Moron Media Ignores Iran War Build-Up

New York Times Iraq War
Where Is The Free Press?

It was pretty clear, except perhaps to morons, that Bush and Blair were building up for their attack on Iraq long before war was declared in March 2003. Most people will still remember the huge global day of protest in February 2003. Most populations, with the notable exceptions of Israel and the US, were strongly against the war, and most people were well aware that the Iraqi “threat” had been concocted. People were also unconvinced that Saddam’s “evilness” constituted a reason for war, especially since he had been armed and supported by the US for years before he was identified as a “bad guy”.

London’s march on 15 February 2003 was the largest protest in British history: over a million people demonstrated against the war. However, that protest was not the first; 400,000 Londoners marched against an attack on Iraq in October 2002 – itself one of the largest marches ever seen in the UK. Already in October, most intelligent observers knew that the decision had been made, despite the Bush/Blair lie machine claiming that our leaders were still “hoping for a peaceful resolution”. Years later, we discovered we’d been right: Blair had already given his backing to the neo-con war plans in March 2002, a full year before the war began.

We weren’t fortune-tellers or mind-readers; we simply knew some history, and could see that the public was being softened up with scare stories about Saddam Hussein. Likewise, we already knew in 2002 that the neo-cons planned to attack Iran. On a successful “liberation” of Baghdad, they would continue on to Tehran. Fortunately, the Iraq war was incompetently handled, and the US became bogged down, preventing a new front from being opened. But the war on Iran wasn’t cancelled, just postponed.

As I’ve observed repeatedly over recent years, the only reason Iran hasn’t been attacked is that, with wars underway in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US doesn’t have enough military capacity. It’s no coincidence that, alongside the recent US troop withdrawal from Iraq, America has also opened dialogue with the Taliban (yes, those same evil-doers that they were going to wipe out in 2001, remember?) The US now has plenty of capacity for a new war – and when in recent history has it ever failed to take advantage of such a position?

The excuses for attacking Iran are as patchy as those for attacking Iraq. They may be developing WMD (in the form of nukes)… but the US has been saying that for years, and there’s still no firm evidence. Even if they are, there is nothing in international law to prevent Iran from owning nukes – Pakistan and Israel both developed the bomb in secret, resulting in relatively little fuss. There are simple lies aimed at the most gullible morons: Iran says it wants to wipe Israel from the map? False. Iran denies the Holocaust? Also false. Then there are truthful claims about Iran’s human rights record; yet Iran is no worse than many US allies: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Uzbekistan to name a few. The US never – repeat Never – goes to war in order to defend human rights (in any case, wars can only make the situation worse for the people of Iran, and make it impossible for them to rise up against the regime).

You’d hope that enough Americans would have learned the hard way, from Iraq, or Vietnam before it. But most Americans rely on the US mass media for facts, and (as we saw in Iraq) the US mass media is incapable of holding the military-industrial complex to account. The New York Times famously apologised for its Iraq coverage; most US newspapers and TV channels were even worse, but failed to apologise.

Now, here we go again. We can see there is a war coming, because US troops are being deployed, rapidly and in large numbers, to the region. This is hardly a secret. Russia Today reported on January 5th that thousands of US troops were being deployed to Israel. The latest edition of The Economist confirms that 9,000 troops are in Israel, and a further 15,000 on their way to Kuwait. Western-backed terrorists – probably Mossad or the CIA – have already been carrying out attacks against Iranian military facilities, and have murdered at least four scientists.

The case against an Iran war is even simpler than the one against Iraq. Unlike Iraq, Iran has never attacked its people or neighbours with WMD. Indeed, it was Iraq that attacked Iran with chemical weapons in the 1980s; weapons that were supplied by the Reagan administration. Yet morons seem to never learn; and the moron media in the United States seems no more willing to tell the truth about this coming war than they were in 2002/03. Iran’s huge reserves of high quality oil hardly need mentioning.

The UK government is making supportive noises of the coming American war; Cameron will undoubtedly follow, but without the support of the population, just as Blair did. This time, much of the EU is also on board. The Obama administration may be no less warlike than the Bush regime, but it’s clearly more skilled at diplomacy.

When Blair took us to war, MI5 told him we would likely experience terror as a result. on 7 July 2005, 52 Londoners were killed on public transport, and hundreds injured. If we attack Iran, we expose ourselves to new terror – which in turn will create new justifications to continue this eternal American war. The next war is coming soon; our leaders are terrorists, and are inviting terrorism upon us; mass-murder will, yet again, be done in our name. And we have no choice but to resist.

4 thoughts on “Moron Media Ignores Iran War Build-Up”

  1. The dumbness of the US corporate media is deeply depressing, but (all things considered) not as depressing as the dumbness of the British media. The set-up is so obvious, and yet the BBC, Channel 4 News and others dutifully follow the line that Iran is a threat to the world and our leaders are only being responsible.

    The other day, an otherwise estimable Labour MP predicted that 2012 would see “continued sabre-rattling by Iran against America and Israel”. Yes, that way round.

    If you remember correctly that in 2002-03 the British public was sceptical about the “case” for war against Iraq, I have to say that there seems to be less scepticism, not more, this time around. I can’t imagine a million-and-a-half strong march against war with Iran somehow. If our leaders think that the public are gullible fools, it may be because we are.

    1. I agree with all those points, but I’m more optimistic that an opposition will build fast. People are more politicised than they were 10 years ago.

  2. Well put as always Mr Watch.

    I cannot comprehend how little coverage these scientist hits have received in the UK, let alone these huge troop mobilisations.

