People are asking how we got into this crazy war that now threatens to spiral out of control and affect us all materially even if our homelands are ot directly involved in the fighting.
The narative peddled by the American / Israeli lobby to the Gulf Cooperation Couci (GCC) states and Iraqi government (as
confessed by that Iraqi MP) was based on the premise that Iran would fall within 3
days, after they killed Khamenei, there’d be a regime change, various
rebels and pro-westerners would take over – basically it’d be a cakewalk
like Venezuela. That’s how they got the Gulf States on board with the plan to attack Iran.
Simply put, it was a failure of deterrence by Iran. Iran was too soft
and was seen as weak by its enemies. To succeed in deterrence, getting
nukes would be one method. Shutting up reformists who kept messaging
they want to surrender would be another. In fact Iran need never have had a problem getting nukes, in the 1980s I worked for several years in the UK nuclear industry, and in the organisation that employed me (as a computer specialist) we had a number of Iranian scientists who had been working in britain and decided to stay when the Ayatollahs took over.
These guys were highly regarded by their British, French and American colleagues ,and I ;earned in conversation with senior managers that having them on board was regared as a major success by our governments. The Iranias were ahead of us in nuclear research, perhaps because they focused on practicalities rather than getting bogged down in Science - Fiction inspired theories. There were plenty of equally talented scientists who did not get out of Iran, and maybe did not want to. But they had their own nuclear research facilities, their oil provided the money to fund research and they had the people to develop nuclear weapons, directed energy beam weapons and much more.
So why did Iran not develop these technologies for defence purposes when, for almost 50 years western gvernments had been demonising the theocratic,authoritarian regime? We can only speculate, but while we know Iran has been a major sponsor of terrorism, acts of violence and destruction are attributable nly to the terrorist groups rather than Iran itself.
The scenarios incorporated into the propaganda narative justifying recent attacks on Iran, arms race, Iran going nuclear, threat to western interests, developing an aerial dfence shield etc doesn’t matter. Other than the fact that despite the claims made for 'renewables' by green loons, the world still runs on hydrocarbons, there are no valid reasons why western governments have been fearful of Iran.
As for asymmetrical attacks? Same idea. Failure of deterrence, Iran's regime could have closed the Strait of Hormuz whenever it wished, but they didn't. So the US government is not deterred, they convince themselves Iran is too scared of US military power to hold the global economy to ransome. But Washington gambled that Iran would not close the Strait of Hormuz and strangle their own economy, and the Ayatollahs called their bluff.
A planned vote at the UN Security Council on a draft resolution authorizing the “use of force” in the Strait of Hormuz has been abruptly postponed, exposing deep divisions among major powers over how to respond to complications arising from the imposed war on Iran.
The draft, submitted by Bahrain and backed by the United States in UNSC, would further escalate the US-Israeli war on Iran. However, the delay, officially attributed to the Good Friday holiday, comes despite the predetermined voting day, raising questions about underlying political disagreements.
China has warned that authorizing such measures risks further escalation, while Russia has denounced the text as “biased”, signaling potential obstacles to its authorization.
Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron dismissed the idea of a military operation in the strait as unrealistic, cautioning that it would be prolonged and expose global shipping to greater danger.Other NATO members feel the same.
With no new vote date announced and veto threats looming, the future of the resolution remains uncertain, highlighting the growing complexity the US has created at a critical global energy chokepoint.”
FROM THE ARCHIVE: