Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

by **slimmouse** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:04 pm

DBeach said it all. War is money, and war costs money. Lots of it. Who pays that money ? We do of course ! Meanwhile, Which tiny percentage of mankind make their fortune from War , whilst giving the rest of us the impression that we're doing "Gods" work , whilst at the same time having us fighting against each other ? It really aint rocket science to anyone with half a brain. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 9/27/06 7:09 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:31 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Paul Craig Roberts has an uncanny touch for reproducing, or mimicking, the shallow analysis of the neocons. Uncanny, I tell ya.<hr></blockquote> Yup. I think this is more psy-ops against Iran and demoralizing of the anti-Bush internet that is reading this story. I think the White House is simply going to highlight the 'we are less safe now' part of that National Intelligence Estimate to justify staying their disastrous course while domestic infowar campaigns are put in place.

by **Dreams End** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:10 am

Here's Roberts saying the same thing back in March, with a slightly different twist. Iranophobia by Paul Craig Roberts by Paul Craig Roberts Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran? Yes, you would. Bush’s determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense. First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population. Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East. Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shia majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East. Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indicate that a vast majority do not believe in their mission and wish to be withdrawn. Unlike the yellow ribbon folks at home, the troops are unlikely to be enthusiastic about being trapped in an Iranian quagmire in addition to the Iraqi quagmire. Fifth, Bush’s polls are down to 34 percent, with a majority of Americans believing that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake. If you were being whipped in one fight, would you start a second fight with a bigger and stronger person? That’s what Bush is doing. Opinion polls indicate that the Bush regime has succeeded in its plan to make Americans fear Iran as the greatest threat America faces. The Bush regime has created a major dispute with Iran over that country’s nuclear energy program and then blocked every effort to bring the dispute to a peaceful end. In order to gain a pretext for attacking Iran, the Bush regime is using bribery and coercion in its effort to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions. In recent statements President Bush and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld blamed Iran for the Iraqi resistance, claiming that the roadside bombs used by the resistance are being supplied by Iran. It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about. Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran. However, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran would leave the US, already regarded as a pariah nation, totally isolated. Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel’s highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some "black opts" group will orchestrate the attack. One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush’s illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world’s doubts of the explanation. Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn’t it? Fantasy? Let’s hope so. March 16, 2006 Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts155.html">link</a>

by **Dreams End** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:46 am

More on Roberts. He's a member of VDARE. He's getting his own blogpost sometime in the next few days over at my blog. He's part of this rightwing infiltration/manipulation of the left (or would that be leftwing capitulation to the right?). But for longtime readers of this site, thought I'd post the following about VDARE. There's a familiar name in there.... <blockquote>Quote:<hr> VDARE is an editorial collective website which advocates for reduced immigration, including heightened selectivity in legal immigration into the United States. VDARE was created by former Forbes editor Peter Brimelow through his Center for American Unity. The political viewpoints of the collective range from paleoconservatism to isolationism, and from immigration reduction to anti-immigration. VDARE is widely supported in the immigration-reduction movement through links and reprints of its articles. The name VDARE and the site's symbol, the head of a white doe, refer to Virginia Dare, the first child born to English immigrants in the New World. Soon after her birth she disappeared with the rest of an early English settlement, and legend has it that she was transformed into a white doe. The members of VDARE are: Peter Brimelow, Paul Craig Roberts, Steve Sailer, Bryanna Bevens, John Brimelow, Joseph E. Fallon, James Fulford, Joe Guzzardi, D. A. King, Juan Mann, Howard Sutherland, Brenda Walker, Allan Wall, John Wall, and Chilton Williamson. Notable VDARE guest contributors include: Virginia Abernethy, Kevin Michael Grace, Kevin B. MacDonald, Michelle Malkin, Rob Sanchez and Jared Taylor. Sam Francis was also a regular guest contributor until his death in 2005. Peter Brimelow immigrated to the United States from Canada in the late 1970s; he had left his homeland of the United Kingdom shortly after receiving an MBA from Stanford University in 1972. He is a paleoconservative but states he regards "many of the neoconservative leaders as personal friends [and] as allies on the immigration issue. [1]. Controversy and criticism Critics of VDARE charge that it publishes racist or racialist material. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a nonprofit civil rights organization, claims that VDARE was "once a relatively mainstream anti-immigration page," but by 2003 had "become a meeting place for many on the radical right."[2] The SPLC criticizes VDARE for publishing articles by Jared Taylor, head of American Renaissance, and the late Sam Francis, former editor of the newsletter of the Council of Conservative Citizens, both of whom the SPLC considers to be white supremacist. VDARE is also criticized by the SPLC for publishing articles by authors who deal with race and intelligence. The SPLC lists "VDARE/Center for American Unity" on a list of organizations it calls "hate groups." [3]<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/vdare">www.answers.com/topic/vdare</a> I would note that this Roberts article was just posted on our local peace group mailing list. The same list that denied there was a growing and significant influence by rightwingers and fascists within the anti-war movement. It's really kinda surreal.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:45 pm

