Will the US attack Iran? Is Bush on the way out?
These two questions are related and neither is easy to answer.
Perhaps those of you exposed daily to the US media might have more of
a clue than I do. It seems I do need a weatherman to tell which way
the wind blows.
On the one hand, we have clearly seen preparations for an attack,
somewhat parallel to the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. There is the
media demonization campaign, the pressure to get the UN to act, and
the phony WMD accusations re/Iran's "nuclear program". In addition
the administration asserts repeatedly that "all options are on the
table", including the option of attacking with nuclear weapons. We
have seen the delivery of bunker-buster bombs to Israel, independent
threats of an attack by Israel, testing of bigger bunker-buster
bombs, and reports of high-level war councils between the US and UK.
And then there are the geopolitical motives for an attack, involving
control over oil, rising oil prices, Iran's deals with China, the
Euro bourse, the bubble US economy, etc.
On the other hand, we are seeing in the media a level of public
dissent that was quite absent in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion.
The attack on Rumsfeld by retired generals, and the fact that the
media featured this story, would have been quite out of character in
the earlier Iraq scenario. If the powers that be are fully committed
to an attack on Iran, then I would have expected pressure to be
brought on the generals to hold their tongues, and any media reports
to be played down. If we think in terms of 'full spectrum dominance'
- a favorite strategic concept these days - the attack on Rumsfeld
represents a significant chink the spectrum of media support for a
new war. If there is to be a war, then it is folly to fan the flames
of opposition in the lead-up - particularly when those flames are
being fanned by military people, who would tend to be listened to by
those on the right, the heartland of Bush supporters.
What does it all mean?
I'll offer one speculative scenario, for your consideration:
The neocons were given a long leash, by those with real
power, to carry out a particular assignment. The assignment
was to take over Iraq in a smooth operation, with public
support, and then move on to take over Iran. Rumsfeld then
bungled the opening move, giving us a quagmire instead of a
popular, shock-and-awe victory. His bungling over-stretched
the Pentagon, making an operation against Iran more
difficult, and the quagmire has significantly undermined the
desired public-opinion profile. He let his bosses down. Just
like in the Mafia - and the global elite are nothing other
than a larger-scale Mafia - Rumsfeld is going to take the
fall, the original plan is being scrapped, and a regrouping
is to follow.
What do you think is going on?
rkm
