "Iranian plans to invade US", the most relevant results, according to Google, are all information on US plans to invade Iran (or, as in #2, Syria, or #7, Iraq).

If the US, with its massive, repressive, illegal, almost universally reviled and ridiculed NSA spying apparatus had ever intercepted any Iranian plans even remotely resembling the plans in the Brookings report, do you think maybe we would have heard about them, given the extreme desperation of the NSA and US in general to justify the NSA, and how little they can come up with?

And if you are still wondering why the US wants to invade Iran at all, read the Brookings report, my previous post(s), or read this post by Glenn Greenwald, or use a simple, logical process of elimination:

Does the US support dictatorships? Yes. 

Does the US have nuclear weapons? Yes. 

Does the US support countries with nuclear weapons? Yes. 

Does the US illegally support countries with illegal nuclear weapons? Yes.

Does the US support regimes that have come to power by military coup? Yes.  

Does the US support states that harbor terrorists? Yes. 

Does the US harbor terrorists? Yes. 

Does the US sponsor terrorism? Yes. 

Does the US participate in terrorism? Yes.

Does the US fund proxy terrorist armies? Yes. 

Does the US contract out violence? Yes.  

Did the US do the fourth most executions of its own people in 2012? Yes.

Does the US support every country on the top of the executions-of-its-own-people list except Iran? Yes.

And Iran is not even accused, let alone guilty, of doing all of the things listed above, including having or pursuing nuclear weapons.  And one more thing that must be noted: While in Iran, presidential candidates are vetted by religious elements, in the US, presidential candidates are vetted in the same way by financial elements, and must have the approval and massive financial support of those elements (Obama ran the most expensive campaign in history) to have even the slightest chance of being one of the two allowed choices for president, who end up being very similar, as they are vetted and supported by the same financial institutions.  This is how financial, rather than strictly religious, dictatorship is achieved in the US.  The actual term for it is "plutocracy".       

The US does everything on the above list, and much more, and considers it all okay as long is it helps expand US domination and business interests.  Therefore, accusations of Iran doing any of those things that the US also does cannot be why the US wants to invade Iran.  

What is left?

As is stated in the report, and innumerable other US internal and publicly available documents, Iran contains some of the world's most important energy resources, and has a key strategic location among the rest of the world's most important energy resources, and the US wants to control them all according to its own ideologies.

End of story.  

If the US invades Iran and is able to implement any of its war aims, you can be 100 percent certain that the US will switch Iran back from Euro to US petrodollars.  The US made Iraq switch back to US from Euro petrodollars after the US illegally invaded and looted Iraq, so the same thing is sure to be illegally done to Iran if possible.

Iran moved to Euro petrodollars (link) in 2009 because of the fragility and weakness of the US dollar.

Another revealing excerpt from Which Path to Persia, which Obama and the US are following shamelessly, not even trying to hide it:

"...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal." 

-Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, page 52 

Obama has, three or four times now, explicitly sabotaged his own "deals" with Iran, to try to, as the above paragraph instructs, make Iran look bad so another US attack seems justified.  These people are so sick.  They have to be stopped.