Home » War » Are We Really Going To Bomb Iran?

Are We Really Going To Bomb Iran?

by John Rubino on January 16, 2012 · 57 comments

Just based on national balance sheets, 2012 will be somewhere between challenging and catastrophic. But debt and deficits might be the least of our near-term problems if Jim Rickards is right. In his latest King World News interview he predicts yet another war, “sooner rather than later”:

Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. They’re going down that path, and this is coming to a head sooner rather than later. They don’t want to give up the program, so all the bargaining is a pretense. They go through the motions of negotiations but it’s all to stall for time.

The Obama administration has woken up to the fact that it’s time to get serious. Things are moving very quickly. Israel has integrated itself into the US and European command and there are joint US/Israel exercises; the pieces have begun to move on the chessboard.

For Israel this is existential. If Iran gets nuclear weapons they’ve said they’ll burn Israel to the ground. So it’s not just a strategic rebalancing, it’s life or death. The US wants to go in first [for a variety of reasons], but there’s residual distrust. How do the Israelis know that the US won’t reach an accommodation with Iran and leave Israel holding the bag? All the information I have is that the US is going to do it. We’ll take out their air force and command/control system, and suppress their missiles.

It is not in the US interest to see China cut off from Iranian oil, so we’ve cut a deal with Saudi Arabia to make up the difference. The Chinese care about the oil, not who’s selling it. Russia is more interested in selling weapons, so they’re approaching it as an arms dealer, selling weapons to replace the ones we destroy. They’re also the biggest oil exporter and win financially if oil goes up.

This will be done with air power, sea power, financial warfare, sabotage, special operations. It’s already going on: Iran’s nuclear scientists are being assassinated, financial sanctions on Iranian banks are being dialed up. The Iranian currency has plunged and inflation is soaring. This is financial warfare; the cyber warfare has been well-advertised.

The Iranians do have a few tricks up their sleeves, including submarines and speedboats. There will be casualties and the US will lose at least one vessel. Still, it’ll go fairly quickly and the US is counting on the Iranian people to rise up against the regime once the war begins.

It’ll take oil to $200 and gold past $2,000. We’ll see a general flight to safety and quality and a lot of volatility in the stock market.

Some thoughts
Rickards is analyzing and predicting, not advocating, so don’t blame the messenger. His scenario is consistent with what Israeli leaders have been saying for years and more recently with the movement of US warships to the region. Something big does seem to be coming.

For more details see this excellent report by Chris Martenson.

In one sense this latest war is, if not right, at least understandable. A fight is clearly brewing and the US wants to both protect an ally and keep the oil flowing.* But in another sense it’s absurd. Multiple simultaneous wars are for solvent superpowers with sound currencies and flexible finances, and the US no longer qualifies. Our military is overextended and exhausted and this year Washington will borrow its defense budget from China, add another trillion to the official national debt and maybe three trillion to unfunded liabilities and other off-balance-sheet but very real obligations.

Austrian economics — and common sense — teach that the more leveraged the system the less able it is to withstand external shocks. And war in the Middle East sending oil to $200 would be the mother of all external shocks.

$8-a-gallon gas would be like a gigantic tax increase, shifting the global economy back into reverse and preventing the peripheral Euro-zone countries, Japan and the US from getting their borrowing under control. Who will buy the extra trillion or so dollars of sovereign debt? The world’s central banks, obviously, so the printing presses will run flat-out for the rest of the decade.

The secondary effects are harder to predict but far scarier. The global financial system is hiding trillions of dollars of bad loans and nearly a quadrillion dollars of derivatives, which is another way of saying the developed world’s biggest banks are ready to evaporate. Will the Fed and ECB be able to stop that avalanche when it comes? Who knows? It looks like we’re back at square one in the inflation/deflation argument.

* In response to some well-founded criticism (thanks guys), a reference in this paragraph to “crazies with nuclear weapons” was replaced with something less offensive and hopefully more accurate.

