An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
"U.S. Test Shows the A-10 Can Obliterate Irans Small Boat Swarms"
U.S. Test Shows the A-10 Can Obliterate A Kindergarten School. Let's celebrate!
By any standard, Iran barely has a military worth taking seriously. It has NEVER invaded or threatened another country, unlike many that can be named. It has given up almost every aspect of its *civilian* nuclear programme, even though it has a right to this technology, and is under international inspections. Every intelligence agency confirms that a nuclear weapons programme is a preposterous claim, given that it doesn't have an effective *civilian* programme.
When you take all this into consideration, one and only one reasonable conclusion can be reached: Iran is the greatest menace in the world and has to be attacked. Sign me up for world war three.
Iran would be no picnic. They have fairly sophisticated Russian and Chinese missile systems that are constantly improving and a large, motivated population which would be all-in against a foreign invasion. Thus US strategy would be to bomb them into the stone age while keeping the carrier fleets out of supersonic missile range.
War is the last and only growth sector of the US economy.
Noah, it'd be a disaster. Iran is in no position to invade or threaten anyone, but it can certainly defend itself and give the US one hell of a bloody nose. The US can't even beat the Taliban, a sad outfit with AK-47s and pickup trucks. If the US wants to bomb it into the stone age, it can but not without consequences. The Russians and the Chinese are not going to stand for it and have missile technology that the US has absolutely no counter measures against. So the US will lose a lot of service personnel.
Furthermore the Iranians will then simply build secret nuclear sites (some may have already been built in preparation) so deep in the mountains or underground that no US bomb can penetrate the facility. They've already know how to build a nuclear weapon but have chosen not to do so, for reasons that are inexplicable. The intelligence agencies estimate that any attack will precipitate a huge nuclear weapons programme, and that the Iranians will have a stockpile within a couple of years.
That's why anyone with any sense is of the opinion that an attack on Iran is pure madness. It'll precipitate the very thing that is claimed it will prevent. Since everyone understands this, this cannot be the aim. The aim is regime change, not deterring a nuclear Iran. Far too many people suffer from the convenient amnesia that allows them to fail to mention or decry the most crucial part of this saga: Iran's nuclear programme started under the Shah with full US help.
And Hussein's chemical / bio weapons were supplied by the US specifically for use against Iran after they deposed the Shah that we imposed.
If we can't get regime change (which we can't) it will be Syria all over again with proxy armies of Wahabis, mercs and terrorists supported by US satellite intel, DOD/CIA embeds and bombing via stealth, cruise missile and drone. If there is one thing that can be counted on it's that we don't learn from our mistakes. Probably because these "mistakes" are very profitable for certain sectors.
China and Russia will not allow Iran to fall. This is the tipping point for WWIII.
As for Iranian nukes no site - even underground - is safe. The US has a wide selection of EPWs including nukes.
Noah: "...for use against Iran after they deposed the Shah that we imposed."
The irony is that the Mullahs who seized power in the chaos of the revolution would have been overthrown had it not been for Saddam's invasion, which the US and Gulf Arab states supported. The invasion led to a general feeling of having to defend the country from the imperial puppet Saddam Hussein and the imperial puppet master in Washington. Years of war solidified the power of the Mullahs.
Noah: "As for Iranian nukes no site - even underground - is safe. The US has a wide selection of EPWs including nukes."
True, but I was talking about conventional use. There are no EPWs that can destroy a facility inside a mountain range a mile underground: the US military knows it and has told everyone who is willing to listen. If the US uses mini nukes, it's all over. That's why the Obama deal was universally considered an extraordinary achievement. Well, near universally. Trump thinks it's the worst deal ever, but he says that about everything. Obama and the military and foreign policy elites came to the conclusion that a war with Iran would be disastrous - for America. The US continues to agitate for regime change by funding opposition groups and hoping that somehow the Mullahs will be overthrown. What's more fanciful is the idea that whoever takes charge in this new Mullah-free Iran will be pro-Washington. They won't. Even the most liberal secular parties in Iran detest Washington: they haven't forgotten Mossadegh, the Shah, Saddam Hussein and US support for his invasion, the US-supplied chemical and biological weapons used on Iranian forces, etc.
The strangest thing about the nuclear deal is that the liberals and secular opposition in Iran oppose it while the Mullahs are for it! The liberals want a full scale *civilian* nuclear programme as a deterrent against Washington. A programme of this sort is a small step away from nuclear weapons. The Mullahs have given that away. Just like the invasion of Iraq has left the country in the hands of anti-Washington parties, an attack on Iran will give the same result but this time with an anti-Washington regime with nuclear weapons and further allied with Russia and China.
