Showing posts with label Turkey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Turkey. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Monday, January 7, 2019
Reaction to the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Syria, and Thoughts on Kurdistan
On
December 19th, 2018, claiming that I.S.I.S. has been
defeated in Syria, President Donald Trump announced that within
thirty days, the U.S. military would withdraw 2,000 troops from that
country, in a complete withdrawal.
I
applaud the move to leave Syria; and to leave any country. I
hope to hear more announcements like this about Afghanistan, Iraq,
Yemen, and other countries. I also hope that, as soon as possible,
the U.S. dismantles its 800 or more military bases overseas, and
stations no troop farther than 100 miles from our shores.
But
while I support leaving Syria, I have some doubts as to whether the
president may have ulterior motives in leaving Syria, and may not
have peace in mind as a genuine interest or motivation.
I have written this article in order to make it publicly known what my
position is on Syria, and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from that
country; by publishing both my immediate reaction to the
announcement, as well as my opinions on the story as it has developed
between December 19th and now (January 7th,
2019).
Before
reading my initial reaction to the news about Syria, it is necessary to explain a bit of background
information.
Concerning
the first paragraph below: Murray Bookchin was a libertarian
communalist political philosopher and social theorist, who developed
a school of thought which has come to be known as Bookchinism.
Shortly after Trump's announcement that the U.S. would pull out of
Syria, Murray Bookchin's daughter Debbie, an author and a supporter
of Kurdish autonomy, tweeted in criticism of the announcement. The
autonomous region of Turkey called Rojava, is populated by Kurds, and
is governed according to Bookchin's principles; namely, it is a
decentralized federation that values regional autonomy.
Concerning
the end of the second paragraph: I consider our alliance with Israel
to be a significant contributing cause to the reason why the U.S. was
in Syria to begin with. Israel and Syria aren't just neighbors, they
have a border dispute; over the Golan Heights. The claims that
I.S.I.S., and supposed Iranian proxy terrorist group Hezbollah, are
in the country, may well be true, but they also serve as convenient
excuses for the U.S. to promote joint U.S.-Israeli interests in the
region. If we want to fight Iran, then we should fight Iran directly,
not its proxies (not that I want us to fight Iran, I don't).
Concerning
the third paragraph: Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was
described as calling for the destruction of Israel when he quoted
Ayatollah Khamenei, who said “The regime that is occupying
Jerusalem will vanish from the pages of history.”, which could be
merely an expression of grief over the tragedy that led to the
occupation of Palestine, the Nakba,
in which 750,000 Palestinians were displaced, when the Israeli state
was founded.
The following is the original text of my first published reaction, written on December 21st, 2018, and posted to Facebook.
Noam
Chomsky and Murray Bookchin's daughter both say that Trump's move to
pull troops out of Syria will only put the people of Rojava in
danger. Rojava is quite possibly the best example of a libertarian
communalist society in the Middle East, if not the whole world, right
now. They may not even be able to survive without American help.
But
on the other hand, America simply leaving them the fuck alone could
cause Rojava to grow stronger. Aside from it being none of our
business in the first place, because we're not supposed to have
strong allies like Israel anyway.
The
fact that there's a link between Syria and Hezbollah and Iran, is
meaningless to me. Iran doesn't want to destroy Israel; the comments
of Ahmadinejad (quoting the Ayatollah) were willfully distorted to
achieve that appearance.
Also,
we have a giant military base in Southeast Turkey, at Diyarbakir,
which is a staging facility for our wars in the Middle East. So maybe
dismantle that base, and Rojava will be fine.
But
what the fuck do I know?
Two
days later, on December 23rd, 2018 - after a friend
rebuked me for being too cautious about the possible negative consequences of the U.S. military leaving Syria, and too open to the idea of keeping U.S.
troops there - I wrote a second reaction to clarify my position. That reaction read:
To
be clear, we should get the fuck out of Syria and Afghanistan as soon
as possible, leaving neither troops nor bases behind.
