The routes that lead to the US military option in Iran

The first thing to acknowledge is that regime change in Iran is 100% on the agenda, both Israel and the USA want this. The 'debate' real boils down to whether a military option is going to be used.

What began in the 21st century was an agenda of regime change throughout the region. The conflicts may have been officially based on the 'war on terror' or intervention on 'humanitarian grounds', but these are falsehoods fed to the public to justify military actions.

Conflict over who controls the resources of the middle east is nothing new, it has been going on for a century or longer, the same plight has seen African nations suffer incredible hardships because of western efforts to control key resources and minerals.

If we look at a map of the middle east, there are essentially two countries left that are key to control over the region- namely Syria and Iran. So we either have a huge coincidence that these two countries are being targeted right now, or we accept the reality of the situation-



The map speaks for itself. We reach a point however were the US now has to decide on which policy is best to remove the regime. Israel, the Israeli lobby in the US and the MSM have been pushing the propaganda for years, but that is just indication that sooner or later, the policy makers will have to make a decision. Now more than ever, we are getting closer to that decision.

The policy makers will be thinking through the following-

1- Regime change applied to Iran in 1953 or more recently in Libya will not work in modern day Iran, where the regime is deeply entrenched into the infastructure of the country. The regime in Iran is too strong to be overcome by a revolution.

2- Economic sanctions are ultimately only affecting the people- many reports have indicated the regime itself has grown stronger to make sure it holds onto power at all costs. Not only that, it still trades with other countries that are ignoring the US imposed sanctions. It is a failed policy that is hurting the innocent people in Iran, the regime is stronger than ever.

3- Regime change via the Libyan route will not work, sanctions are failing and diplomacy, whether real or not, has failed in the eyes of the decision makers.

4- With these policies removed, we only have the military option.

5- They can't just start bombing the country, Iran has an ally in Russia to begin with. There are many things that could however, justify military action-

6- Israel, acting alone, may start a bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran will retaliate, this could even go on for months before the USA has to step in to help Israel finish the job and protect her ally. Obama has said many times he has 'Israel's back.'

7- Problem with point 6 is that Iran and the international community know that Israel is funded by the USA- that could lead to Iran carrying out a terrorist attack against America or one of her allies as they would see an Israeli attack as being 'green lighted' by the USA.

8- Point 7 would still suit the policy makers, because as we know, a terrorist attack is very useful to justify a war.

9- If the USA agrees to help Israel in a military option, it might be a joint effort. This however would require justification. We could even see an argument were lack of action has led to Iran getting the bomb and using it- this would be the worst justifaction but hopefully this kind of false flag is never applied. I have no doubt they have considered it though.

10- There could be a smaller false flag, the Syrian regime is being hammered daily, so a terrorist attack by Iran could come in response to what is happening in Syria. We've already seen the Israeli air force stop terrorists entering Israel and accusing them of being funded by Iran.

The point is-

- Regime change is what they want

- Current policy of diplomacy, sanctions have failed

- Israel is becoming more vocal in saying time is running out

- Policy makers in the US, heavily influenced by the Israeli lobby are being rushed into a decision on the military option.

The next few months, in the run up to the elections and beyond are the most intriguing we have seen a long time, because time is running out for Iran, the agenda in just 12 years has seen regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Syria, a vital transport hub of the region is being ticked off as we speak.

Something will happen in the next few months that will justify the military option, it is the only policy option they have left- it's just a matter of time waiting for the final nail in the coffin to confirm and persuade the public and Obama (or Romney if after the elections) that the military option has to be used. Could be for 'national security', 'helping Israel', in revenge for a 'terrorist' attack, as one policy paper put it, there are 'many paths into Persia' but they all require the military option. It's just a matter of which route they take on that path to war.

Its not like the US has a history of messing with Iran or anything.

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[3]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project.[4] The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[5]

And people wonder why Iran wants a nuke...

I believe what Ron Paul called these type of things as blow back due to us foreign policy...

Looks like America is winning this game of Risk

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Option 6, BarryO says, we got yo back!
Hopefully like everything else he is lying and allows the terrorist regime of israel burn to the ground.

Option 7, Iran is not dumb enough to give the US carte Blanch.

Option 8, careful of a false flag, it would not be the first time israeli terrorists killed US boys.

Option 9, I don't see a joint effort as war is no longer popular and many of us know the beast we call israel.
Expect many US friendly fire incidents that get misreported as "insurgent activity".

Option 10, False flag, yes.
We have seen recently the "Egyptian terrorists" being blown to smithereens before they could get back to their safe house inside israel.

My point, we must stop ALL aid to any country where terrorism is bred, we know where terrorism was born too.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


Excellant points all. However, I must disagree about the inevitability of military action in Iran. Currently the US government is too concerned with trying to make friends in the middle east. Obama (or Romney) will spend time trying to deal with it without taking the gloves off. That'll give Iran enough time to put their nuclear chips on the table. And as we learned from the Cold War, once the nuclear chips come out, nobody does anything. Ever.

reply to post by Wonderer2012

To underscore the personal meaning of events of international scope, I offer three scenarios on a small scale. These events don't involve countries and entire peoples. The players are a few individuals, and the setting is a single neighborhood.