  • http://billhopen.com billhopen

    Rickards is a pretty savy and well informed cat whom I trust as a straight shooter. The fact that he is so concerned that this war is eminent, causes me to fear this is a lot more than just saber rattling. I hope Iran will not play further into this scenario, I hope they can save face and cut a deal that holds back the bombs and death and waste and hatred. What I fear is that its a regeme’-change play by the USA and Obama is on board with that, wanting to make war. It makes me feel powerless as a citizen of this democracy to watch this over and over and over without being able to stop war BEFORE it happens

  • http://billhopen.com billhopen

    ps.. this is not about “crazies with nukes” John, its about OIL we didn’t stop Kim Jong Il developing or having a nuke because he isn’t in strategic proximity to “our” oil

    • http://chaosandconspiracy.wordpress.com SeadragonConquerer4

      Ah, no. US did nothing about NK nukes because they are aimed at US…not at…ISRAEL.

      • JR

        N. Korea cannot reach us with nukes, however – at least yet. It may also be that they developed them when we weren’t really keeping a strict eye on the development

  • Mayer Rothschild

    Mr. rubino. Iran has never claimed to want to “burn Israel to the ground” or the often misquoted “wipe Israel from the map”.

    Absolute BS. Here is the direct translated quote-

    Ahmadinejad’s Word by word translation:

    Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

    This has everything to do with Fiat money control. No Rothschild controlled central bank in Iran. Just like Hitler stopped borrowing money from the bankers And started printing his own money.
    Muslim religion does not belive in usary. No interest on money. That is why the banking zionists must take them out. They are the enemy. Rothschilds, warburgs, seifs, lazzards, kuhn loeb, rockefellers, goldman sacs.

    • Rachael

      Bingo.

      • mark hagen

        Bingo twice… Our news media took that govt created phrase and put it out daily for about a month…next thing you know the sheeple are regurgitating it like it is a fact. With an entirely brainwashed society we do not stand a chance. The military industrial complex is running out of highly profitable wars and now they need another…desperately. It will happen

    • JR

      Thanks for the translation. However, exactly HOW are they going to make Israel “vanish?” Magic?

  • Mayer Rothschild

    Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons.

  • paper is poverty

    I always appreciate Rickards’ analysis but I am puzzled by some things he says. I think it’s rather blase to assume the Saudis could actually provide additional oil to China to make up for any shortfall. The Saudis have claimed they could increase production any number of times and then have failed to do so when expected; Matt Simmons’ work suggests that’s because the Saudis are physically unable to ramp up production as they are past their peak. Furthermore, China has invested in pipelines and infrastructure to deliver not only Iran’s oil to China, but also its natural gas. We will likely obliterate Iran’s infrastructure in any war with them, targeting not only nuclear facilities but essentially everything, the idea being to bomb them back to the Stone Age so that they never again pose a threat to Israel. In the process we will destroy Chinese projects underway in Iran and cut them off from two needed fuels. Even supposing that China does not protest in any meaningful way, it will certainly strengthen China-Russia relations and the amount of non-dollar bilateral trade between the two. Rickards is very dismissive of both China and Russia.

    And if we’re talking crazies, how come Pakistan is allowed to have nuclear weapons? Is Iran different merely because of some incendiary speeches? But here it sounds like Rickards is paraphrasing from quotations translated by MEMRI, and MEMRI deliberates mistranslates Iranian leaders for propaganda purposes. They’re responsible for the famous “wipe Israel off the map” mistranslation (the original referred to regime change in Israel, not annihilation). Rickards is a member of the intelligence community, he must understand that MEMRI is not a reasonable source. Furthermore since Israel is sitting on about 600 nuclear warheads it’s going to be a very long time before Iran could “burn Israel to the ground” without burning themselves to the ground, especially given anti-missile technologies. Lastly, Rickards certainly knows we did not “put a bullet in bin Laden” (paraphrasing) last year; frankly it felt disrespectful to the audience for him to throw in that baloney.

    I am sure Rickards is a patriot who is advocating for what he thinks is best for the United States, and on economic issues I really appreciate his work. I’m not entirely sure what to make of his analysis of Iran, except that if he says we’re going to war then I’m sure we are. But he does seem to be an apologist for a US invasion. He also seems pretty blase about how easy it will be for the United States, and a little corner of my brain keeps saying “But it’s the Persians, man… the Persians!”

    I guess when empires fall they like to go out in a blaze of imagined glory… this will be just one in a string of pointless, immoral, expensive wars.