It's
hard to say that, knowing that us moving out could expose Syria to a
power vacuum that could be filled by Turkey, which the U.S. has had
too good relations with, despite its [Turkey's] abuses.
I
don't fear the Syrian power vacuum being filled by Iran, because
Western media have lied about Iran's intentions so much. Not to say
that there would be no problems if that vacuum were filled by Iran,
or even Russia.
Whenever
we get out, and whatever happens, I hope that leftists, Democrats,
and libertarians are not ashamed to admit Trump "being right",
if it means ending our involvement in one of the many wars we're
currently involved in.
But
we also need to be aware of how the filling of the Syrian power
vacuum by Turkey – which I think will be the inevitable result of our
exit – was really enabled by America and other Western actors to
begin with.
We
need to not only get out of Syria, but also think about ending our
ties with abusive regimes such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other
nations that have committed serious human rights abuses (long
imprisonment, cruel and unusual punishment, corporal punishment,
human trafficking, gender oppression, etc.).
I'd
like to add some comments, clarifying my position on human rights,
the nations that abuse them, and the fallacy that imposing import
tariffs help restore human rights to nations which abuse them.
I
would not consider Israel immune from allegations and investigations
of human rights abuses (with its occupation of territory in defiance
of international law, and its refusal to promise not to sell nuclear
weapons to other countries, and a number of other problems). Nor
would I consider it inappropriate to wonder whether China's human
rights and labor abuses should be criticized. Every
country should be looked at; every
government and every authority should be questioned; not excluded,
Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria.
I
say that we should suspect every
country of abuses, full well knowing that if we do not trade
with a country, then we are likely to have war with that country.
That is why I do not support tariffs, because they don't work.
Tariffs impose a cost on domestic importers in America, not the
foreign firms they're intended to target, so they don't hurt the
governments and firms that are carrying out the abuses. The
state and its cronies can change the law and legally steal people's
money, in a way that deflects and defers and externalizes the costs
of the tariffs onto other people, and they do.
Foreign
tariffs only make money for the foreign government, at the expense of
foreign exporters and American importers. Money in the hands of
governments will never be used to help workers, nor to make-up for
nor prevent abuses, but only used to continue and sustain those
abuses. If Americans can understand that, then we should also be able
to understand that our foreign trading partners might not want to pay
a tariff that effectively results in the donation of money
to the U.S. military.
Think
about it: If money is fungible, and any tax can be matched with any
spending purpose, then isn't that what is happening? The tariff helps
the U.S. government balance its budget (as if it ever does that), or
at least helps the government sustain itself, so that it can run the
military, the Office of the Trade Representative, and every other
thing it does.
My
point in saying this is that we ought to have free trade – that is,
free movement of labor and capital – with every country that does
not commit, or condone, human rights and labor abuses, and other
types of deprivations of civil rights and civil liberties. We
shouldn't have a situation in
which we try to simply tax our problem away, by taxing things that
don't make sense to tax. Taxing the importation of goods only makes
that good more expensive, more costly, available in fewer places, or
all of the above.
We
should make sure that we are not ourselves guilty of the crimes of
which we accuse other countries, and raise our standards for
ourselves first, to set a good
example, instead of expecting other countries to be better than we
are. And if we want to identify certain countries, and their
governments, as ones that support and condone abuses, then we should
apply our standards equally to all nations. But, of course, we cannot
go to war with all governments at once, based
on the idea that all countries commit abuses. But we should
decide which countries are the worst,
and start thinking about how ready we are to wage war against them.
If
a country is worth going to war with, then we should cease trading
with it immediately – not restrict trade, not have highly regulated
trade, not set up an intricate system of licenses and permits for
trading – we should stop trade entirely. I
say that, full well knowing that if we do not have trade with a
country, then we are more likely to have war with it. But if it is
decided that allowing trade with a certain country is only helping
its government clamp-down control on its people, then we should
declare civil liberties violations and human rights abuses as the
reason for the war, seek formal congressional authorization of a
declaration of war, and fight that war quickly and efficiently,
finish it, and bring all troops and bases home.
