Iran: The Unthinkable War
Part One: Pretending You Didn’t Know
by Juan Santos
“Every nuclear weapon is a portable
The Democrats are silent as the Bush regime prepares for war against Iran – silent in the face of a potential nuclear mass murder – even a global war: silent in the face of an attack that could cause an utter meltdown of the global economy, a 1930s style Depression that would send millions, perhaps billions of people into starvation-level poverty, as the prices of oil and gasoline triple.
The potentials for horror for tens of millions of people in the region are almost unspeakable.
Such a war would quickly spread to Iraq – where Halliburton’s “Green Zone” in Baghdad would be turned to instant rubble by such missiles as were left for an Iranian counterstrike, giving US soldiers in the Zone their own taste of Lebanon, even as Shia Muslims turn a face of cold steel – or wild, inconsolable grief and rage – toward the death of every US and British soldier, mercenary, spy, journalist, and profiteer in Iraq.
According to Agency France-Presse, the head of
Iraqi Shi’ite leader Moqtada al Sadr has announced that his Mahdi army would retaliate for a
A major defeat in
That war would spread throughout the region is all but certain. Whether it could be contained to the region is entirely uncertain.
Militant forces next door in Pakistan could rise up, forcing loose that government’s shaky hold on power, and putting the capacity for a nuclear counterstrike on US targets directly in the hands of the “terrorists” Washington claims to fear and oppose.
40% of the oil on the world market would dry up overnight as
Seymour Hersch has noted, "Should war break out in the Middle East again… or should any Arab nation fire missiles against
In the West, Daniel Ellsberg has suggested a connection between an attack on
… the kind of society we live in and cherish in the West, a long way from
An attack on
While the official line is to minimize the death dealing potentials of nuclear “bunker busters” or Earth Penetrating Weapons (EPWs)of the kind sure to come into play against Iran’s deeply buried nuclear energy facilities, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), winner of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize, begs to differ.
An IPPNW study concludes that:
“…even a very low-yield nuclear EPW exploded in or near an urban environment… will inevitably disperse radioactive dirt and debris over several square kilometers and could result in fatal doses of radiation to tens of thousands of victims.”
These tens of thousands “would die excruciating deaths over several days to a week or more.”
Daniel Ellsberg told a gathering of World Can't Wait activists:
“Every nuclear weapon is a portable
Even if the messianic Bush regime gets cold feet – an unlikely proposition – the Jerusalem Post assures us that Israel, with its 200 nuclear weapons, may well “go it alone” against Iran.
In his 1997 book Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies, Israel Shahak wrote, "Israel is preparing for a war, nuclear if need be, for the sake of averting domestic change not to its liking, if it occurs in some or any Middle Eastern states....
They would no doubt have the backing of Ariel Sharon sycophant Hillary Clinton and the House Democrats who all but unanimously voted for a resolution supporting
With respect to
“The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” The coming war is an imperative of Empire, not just Republican extremism or the compulsion of Christian fascists courting Armageddon.
In fact, an attack on
Stephen Zunes, Middle East Editor for Foreign Policy in Focus, remarked on the Democratic Party’s 2004 platform:
“One possible target for American forces under a Kerry administration is
From Lieberman to Obama to
The Democrat’s position paper on “defense,” “Real Security: Protecting America and Restoring Our Leadership in the World”, says Democrats will “roll back the nuclear threats of
“Real Security” calls for massively beefing up spending both on the military and on so-called “Homeland Security,” while offering an ever-so-slightly altered version of Bush’s policy of “staying the course” in the occupation of Iraq.
The Democrats are the furthest thing from a “peace” party.
Even liberal Democrat stalwarts like Barbara Boxer have the mad gleam of war in their eyes. Boxer, faced with a claim by
The Democrats refuse even to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq – although a recent poll by Zogby International showed that 72% of U.S. troops serving in Iraq believe that the United States should end its occupation of Iraq by the end of this year, and even though 61% of Iraqis support Iraqi resistance attacks on US troops. Oddly, the Christian Science Monitor says that the same percentage - 61% of people in the
A new poll from Reuters shows that only 9% of people in the
But no one in the Democratic Party cares what we say, as long as we don’t make real trouble for them – trouble in the streets - any more than they cared about the millions who marched in peaceful demonstrations across the globe in a bid to stop the invasion of
In a word, a vote for the Democrats is a vote for war – in
It’s also a matter of pretending you didn’t know.
The truth is that there is no such thing as the lesser of two evils. There is only capitulation to, cooperation with and endorsement of evil, or resistance to it. A slow poison is no better than a fast one, once you’re dead. And the more you swallow, of course, the more you will swallow. Only those who resist merit support.
With respect to war, a vote for the Democrats has one impact only; it changes nothing at all but the voter – turning her into the moral equivalent of a “Good German,” in her relationship to the oppressed peoples of the Third and Fourth Worlds, even if she means only to oppose the Christian Fascists and Armageddon mongers on the hard Republican Right.
US strategists are not simple madmen – they are imperialists. There is a method and a strategy to the madness, however insane an attack on
As Larry Everest notes, the Bush regime “is not unaware of these various concerns. But its view is that delay and equivocation will only make matters worse and give openings to the U.S.’s regional and global rivals, and that it could lose the whole game if it doesn’t maintain the momentum in the so-called ‘war on terror,’ and aggressively move forward.”
“This spring, UN Ambassador John Bolton declared (in clear reference to military attacks possibly including nuclear weapons), ‘The longer we wait to confront the threat