    • grochef

      paper is poverty, I was going to say the very same things you pointed out. I respect Rickards, but he seemed completely off base about the difficulties that will come about as Iranian oil stops flowing.

      As I read your response, I returned to a thought that I had about the real reason for this war. China needs oil badly. China is also causing a hell of a lot of problems for the US by lowering the value of their currency whenever we fire of the printing presses and drive up our inflation in an attempt to make our goods cheaper and our currency less valuable.

      My point is that this war with Iran, will be a round about way to get to China. As you said, Saudi Arabia tried to pump more oil when Lybia was bombed, but they could only eek out a little squirt more. This war will cripple China and it will decimate the western world financially.

    • josh

      Perfect.

    • JR

      Pakistan may be allowed to have nukes because they were developed without close observation, until too late. Moreover, they are really more a “force de frappe,” or deterrence, for INDIA. In contrast, if in fact Ahmine-NUT-job does want his twelfth imam to come back by inciting mayhem and martyrdom, that is a different “thing” altogether.

      I don’t understand, one thing, tho: Assume for a moment that Iran does want to wipe out Israel. a.) How will they do it without killing a lot of Arabs who live nearby, and b.) what makes them think not only would Iran go up in flames, but places like Mecca, too? And is Jerusalem and their stolen land where the Dome of the Rock is be left unscathed? At very least, all the West Bank Arabs would get a lot of bad radiation.

      I might suggest, if the Arabs want “Palestine” back, that they first give Egypt back to the Copts, Algeria back to the Berbers, and they should really leave Serbia, too, that was invaded. And, oh yes. Give back Constantinople.

      All this being said, my suspcion is that they will not go to war

  • Doug

    Anyone who thinks attacking Iran would be fine is insane, but letting them have nuclear weapons would be equally insane. If they get them, then Saudi Arabia will too. It won’t we long until there is nuclear anarchy and there is a miscalculation somewhere in the world. Much like the debt crisis it will probably be kicked down the road because the are no good options.

  • Rachael

    It is sure to be torturous to watch the administration’s moral acrobatics when the SecDef just conceded 7 days ago that Iran ISN’T building a nuclear weapon:

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/09/panetta-admits-iran-not-developing-nukes/#.TwuGe-xGkwA.email

  • MarkyMark

    One thing that concerns me is how domestic US presidential politics may play into all this mess and make an attack on Iran more likely.

    I can’t see where the serious domestic US opposition is going to come from to any ratcheting up of the pressure, and eventual attack, on Iran.

    Are all those college students and MoveOn lefties suddenly going to engage in mass protests against Obama who they supported and campaigned so hard for and in whom they have invested so much hope in an election year to boot?

    No they are not. I gave Bush II the benefit of the doubt over Iraq and hindsight has proven me wrong. Mainstream conservative thought won’t come out against an attach and Democratic supporters will give Obama the benefit of the doubt – he wouldn’t have authorised an attack unless it was absolutely necessary they will reason. He has a Nobel peace prize to prove his peacefull nature. Obama was able to drop bombs on Libya and kill Gadafi and have it accepted by the media and others as a humanitarian mission!

    If the attack happens this year, good luck with Romney in trying to paint Obama as a lightweight Carter II.

    The combination of the ability of the US to act against Iran, the human bias to act over not act, and the lack of any substantial domestic opposition (due to cognitive dissonance of Obama’s supporters) makes an attack all too likely

    • grochef

      I voted for O’Bummer. Still, I disagree that there is any difference between the two sides of the single party in the US. Pigeon holing “lefties” as blind sheeple is wrong, plain and simple. Students, druggies and other terms are used to describe the OWSers who have the clarity to see the corruption in the US government and their corporate buddies who write legislation for their own benefit and is then signed off by the puppets in DC. These issues are the product of decades of cronie corruption on “both sides of the isle”. If we the people assume the divide and conquer mentality that MSM pushes on us, the status quo corruption will continue. We MUST stop bickering about perception that is being spread by MSM that we the people should hate each other! We must take back our government from corporate interests and the Beltway Bandits!