Additionally,
if we are going to have war with a country because its government is
harming its people, then we should make no distinction between an
abusive government, and its cronies which are legally entitled to
property and wealth under that regime. If the government is condoning
those abuses, and the “private” firms receive any form of
taxpayer funding, then the government is complicit in any workplace
abuses occurring at government sponsored firms.
The
next section, concerning the future of Kurdistan and the relevance of
Syria's location to the oil industry, is based on notes written on
January 3rd and
4th,
2019.
The
areas in northeastern Syria and northern Iraq which were formerly
held by I.S.I.S., are on or near areas predominantly occupied by
Kurds. I suspect that the U.S. military desires to maintain the
presence of Turkey, the U.S., and their N.A.T.O. partners. I believe
that the U.S. military can achieve those objectives with or without
its own presence there, through leaving the task to Turkey and
others.
It
is possible that the U.S. has found a way to leave Syria and
achieve its own objectives as it pertains to the future of the
Kurdish people. It's even possible that the Trump Administration is
planning to support an independent, autonomous Kurdish state, which
the United States would co-opt, so as to maintain the illusion that
the Kurdish people's interests are really being put first in that
country (instead of the interests of Western actors who don't want a
truly free Kurdistan and invite more Western influence and
interference).
Although
I do support Kurdish autonomy
and independence,
I'm not certain that statehood would be best for the Kurds. Granted,
in a world of nation-states, statehood is practically the only way
they can get the world to take them seriously. But I believe that,
given enough time, nearly any
state will oppress (and even mass-murder) a certain percent of its
own people, and therefore, the world does not need another state.
It
is
a consolation to me that the Kurdish state would likely be federated
and decentralized, as Kurdish-majority regions in Syria and Iraq tend
to be. Decentralization at least helps to diminish and diffuse the
risks associated with centralizing power too much. But a Kurdish
government oppressing its own people too much is not my only concern.
I
am also worried about the hubris of the American government, in
thinking that it can help bring peace to the Middle East; after all
the damage it has caused, and after even conservative hero Ronald
Reagan admitted that we have continued to underestimate the
complexity and irrationality of Middle East geopolitics.
Western
media tell us that the British and French government simply “messed
up”, and “didn't care” where they drew the national boundaries
that resulted in the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the modern-day
borders. As a matter of fact, those boundaries were delineated
deliberately
by the British government, as part of a “divide and conquer”
strategy. The idea was to keep tribes of different languages,
different sects of Islam, and different religions, all fighting
against each other, instead of banding together against their common
enemy, the British imperial invaders. That the location and diversity
of peoples in the Middle East were ignored in that process, was
intentional, not accidental. And not just including
the Kurdish people, but especially
the Kurdish people, who were (and are) scattered across four nations
as a result of that agreement.
Even
if America can
have a seat at the negotiation table (with Kurdish, Turkish, Syrian,
Iraqi, and Iranian leaders), it probably shouldn't,
because American leaders would just tout their own role in resolving
the problem so much, that it irks the other countries that have to
make major concessions just to come to the table. Considering the
American track record in the Middle East, it would not only be
pointless to have America at the negotiating table, it would make the
road to Middle East peace and Kurdish autonomy longer and bumpier.
Another
reason that the prospect of Kurdish autonomy is worrisome, is that
former Vice President Joe Biden might try to take advantage of the
issue in order to jump-start a likely run for president in 2020. I
believe that Biden might try to portray himself as a longtime
supporter of Kurdish independence, since he has been promoting the
idea of partitioning Iraq into three areas (one mostly Sunni, one
mostly Shi'ite, and the other Kurdish).
