Skip to main content

All the reasons for not attacking Iran......

Thankfully, there are some sober thinking people in the USA who see the horrendous consequences of any attack on Iran - let alone questioning the justification to do so.     This op-ed piece "Not Another War!" from the daily camera in Boulder, Colorado, puts things into context perfectly.

"Do the people of the United States really want perpetual warfare? Just as we are struggling to extricate ourselves from cruel, expensive, and unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our country is hurtling towards another even more disastrous conflagration, this time with Iran. Iran is not a small, backward, or feeble country. It has over 78 million people (ranking 18th among nations), is 71 percent urban, and enjoys a life expectancy of over 70 years. Iranians are 84 percent literate, 1.8 million attend universities (60 percent are women), and they have a GDP per capita of over $12,000.

Although Iran (formerly called Persia) has not made a serious attack on another country for at least 200 years, it does possess a formidable military with over half a million regular armed forces and some three million combat capable reserves. It also deploys short and medium range missiles, and has developed "swarming tactics" by which numerous small fast boats neutralize technologically superior naval forces. After suffering a surprise attack by Iraq in 1980, Iran showed it could recover quickly from initial defeat and repulse a better-armed enemy. Although large numbers of Iranians despise the current government, a gratuitous attack on the motherland would surely provoke a unified and determined nationalist response. It would also guarantee Iran the sympathy and support of Islamic and Third World people everywhere.

All this indicates that an attack upon Iran would be anything but a cakewalk. A recent historian of modern Iran (Professor Ervand Abrahamian) concludes that such aggression "could easily escalate into a catastrophe on the magnitude of Europe's Thirty Years War."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...