Scott Ritter warned Us about this over a year ago, as did Greg Palast, the Bush administration has placed Iran as the next country to invade. Now Seymour Hersh has also been sounding the bell to what could be the great tactical disaster in the history of any civilization. Such a move against Iran could very well be the complete destabilization of the Middle East and possibly beyond. Unlike Iraq, which was isolated, Iran is a very different animal. They have connections with some of the world's most powerful nations, one in which has its finger on the pulse of the US economy. And like Iraq, Iran has a leader which the Bush spin machine can paint as another "Hitler." A man that the US media has helped paint has a cruel dictator who rules his country with an iron fist and has a major hunger to posses nuclear weapons. Why even the president of Columbia University made such accusations without paying too much attention to details. So here is a closer look at the Iran situation and the potential outcome of to total disaster.


A quick note on the statement made by the president of Columbia , Mr. Lee Bollinger in which he called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dictator. The position of of president in Iran carries very little weight. In fact, Ahmadinejad is not able to even select his own cabinet. Most of the country's policies are made by the counties Supreme leader, the Iatola Komani. The job of president really carries slightly more weight than does the royal family in England, a fact that is rarely covered in the US media. So the position of dictator is quite out of the reach for the US's new enemy of the State. Because the US media choses to omit this information shows a lack of any real analysis on their part. As a result, many Americana's really believe that Ahmadinejad is really, "the next Hitler." What's more frightening is that, it seems that the usual media suspects are playing very much of role when it comes to beating the drum for war. In fact, many of the same excuses for going to war are being repeated, nuclear weapons, helping Al-queda and so forth. It could be considered humorous, that they are recycling the old excuses which got us in the Iraq, may show a certain contempt for the American intelligence. But even so, most Americans still oppose any war with Iran. But it is important to remember, like any other war of the modern day, the United States has found it necessary to create a Bogey man whose minions are waiting around every corner to harm an America. The list names are rather long and include, Ho Chi Minn, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Mao, Manual Noriega, Fidel Castro, Mo-mar Qaddafi and on and on.


The early justification for a war with Iran, like that of Iraq, has been, WMDs. To be more specific with Iran, nuclear war heads was the fear factor. According to one CIA report, Iran at best would still be 10 to 15 years away from being able to create any meaningful nuclear weapon if their nuclear process was working as hoped, which really is not case. Damnable is the fact that none of the major networks have reported this. Equally disconcerting is the accepted notion that Iran is helping the insurgence. The truth of the matter is that, the last thing Tehran would want would be a destabilized neighbor. The fear of having unrest spill over into their border has been Iran's position from the start of the rebuilding process. Remember, most reports have Tehran offering support for US troops in stabilizing the country and have even offered help, something that has been denied. To make matters worse, today, Turkey is pushing for a full scale attack on rebel Kurds in Northern Iraq. It is undoubtedly caused alarm not only with Iran but with Syria as well. It is important to note at this time, there are more Saudi fighters in Iraq than any with a connection with Iran. Does this mean we will face Saudi Arabia, not likely since our sweet hearts allow the US to keep oil prices relativly low.

And finally, unlike Iraq of 2003, Iran is not an isolated country. Some of their most powerful allies from an oil stand point has China and surround countries. Russia is one of their major suppliers in military deals. China, which has been the main funder, has been one of the major voices against taking any kind of action against Iran as been as has Russia and Syria. What is so important to remember here is the potential outcome with a war on Iraq's northern neighbor. For starters, Syria would be forced into the war based on a 2005/06 block agreement. The question here is if this "unholy alliance" would force Israel into the war effort. If so, than arm countries would be forced to take sides and in the end what we would have in the region would be a massive destabilization of the Middle East that to the dismay of Jewish Americans would spill over into Israel as well. Speaking of Israel they still remain the only country in the region that is known to have a nuclear arsenal, 200 war heads which have been acknowledged. But in a disaster situation, having the stock pile would do them no good if they are forced to fight on their borders. Perhaps the president of Columbia should remember this before he makes another comment like the one he made about a month ago.




http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1191359285829.wmv

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1191359171921.wmv

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1191358901965.wmv

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1191358617430.wmv

Want to comment on this Blogs? Sign up to Edit Red and you will be able to comment on Blogs and get access to: Upload your own stories and poems, get readers and their feedback, promote your work...