While
a Biden presidency could very well result in a rapid acceleration of
a project to achieve Kurdish independence, there is no guarantee that
that project would not deteriorate into an overly centralized,
excessively Western-influenced country that is full of American
military bases. Additionally, Biden has a sexual harassment scandal
brewing, which, if he is the Democratic nominee, Donald Trump is sure
to bring up during the debates. If that happens, it will not end well
for Biden, and Trump will easily win a second term. I want to prevent
that, but not at the cost of allowing Joe Biden to run the country. I
would vote for someone else, or not vote at all.
I
would like to note that, in addition to promoting Israel's interests
in Syria, another major reason for U.S. presence in Syria is the
relevance of Syria's location to the interests of the oil industry.
Syria
has very little oil – and, at that, only on its outskirts – but
the fact that it is situated between the Mediterranean sea to the
West, and oil-rich Iraq and Iran to the East, makes it a very
important area of geopolitical and economic strategic interest.
The
U.S. and its allies want to build a new oil pipeline - the proposed
Qatar-Turkey pipeline - across parts of northern and eastern Syria.
The proposed pipeline supported by the Russians
and Iranians
– the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline – would run the pipeline through
only the Western
part of Syria, near the Mediterranean Sea.
Both
proposed pipelines would brush the southern edges of Kurdish-majority
territory. As far as I.S.I.S. goes, the Western-backed pipeline would
cut across territories formerly controlled by I.S.I.S., while the
Eastern-backed pipeline would not.
It's
hard to tell which pipeline would result in more havoc, environmental
damage, or interference in the everyday lives of the Syrian people,
or the Kurdish people for that matter. For all we know, Syria could
feel worried about interference from both
East
and West, and favor neither
pipeline.
Stuck between Iraq and a wet place (the Mediterranean and the Western
oil interests), if you will.
That's
why I have decided not to draw any conclusions on foreign policy from
these facts relevant to oil. I merely wish to point these facts out,
so that anyone wishing to develop their own opinion on the relevance
of oil to the Syrian and Kurdish conflicts, and to U.S. involvement
in the region, may do so.
Another cause for my concern about whether our leaders' claims that we are leaving Syria are genuine - and that the exit is going according to plan, and that what we think is happening is really what's happening - came up just the other day.
On
January 6th,
2019, National Security Adviser John Bolton said that, while we will
be leaving northern Syria, our exit from Syria does not have a
timetable for withdrawal of ground forces. He also said that the U.S.
will not leave until Turkey's government guarantees the safety of
U.S.-allied Kurdish fighters who helped defeat I.S.I.S..
It
has also been reported that Bolton reassured Israeli leaders that the
U.S. will continue to help protect Israel from Iran after the U.S.
withdraws troops from Syria.
It's
possible that a complete U.S. withdrawal from Syria might be delayed,
or made only a partial withdrawal, due to Israel's influence.
Although the Israeli narrative and Netanyahu's reputation have
weakened significantly in recent months, the State of Israel will
remain America's #1 ally in the region for the foreseeable future,
barring a radical change in either U.S. foreign policy or Israeli
leadership (or both).
I
would like to see the U.S. have the same policy towards Israel,
Syria, Kurdistan, and all the other countries of the world alike: the
U.S. military should withdraw all troops and dismantle all bases in
all other countries, and whether the lack of U.S. presence in a
country causes its government to grow weaker or stronger, more
independent or less, it should be none of our business.
Regimes
in the Middle East will come and go, they don't need Western arms
dealers arming them to the teeth – publicly nor privately – to
make them look guilty by association, and look tyrannical because
they have the means to attack others (whether they do or not).
I
won't call it unfair to argue that the U.S. should at least stay in
Syria, or wherever else, long enough to fix the damage it has done
over the decades. But what are the chances of that happening, really?
Like I said before, it would require a radical change in U.S. policy.
Still,
though, I would rather have the U.S. simply stop interfering
in other countries' internal conflicts, instead of sit around waiting
for the American government to
suddenly be run by honest people with decent, respectable, and
realistic goals.
