Tag: united states

Nuclear Weapons and Iranian Missiles: A Speculative Comparison

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

I just finished reading an article by Larry Johnson on the Unz Review, at the end of which he linked to an interview with Lena Petrova on the current conditions in both Iran and Ukraine/Russia. While watching this, a thought came to me and I posted this comment at the article.

Watching the interview above with Lena Petrova, this thought came to me.

After the Soviet Union collapsed and disintegrated in 1991, there was an enormous effort made to pull all the nuclear weapons, which were dispersed throughout the various republics, and transfer physical control of them to either Russia or the United States. This was done for one reason alone–to prevent any rogue individual state to attack or threaten to attack any other state with the weapons under their control. As far as I know, it was a successful mission.

At the time, Russia and the other former Soviet states were under tremendous pressure to open their economies to the predations of oligarchic businesses affiliated with the West to pillage and steal natural resources and bleed them dry, all for the profit and benefit of the West. Remember Mikhail Khordokovsky of Yukos, et al. When Putin came to power, he put a stop to that and demanded that Russians of all stripes work together for the benefit of Russia, regardless of the wealth temptations which existed and broke the back of the oligarchs. Russia was in an existential crisis then and it took desperate measures to survive and move beyond that. Today, it is in a far different, far better position.

Now, transfer that scenario to Iran with this question in mind.

Keep in mind that Iran’s missile/drone inventory is its equivalent of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. Suppose, just suppose, that the US/Israeli push to defeat Iran actually is successful and Iran splinters into numerous small, disjointed, fractious statelets. Considering that the missile inventory which Iran allegedly possesses is spread all over the country, not concentrated in any particular area, the question arises as to who will control them and how they will be used. How would they be collected and placed under direct US control?

Further, since it is common knowledge that Iran has decentralized its command structure and military decisions are now being made at lower and lower levels, what is to prevent any one single commander or group from simply blasting off its missiles at any time toward any perceived enemy? What if the target is the Dimona nuclear plant in southern Israel, regional water desalinization plants, or major oil terminals? An aircraft carrier which has just steamed into the Persian Gulf? How would the US and Israel respond? With another bombing campaign? Sanctions? Blockades? Assassinations of top leadership which would further lower the chain of command?

It is quite certain that Israel’s goal is to destroy the Iranian state and introduce a chaotic and powerless political vacuum into the area for the purpose of allowing Israel to become the regional hegemon, but we have to consider the possibility that this chaos, if brought into being, might also mean the potential destruction of Israel itself, especially if Dimona is hit. It is also quite certain that the US goal is to seize control of the oil production and use it to squeeze the ultimate target–mainland China.

As you give, you will receive. Visit hell on others, hell will be brought to you. This might be termed a natural law of reciprocity and God works in mysterious ways to maintain the consistency and continuity of The Law.

This is pure speculation on my part. I am not making any forecasts.

I have a question for the big-shots and power-brokers who run US military and foreign policy. Have any of them considered this possibility? Have they run war games bringing this potential scenario into play? If not, why not? Aren’t they getting paid $$big bucks to look at all the risks? If they have thought about it, why have they decided to push ahead anyway and run the risk? Is this what they actually consider to be tolerable? Or, conversely, is their arrogance and trust in overwhelming military and economic power so great that they cannot conceive something so “laughable”?

If I was wearing the Iranian shoes, you can bet that I would contemplating this avenue of action and I’m willing to bet that there is someone, somewhere, in that country who already is planning it. Or something similar. Human nature being what it is, it is impossible to tell what might transpire, except that it will not be pleasant.

All is fair in love and war.

Resumption of War: Damn the Torpedoes, Full Speed Ahead

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

There was, supposedly, a two-week ceasefire in the war between Iran and the US/Israel tag team for the purpose of “negotiating” an end to the shooting. I say supposedly because the shooting never really stopped completely, but was only diminished to a fairly low degree. The negotiations (if you can call them that) occurred between the US and Iran because Israel refused point-blank to participate and, if an actual ceasefire had been adopted, probably would have refused to cooperate.

