The coming Iran War, pt. 1

Global Guerillas on the coming US attack on Iran

Despite the seeming inevitability of this path, the outcomes (“effects”) it would produce are far from inevitable. An attack of this type would be a global system shock that is rife with downside risks and uncertainties. Once the attack commences, the shock waves it produces would be far-reaching, unpredictable, and in most cases very bad. Even if the U.S. military is prepared to repel an Iranian counter-attack and armed revolts from Iraqi Shiite militia members, it’s impossible to prevent rocketing oil prices, global terrorist attacks, and severe diplomatic fall-out. Further, Iran’s government may prove to be more resourceful than anticipated and outlast the attack, only to resume production of nuclear materials with the intent of revenge. Worse yet, the US might inadvertently collapse the US-led post cold war environment as countries, distrustful of US intentions, scramble to safety amid rapidly gyrating economic and social instability.

Despite these well-founded fears, the lack of other viable options coupled with the pertinacious intent of the U.S. administration to stop Iran from building the bomb (heedless of the costs), will likely drive the Pentagon towards this method of attack. To the Bush administration, all alternatives are preferable to a nuclear-armed Iranian clerical regime with de facto control over Palestine’s Hamas, Shiite militias in Iraq, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and numerous other global terror groups. For those contemplating this attack, the Iranian regime, with Ahmadinejad as its public face, has become everything that Saddam promised to be and more.

A far saner solution is voiced by former US Senator James Abourezk, “To end terrorism, end illegal occupations.”

John Robb, who is most of Global Guerillas, tends to be accurate about what’s coming. His expertise is in what he calls open source warfare, networked organizations engaged in asymmetrical warfare against traditional militaries. I’ve no idea what his politics are, he never expresses them. Interesting guy.

One comment

  1. Well, it’s not his “politics” exactly, but this is revealing: “the pertinacious intent of the U.S. administration to stop Iran from building the bomb.” Like the entire ruling class and media, he gives his readers the not-so-subliminal message that Iran IS building a bomb, despite the lack of evidence to that effect along with the credible (though not necessarily true) denials of the Iranian leadership. Furthermore, he also lends credence to the idea that it is the “intent” of the U.S. administration to “stop Iran from building the bomb,” as opposed to their REAL intent, which is regime change in Iran and domination of the Middle East. They could care less if Iran actually did have a bomb, they know damn well such a bomb wouldn’t threaten the U.S. or even Israel in the slightest. As in Iraq, WMD are just a convenient excuse to fool the American people as to their real intent.

Comments are closed.