Written on December 21st and 23rd, 2018, and January 3rd, 4th, and 7th, 2019
Originally
Published on January 7th,
2019
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Criticism of Glenn Beck's Libya Coverage
Written on March 24th, 2011
Edited in April 2014
On
March 24th, 2011, Glenn Beck did a show about Libya, Israel, and oil.
For
those who would rather not watch the videos, the main thrust of the
episode was:
1.
Cass Sunstein (who holds a position which, for the sake of brevity,
can be dubbed the "Regulation Czar") wants to limit
American oil drilling in order to make the U.S. more dependent on
Middle Eastern oil sources, helping justify intervention in Libya.
2.
George Soros, the nation of Turkey, and Cass Sunstein's wife (Obama
foreign policy adviser and genocide scholar Samantha Power) want to
compel the United Nations to invade Israel in order to stop its
genocide against the Palestinians.
The
following is my criticism of the ideas presented in that episode.
I
disagree with Beck's claim that Egypt’s Mubarak is “pro-Israel”;
I think Mubarak is only pro-Israel to the extent to which America
paid him to pretend that the Egyptian people don’t desire that the
State of Israel disappear. Beck also failed to mention that Mubarak’s
Egypt and Netanyahu’s Israel have colluded to cut the Gaza Strip
off from the rest of the world. Beck appears to have no interest in
expressing concern for the welfare of the Gazan people, and does not
seem to want to take the time to point out that not all Muslim
peoples share the same political or religious ideology.
Even
though Beck admits that George Soros doesn’t actually like Qadhafi,
I think Beck is trying to make connections between Islamosocialism
and Western democratic socialism where they don’t necessarily
exist. He has been repeating for at least several weeks that they are
uniting against Israel and capitalism, and to undermine stability.
First
off, socialism and opposition to Israel do not always go
hand-in-hand. In fact, I’ve shown that - in my piece "A
Jewish and Democratic State" (http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/07/jewish-and-democratic-state.html) - Zionism itself, the establishment
of the State of Israel, and the subsequent half-century of Israeli
policy, were profoundly influenced by the socialism of Theodor Herzl
and David ben-Gurion, as well as by Leninism, Trotskyism, and, to a
lesser extent, Stalinism. This is not to ignore, however, the role
which capitalism played in Israel’s development; for example,
Jabotinsky, Weizmann, and Netanyahu are examples of Zionist figures
whom have not completely opposed right-wing economics.
But
I would be shocked if any American Democrat turned out to be an
anti-Zionist, rather than simply, at worst, a harsh critic of Israeli
policy. I would also be surprised if any Democrat, even one who
describes himself as a socialist, actually technically qualified as a
Marxist or even as a person who completely opposes free-market
capitalism.
I
feel like Beck is trying to characterize all Muslims as socialist,
anti-Israel, and pro-Caliphate. I’m not claiming that Beck
explicitly said that, but I feel like he is trying to imply it.
First
of all, not all Middle Eastern regimes oppose capitalism; Saudi
Arabia, Bahrain, and the U.A.E. come to mind. Second, not all Muslims
are anti-Israel, such as the Muslims who are members of the Israeli
parliament. Third, not all Muslims are pro-Caliphate; Qadhafi is a
Muslim (albeit not a traditional Muslim by any stretch of the
imagination), and as far as I know, he has never expressed interest
in bringing about a Caliphate. Qadhafi claims that supporters of
al-Qaeda and bin Laden are among his opponents, and they would be
more likely to want to bring about a Caliphate than would Qadhafi,
whom has expressed interest in being the leader of an African Union.
I
resent that Beck called a group of Palestinians who murdered an
Israeli family “terrorists”. They did not blow themselves up in a
crowded public Israeli area, nor did they launch missiles towards
Israelis. Thus, they are murderers, not “terrorists”. I also
resent Beck’s characterization that Samantha Power (whose last name
he didn’t even get right once) desires that the U.N. protect
Palestinians “against Israel”, rather than “from Israel”.