    • Agent P

      @Mark:

      ‘Presidential Politics’ don’t ‘play into all this mess’ – they ARE this Mess…

      #1. After taking out Bin Laden and Qadafi (yes, I know we really don’t know for certain, but for the sake of argument…), the President cannot afford to look ‘soft’ on Iran. It would be incongruous with his seamless take up of the war-baton from Bush, so he has to ‘do something’, or else a large block that has supported his Neo-Con-esque foreign policy, might not show up for him come November.

      #2. A non-intervention policy could indeed prompt Iran to get cocky in the gulf and try some hardball with oil traffic. That translates badly – not only for gasoline prices for the serfs here, but at the polls…
      Can you imagine going into November with $5/gal. & rising pump gas, along with the attendant shocks to the economy? No way. A massive show of force in the gulf right now at least buys time to keep the nascent ‘recovery’ humming along. If we do so choose to attack Iran, certainly it would be prudent for the purposes of re-election prospects, to ‘git er done’ as quickly and efficiently as possible.
      Doing that would essentially be Obama’s hat-trick and he would likely sail through in a landslide.

      The only ‘alternative’ to Obama that has anything resembling a real shift is of course, Ron Paul, but the establishment isn’t about to let that happen, so all you’re stuck with is Neo-Con and Neo-Con ‘lite’, so why bother change horses…?

    • Markymark of the Beast

      When Bush did it, it was bad, but when Obama does it, its GOOD!

      Would you like to play a nuclear warfare game?

  • http://dpc.ucore.info Dawid Ciężarkiewicz

    Iranian has not claimed they wanted to burn Iran. Stop spreading misinformation that is hurting this country and make it look OK to use violence against peaceful nation.

  • Ian Mathers

    There will be no stopping them now. The misinformation has been coming fast and strong, the engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down (as much as they can) and the Military Industrial Complex needs another one to keep things humming along. Couple that with the high unemployment, declining economy and the fall of the USD; there is no other option than to use the most desperate means to start the recovery and hold onto the fantasy that the US can hold its empire together.

  • Fred

    We already pay $9 a gallon Europe, what are you US lot whinging about??!!

  • Tony D

    I read a piece in a John Mauldin guest column by “Stratfor” at least 12 months ago pertaining to this situation. The piece accurately predicted that the US would look to “flex it’s muscle” in the 2012 election year as Obama could not expect to be elected on domestic issues as he is poorly perceived and so he would look to demonstrate strong leadership in the external sphere. The article nominated Iran as a possibility but was quite certain about the direction the US would take this year. With politics being the key to US leadership thinking what have they got to lose by bullying Iran and going to war ?
    Economically, war will be a fiscal disaster, but the war will provide cover for the political class to tighten it’s fascist grip on the US.

    • grochef

      Bingo! The US is a fascist nation where “elected” officials continue to strip people of their rights. The Department of Homeland Security now runs FEMA, TSA and it funds police forces to be militaristic bullies dressed in combat gear to beat unarmed citizens.

  • Chris Caughey

    Thanks for this, John, but while I don’t want to shoot the messenger Jim Rickards, I am disappointed that he has bought some of the propaganda. I am not saying that it is a good thing for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. But then again, which government on this planet is so benevolent and altruistic that we could say categorically that it is good for *any* country to have a nuclear weapon?

    I like Israel and I have nothing against them, but why is Mr. Rickards worried about them when they have enough nuclear weapons of their own to turn Iran into a smoking hole in the ground? Why do we need to bleed American blood and dollars for Israel when they are more than capable of defending themselves? I honestly don’t understand.

    I think it is Mr. Rickards’ statement “For Israel this is existential” that best illustrates the imbibed propaganda. Why not believe Israel’s Mossad Chief Tamir Pardo, who says that even if Iran *did* get a nuclear weapon (which U.S. intelligence says it hasn’t http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=3201), it would not be an existential threat to Israel? (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/mossad-chief-nuclear-iran-not-necessarily-existential-threat-to-israel-1.404227)

    I think it is also naive to think that we will win Persian hearts and minds by bombing them. The news reports I’ve been seeing have said that the Iranian government is using events like the crashing of the U.S. drone and the U.S. attack on Iran’s central bank to rally popular support for itself. The Iranian government may be tyrannical (and it is), but nationalism and jingoism are powerful tools for justifying supporting insane government policies. Just look at the rhetoric of the Republican party since the 2004 elections. Need I say any more?

