When Will the US Attack Iran?
Published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta
(Russia) on 10 January 2012
by Vladislav Vorobyev (link to
original)
War with Iran would lead to a quick increase in the Russian budget. Is it something we should be happy about?
Were it not for the potential losses, including those among Iranians, a fight to the death between Iran and the United States, long anticipated by experts and militants, would be viewed by Russians as a gift from the heavens. This war would help Russia flourish. However, it is clear that by planning to win a war with Iran, Americans are thinking of themselves first.
Washington once again plans on playing with fire. The results of the game are very uncertain and the prospects are desperately foggy. Despite that, it looks like the White House has made a serious decision to show the world, once again, who is the boss. Two key questions arise right away: Why does America need to do this and why so soon?
Washington does not have much to choose from in terms of people they can divert the anger of the American taxpayer toward. For example, the Libyan dictator has fallen. There is almost nothing to bomb in Syria. There are still uprisings happening in the Arab world without American intrusion. And it is not politically beneficial to fight with Russia. On the other hand, China is too tough. So there are only three candidates left: North Korea, Venezuela and Iran.
The death of the North Korean dictator is unlucky for America because it will take time for the United States to get used to the new leadership. There might not even be a need for a war to deal with the North Koreans, of course, if it fits America's interests. It is also not the best time to wrap up unfinished business with Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez. It seems he is very sick. That is why, obviously, Chavez has stopped shocking the world with his anti-American speeches. Thus, it is very unlikely for the United States to think of serious reasons to attack Venezuela.
Iran is a different story. There are more than enough reasons for America to attack Iran, so Washington does not have to try hard to find justification. Firstly, Iran has not frozen its nuclear program and makes monthly progress. Recently, International Atomic Energy Agency experts proved that Iran started to enrich uranium up to 20 percent. In other words, Iran is one step closer to obtaining all the important technologies needed to create its own nuclear weapon.
On top of that is Tehran's decision to demonstrate to the United States and the European Union its ability to hit Europe and America hard without even shooting once. During training, the Iranian navy blocked the Strait of Hormuz, a vital strait for the West. A fifth of the world's petroleum products come through this strait. If this happened for real, the world's economy would be doomed. The price of the black gold would immediately rise. Experts say one barrel would cost $200 to $250.
It looks like Iran is ready to play along with the United States. Why, then, does Washington need a new war when there are no extra dollars even for the necessary domestic expenditures? Let's not forget that even one day of military action costs the United States billions of dollars. However, instead of lowering its military expenditures (America has to cut expenses somewhere, considering its debt), the White House creates more new bases all over the world, builds numerous missile defense systems and prepares for war.
Even the always laid-back and calm Chinese have called U.S. plans for strengthening its military presence in Asia unjustified. That is what the foreign minister from Beijing claimed. And it is not as if America is only widening its military power on Asian territory. The question arises: Why? And the answer is very logical. When the time comes that the mighty American banks are no longer able to control the world (experts think this will happen in a few months), the Pentagon will step in as the savior.
It looks like the White House needs a new victorious war in the near future not just for the sake of demonstrating military superiority: The U.S. presidential elections are approaching and Barack Obama's ratings are not so great. In a war, Americans would come together to support their national leader only if they must face a very cruel and dangerous enemy.
In previous elections, when George Bush was doing everything to keep Obama away from the White House, Republicans tried to find the unifying enemy in the North Caucasus. To achieve that goal, Georgia was ordered to attack South Ossetia, so CNN and company had the pleasure of showing the world how Russian tanks were crossing the border. American TV even showed South Ossetian land that was bombed by Georgians and tried to pass it off as Georgian land destroyed by Russians.
However, this scenario did not go smoothly. The job was done too roughly. Plus, the Georgians messed up; they dropped their weapons and ran away. The bloody TV war with Russia failed. As a result, Bush's party lost. The Democrats, after four years, have decided to use the same technique of controlling the masses, only in an improved way: Americans would do the dirty job themselves by doing all the bombing and killing.
The question is when. It is worth noting recent reports that the construction of oil pipes along the Strait of Hormuz will be done in July. Then it will be the right time for Americans to hit Iran without destroying the world's economy, right on the eve of the U.S. presidential elections.