Beck also failed to mention that Cass Sunstein himself is Jewish.
Beck
rejected the idea that Israel’s policy against the Palestinians has
been one of ethnic cleansing which could lead to a holocaust, but
throughout the history of Israel, the rate of Arab-to-Jew deaths has
been about 2 1/2 - to - 1. In the most recent major conflict, the
strike on Gaza in early 2009, the ratio was at least 100-to-1.
Furthermore, there is rampant housing discrimination against Muslims
in Jerusalem, the West Bank has become an archipelago of communities
isolated from one another and from natural resources, and the Gaza
Strip has been repeatedly referred to as a concentration camp by
scholars worldwide.
If
what has been slowly happening in Israel throughout the last 65 years
can be rightfully labeled “ethnic cleansing”, this “atrocity”
is currently nowhere near as deadly as it has been at any time
throughout the last two years. I don’t think Turkey has enough
international clout to get the U.N. to invade Israel, and I don’t
think an America, whether run by Democrats or Republicans, would ever
consent to, or participate in, a U.N. “invasion” of Israel in
order to stop this “genocide”.
Additionally,
Beck said that Turkey has been arming Gaza, which I wouldn't doubt is
true, but he did not mention the role which Turkey has played in
negotiating a limited truce between Gazans and Israelis. Admittedly,
that happened just today, but I would be surprised if Beck mentions
it in his shows next week, because it doesn’t support his argument.
For
more entries on military, national defense, and foreign policy,
please
visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-sovereignty-restoration-act-of.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-sovereignty-restoration-act-of.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/foreign-occupation-and-declaration-of.html
For
more entries on Judaism, the State of Israel, and the Israeli-Arab
conflict, please visit:
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Seeds of World War III Being Sown in Syria
Mainstream media
sources are saying that the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad could be
toppled by rebel forces within days, three officials in his inner circle having
been killed in a recent explosion. Last year, Webster Tarpley reported that the
events in Syria do not resemble a civil war, and that he had spoken to people
who claim that “death squads” are sniping at civilians only for the purpose of
destabilizing the country.
Tarpley claims
that these squads are backed by American, British, French, and Israeli
intelligence agencies; funded by the Saudis, the United Arab Emirates, and
Qatar; and managed by former Syrian foreign minister Abdul Halim Khaddam.
Tarpley described Khaddam as “groomed by N.A.T.O. as a new dictator”. Khaddam
has been described as having been a loyalist of Bashar al-Assad’s father Hafez.
Tarpley says
Syria is “the most tolerant society in the Middle East”, and calls Assad “a
humanitarian”. Israeli newspaper Haaretz describes Assad as “an outspoken
critic of Israel”, reporting that he attributes his regime’s strength to its
opposition to that country. Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. recently said, “We
do see a possible ouster of Mr. Assad as affording an opportunity to us”.
Fox News has
reported that the U.S. is secretly funding the opposition in Syria in order to
topple the Assad regime. Webster Tarpley claims that the C.I.A. has extended an
“open invitation” to criminals and terrorists in the region to come to Turkey
to be trained to fight the Syrian army.
According to YouTube
reporter Rys2sense, last year there was a $10 billion deal for an Iran-Syria
oil pipeline, rival pipelines cannot be built if there are ongoing conflicts in
Syria, the goal is a complete cessation of the flow of oil between Syria and
Iran, and Turkish mercenaries are also helping to destabilize Syria.
This month,
Syria, Iran, China, and Russia are coordinating a military exercise in Syria.
Comprised of 90,000 troops, 900 tanks, 400 planes, and 12 naval ships – and
taking place “at sea, air and land on Syrian soil” – it is the largest joint
exercise in Middle East history. In September, U.S. naval forces will be
conducting mine-sweeping activities in the Persian Gulf. Some media figures
have conjectured that the U.S. may send a decommissioned aircraft carrier to
the Gulf to be destroyed in a false-flag attack to be blamed on Iran.