Thanks, DE. That certainly gives us a perspective on Roberts. Now here are some mixed media messages: Time magazine's cover story is all about the potential of war with Iran complete with military deployment charts and graphs plus an interview with Iran's president declaring him a wild and scary guy. With gas prices suddenly plummeting there are articles popping up about the public's widespread belief the oil companies are just greasing the way for the GOP in upcoming 2006 elections. And oil company PR flacks are saying that the real reason for drops in gas prices is that "the concerns over war with Iran are over, the crisis is passed." Hmm....saber-rattling to keep psyching out Iran from within and hold GOP voters in a war mindset? I think so.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:54 pm

Thank you, DE, that was very enlightening. Although it makes no sense at all that the US would attack Iran, there's that little voice that says, "maybe that's just what they WANT Iran to think," but then another one says, "but maybe THAT's what they want Iran to think..." I actually thought Paul Craig Roberts was a stand-up guy, despite his right-wing past. Your post cleared that up for me, made me see him as a wolf in sheep's clothing. What do you think about his constant harping on America's imminent economic collapse, and the death of the dollar?

by **yathrib** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:42 pm

...is irrelevant to the excellent points and insights in this and others of his columns. I think I speak for most of us when I say that we're adults, and we're capable of sorting out what makes sense from what doesn't. It's not as if PCR is hiding his right wing past (or present.) If he were, if he were trying to make out that "nobody's here but us anti-imperialists," that would be something else entirely.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:14 am

Here's the blog post on Roberts. You can skip it, yathrib. It won't matter to you one way or the other. <a href="http://dreamsend.wordpress.com/2006/09/29/paul-craig-roberts-saves-you-from-neocons-darkies-and-evil-feminists/">Roberts piece</a>

by **AlicetheCurious** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:42 am

I checked out your blog, Dream's End -- I found your stuff about Roberts to be very convincing. Your last point, about the Israel lobby, is far less so. I think anybody who's tried to oppose Israeli policies, or publicize Israeli human rights abuses, or even re-examine the US's unconditional and unbelievably hypocritical support of Israel, indeed anybody who fantasizes that they can run for public office in the US without pledging undying allegiance to Israel, knows first-hand about the power of The Lobby and its busy minions. The Harvard Report, the Christissons' articles, etc., the Counterpunch stuff, just talks about something that can be very easily tested. Just try to write, or speak, or even show a documentary film, in support of Palestinian human rights. Remember the play, "My Name is Rachel Corrie", that was banned from running in New York? Remember Andrew Young? I could go on and on, but I won't. If I look up and see that the sky is blue, and a Nazi right-wing fascist looks up and says that the sky is blue, does that mean that the sky is not blue? He might have different reasons for saying so, but the facts remain, and they are easily verifiable.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:21 am

To criticize Israel and Zionism as you've done, is quite different from assuming that Israel runs the U.S. That perspective ignores so much of what the left used to think about....such as the capitalist class acting in its own interest re: oil, the power of the military industrial complex which profits from war no matter the combatants, the struggle for world hegemony and the encirclement of Russia with "troublesome" countries. I'm a little surprised, actually, that even with your strong views on Israel, you'd buy into this line of thinking about how the US works. Oversimplified is the NICEST thing I can say about it. Don't want to veer off Roberts too much...my remarks make more sense in the contacts of the other posts on the blog for anyone whose curious.

by **yathrib** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:44 am

...it just doesn't mean that he's wrong on everything, and when he's right, it should be acknowledged. He may be right for the wrong reasons, but actually that's much better than being wrong for the right reasons, or wrong for any reason. But would I invite him to dinner? No. Nor do I think he'd accept. I admit people like him make me very, very uncomfortable. As I've said before, I'm an old-fashioned leftist who still thinks Nazis are "uncool."

