The very brief article below by David DeBatto depicts a highly realistic scenario that would be the consequence of either an American or Israeli attack on Iran. The article does a much more thorough job of illustrating the horrors that await the world, were such an attack to take place, than what I suggested at least a few years ago could be a massive cardiac arrest of the world’s economy.

Relative to a closing by Iran of the world’s access to mid-East oil, whether by Mr. DeBatto or me, that scenario is available to any half-witted sentient being with access to a world map or an atlas of the world or a globe, and who possesses sufficient interest and energy to reference any of those media to the extent he or she can locate via said media the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz that separate the Gulf from the rest of the world.     

In the cited article, author DeBatto does a much more thorough job of illustrating the extent of the horror that would likely follow such an attack. For anyone with even the most interest in physical and/or economic survival on even the meanest level the article is an essential read, and it is a moral imperative borne by the recipients of the article that it be forwarded to as many as possible.

Insofar as Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weaponry is concerned, I’d like everyone to imagine he or she was the leader of that country. Right or wrong, moral or immoral are of no concern, only that the role as leader of Iran be imagined. For whatever reason(s), the fact that a state of high tension animosity has existed between the United States and Iran has existed trailing back to the US overthrow of the democratically elected Mosedegh presidency of Iran in the early 1950s is not refutable. Nor is the fact that the leader of another American foe, the adjoining neighbor of Iran, Saddam Hussein, been overthrown and executed, on the premise he might have been pursuing nuclear weaponry. With those facts on the table, is it not entirely reasonable to expect that any leader, including all who have been requested to imagine themselves as that leader, would also pursue nuclear weapons, and that such a leader would adamantly refuse to suspend the effort? Indeed, given the facts on the table, it is such a leader’s obligation to take whatever steps may prove seem effective towards protecting the government he or she heads. Moreover, it could even be seen as an abdication of the role as leader were he or she to not pursue such weaponry as might be necessary to thwart an attack or the threat of an attack by any foreign entity, including the United States.

In other words, in simple words, George Bush’s attack on Iraq made the decision by Iran to arm itself however it chose an unavoidable certainty.

Through a full seven years, from 1964 through 1970, and for nearly three years beginning in 1971, the US was taught a lesson in Vietnam, which Iraq demonstrates was a lesson we did not learn. The world narrowly escaped being taught a much harsher lesson during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, General Curtis LeMay, Air Force Chief of Staff, argued heatedly that Kennedy bomb Cuba. It was not until the mid-1990s and the opening of the Soviet Union’s secret military files that we learned the missiles that we thought were un-armed, were in fact very much armed. It was only by dint of JFK’s appreciation of nuance that a world-ending holocaust was avoided. Any form whatsoever of cowboy bravado can be extraordinarily dangerous. So can even kidding about “bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran.”

I urge everyone to 1.) Google “Cuban missile crisis”; 2.) consult a world map, a world atlas, or a globe; 3.) locate the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz; 4.) read the article below; then, 5.) pass it along to everyone you know, especially those who sound off on behalf of militarily attacking Iran.

Lessons are offered for a reason: so we might learn from them.

— Ed Tubbs

     Oakland, CA

  
While one may disagree with certain elements of detail of the author's text, the thrust of this analysis must be taken seriously.

"Israel has said a strike on Iran will be "unavoidable" if the Islamic regime continues to press ahead with alleged plans for building an atom-bomb." (London Daily Telegraph, 6/11/2008)

"Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany joined President Bush on Wednesday in calling for further sanctions against Iran if it does not suspend its uranium enrichment program." Mr. Bush stressed again that "all options are on the table," which would include military force. (New York Times, 6/11/2008)

We are fast approaching the final six months of the Bush administration. The quagmire in Iraq is in its sixth painful year with no real end in sight and the forgotten war in Afghanistan is well into its seventh year. The "dead enders" and other armed factions are still alive and well in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan again controls most of that country. Gas prices have now reached an average of $4.00 a gallon nationally and several analysts predict the price will rise to $5.00-$6.00 dollars per gallon at the pump by Labor Day. This, despite assurances by some major supporters of the decision to invade Iraq that the Iraq war "will pay for itself" (Paul Wolfowitz) or that we will see "$20.00 per barrel" oil prices if we invade Iraq (Rupert Murdoch).

One thing the Pentagon routinely does (and does very well) is conduct war games. Top brass there are constantly developing strategies for conducting any number of theoretical missions based on real or perceived threats to our national security or vital interests. This was also done prior to the invasion of Iraq, but the Bush administration chose not to listen to the dire warnings about that mission given to him by Pentagon leaders, or for that matter, by his own senior intelligence officials. Nevertheless, war gaming is in full swing again right now with the bulls-eye just to the right of our current mess with Iran. It’s no secret that the US. is currently putting the finishing touches on several contingency plans for attacking Iranian nuclear and military facilities. With our ground forces stretched to the breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of the most likely scenarios involve a ground invasion. Not that this administration wouldn’t prefer to march into the seat of Shiite Islam behind a solid, moving line of M1 Abrams tanks and proclaim the country for democracy. The fact is that even the President knows we can’t pull that off any more so he and the neo-cons will have to settle for Shock and Awe Lite.

 1  |  2