Nevertheless, the US team (led by vice-president J. D. Vance and his “minders”, Witkoff and Kushner) apparently could only stick it out for less than 24 hours before they determined that the talks were fruitless and walked out. This tells me that they came into the arena with a pre-determined set of demands (as did the Iranians) which they were unwilling to alter for any reason (as were the Iranians). However, since US/Israel were the aggressors in this conflict and had unilaterally attacked Iran, without warning, it seems logical and fair that they should have been the ones to soften their stance first. Since this didn’t happen, the only way to look at the situation is that the ceasefire was implemented, not out of a sincere desire to arrive at a resolution, but for strategic purposes, that is, to allow time for a breather and an opportunity to re-arm in preparation for Round #3.

The war will resume and continue until one side or the other has had enough and calls it quits:

  • Israel will not do this, continuing to the very end, fighting with everything it has, up to and including the use of nuclear weapons if it is deemed necessary, which will probably be its death knell. No matter, suicide is better than being beaten to death.
  • Iran is in an existential position. Defeat for it means submission to and subjection under the heel of the US hegemon, the destruction of its society, and the loss of control over its resources, similar to other countries within living memory: Iraq, Libya, Serbia, Syria, Somalia, etc. It is not likely that Iran will capitulate and surrender, until or unless surrender becomes preferable to death. In this, Iran is more reasonable than Israel.
  • This leaves the US as the only possible dropout, with serious international repercussions and harm to its unipolar status and empire, not to mention personal humiliation to the pride of Donald Trump who cannot admit wrong in anything. However, American wars since Korea have not produced anything approximating a clear and sustainable victory, virtually guaranteeing that this one will be no different and the longer it drags on, the more resistance it will generate at home, perhaps even culminating in a vigorous anti-war movement a la the Vietnam era.

As I said, the war will resume and continue, probably escalate into a region-wide conflict far beyond the current locations, and may very well result in the large powers (US, Russia, China, EU) flinging nuclear tipped missiles at each other, threatening not only each other but the entire planet.

Why do we have wars? Why can human beings not live without trying to kill each other? Why does destruction of “others” hold so much fascination for us? What would it take for this tendency to be eliminated from our pattern of living? Why are we not willing to attain that?

This morning, I replied to a comment on the Unz Review in which the commenter took exception to the conclusion of the article which sought to explore the reasons for war, basically arriving at the conclusion that money (profit, interest, financial gain) was behind all wars. The commenter in question disagreed with that, stating that most wars, the large majority, were due to differences in tribal identity, ethnic interests, and religious viewpoints. While I cannot argue that these contribute to the hostility between people, they are, in my opinion, symptoms of the disease and not the cause of it. I concluded my comment with this thought.

“The winner takes it all. Gain (call it profit) is all that counts. In animals, this is instinctual and they can do nothing about it. In humans, it is a spiritual matter (call it greed, covetousness, selfishness, hatred, etc.), springing from the depths of the personal soul and it can be countered, overcome, and changed for the better of everyone. It must be conquered if we are to survive.”

https://www.unz.com/article/all-wars-are-bankers-wars-iran-and-the-bankers-endgame/#comment-7579938

There is only one solution to war. It has nothing to do with money, power, the “greater good”, better and more destructive armaments, political savvy and machinations. Instead, it begins within the individual human soul, the admission that the hatred, anger, selfishness, greed, covetousness, and desire to see others harmed, is not beneficial to oneself and is to be repented of. The absence of war might be achieved by states, powers, and societies temporarily, but the absence of war is not equivalent to the “peace which passes all understanding” and which can only be gained by the admission of sin in one’s soul, the humbling of personal pride, the earnest request for help, and the alteration of the way a person thinks about his relationship to God, to himself, and to those around him. Without this spiritual level paradigm shift, there simply is no peace and, as a consequence, wars arise, not because one person can create wars, but due to the fact that societies and cultures are built by the agglomeration of individuals, many of whom have not made that shift and who seek power for its own sake, using all the techniques known to sinful man in the process.

If you would change the world, change yourself.