"U.S. Test Shows the A-10 Can Obliterate Irans Small Boat Swarms"
ReplyDeleteU.S. Test Shows the A-10 Can Obliterate A Kindergarten School. Let's celebrate!
By any standard, Iran barely has a military worth taking seriously. It has NEVER invaded or threatened another country, unlike many that can be named. It has given up almost every aspect of its *civilian* nuclear programme, even though it has a right to this technology, and is under international inspections. Every intelligence agency confirms that a nuclear weapons programme is a preposterous claim, given that it doesn't have an effective *civilian* programme.
When you take all this into consideration, one and only one reasonable conclusion can be reached: Iran is the greatest menace in the world and has to be attacked. Sign me up for world war three.
Iran would be no picnic. They have fairly sophisticated Russian and Chinese missile systems that are constantly improving and a large, motivated population which would be all-in against a foreign invasion. Thus US strategy would be to bomb them into the stone age while keeping the carrier fleets out of supersonic missile range.
ReplyDeleteWar is the last and only growth sector of the US economy.
Noah, it'd be a disaster. Iran is in no position to invade or threaten anyone, but it can certainly defend itself and give the US one hell of a bloody nose. The US can't even beat the Taliban, a sad outfit with AK-47s and pickup trucks. If the US wants to bomb it into the stone age, it can but not without consequences. The Russians and the Chinese are not going to stand for it and have missile technology that the US has absolutely no counter measures against. So the US will lose a lot of service personnel.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore the Iranians will then simply build secret nuclear sites (some may have already been built in preparation) so deep in the mountains or underground that no US bomb can penetrate the facility. They've already know how to build a nuclear weapon but have chosen not to do so, for reasons that are inexplicable. The intelligence agencies estimate that any attack will precipitate a huge nuclear weapons programme, and that the Iranians will have a stockpile within a couple of years.
That's why anyone with any sense is of the opinion that an attack on Iran is pure madness. It'll precipitate the very thing that is claimed it will prevent. Since everyone understands this, this cannot be the aim. The aim is regime change, not deterring a nuclear Iran. Far too many people suffer from the convenient amnesia that allows them to fail to mention or decry the most crucial part of this saga: Iran's nuclear programme started under the Shah with full US help.
And Hussein's chemical / bio weapons were supplied by the US specifically for use against Iran after they deposed the Shah that we imposed.
ReplyDeleteIf we can't get regime change (which we can't) it will be Syria all over again with proxy armies of Wahabis, mercs and terrorists supported by US satellite intel, DOD/CIA embeds and bombing via stealth, cruise missile and drone. If there is one thing that can be counted on it's that we don't learn from our mistakes. Probably because these "mistakes" are very profitable for certain sectors.
China and Russia will not allow Iran to fall. This is the tipping point for WWIII.
As for Iranian nukes no site - even underground - is safe. The US has a wide selection of EPWs including nukes.
Regime change begins at home.
Iran needs love too.
ReplyDeleteNoah: "...for use against Iran after they deposed the Shah that we imposed."
ReplyDeleteThe irony is that the Mullahs who seized power in the chaos of the revolution would have been overthrown had it not been for Saddam's invasion, which the US and Gulf Arab states supported. The invasion led to a general feeling of having to defend the country from the imperial puppet Saddam Hussein and the imperial puppet master in Washington. Years of war solidified the power of the Mullahs.
Noah: "As for Iranian nukes no site - even underground - is safe. The US has a wide selection of EPWs including nukes."
True, but I was talking about conventional use. There are no EPWs that can destroy a facility inside a mountain range a mile underground: the US military knows it and has told everyone who is willing to listen. If the US uses mini nukes, it's all over. That's why the Obama deal was universally considered an extraordinary achievement. Well, near universally. Trump thinks it's the worst deal ever, but he says that about everything. Obama and the military and foreign policy elites came to the conclusion that a war with Iran would be disastrous - for America. The US continues to agitate for regime change by funding opposition groups and hoping that somehow the Mullahs will be overthrown. What's more fanciful is the idea that whoever takes charge in this new Mullah-free Iran will be pro-Washington. They won't. Even the most liberal secular parties in Iran detest Washington: they haven't forgotten Mossadegh, the Shah, Saddam Hussein and US support for his invasion, the US-supplied chemical and biological weapons used on Iranian forces, etc.
The strangest thing about the nuclear deal is that the liberals and secular opposition in Iran oppose it while the Mullahs are for it! The liberals want a full scale *civilian* nuclear programme as a deterrent against Washington. A programme of this sort is a small step away from nuclear weapons. The Mullahs have given that away. Just like the invasion of Iraq has left the country in the hands of anti-Washington parties, an attack on Iran will give the same result but this time with an anti-Washington regime with nuclear weapons and further allied with Russia and China.