    • paper is poverty

      Yeah, the bit about the Iranian people turning against their government seems awfully naive. First of all, that’s what we said about the Iraqis. Secondly it seems to take the Green revolution at face value when it’s pretty clear there was Western involvement and some very skewed media reporting as well. And lastly, does anyone remember Bush’s low approval rating right before 9/11? All of a sudden the goofball became a hero because of an external attack. I don’t see why an American attack wouldn’t greatly strengthen the popularity of the current Iranian government, especially if they can sink a US ship or two.

  • WaldenPond

    What a lot of non-sense. The negotiations on Iran’s refining of uranium has been a done deal, decades ago, in 1968. It is called the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In that treaty, the US President and US Senate agreed that Iran has an inalienable right to refine uranium. Period. To threaten to blow up nuclear reactors and nuclear refineries in Iran, that is the existential threat. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that bombing the Natanz refinery near the city of Isfahan will cause 5 million Iranians to die of radiation illnesses. Whether the US knows it or not, contaminating the Persian Gulf region with the radioactive fallout from bombed reactors, that is an existential threat to the USA. It is a kind of national suicide. Americans will not be driving cars anymore, any where, for a very, very long time. Get real, please. Think if it is a good idea to blow open nuclear reactors in the very region that has half of the world’s energy reserves. Go re-read the 1960s exclamatory claims about the end of the world when the mindless Chinese hoards get the bomb and threaten to wipe the USA off the face of the world. And what happened? China got the bomb. We backed off our aggression against China, started treating them with the respect that a nuclear weapons nation commands. Now we borrow money from them because we don’t have any, and we buy our computers and shoes from them, because we don’t know how to make them anymore. Win-win situation.

  • Jedward

    Well, not withstanding the pro & con arguments, the fact is that once a country HAS nuclear weapons, it’s a much dicier proposition to deal with them (i.e. Pakistan & North Korea). So, if one wants to prevent Iran (or any other country) from becoming a nuclear threat is has to, by default, happen before they build the damn things!

  • Jason Emery

    I’m surprised there is so much chatter about the Straight of Hormuz. Iran has mentioned it, but it would almost certainly be easier for them to wreck havoc on the world’s oil supply just by taking out Iraq’s, Kuwait’s, and Saudi Arabia’s oil export facilities.

    The former two are practically on the Iranian border, and the latter is a mere chip shot across the Persian Gulf. They are all sitting ducks. All Iran has to do is say, “shut off production, or we’ll do it for you”. And of course Iran’s production would be shut in during any war.

    The obvious way to prepare for a war of this type is to put a $15/gallon tax on each gallon of gasoline, phased in over a few months, so there isn’t a huge price spike all at once. However, that might dampen the enthusiasm for the war.

    My guess is that this is all part of Obama’s reelection campaign. First, he ‘found’ Bin Laden, assuming Binny ever existed in the first place. And of course the economy seems to be improving, if you believe the government’s numbers. Obama stopped the evil Tea Party from raising your social security taxes. And didn’t the Republicans, such as the eye of a Newt, prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Mitt is an evil job destroyer, vis a vis Bain Capital? How much do you want to bet that it is an Obama supporter that is pouring millions into Newt’s campaign?

    You read it here first. Obama is gonna win reelection by a margin on the order of 20%, maybe 30%. The banksters love him. What you people want is completely irrelevant.

    • paper is poverty

      Robert Baer (the CIA agent that Syriana was loosely based on) makes a related point about the extreme vulnerability of the Saudi oil platforms. In “Sleeping with the Devil” he specifically imagines the damage that could be caused by a small, fast boat loaded with explosives and piloted by a suicide bomber (sound like Iran much?).

      • WaldenPond

        Sounds like Iran not at all. When has Iran engaged in suicide bombing? As others of this commentary have said, Iran has enough missiles, of varied range, capabilities and launch platforms, that they can blow up anything in their neighborhood by shooting a missile at it. If the US has a missile defense set up, and it works, then Iran can blow up anything in their neighborhood by shooting a few dozen or a few hundred missiles at it. I sense a lot of technological arrogance based on racist stereotypes in these commentary. I guess that many readers and many Americans think that Iranians ride on camels and live in the poverty and desperation of the Palestinians. Remember, Iran can launch satellites. In university computer competitions, Iranian students do better than US students.

        • paper is poverty

          In his Dec 31 interview Rickards describes an Iranian combat technique where they use a swarm of small, very fast boats loaded with explosives and suicide crews to attack a large ship. This sounds similar to the oil platform attack scenario I recall from the Baer book, so when the previous commenter mentioned the oil platforms that coincidence jumped out at me.

          If this is an absurd idea because Iran has so many missiles they wouldn’t need these boats, then the US military has wasted time in war gaming that scenario. As for myself, if I underestimate Iranian missile technologies it is not because I think they’re riding camels. It’s because I assume the Israelis and the US have an interest in exaggerating the threat posed by Iran, and Iran also has an interest in exaggerating their capabilities, and one has to compensate for that by assuming less offensive capability than is often claimed.

          • WaldenPond

            I think the small boats that Iran has amassed in the Persian Gulf, that defeat the US Navy during the US Navy’s war-games, are boats that carry anti-ship rockets and/or torpedoes. It in unimaginable that a small boat could get near a warship at sea that is on war footing. The small boat suicide attack on the USS Cole, and the small boat suicide attack depicted in the movie “Sryiana” were manned by Arabic terrorists, not by Iranian naval personnel. And neither of those was an attack on a warship at sea. Of course, every military in the world, including our own, uses suicidal tactics in desperation. For example, most of the inexperienced pilots flying inferior US naval aircraft sent against the Japanese naval aircraft during the Battle of Midway, knew that they were going out on suicide missions, most likely to die. It was only the incompetence of the Japanese navy to leave munitions on deck and the luck of our dive bombers being unnoticed while the Japanese were destroying our suicidal torpedo planes, that caused us to win the Battle of Midway. If or when we start a naval war in the Persian Gulf against Iran, then Iranian forces will be in a desperate fight for national survival against a much superior force. Iranians would most probably resort to suicidal tactics, as did, for example, the Argentinian pilots who launched the Exocet missiles against the British warships. They flew beyond their fuel range to do that, knowing that they will die in order to successfully launch their missiles. I can imagine Iranians doing things like that.

  • Big Dick

    The name of the game is not nuclear. Iran now has mid range ICBM’s that can hit Isreal and their own nuclear silo’s and power plants. The Jewish state is wetting their pants that a rocket push by Iran would wipe them out with their own nuclear power being the source of their demise. The game is to get the US to bomb not the susposed nuclear sites in Iran but bomb the ICBM silos to take out this threat. Thus the ramp up of the nuclear lieias the reason for the US to defend the world ( ISREAL). IRAN has no nuclear wepons or desires to have any as proven by the on site inspections in 2008 and 2011. Obama needs a war diversion to keep the money flowing and emphasis away from the collapse of the economy. SO BOMBS AWAY IT WILL BE!!

    • WaldenPond

      This presumes that Iran keeps their missiles in fixed-target silos. They don’t. They have mobile launchers, and a very complicated, mountainous geography in which to hide them. Remember, during our attacks on Iraq, we could not find Iraq’s mobile Scud missile launchers. And these were vehicles sitting in the open in desert settings, with no cover. And we could not find them, even though we dominated the skies, and had every kind of high-tech satellite, AWACS, helicopter, etc. surveillance. Iran is a much larger geography, with mountains and forests. There is no possibility that the US or Israel can eliminate Iran’s missile capacities.

  • Bruce C.

    I disagree with most of Rickard’s about this issue.

    First of all, I first learned about Jim Rickards a few years ago when I visited King Word News and I have to say that just about every analysis, conjecture, and prediction that he has made since then has been wrong or irrelevant. Predicting a war with Iran over nuclear weapons is so passe. If he really is part of or privy to US intelligence then that simply means it is low (no surprise there). His “prediction” doesn’t mean much to me.

    I do agree with some commenters that Presidential election year politics will be the prime motive here in the US which as far as I’m concerned means doing as little as possible to rock the boat. That means (among other things) no big spending cuts and certainly no more wars. Starting a war before the election makes no sense. I don’t see any upside to that (Obama voters will hate it, gas prices go up, etc.) There is the precedent, however, that Americans don’t like to change Presidents in the middle of war (i.e., Obama’s last desperate trump card), but I don’t think even Obama fans would support him. Only the US has a bug up its butt about Iran getting nuclear weapons, if the powers that be even do, and there is no way the US can pull off another Iraq-style crusade in the name of keeping the world safe for democracy/Judaism (regardless of how important its oil interests are). Besides, the usual script is to let the Republican President take the blame for another war (Democrats are supposed to end them.)

    If anything, the US should try to avoid problems with Iran, not incite them. Any significant combat in that area by any parties will effectively create the same quagmire – namely major oil disruptions and who knows what else, and all bad. And I wouldn’t count on the Iranian people rising up against their government either. That has hardly ever happened historically. As p for p said ‘it’s the Persians, man… the Persians!”

    • http://chaosandconspiracy.wordpress.com SeadragonConquerer

      You are confusing facts with policy-prescriptive values. Obama has been dragging his heels on the Iran War for months now; he knows it will be an epic military, economic, and political catastrophe. Won’t matter. If he wants the pro-Israel campaign $$$ and traction in the Zionist MSM, he will do the deed, like it or not. Or Israel can simply force his hand by striking first. Then there’s also the small matter of Iran going off Petrodollars, making bilateral, local currency oil deals with India, China, others. This in itself will force an eventual Isramerican attack.

      • Bruce C.

        It depends upon what “facts” you mean. The problem here is that there is so much mis- and partial information going around, and so many different agendas both real and imaginary that it’s really impossible to analyze properly. I know logic and rationality isn’t always the guiding force in geopolitics but a military war with Iran won’t save the petro-dollar arrangement and won’t help Obama get re-elected even with pro-Israel $$$. Besides, I think the truth is that most countries (and Obama) would like to see Israel eliminated, so the US will probably hold back and make Israel deal with Iran. If there really are amoral ruthless “elites” working behind the scenes then I should think Israel would be expendable if that would further their agendas.

  • Tommyboy

    I sleep better at night knowing that Israel has scads of nuclear bombs, don’t you too?

  • Sue

    The Congress is so stupid I bet they don’t even realize that war with Iran will sink the U.S. due to high oil and gas prices.

    • WaldenPond

      Exactly. In fact, Iran could make their Bushehr nuclear reactor into a kind of Dr. Strangelovesque Dooms-Day-Machine. Imagine if Iran were to announce to the US, EU and all of its neighbors, “Leave us alone or we will blow up the Bushehr reactor and throw 80 tons of enriched uranium dust into the atmosphere”. Iran could make Bushehr into the mother-of-all-dirty-bombs. Bushehr is far from Iran’s population centers, but sits right on the shores of the Persian Gulf, near Kuwait, just a stones throw across the water from the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and the rich emirates of Qatar, Dubai, Bahrain.

  • Pingback: Are We Really Going To Bomb Iran? | DollarCollapse.com « The Grey Enigma

  • QQQBall

    Congress? When was the last time they had a say in “acts of war”?

  • digger

    The above comments and views are most interesting; however, I find most of them to be detailed well-thought-out discussions of symptoms, tangents, distractions and opinions about the problems we face….most off the paper, non on-target, and none of them really addressing the root cause.

    The fundamental reasons the United States will bomb Iran; are the US dollar hegemony and the financial control it brings, the petro-dollar and the United States Government’s willingness to kill and starve anyone and any nation who opposes this policy. As with Iraq and Saddam Hussein; Iran, as well as a few other Nations, has begun selling oil in currencies other than the US dollar.

    The US simply cannot tolerate anything but total control over the majority of the world’s oil resources and the pre-eminence of the US Dollar, and Iran simply must be stopped from having long-term control over its oil reserves and selling it in any currency but the dollar! “The petro-dollar must survive!”

    We (the US) will do anything to keep the petro-dollar and control over oil. For anyone to suggest the war with Iran is about religion, philosophy, democracy v. dictatorship, or anything else is simple falling ill to Hegelian dialectic logic. Distractions, mirrors, tangents.

