Adding my brain spew to the background muttering of conspiracy theorists and pajama bloggers.
So we had Paneta preaching as head of the CIA about pulling more military operations under CIA command. We all know this would make them black ops, not open to very much review, and certainly with secret budgets. Then he moves to Defense and a most compliant Army General Petraeus takes his place at the CIA. Does anyone doubt this is a big setup? Voting in Congress to stop arming the Libyan rebels is simply Congress’s way of saying take it off the books if you’re going to do that. Besides, the CIA has numerous proxies for that sort of thing.
Meanwhile, nobody wants to talk about how the “peaceful demonstrations” in Syria always seem to include police and troops getting shot by either folks hiding in the crowds or snipers in elevated positions. Granted, Assad is a thug, but let’s be honest and report the whole story, please. You expect a thug to react with force against murderers. If they hide in the crowd, the crowd needs to stop protecting them. Don’t think crowds aren’t capable of it. They’ve stopped police agents provocateur in other places in the past, so it’s not that hard. The whole thing is a hideous ploy to create a civil war.
Iran is actually being quite restrained, if you ask me. Shooting two missiles into the Indian Ocean, far away from the ships of their erstwhile enemies, is a reasonable way to send a message. We know the US and Israel are just looking for an excuse to attack. That’s because their decades of agitation such as we see in Libya and Syria, with extensive training and funding to these faux democracy activists, hasn’t worked too well in Iran. Iranians have seen it all before, and won’t be easy victims again. Since the cloak and dagger isn’t working well enough, everyone knows it will come to open hostilities.
The attack will come all too soon.
So I’m wondering how they’ll stage it. Yes, the debate is currently active within the military leadership. On the one hand, we have an awful lot of new, hi-tech toys that reduce the need for direct manpower involvement. But that won’t be enough to execute a mass destruction on the scale of our actions in Iraq. Iran has a much bigger military, and lots more stuff, including some nifty toys of their own. They could close the Straits of Hormuz with some mobile small missile launchers and it would hold for a very long time, since they aren’t defenseless against the drones. Thus, on the other hand, we have to send in the boots or it won’t accomplish much.
That is, I and hundreds of other commentators don’t see how the US could be satisfied with just picking and poking, since Iran won’t lie quietly and take it. You have to pity their position. Based on numbers and realistic military calculations, Iran isn’t likely to win, but they can’t just bow down to the West. That cost them too much the last time (look up the Shah of Iran). They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. I doubt they hold out any real hope everyone will grow up and leave them alone.
I’m wondering how the Neocons plan to get enough bodies for an invasion? We don’t have anywhere near enough right now, unless they execute a general mobilization. I just don’t see us scraping up enough mercenaries to do it. This would have to be a really big operation. That means anyone who possibly could go would have to pack up and go. Without the proper emotional provocation, the “Pearl Harbor 2.0” we keep hearing about, there would be riots. That’s why we keep talking about a false flag, something which plausibly blames Iran for being stupid. So far, Iran has been really smart. Somebody in the secret councils of government, and not ours only, is pulling out all the stops in plotting this one. It has to look real, be hard to debunk quickly, and will be such an emotionally devastating thing you’ll have thousands crowding into the military recruiting offices.
You see, I recall from my military training days — this is not a secret — that we could do a crush and hold for a short time, probably just long enough to mobilize and train up some recruits. It would pay well to keep an eye on when and whether the US military expands their training facilities and the staffing. I’m guessing the larger strategy itself aims to hit all the targets they can with the automated systems and slow down the Iranian response. Iran’s resources are too well distributed to blow them all up at once, but their biggest and best toys are plotted on a map already. We could just possibly keep them from hitting back too quickly and easily, but that doesn’t solve anything long term. Everyone knows the Russians and Chinese would be eager to extend credit and rearm them with nice toys. We just can’t control all the air routes, and we can’t bully those two. But moving that stuff takes time, even when it’s all pre-staged. If we don’t send in the boys and girls to occupy, we won’t have accomplished much, but the planners believe they could wait for a massing of troops for a little while.
They might try to provoke an internal uprising once things are wrecked, a sort of fifth column thing, but last time I looked at it, there didn’t seem to be enough dissidents with the credibility of taking over the government and making it stick. I think the military is too big and too loyal. I believe our own government sees it that way. Even with a regime change, we still have to remove the military, and that’s not a small task. The alternative is hoping enough armed folks will oppose them, and we can foment a civil war as in Libya. It’s possible, but I am one who doubts it will happen that way. The folks most likely to oppose the regime in Iran don’t like us any better. They want reform, not revolution. We get away with things in Egypt because the military is still a Western client, but Iran still has a powerful Islamic revolutionary element — with guns.
So far as I can determine, there would almost have to be a false flag operation to blame Iran for something, then a very intense mobilization, probably including something resembling conscription. And I seriously doubt there are any scenarios calling for a demobilization in the US later. Once the massive military is built again, they’ll simply move on to the next target. Don’t forget, we still have plenty of smaller Asian countries, North Korea and China, and possibly Russia. The Western Warlords will never be satisfied.
The key element for me, and precious few others, is the moral question. No, not angels of light dancing in the streets in Iran, just better than the US. If you examine Iran’s record in light of genuine biblical morality, they are light years ahead of the West. Almost every case trumpeted by the Human Rights folks conveniently forgets biblical morality, and ignores the context of most prosecutions. That woman supposed to die by stoning for adultery? She was charged with conspiring to murder her husband, and the case was pretty strong by even Western standards. The MSM never mentioned that, but the Human Rights folks typically downplayed it when they mentioned it. Keep in mind the Human Rights movement is seldom operating honestly, either; they can be bought. The point is, Iranian courts have been rather merciful even when a case wasn’t drawing international attention, simply because that’s their culture. Western morality is practically non-existent, and everything we see in the news serves some obvious political agenda, with only the thinnest pretense of promoting genuine morals.
Thus, if by God’s own revealed standards anyone deserves to win this fight, it’s Iran. That’s entirely separate from my prophecy Iran will win anyway. On this, I’m not guessing.