It's your neighborhood, and you're one of the players.

Situation One:

Several of Sam's friends are viciously murdered. Sam says he knows who did it, and he can prove it. Most people, including Sam, think that the suspected murderer is hiding in Tom's house. Sam demands that Tom surrender the alleged killer. Tom responds that he'd be happy to do so; Tom requests only that Sam show him the evidence that the suspected killer is, in fact, guilty. Sam insists he has the evidence, so Tom can't imagine why the request would be problematic.

Sam refuses Tom's offer and repeats his demand that Tom surrender the supposedly guilty man without conditions. Tom says again that he'd be glad to comply with Sam's demand; he only asks that Sam offer the evidence that Sam says he has. This back-and-forth continues; neither Sam nor Tom will alter his position. In frustration, Tom finally declares: "Look, I'll do everything you demand. You say you have evidence proving he's guilty. So show it to me. Then you can have him. You can have everything you say you want."

At that point, Sam yells: "THIS MEANS WAR!!" Sam means it. He kills Tom and his entire family, destroys Tom's house, murders several of his neighbors and wrecks much of the neighborhood.

Seeming Madness: The Suffocating Unreality that Kills

How would you describe Sam's behavior? Note that, in all of these scenarios, Sam's victim repeatedly assures Sam that he can have whatever Sam says he wants. Every time, despite the fact that Sam can have everything he says he wants -- and despite the further fact that Sam gets everything he says he wants -- Sam's only response is: "THIS MEANS WAR!!"

We can certainly conclude that what Sam says he wants is not what he actually wants. The scenarios compel a further conclusion, an especially terrible one: what Sam actually wants can be achieved in only one way -- the destruction of his victim. And as I've indicated, the destruction always encompasses more than just a single victim: other people are destroyed as well.

It is tempting to say that Sam is a homicidal maniac. In one sense, that's true, and I will not argue the point. But the full truth is far worse: what if Sam isn't "just" a homicidal maniac? What if he knows exactly what he wants and has set in motion a plan to achieve it? Note this: so far, Sam's plan has worked.

****
For this is the view of the ruling class: "America is God. God's Will be done."

What they want is dominion over the world. They intend to have it. In pursuit of this aim, as they believe the necessity arises, they will destroy anyone and anything that stands in their way. To describe their behavior as insane is to miss the much more critical point, and to minimize the far greater danger. They know exactly what they're doing. They're hoping that you do not. To date, far too many people oblige them.

Don't help them in their pursuit of brutality, oppression, murder and vast destruction. I state again: they know exactly what they're doing. Be sure you judge them accordingly.

f&s

Originally posted by EPH612
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

Excellant points all. However, I must disagree about the inevitability of military action in Iran. Currently the US government is too concerned with trying to make friends in the middle east. Obama (or Romney) will spend time trying to deal with it without taking the gloves off. That'll give Iran enough time to put their nuclear chips on the table. And as we learned from the Cold War, once the nuclear chips come out, nobody does anything. Ever.

If diplomacy has failed, sanctions have failed, Israel still insists that Iran is building a bomb, the US still believes Iran is making a bomb, what other policy is there but a military one?

Regarding your point, Iran doesn't have a nuke and there's a very good chance they have no intention of creating one

So we run full circle, we have the preparation for war, based on yet another lie!

Policy is being made as if Iran IS 100% making a nuclear weapon, whether true or not doesn't matter, their policy decisions are being based on the fact that Iran wants the bomb- if Israel and the USA say a nuclear weapon is a no no, and that all other policies are failing, then the military option is the next logical step. Of course, that has been the plan from the beginning IMO.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


You honestly think that Iran WON'T have a nuke by the time the US actually gets around to sending a military action?

Originally posted by EPH612
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

You honestly think that Iran WON'T have a nuke by the time the US actually gets around to sending a military action?

Of course not, the only source of information that claims Iran is making a nuclear weapon is Israel and the MSM. Not the most reliable of sources.

America, for whatever of the reasons mentioned above, will be involved militarily with Iran in the first quarter of 2013.

You speak as if the US is wasting time and should have done something already. Very sad.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


That's because I DO think America is wasting time and should have done something already. If we're going to become militarily involved in Iran, America should have the spine to actually do it. While I value diplomatic negotiations as much as anyone else, Iran isn't interested in diplomacy and hasn't been since '79. We're wasting time and accomplishing nothing. America either needs to leave Iran alone (which we clearly won't do) or have the backbone to do something. I think military action would be foolish and a mistake, but I think it's something America should have gotten out of its system already. Get it over with, then we can move on.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


I agree that the Military option is the main option on the table, but I think that you discount the revolution option too much. Sure, it is highly unlikely that the CIA could pull off a repeat of the 1953 coup, but they could find or establish a rebel group to support, similar to what they did with the Contras or UNITA, and then funnel billions of dollars into their hands and use them to weaken the Iranian govt. It is likely that they would combine the MEK and Green Movement into one organization, and then arm them with tons of weapons. Even if these rebels only weaken Iran, and don't seize power, their revolution would probably be used as an excuse to send them some troops and air support to take down the Iranian govt. Not saying that I support this course of action, just saying that it is possible. Yours was a very interesting post.