For Russia, then, $250 for one barrel would make the country wealthy. It's just that ideally, it would obviously be better for everyone, except for the Americans, if the strait continued to function normally and the Democrats calmed down the Pentagon's militants.
Were it not for the potential losses, including those among Iranians, a fight to the death between Iran and the United States, long anticipated by experts and militants, would be viewed by Russians as a gift from the heavens. This war would help Russia flourish. However, it is clear that by planning to win a war with Iran, Americans are thinking of themselves first.
Washington once again plans on playing with fire. The results of the game are very uncertain and the prospects are desperately foggy. Despite that, it looks like the White House has made a serious decision to show the world, once again, who is the boss. Two key questions arise right away: Why does America need to do this and why so soon?
Washington does not have much to choose from in terms of people they can divert the anger of the American taxpayer toward. For example, the Libyan dictator has fallen. There is almost nothing to bomb in Syria. There are still uprisings happening in the Arab world without American intrusion. And it is not politically beneficial to fight with Russia. On the other hand, China is too tough. So there are only three candidates left: North Korea, Venezuela and Iran.
The death of the North Korean dictator is unlucky for America because it will take time for the United States to get used to the new leadership. There might not even be a need for a war to deal with the North Koreans, of course, if it fits America's interests. It is also not the best time to wrap up unfinished business with Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez. It seems he is very sick. That is why, obviously, Chavez has stopped shocking the world with his anti-American speeches. Thus, it is very unlikely for the United States to think of serious reasons to attack Venezuela.
Iran is a different story. There are more than enough reasons for America to attack Iran, so Washington does not have to try hard to find justification. Firstly, Iran has not frozen its nuclear program and makes monthly progress. Recently, International Atomic Energy Agency experts proved that Iran started to enrich uranium up to 20 percent. In other words, Iran is one step closer to obtaining all the important technologies needed to create its own nuclear weapon.
On top of that is Tehran's decision to demonstrate to the United States and the European Union its ability to hit Europe and America hard without even shooting once. During training, the Iranian navy blocked the Strait of Hormuz, a vital strait for the West. A fifth of the world's petroleum products come through this strait. If this happened for real, the world's economy would be doomed. The price of the black gold would immediately rise. Experts say one barrel would cost $200 to $250.
It looks like Iran is ready to play along with the United States. Why, then, does Washington need a new war when there are no extra dollars even for the necessary domestic expenditures? Let's not forget that even one day of military action costs the United States billions of dollars. However, instead of lowering its military expenditures (America has to cut expenses somewhere, considering its debt), the White House creates more new bases all over the world, builds numerous missile defense systems and prepares for war.
Even the always laid-back and calm Chinese have called U.S. plans for strengthening its military presence in Asia unjustified. That is what the foreign minister from Beijing claimed. And it is not as if America is only widening its military power on Asian territory. The question arises: Why? And the answer is very logical. When the time comes that the mighty American banks are no longer able to control the world (experts think this will happen in a few months), the Pentagon will step in as the savior.
It looks like the White House needs a new victorious war in the near future not just for the sake of demonstrating military superiority: The U.S. presidential elections are approaching and Barack Obama's ratings are not so great. In a war, Americans would come together to support their national leader only if they must face a very cruel and dangerous enemy.
In previous elections, when George Bush was doing everything to keep Obama away from the White House, Republicans tried to find the unifying enemy in the North Caucasus. To achieve that goal, Georgia was ordered to attack South Ossetia, so CNN and company had the pleasure of showing the world how Russian tanks were crossing the border. American TV even showed South Ossetian land that was bombed by Georgians and tried to pass it off as Georgian land destroyed by Russians.
However, this scenario did not go smoothly. The job was done too roughly. Plus, the Georgians messed up; they dropped their weapons and ran away. The bloody TV war with Russia failed. As a result, Bush's party lost. The Democrats, after four years, have decided to use the same technique of controlling the masses, only in an improved way: Americans would do the dirty job themselves by doing all the bombing and killing.
The question is when. It is worth noting recent reports that the construction of oil pipes along the Strait of Hormuz will be done in July. Then it will be the right time for Americans to hit Iran without destroying the world's economy, right on the eve of the U.S. presidential elections.
For Russia, then, $250 for one barrel would make the country wealthy. It's just that ideally, it would obviously be better for everyone, except for the Americans, if the strait continued to function normally and the Democrats calmed down the Pentagon's militants.