by **Gouda** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:35 pm

DE, I did not interpret alice's words as meaning that Israel runs the US; just that the Lobby and other Israeli groups are pretty damn intimidating and powerful, as are, I might add, many other elite interest groups (like the American corporate defence industry.) McCarthyism did not "control" the US at that time either, but it sure was intimidating and caused all kinds of nasty problems. That McCarthyism and (political) Zionist lobbying have had such sway in the US is exactly because of that strategic ruling class alliance of interests. This reactionism is alluring, encouraged, allowed, courted, and lucrative: that's the carrot power over a system that has been acquired the taste for such carrots. If the carrot part does not work, due to residual scruples maybe, you can be sure the stick will be brought out: the intimidation. Also works wonders for those being groomed for, or aspiring to this class. And they each have common enemies. The US elite will go along with suppressing the Rachel Corrie play because Rachel Corrie is also an affront to US fascist interests - there shall be no domestic Corries in the states. Does not mean Israel always did or always will have such influence - I think we agree that the US policy elite decides expediency in these matters, and they can drop the Zionists when the liabilities pile too high, and probably will when it is time. Or maybe not. I could not know. The irony of Zionists acting as McCarthys while other fascists are pursuing a neo-McCarthy agenda to scapegoat Jews, or Israelis, or Zionists is quite a lot to grasp, and I am not sure I do. I am also following DE's developing working hypotheses with interest and encouragement. To acknowledge that the Israel Lobby and other groups have too much power should not condone or assist the dissemination of one-sided, narrow propaganda about Zionist Control - vigilance on this IS necessary, and DE is right - but vigilance must be consistent, covering whenever, wherever, and whoever fascists are murdering. As for PCR, I actually found nothing in his article to be new or remotely thought-provoking or enlightening of the Situation. Rather, it is misleading, skewed and scare mongering. It's like all those shallow Mike Whitney where-you-should-invest-your-precious-money-before-US-economic collapse-doomsday articles. I am NOT a Pollyanna nor do I think we should ignore the signs, but bad analysis is really like junk food - you can become what you read. edit: atrotious spelling Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 9/29/06 10:40 am

by **Dreams End** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Alice was specifically replying to this blurb from the Counterpunch masthead. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> THE INSIDE HISTORY OF THE ISRAEL LOBBYFormer top CIA analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison give CounterPunchers the real scoop on the Israel lobby and precisely how powerful it is. Read how US presidents from Wilson, through FDR to Truman were manipulated by the Zionist lobby; how Israel bent LBJ, Reagan and Clinton to its purpose; how Bush’s White House has been the West Wing of the Israeli government; how Washington’s revolving doors send full-time Israel lobbyists from think-tanks to the National Security Council and the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. For all who want a true measure of the Lobby’s power, the Christisons’ 8-page dossier, exclusive to CounterPunch newsletter subscribers, is a MUST read.<hr></blockquote> Israel "bent LBJ, Reagan and Clinton to its purpose"... That's not saying there's a confluence of interests, that's saying that Israel got them to act against their interests...otherwise how could you describe it has having "bent" them. I don't completely know your political perspective, Gouda, though I like almost everything you post, but Alice has identifies as a leftist, as in communist or socialist...which is pretty much my perspective as well. As such, analysis of the power structure from that perspective would suggest that this is really a very clear case of tail wagging dog. And the fact that this line is consistently being promoted by CIA types, NSA guy Madsen and people like Roberts AND is quite in line with the analysis of overt fascist groups (fascist as in "Hell yeah, we're fascist" not as in, "DE doesn't like them and calls them fascist"..see the previous article in the blog on Bill White, for example) should at least make those on the left uncomfortable. I wish, as I've said, Israel was a socialist utopia and never did anything worth criticizing, starting with choosing to ally with the US. That's not the case. I don't have to like Likud or fundamentalist settlements to suggest that Israel does not, by any definition of the term, "control" the US. If the US would like to turn on Israel then Israel would not exist as a country within a very short time...UNLESS another "superpower" decided to support them. This is actually one of the lines of analysis that led to the support of Israel in the first place...marking out lines of influence in the Middle East vs. the USSR. But anyway, Roberts isnt' a leftist so I wouldn't expect him to worry about whether his analysis conforms with typical left analysis or not. But I do expect the left to do so. It's not about being "thought police" it's about staying true to some very core principles. Whatever you call it when you analyze US policy as being about capitulation to the interests of an objectively weaker country, it is not "leftism" of any kind. Then you have the other dilemma...how do you EXPLAIN this influence? If Israel is getting the US to do things because the US has interests in the region and wants to placate Israel to maintain those interests, well, that's not really "bending" the US, that's simply the US making a profit/loss analysis and choosing the most likely path to attain its ends. If you suggest that the US acts AGAINST its own interests, then you are forced to explain what mechanism leads to this strange power Israel has. And there is really no way to do that without making some pretty reactionary assumptions...in fact it's almost impossible without simply "counting Jews" in positions of influence. But even THAT doesn't work...as the neocons are not in the very highest levels of power. What explains why the highest levels (of the visible power structure) are "mesmerized" by them? Why do Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush(not neocons...just cons in every sense of the word) allow this little group to run the show? I just don't know how you get out of this line of analysis without both completely ignoring the real interests of the power structure and resorting to playing count the Jews. (I'm exaggerating to make the point....not accusing you of this.) At least the ancient conspiracy theories have some logic to them...a secret group of Jews who've been working tirelessly to insinuate themselves into positions of power.....it holds together (except for the evidence part).

