Richard says: “Again, all this has been discussed before. It would be nice if someone would come up with something new instead of re-iterating the same old thing.”
I’ll give it a shot, knowing that Richard will not approve of my teleological bent. First let me see if I can recap the situation here. In one corner, which Richard has carved out for himself, is the position that war is pretty much inevitable, save some other distraction such as AfPak or the Koreas, or some other known unknown, which will delay the military-industrial Beast’s gorge-fest on Iran, for which he has been salivating for some time now. “Nothing can stop it”, etc. This position is arrived at through reason, given the realities on the ground: economic, political, ideological, technological, etc., all of which make of the Islamic Republic a morsel so tasty as to be irresistible to the Beast, who cares not a whit about the mores of ordinary mortals, not being one himself.
In the other corner, we have various objections to this ultra-cynical and ultra-confident prognosis, again based on reason, but with different analytical emphasis. For example, time is spent discussing the efficacies of elements such as the AP, and whether the pain the Noor ASM, say, will inflict is sufficient enough a deterrent or not; or, as another example, the length of time it takes to “go ballistic” (read nuclear), or the number of nuclear warheads required to act as a sufficient deterrent, and so on.
First, I would like to state that irrespective of its merits or demerits, Richard’s position is simply too positive (obviously in the non-normative sense): one should not be so adamant about such things, as world affairs cannot be predicted with certainty or even near certainty, especially in the Middle East.
On the other hand and secondly, I would like to state that I believe the scales tip in Richard’s favor as to the probability (rather than inevitability) of the conflict – but my belief must be qualified in that I do not arrive at it using Richard’s logic, which I believe to be false. In other words, I agree with Lysander that the article by the military historian that he pasted is indeed convincing as far as it goes. Richard is fundamentally mistaken in thinking that if reason was to prevail (and this is the important distinction, the crux of the biscuit) – and he assumes that it will – there is insufficient deterrence to prevent the war. In other words, the elite pulling the Beast’s strings don’t give a damn about a spike in oil prices or, say, 20,000 dead US soldiers, and that they do care about the whole show crawling to a standstill, but that is not going to happen due to technological mastery, etc. To repeat, Lysander is correct in agreeing that supertankers will be easy prey, the rapid result of which will be that their insurance rates will make it prohibitive for them to travel in the Persian Gulf. (And besides that, the various classes of MRBM (medium range ballistic missiles) with multiple warheads, which Iran manufactures indigenously and has in sufficient quantities, will rain down on the deep water ports of KSA, UAE & Kuwait, so as to render them useless for loading supertankers, and the repair of which will take a minimum of six months under ideal conditions, which they will not have. So yes, Lysander is correct that the war is not going to be “exactly like Iraq” and “exactly like Afghanistan”; it will be a qualitatively different animal altogether. Those same SRBM’s and MRBM’s with multiple warheads will wreck similar havoc (and render useless if not actually sink) an aircraft carrier or two (see The Arkenstone blog), unless the speedboats, mini-subs, suicides and drones don’t get them first (recall the video on YouTube shot by an Iranian drone that successfully hovered over a US aircraft carrier for five minutes – or was it 15? – before it was even detected!)
So why is it that if I agree with Lysander, I do not come to the same conclusion as he does, and agree with Richard’s conclusion (albeit in a more tentative tone, and arrived at from a different route)? A-ha! Well, I never thought you’d ask! But now that you have, it is because while the Known Unknowns are taken into account, the Unknown Unknowns are, as usual, forgotten about or conveniently ignored – the latter in the case of Richard, I believe, resting his faith in atheism as he does.
The Beast may think that he has all his bases covered, but that is only because he is led to believe this by He who is writing the Script and Directing the Show. In the Beginning, there was the Pen and the Tablet. The broad outline of this Script as it pertains to our discussions here is that the chapter of the bi-polar/ NAM world has closed and the chapter of the multi-polar world has just begun to unfold (with a brief unipolar interregnum – so much for PNAC), and in this new chapter, the tectonic forces at play other than the massive Chinese fault and the less dynamic Russian re-emergence, India, and the Neo-Bolivarian zone, is patently the Islamic one, whose first adumbration manifested in the Islamic Revolution of Iran. In a sense, then, the 20th century was indeed a short one, starting with the War of 1914 which ended the Victoria Era and the 19th century, and ending not with 9/11/2001, nor yet with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, but with the Revolution of February 1979. To a teleological mind such as mine, the outlines are unmistakable: the confluence of forces (The unexpected Revolution of 1979 itself,
The unexpected survival of the IRI through the Imposed War, The unexpected removal of Saddam, The triumph of the Iraqi Islamic coalition, The unexpected removal of the Taliban, The unexpected defeat of Israel in Lebanon, The unexpected survival past the Green putsch, The timing of Turkey’s inevitable re”orient”ation eastward.
and so on), if you read the Script carefully, the confluence of forces means that the rise of the Islamic Pole, under the leadership of the IRI, will not continue “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event” (if I’m quoting Rummy and Co. correctly), and that Event will be this war that looks to me to be scripted. And it may indeed start under false pretenses, like all the other false flags that have preceded the US’s entry into all of its major wars of the last 100 years or so: (Sinking of the USS Main: Spanish-American War; Sinking of the USS Lusitania: US entry into the War of 1914-1918; The Pearl Harbor LIHOP [let it happen on purpose]: US entry into the War of 1945; Gulf of Tonkin Incident: Vietnam Full-Throttle; Theft of Baby Incubators scam: Persian Gulf War One; 9/11 [LIHOP or MIHOP]: Persian Gulf War Two), but it will be false not in the sense the US warmongers expect to benefit from it, but in the sense that their expectations were false and their hopes dashed, just as the lie was given to their plans by the forces of Reality on the ground, be they in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Lebanon. And consequently, this war, if and when it comes, contrary to hopes and dreams of the bloodthirsty warmongers, will not be the consolidation of their hegemony in the Middle East, but the last nail in the PNAC full-spectrum-dominance, in-your-face-from-outer-space coffin. And good riddance.
They plan [their plans], and We plan [ours];
Verily, We are the Best of Planners
Post-Script: When the consolidation of Islamic power in the Middle East is effected (i.e., when native Islamic values determine the fates of the peoples of the Middle East, thanks to the crimes and misdemeanors of the Neocon-Evangelist-Zionist triumvirate), there will be people like Richard who will say that Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, whereas the more teleologically inclined will know that Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed. The difference is in a materialist, random geology versus a sacred and purposive teleological anthropology.
Posted by Arash Darya-Bandari