In an Impotent World Even the Bankrupt Can Prevail

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Japan did not spend years preparing her public case and demonstrating her deployment of forces for the attack. Japan did not make a world issue out of her view that the US was denying Japan her role in the Pacific by hindering Japan’s access to raw materials and energy.

Similarly, when Hitler attacked Russia, he did not preface his invasion with endless threats and a public case that blamed the war on England.

These events happened before the PSYOPS era. Today, America and Israel’s wars of aggression are preceded by years of propaganda and international meetings, so that by the time the attack comes it is an expected event, not a monstrous surprise attack with its connotation of naked aggression.

The US, which has been threatening Iran with attack for years, has passed the job to Israel. During the third week of July, the American vice president and secretary of state gave Israel the go-ahead. Israel has made great public disclosure of its warships passing through the Suez Canal on their way to Iran. “Muslim” Egypt is complicit, offering no objection to Israel’s naval forces on their way to a war crime under the Nuremberg standard that the US imposed on the world.

By the time the attack occurs, it will be old hat, an expected event, and, moreover, an event justified by years of propaganda asserting Iran’s perfidy.

Israel intends to dominate the Middle East. Israel’s goal is to incorporate all of Palestine and southern Lebanon into “Greater Israel.” The US intends to dominate the entire world, deciding who rules which countries and controlling resource flows.

The US and Israel are likely to succeed, because they have effective PSYOPS. For the most part, the world media follows the US media, which follows the US and Israeli governments’ lines. Indeed, the American media is part of the PSYOPS of both countries.

iran-protestsAccording to Thierry Meyssan in the Swiss newspaper Zeit-Fragen, the CIA used SMS or text messaging and Twitter to spread disinformation about the Iranian election, including the false report that the Guardian Council had informed Mousavi that he had won the election. When the real results were announced, Ahmadinejad’s reelection appeared to be fraudulent.

Iran’s fate awaits it. A reasonable hypothesis to be entertained and examined is whether Iran’s Rafsanjani and Mousavi are in league with Washington to gain power in Iran. Both have lost out in the competition for government power in Iran. Yet, both are egotistical and ambitious. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 probably means nothing to them except an opportunity for personal power. The way the West has always controlled the Middle East is by purchasing the politicians who are out of power and backing them in overthrowing the independent government. We see this today in Sudan as well.

In the case of Iran, there is an additional factor that might align Rafsanjani with Washington. President Ahmadienijad attacked former President Rafsanjani, one of Iran’s most wealthy persons, as corrupt. If Rafsanjani feels threatened by this attack, he has little choice but to try to overthrow the existing government. This makes him the perfect person for Washington.

Perhaps there is a better explanation why Rafsanjani and Mousavi, two highly placed members of the Iranian elite, chose to persist in allegations of election fraud that have played into Washington’s hands by calling into question the legitimacy of the Iranian government. It cannot be that the office of president is worth such costs as the Iranian presidency is not endowed with decisive powers.

Without Rafsanjani and Mousavi, the US media could not have orchestrated the Iranian elections as “stolen,” an orchestration that the US government used to further isolate and discredit the Iranian government, making it easier for Iran to be attacked. Normally, well placed members of an elite do not help foreign enemies set their country up for attack.

An Israeli attack on Iran is likely to produce retaliation, which Washington will use to enter the conflict. Have the personal ambitions of Rafsanjani and Mousavi, and the naive youthful upper class Iranian protesters, set Iran up for destruction?

Consult a map and you will see that Iran is surrounded by a dozen countries that host US military bases. Why does anyone in Iran doubt that Iran is on her way to becoming another Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, in the end to be ruled by oil companies and an American puppet?

The Russians and Chinese are off balance because of successful American interventions in their spheres of influence, uncertain of the threat and the response. Russia could have prevented the coming attack on Iran, but, pressured by Washington, Russia has not delivered the missile systems that Iran purchased. China suffers from her own hubris as a rising economic power, and is about to lose her energy investments in Iran to US/Israeli aggression. China is funding America’s wars of aggression with loans, and Russia is even helping the US to set up a puppet state in Afghanistan, thus opening up former Soviet central Asia to US hegemony.

The world is so impotent that even the bankrupt US can launch a new war of aggression and have it accepted as a glorious act of liberation in behalf of women’s rights, peace, and democracy.

Paul Craig Roberts

Homepage
Paul Craig Roberts
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts attended four of the finest universities, studied under two Nobel Prize-winners in economics, authored 20 peer-reviewed articles in journals of scholarship, and published four academic press peer-reviewed books, including Harvard and Oxford Universities, and seven commercially published books. His recent book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution Of The West is available in German, English, Chinese, and is forthcoming in Korean and Czech. 

5 Responses to "In an Impotent World Even the Bankrupt Can Prevail"

  1. epppie  July 20, 2009 at 6:46 am

    I think Mousavi’s and Rafsanjani’s motivations have a lot to do with making money by privatizing Iran’s oil.

    What seems to make the difference between globally-expanding-Nato and the SCO, which at one time appeared ready to counterbalance Nato, but which now does indeed seem impotent, is Nato’s singleminded purpose – Nato’s drive to global dominion is just relentless, and there is no dissention to speak of within the organization on that. Not only does the SCO not seem to have any clear purpose, but Russia and China seem unable to agree, substantially, on anything. Iran is a case in point. Iran is not a member of the SCO, but it’s clearly a critical ally. Yet China and Russia both seem more concerned, separately, with appeasing the US’ determination to bend Iran to its will than they seem to be interested in working together to warn the US and Israel off.

    Reply
  2. Iranian  July 20, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    People in Iran deserve much better than this. There is a power struggle of course. But people come to street only because they are fed up with what is going on during last 30 years, in particular last 4 years. People welcome any move from any figure who may distance himself from regime. Rafsanjani had the most negative image 9 years ago in 6th Parliament elections, when he was said to be the 30th (last rank) elected member of Parliament in Tehran. He lost to Ahmadinejad because he was believed to be representing the regime and people wanted change. But now, when he is no longer considered to represent the regime, people seem to have immediately forgotten his past and are chanting slogans in his support.

    If it was not due to $100+ oil, mismanagement of country by Ahmadinejad’s team (and his main supporter), country had been down the valley in middle of his first term. US, Israel do not need to bother much to make big changes in Iran, as long a oil prices are down. Ahmadinejad does the job for them with no bill. Economic collapse of Iran would be eminent, and only by then you will see masses on the street, not the intellectuals (as of today) but the poor who realized how their miserable lives were misused and their votes purchased for a dream which could never comes true, by the populist policies of Ahmadinejad (and his supporter). I hope more educated middle class who come to streets today would be able to control those masses who are more likely to start a wave of destructions at streets.

    Iran economy is dominated by Revolutionary Guards. They beat people in streets to simply preserve the present position. Rafsanjani has certain interests to keep. Interests that are being threatened by another corrupt league. But Mousavi seems to be a somehow naive person who is unknowingly performing a temporary role.

    I don’t think there would be any war on Iran, unless to support Ahmadinejad’s team in Iran. They would use such an attack as a pretext to arrest and beat more people who would then be official traitors and fifth column of enemy in Iran. The fact is what US wants in Iran is not a democratic regime (as that may ignite the same desire in neighboring Arab countries). Present situation serves best of their interests.

    Reply
  3. John Lowell  July 21, 2009 at 2:39 am

    Yes, I found the recent Russian gestures toward Obama regarding Afghanistan particularly perplexing. Just when self-assertion was begining to show real promise, the Russian leadership appears to have fumbled the ball. Unless they want a future in which Bundeswehr units on holiday from NATO exercises in Ukraine stare at them from the boulevards of Kiev once again, they had best stiffen their spine.

    The hope for peace today is as much dependent on balance of power considerations as it had been in the last century. One is reminded in this connection of an interview Stalin gave to Pravda on the occasion of Churchill’s Fulton Missouri Speech in 1946:

    http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1946/03/x01.htm

    Here is a clear expression of a Russian suspicion of the West that had its basis in a long factual history. Medvedev would do well to emerse himself in much of its content.

    Reply
  4. Ponderer  July 21, 2009 at 4:22 pm

    The article is correct in its appraisal but ignores some major and relevant lines of thought, Let me go over them briefly:
    First, The contrast of US/Israel modus operandi with Nazi Germany should be taken one step further. Nazi Germany in 1940 thru 1941 achieved some dazzling military victories and seemed invincible, with Russia practically written off. We know the tide of history turned, An exhausted Germany came to a halt and eventually humilitaing defeat. America likewise seemes unstoppable which causes it to take further risks until it crosses the point of no return.

    Second, to allude to China and Russia as impotent and subservient to the US geopolitical world domination objective is simple-minded. The Russians know the stakes and are playing a much deeper game than appears at first. It probably revovles around the US vulnerabilities and most importantly to make sure that when they go to war, they have the preponderance of nations on their side. Yet another war of aggression will not endear the US to the world who is already sick to the stomach by the US bullying and rapacity. Is Russia walking America to that point of no return with a smile?

    Third, Iran has kept its hand pretty hidden. This should not be construed as weakness. Iran’s strategy might be ‘fanning’ out it forces towrads US and Israeli concentration of forces. Israel’s wars have been fought and won in few days and/or weeks. This war with Iran will be years and neither Israel nor America are in a position to fight such a war with long lines of logistics and limited resources.

    Fourth, in WWII, the Western Powers possessed complete control of the world’s resources except those in Russia. Today, not a single Western engine can operate without imported petroleum. With 10% of the world’s population, the NATO countries are not intrinsically in dominant position.

    Fifth, Opening another war front in Iran would entail that the US reinstate universal conscription. The opposition to the War with Iran would be fierce and could possibly split the US population somewhere in the middle. Once the chaos hits the homefront, will that be the beginning of the end for the United States of America?

    Reply
  5. John Lowell  July 22, 2009 at 2:10 am

    Ponderer,

    “Second, to allude to China and Russia as impotent and subservient to the US geopolitical world domination objective is simple-minded.”

    Is that what the man said? I really don’t think so. Here’s Robert’s statement verbatum:

    “The Russians and Chinese are off balance because of successful American interventions in their spheres of influence, uncertain of the threat and the response. Russia could have prevented the coming attack on Iran, but, pressured by Washington, Russia has not delivered the missile systems that Iran purchased. China suffers from her own hubris as a rising economic power, and is about to lose her energy investments in Iran to US/Israeli aggression. China is funding America’s wars of aggression with loans, and Russia is even helping the US to set up a puppet state in Afghanistan, thus opening up former Soviet central Asia to US hegemony.”

    “Off balance” is a long way to “impotent and subservient to the US geopolitical world domination objective”, I’d say. Where would you suggest that we begin looking for the simple-mindedness now?

    Reply

Join the Discussion