On Today's Episode ...

In the last several months, you'd have to be living under a rock to not hear the loud and consistent drumbeat urging us on to an attack of Iran. They're building THE BOMB, we're told. They're EVIL, they say. They're bent on the destruction of ISRAEL, the story goes. Every day, in every medium. And I'm here to ask you to think-- a little more deeply than the average American--about what it means.

December 20, 2011, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told 60 Minutes that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within a year, or maybe quicker. Just nineteen days later, on January 8, Panetta admitted that Iran is not even trying to build a nuclear weapon. He said, "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know they are trying to develop a nuclear capability."

But of course truth being no deterrent, we returned shortly thereafter to the drums of war. For example, last week, the New York Times referred to the November, 2011, IAEA report as "showing 'research, development and testing activities' on a range of technologies that would only be useful in designing a nuclear weapon."

It's rather hard to take it too seriously, if you've been paying attention. It seems those pesky Iranians have been right on the verge of developing The Bomb (!) for quite a while now. In an article from the Sydney Morning Herald, we were earnestly assured that all the way back in November of 2008,

Events are moving quickly. The Israeli Atomic Energy Commission has estimated that Iran will have produced enough highly enriched uranium by the end of next year to produce a nuclear bomb. Next year is widely regarded in Israel as year zero for the strategic decision about Iran's nuclear program.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Why is Iran always on the brink of getting the Bomb, but it never does? Why do we keep murdering their scientists and sending ships over and applying economic sanctions, and we keep just staying here, on the brink?

I wonder...

I wonder if maybe it's all a just a put up job to try to get enough people scared that they'll not throw a complete hissy if we attack Iran--you know, to achieve a plausible justification for attacking and occupying another Middle Eastern country, like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and like we're trying in Syria and Pakistan and Egypt . I know, I know, it sounds crazy. Except that it's been talked about, seriously, in real foreign policy circles--for years.

For example, a 2009 Analysis Paper of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution (sounds positively respectable, doesn't it?) stated,

For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

Which Path to Persia? pp. 84-85.

Did you notice that? The people in the know about US Foreign Policy--people at the freaking Brookings Institution--say it would be "far more preferable" if an "outrageous," "deadly" attack by Iran occurred to justify airstrikes that the government wants carry out. You might also take note that they propose "goading" Iraq into attacking and then lying about it, portraying it as an "unprovoked act of Iranian aggression."

And just in case you think that can't be--they couldn't be that cynical--you might be interested in the pros and cons they discuss. Among the "advantages" of this strategy, with my snarky comments in italics:

- American casualties would be "minimal," only "dozens" of American young people would be killed. Well, their families shouldn't mind.

- While there would be "collateral damage in the form of Iranian civilian deaths...it is unlikely that huge numbers would be killed. And who cares about them, anyway? They're only human beings.

- It might even work. There is "some chance (albeit not high)" that this approach could delay Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons for 5 to 7 years.

The "disadvantages" include:

- It would likely only delay the development of weapons by a year or two.

- It might increase Iran's determination to get the weapon.

- It might radicalize Iran and other anti-US folks even further.

- It might cause Iran to retaliate, shutting off the oil spigot by closing the Straits of Hormuz.
Which Path to Persia? pp. 88-89.

They don't even list among the disadvantages that it requires lying to the American people and the world, or that those lies would get people killed on both sides. I'm not kidding here--go read it for yourself.

Now that you understand the folks we're talking about, think about this little gem, from a January 9, 2012, article in the Jerusalem Post.

Watching the Sunday talk shows on American TV, the experts were all of the opinion that neither the US nor Israel will embark on attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities in 2012. I tend to agree. Neither the US nor Israel will initiate an attack on Iran. Still, I believe that these experts were off by a million miles.

Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940s, will take the initiative and “help” the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.

The Iranian attack on an American military vessel will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime. The target would not be Iran’s nuclear facilities. The US would retaliate by attacking Iran’s navy, their military installations, missile silos, airfields. The US would target Iran’s ability to retaliate, to close down the Strait of Hormuz. The US would then follow by targeting the regime itself.

Elimination of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Yes. This part would turn out to be the final act, the grand finale. It might have been the major target, had the US initiated the attack. However, under this “Pearl Harbor” scenario, in which Iran had launched a “surprise” attack on the US navy, the US would have the perfect rationalization to finish them off, to put an end to this ugly game.

Unlike the latest attempt at an Iranian revolution, this time the US would not shy away, rather, it would go public, openly calling for the Iranian people to join in with the US in working to overthrow the corrupt Islamic fundamentalist regime. The Iranian people would respond in numbers.

Spring would reemerge, and the Iranian people would join the rest of the Middle East - this time with the direct support of the US.

Notice how the author, Avi Perry, who is an Israeli intelligence expert and former professor at Northwestern University, puts "surprise" in quotes in his use of the term "surprise attack." That's because it wouldn't be a surprise at all--he's at least talking about a situation where the US knows it's coming and doesn't prevent it (just like Pearl Harbor, which he references). Or maybe he's even talking about something more nefarious still. He might even be referring to a false-flag attack that's blamed on the Iranians. Who knows--maybe one where we get a little 'help' from our friends in Israel?

It wouldn't be the first time that such a plan was considered by our beloved government. Clear back in 2008, it was reported that the feds wanted to drum up support for a war against Iran with a false flag attack. Seymour Hersh reported on a meeting in which then VP Dick Cheney and others discussed sending out American ships disguised to look like Iranian PT boats to fire on other American ships and "start a shootup." Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?

Just something to keep in mind, as you watch the drama (I mean that very literally--it's all a performance for us mindless sheep) unfold.

I've never asked before, but I'm going to this time. People need to think. Will you please link this post to your Facebook page, email links to your friends, and otherwise tell folks about it? Our government, for some reason, seems determined to start this war, on false pretenses if necessary. China and Russia have stated they'll get in to protect Iran if we attack them, because they know it's phony as a three dollar bill. And people who don't actually want World War III to begin should probably know about it and stop them.

A Break From the Lies, for a Moment of Truth

Big news--a representative of the government has told a tiny bit of truth--that the government of Iran is NOT TRYING TO BUILD A NUCLEAR WEAPON. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta admitted Sunday on Meet the Press that Iran is not building the bomb. One is then led to the obvious question, "then how come we're massing troops over there and threatening them with battleships?" But that's only if you are a rational human...

He does go on to say that they're trying to develop "nuclear capability." You know, that's the totally safe, clean energy source that they've been telling us for the last three decades or so that we should have more of, notwithstanding Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. :-)

Here's the clip, and next time, Part Four of Their Lips Are Moving: