Reasons to be Tearful (part three)

Infinite war

Thanks to Eric for forwarding this outstanding Evildoers here we come by Pepe Escobar, about the neo-con strategy to engage the entire natural resources producing countries in wars. Nevermind that the consequences of this warplanning are catastrophic (for the US) and they know it:

“Both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency have extensively war-gamed the possible consequences of a pre-emptive strike (against Iran). The results were disastrous. The neo-cons dismiss it as perceptions of the so-called “reality-based community”.”

What the basic problem entails is simply a question of organisation and other practial matters. There are only so many munitions and troops to move around the chessboard of “over there”, and the problem is more of a nature of when the game will start, not actually IF it will start.

Why are these nations such a threat????

It is interesting to note that not every nation on earth has “problems” with Syria, Iran, Sudan, etc… There are actually reasons to believe that arch-enemies such as Iraq were on the road to healthy diplomatic and commercial relations. Iran is currently beginning a new series of trade negotiations with the European Union. This is quite a threat to the United States.

“Both Iran and the EU have a tremendous stake in the success of the new round of negotiations, which started this week and will, according to European diplomats, last for many months. For Iran, a deal with the EU is a major twofold strategic victory: it amplifies the political abyss between Washington and Brussels, and from the point of view of Iranian consumers, it’s good for business. For the EU, it’s above all good for big business in the oil and gas industry. A who’s who of European majors – Royal Dutch-Shell, Total-Fina-Elf, Agip, British Gas, Enterprise, Lasmo, Monument – already has and looks forward to expanding Iranian contracts. Not to mention the Chinese, who last month assured the Iranians in Beijing, after signing a major oil-and-gas deal, that they would block any move by the International Atomic Energy Agency to take the nuclear impasse to the UN Security Council.”

In other words, a NORMAL Iran is bad for business. And the neo-cons, and the theo-cons keep pushing it:

“Ideologues like Reuel Marc Gerecht of the AEI are unfazed, and keep pushing heavily for a pre-emptive strike. Gerecht boasts that “you have to be crystal clear with them that whatever they dream up, we can dream up something much, much worse”. These ideologues are obviously unaware of the fact that a strike will inevitably alienate the fiercely nationalistic Iranian population, will lead them to rally en masse in support of the government, and will be disastrous for business from a oil major/corporate American point of view.”

Just so we’re all clear about that and don’t start talking about WMDs, Dictators, Liberation and immenent nuclear threat to Europeans and Americans.


One response to “Reasons to be Tearful (part three)

  1. I like Pepe Escobar too. I find him much more judicious than other commentators regarding Iraq and especially regarding the very delicate question of the Shi’a. Many of us have a tendency to insist that the Iraqi Shi’a must be either (a) fighting alongside the Sunni insurgents against America or (b) collaborating with the Americans against them. Given this preconception, we tend to discount Sistani’s statements as mere playing for time. I am guilty of this too. Pepe Escobar goes out of his way to say that Sistani is not a collaborator with the occupation, even by omission, and something in the way he says this carries conviction.

    I regret that many Sunni activists write off the Shi’a in advance as ‘not really Muslims at all’ (if I may borrow a phrase many Jewish readers will recognise). History is full of examples of Shi’i potentates collaborating with Western powers, but this does not mean that the Sunni radicals do not work with Western intelligence agencies behind the scenes too. Divide-and-rule takes many many forms.

    Michael Scheuer (the ‘anonymous’ ex-CIA spook) argues that Zarqawi swore not to engage in sectarian attacks on Shi’as when he adopted the Al Qaeda affiliation. If this is correct, it makes it likely that the current wave of bombings of Shi’i sites is actually being carried out by Allawi’s provocateurs, not by insurgents at all. Never underestimate the possibility that the US wants a civil war, actually positively wants it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s