    Your last paragraph is pertinent though. One thing Iran does have history for is sponsoring terrorism, (although as far as I’m aware that’s only against Israel so far), and I have no doubt that yet another war in our name simply has to produce some kind of retaliation against us. In fact, I find it hard to believe there haven’t been more attacks in the UK. With estimates of dead Iraqis anywhere between half a million and a million, surely some of the families of these victims are going to take up arms? I suspect (but have no rationale to back this up) that the Iranians will take less kindly to having their countrymen slaughtered in an unjust war.

    I suppose fear of reprisals, although valid, is arguably a selfish reason for opposition. But as you have clearly outlined, there are plenty of other reasons to protest.

    Sadly, I don’t share your optimism about the populace’s will to oppose this new war. Not that protest will make any difference whatsoever – the wheels are clearly already in motion, as they were in 2002/03.

    But most people I know – and I don’t think I move in particularly moronic circles – seem to be somewhere between blissfully unaware and woefully misinformed, over Iran. Can’t see that changing in time to stop this war.

  3. The analysis of the current situation is flawed IMO. Iran is an oppressive society that seeks to focus on sectarian divisions to destablise the region as a mechanism top promote its own political interests. The constancy of an “in conflict” mode with the West, Israel and the neighbouring Arab states allows it to deny its own people freedom and promote a culture of Persian jingoism. It has promoted the notion that the modern state is the inheritor of the mantel of the former Persian empire amalgamated with Shia sectarianism. Iran has also promoted the concept of the rejection of Israel and its destruction, and has sought to create division through its hosting & promotion of events challenging the existence of the Holocaust.

    In the Invasion of Iraq, regardless of its legitimacy, Iran recognised immediately that the Bush / Blair alliance lacked support and was thus constrained. Therefore Iran sought to destabilise Iraq and drag US & UK into a greater conflict by sponsoring Shia attacks on Allied forces, Sunnis and nascent Iraqi democracy. Had the US & UK not been so constrained, they may have been willing to launch an attack on Iran to prevent it sending weapons and advisors into Iraq. That Iran to away with this simply emboldened the Iranian government, and increasingly they sought to destablise other states in the region.

    The Iranians have also actively sought to obtain the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, to achieve apparent parity with Israel, Pakistan and India. However this has proven problematic as the Iranian govt has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, and on occasion intimated that an NCB attack on Israel to achieve its destruction would justify the inevitable fatalities among Palestinians caused by the fall-out. despite Iran’s belligerence towards Israel, it has not once been willing to directly engage in war against Israel.

    Israel on the other hand is informed by paranoia at every level. It is a state that throughout its existence has been in a state of war against its neighbours. It does not fundamentally trust any country, and believes that even the USA would abandon it in the face of a major crisis. It is this fear that directs the USA to repeatedly make public statements of re-assurance to the Israelis.

    But Israel poses an additional challenge. Unlike other client-states, Israel is as technically advanced as any Western country and has an armed force equivalent to most NATO states, despite having a population of only 7 million. The Israelis also believe that once Iran acquires nuclear weapons that the int’l community, and particularly Europe, will back down in the face of a threat and acquiesce to any demand that Iran makes. This makes Israel very hard to control if it genuinely perceives a major and real threat.

    The USA for its part is disengaging from the Middle East and the forces in US forces in Israel and Kuwait are principally logistics enabling the US to deploy rapidly if needed. The future focus for US forces is the Pacific.

    At this moment the Iranians are boasting that they no longer need Russia to provide nuclear fuel, and are busy constructing more centrifuges. They are probably fairly confident that Israel will be pressured to stay its hand, and not attack. But the Iranians, like the Egyptians and others before them in the region, may have reached the point where they are only hearing their own propaganda. As a consequence the Iranians may overplay their hand, and in response the Israelis launch a massive air & missile attack upon Iran’s nuclear establishments. Without doubt the Israelis will have sounded out the other states, and there is little doubt that most would not be averse to seeing Iran cut down to size.

    In addition Israel may be using the current Syrian crisis as a mask for its own military preparations. It may indeed be perceived in the region that a devastating attack on Iran’s nuclear and military resources would dramatically undermine the Syrian regime leading to its collapse. It’s unlikely that the Russians would directly intervene in Syria or Iran.

    Alternatively Israel does nothing and Iran continues to develop its nuclear strength. Iran will interpret this as Israeli and Western weakness. There is then the very real danger that Iran launches an attack on Israel, believing that Israel will not respond due to fear of escalation into nuclear war. In retaliation the Israelis would have to launch a first strike of such enormity that the entire Iranian nation would collapse through the destruction of infrastructure. But that in turn would cause the international economies to enter a phase of crisis as Iranian oil would be lost for a period.

    The Iranian regime is principally a product of Western weakness and lack of resolve. When the Iranians captured Royal Navy personnel some years ago and held them hostage, had the UK adopted a much more aggressive stance at the time and shown it was willing to take forceful action Iran would have backed down. That UK didn’t merely allowed the Iranian regime to use the incident to strengthen its support and convince itself that it could do as it liked.

    In the West, and particularly the so-called liberal elements of it, there is a profound reluctance to go to war. This is founded upon the experiences of WW1 & 2. But for a large part of the world, Iran included, have no share in this experience. Even the horrors of the Iraq~Iran war were not enough to create this. There is therefore no internal resistance to progression towards war, and the Iranian govt has massive internal support. Listen to the rhetoric of the Iranians and you will soon notice a profound disconnect between the words and the realities of total war. The Arab states prior to 1973 shared this same idea, and ended up talking themselves into war with Israel with ever more disastrous results.

    Whatever happens neither USA nor UK will participate in the future conflict, as neither has the resources to commit and both are worn out by Iraq & Afghanistan. UK also has Argentina prodding in diplomatically in the South Atlantic.

Leave a Reply