Russia has
warned the N.A.T.O. countries not to attack Iran, and accused the Western
powers of stirring up trouble in Syria; China and Russia have shown support of
Syria in the U.N.; and China and Pakistan have said that they would consider an
attack on Iran as an attack on themselves, and have suggested that they would
retaliate as such. China and Russia have nearly twice as many nukes combined as
the U.S. does.
Iran recently
confirmed that its plan to close the Strait of Hormuz is ready to be put into
action. This could triple – or even quadruple – crude oil and gas prices. Some
reports claim that Obama and / or Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu want to
attack Iran's nuclear facilities in early October, around the beginning of the
U.S. presidential debates.
The King of
Jordan has called for Assad to step down, and today the United Nations voted on
a new resolution threatening non-military sanctions against Syria, which Russia
and China vetoed. Additionally, yesterday, at least seven Israeli tourists were
killed in a bus explosion in Bulgaria, for which Israel blamed Iran, and vowed
revenge. Hezbollah was also blamed for the attack, but denied that tourists
would be worthwhile targets.
What may play
out – in a worst-case scenario – over the next three to twelve months is the
following:
1) Israel retaliates against Lebanon and / or Iran over yesterday’s Bulgarian bus bombing; and / or the U.S. stages an attack on one of its warships, and blames it on Iran; and / or Israel stages an attack by Iran.
1) Israel retaliates against Lebanon and / or Iran over yesterday’s Bulgarian bus bombing; and / or the U.S. stages an attack on one of its warships, and blames it on Iran; and / or Israel stages an attack by Iran.
2) the
N.A.T.O.-Israeli alliance increases meddling and destabilization efforts in
Lebanon, Syria, and / or Iran, and / or simply goes ahead and bombs Iran’s
nuclear facilities.
3) Either of the aforementioned actions will provoke a response from Iran, Syria, and / or Lebanon, but the former action would be enough to provoke such a response, which would easily excuse Western destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities.
3) Either of the aforementioned actions will provoke a response from Iran, Syria, and / or Lebanon, but the former action would be enough to provoke such a response, which would easily excuse Western destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities.
4) Being that an
attack on Iran will be construed by Pakistan and China as an attack on
themselves, those countries’ forces would be deployed against whichever Western
powers are perceived to have led the attack. Additionally – given the signals
it has made so far – it wouldn’t take much for Russia to become even more vociferous and threatening in asserting
its support of Iran.
Being
that Iran is nearly three times as populous as Iraq, occupation seems
impossible, even in a concerted effort by all major Western powers. However,
considering that Iran is virtually surrounded by U.S. military bases – most
notably in Iraq and Afghanistan – as well as a recent call by retired U.S.
General Stanley McChrystal to reinstate the draft, there remains the
possibility that the U.S. could declare an emergency, and invoke various
PATRIOT Act and continuity-of-government authorities to enact martial law,
putting the country in a state of all-out total war of occupation against Iran
and its would-be allies. Even if such an occupation never occurs, the
difficulty of invasion – and the fact that the nation’s capital of Tehran is
home to over a sixth of its population – suggests that nuclear or other heavy
weaponry could be used against Tehran and other major cities.
All in all, the
divide between N.A.T.O. and Israel; and Syria, Iran, Pakistan, China, and
Russia; is sharpening at a frightening pace. In my opinion, the world is closer
to intercontinental nuclear exchange and / or full-scale multinational military
conflagration than any other time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I expect
this threat to ratchet-up exponentially over the next 3 ½ months, leading to a
cataclysm in the month of October which could very well be virtually
irreversible.
For
more entries on military, national defense, and foreign policy,
please
visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-sovereignty-restoration-act-of.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/american-sovereignty-restoration-act-of.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/foreign-occupation-and-declaration-of.html
For
more entries on Judaism, the State of Israel, and the Israeli-Arab
conflict, please visit:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box
This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...