    Why we can’t tolerate Iran with nuclear capabilities (for energy or weapons) is because they like North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, China and Israel to name a few become too difficult to deal with. While we are very reluctant (for good reasons) to go against a nation with nukes, Iran is still “manageable,” for now. We use other methods on nations with strong national defenses and nukes!

    The US will only let the dollar fail if it wants to. In the mean time the United States will bomb in to oblivion any Nation who opposes the Almighty Dollar and the financial control it brings! Disgusting, isn’t it!

    “No, no….keep watching this hand. No this hand!”

  • Truthfinderxxx

    The ruling houses of Israel want Iran to become subject tofiat currency.
    We will become involved in a military action with Iran because our master (Israel) demands it.

  • Dave

    Rickards is a hack. His Iranian analysis are way off the mark as usual. Must assume he has some bias clouding his judgement or simply has another agenda here.

  • wopa

    So you really believe that Iran will BURN Israel, the land that they believe to be holy to the ground? Ridiculousness.

  • http://amarketplaceofideas.com Freemon Sandlewould

    …….at least I’ll get to see Iran get what is coming to them for 1979 kidnappings.

    Carter should have just capped them when he had a chance….but noooo. That would have been too easy.

    That being said the problem with the “war outcome” predictions is they do not take in to account the huge nosedive in Iranian demographics. If we can wait this thing out and delay them enough things will take care of themselves….

  • http://billhopen.com billhopen

    QQQball: yeahhhh! What about congress?….are we gonna have an “war authorization” if Iran doesn’t comply? probably not…..It will be a squeeze them to death economically play, waiting for the tiniest little beligerant response fom Iran in the Straights of hormooozing with oil….if Iran takes the bait it will justify a smack down of overwhelming destruction. the economic pressure may bring down the regeme, making the bombing unneccessary. It a plan…but plans go awry, and there’s alot of fire power and tension pent up in that little area of the world…alot of petro chips on the table

  • Shame On Rubino

    Rubino – this article is rubbish! Shame on you for carrying this type of content on your website – this article is misleading and false. Sure, we found WMD’s in Iraq, right? LMAO. What absolute propaganda. The U.S. and Isreal have been beating the war drums against Iran for the last several years. It’s all BS!!! And its going to start World War 3, John!!! Thanks for doing your part, Mr. Rubino and Mr. Rickards, for speeding the onset of WWIII.

    p.s. John: It’s all about world domination, resources, oil and land, nothing more, nothing less.

  • Willy2

    Iran stopped the development of its nuclear bomb program back in 2003. So, anyone who thinks an attack is about to happen because of the allegedly “”Iranian nuclear bomb”” is smoking the weed provided by the (US) mainstream (Propaganda) media. Is drinking “”Kool-Aid””.

    • a

      yeah

  • SilberShark110

    nukes is forbidden in the islamic law in IRAN

  • Tahoe Billy

    Sorry, but I follow the path of the other “kooks” here…this is all Bankster takeover of last remaining non Fed backed central banks. The Libya debacle was the dead give away. First off, the Libya debacle was fought by a President who ran as an “anti war” candidate (haha!). Second, Europe was entering a crazy debt chaos, and they all still manage to get the laser bombs trained on Tripoli in what seemed like a few days. This is humanitarian anything, it’s not even about protecting Isreal, it’s all lies….it’s total global control! They have played their cards and it’s not very hard to see. Rickard’s is just another water carrier…touts gold, then carrys their water while he does and doesn’t really back Ron Paul either. Something really fishy about this Rickard’s dude, plus he is a Baby Boomer (hold’s nose).

  • http://www.sundayperspectives.blogspot.com cindy

    Before long the world will be slugging nukes at one another……..it is only a matter of time. They will be slugging nukes because oil, water and food shortages. Oil will hit $200 a barrel on the NYMEX before the summer and the whole global economy will come to a complete stand still.

    The Euro is already on a cliff and a spike in oil is all it will take to send it over the edge.

  • leave politics to politicians

    usa is scared ,its stocks show it well

  • Jihad

    I hope Iran gets blown into submission.


[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com] [Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com] [Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]