by **Gouda** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:02 pm

Well, you know I do not buy the propaganda that Israelis or Zionists or Neocons are able to magically bend the wills of the American ruling elite to their dictates. I am with you here: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Then you have the other dilemma...how do you EXPLAIN this influence? If Israel is getting the US to do things because the US has interests in the region and wants to placate Israel to maintain those interests, well, that's not really "bending" the US, that's simply the US making a profit/loss analysis and choosing the most likely path to attain its ends.<hr></blockquote> Thus I don't think it is strange that little ole' Israel has power (even if it is "power granted") in the USA. Granted Power, but not Ultimate Protocols Power. There are also so many cultural, religious, mythic, symbolic, ethnic, and political synergies between the Israel, America and Europe - as well as deep antagonisms. Power is generated in that unique tension, and which ultimately transcends national interests. No dilemma there. But I totally agree the left is in deep trouble should it start playing "count the anyone." Maybe we are tangled up in old categories such as "US interests" or "Israeli interests". Not sure there are national interests any more judging by the character of the global plutocracy. If the ruling elite power structure is transglobal, with loyalty to supra-national gods, then you will find all kinds of traitors to the old categories turning up in every old-fashioned nation thinking it still has national interests. American-based WASP operatives bending the ears of Israelis in Isreal, Israeli-based Jewish operatives bending the ears of Americans in the USA. Those above are borderless and it seems they are scrambling to build a working consensus (not on goals but means) amongst like-minded players at that level of power. Lots of arabs, jews and albanians up there, but it's mostly anglo-american plutocrats and european oligarchy. However, all fascists are welcome. The left should identify with and be primarily concerned with all those struggling from below regardless of race religion or ethnicity AND beware / be aware of neo-nazi misdirection coming from intelligence quarters (inter alia). There should be no dilemma there, though I do realize your points, DE, as I've said and will support efforts to root out such dangerous misdirection. But we must, as leftists, also root out instances where Zionist policy is responsible for the murder and abuse of regular people. I just don't see a dilemma there. If we are consistently anti-fascist and continually informed, we should be able follow a line of analysis that avoids race-baiting and keeps an eye on the real power structure. Though, yes, I do see the danger wherein leftists get confused about the real power structure especially now, in the age of mass internet conspiracizing.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:43 pm

About the mechanisms, for Zionists to pull some strategic strings, I can think of quite a few offhand: espionage, bribery, blackmail, a powerful PR machine that can make or break public careers, threats and intimidation, assassination, campaign fundraising / boycotting. Some targets have something to hide, some are very ambitious, some are true believers, and some are simply cowards (or justifiably afraid). Some are too easily swayed by their close "friends". Others join strategic alliances with the Zionists to further mutual objectives. Everyone has an Achilles' Heel. It's just a question of finding it. Zionists have the numbers, the trained people, the funds, the technology in place, the platforms, and a program (those "talking points" that suddenly pop up everywhere all at once, like the "Nazi infiltration of the Left", you know, like that). By the way, the enormous carrot and stick is wielded against Jew and non-Jew alike. I had a Jewish friend in Canada, a university professor, whose career and personal life were destroyed around 15 years ago, because she courageously spoke out for Palestinian rights. She's not well-known, but there are plenty of cautionary tales, of successful individuals whose lives and careers were wrecked because "They Dare to Speak Out" (the title of former Senator Paul Findley's book on the subject). Of course, things have begun to change in recent years, not at the highest levels of power, but at the grassroots level. Students, labour activists, academics, anti-globalization and environmentalist militants, are spreading information, including first-hand accounts, that undermines the Zionist party line, and, not only demanding justice for the Palestinians, but questioning why the US gives so much money to Israel while cutting social spending for its own citizens. Or providing military aid to a country that regularly engages in war crimes using weapons and other equipment (like Caterpillar bulldozers) Made in USA, in defiance of the US' own laws. These voices are becoming louder on the ground, but once you reach the pinnacles of power, they're reduced to a whisper. Drowned out, no doubt, by other, more urgent voices. DE, there are plenty of mechanisms, and they are being used.

Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Re: D Beach said it all.

Re: Gouda's comment

Re: Gouda's comment

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Re: VDARE

Re: VDARE

PCR's past

Re: PCR's past

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

Re: Paul Craig Roberts: Bush will Nuke Iran

No, it does matter

Re: No, it does matter

Re: No, it does matter

Re: No, it does matter

Re: No, it does matter

Who is online