"Is Iran Next?" Topic

"On April 4, 2017, it was reported that the Syrian government used Sarin gas in the city of Idlib and killed approximately 70 civilians. Most people are now quite familiar with the horrendous pictures of the victims. The international community was shocked. President Trump responded, "It crossed many lines for me. When you kill innocent children, innocent babies . . . with a chemical gas that is so lethal that people were shocked to hear what gas it was, that crosses many, many lines -- beyond a red line."

However, this was not the first time the government of Syria used its chemical munitions against non-combatants.

The Syrian civil war that started in 2011 has resulted in over 500,000 deaths and over a million refugees. Neighborhoods have been bombed and strafed without regard to civilians living in the area; beheadings, torture, and sieges of populated cities have occurred. These are all horrible acts but are, unfortunately, not unusual in war. (Anyone with an average understanding of the nature of warfare will understand this.) However, the world has lived with these atrocities and has done nothing, except issue statements and proclamations…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Here's a comparison. In the 1930s while Nazism was growing to control Germany, we had Nazis in the US. And throughout the war we had Nazis in the US.

But will that certainty dissuade the US for the next up to four (and possibly eight) years? Only time will tell, if the current administration will use "hard power", as all the eventual "Allies" should have done years before Hitler invaded Poland. We have had ample proof of the intentions of the Islamic players. If we just sit by and let them get what they are after, we will have nobody to blame but ourselves when they come after us. And they will come after us, again, but with far more power to destroy, anywhere in the world…………..

Huh?

It's pretty rich of this writer to editorialize about how "the U.S. would not tolerate the use of chemical weapons by any government" when the US supplied or countenanced such weapons in Iraq in the 1980s and encouraged the then in-favor Saddam Hussein to attack Iran with them. I don't remember any such pontificating then about the unacceptability of chemical warfare. Really, no one likes these weapons, so then why does the US still maintain a stockpile ( link ) and what about land mine treaties, cluster munitions, depleted uranium ammunition, white phosphorous, Really Big Bombs, and all the other nasty things in current arsenals?

How many wars do you think you can fight at one time?

As Admiral Lord Lewin, First Sea Lord at the time of the Falklands conflict, famously said: "All war is madness, but the only madness IN war, is moderation." I believe that Winston Churchill was of much the same opinion (although he didn't order the gassing of the Kurds, as is often wrongly stated) and prepared a number of nasty surprises for any Germans who tried to invade the British Isles in 1940.

Regarding the Iran Iraq war and the use of chemical weapons there wasn't as much news coverage as today, considering there wasn't internet back then, also I don't recall if civilian targets were hit or just military targets. I was one of the few and I mean very few students in school to know that those two countries were at war. Time magazine and News week were the only periodicals at school and besides some of the teachers I was the only one reading them. The TV news hardly had anything so for people to outraged about the US helping supply weapons to the war they would have to know the war was going in the first place.

Iran in 2017 is Germany in 1939? So we must preemptively
destroy them now?

Anyone on this thread young enough to serve?
Anyone ready for the massive tax increases to pay for
subjugating Iran?

Supercilious Maximus:

link

link

I know some object to citing Globalresearch (the second link above) but the linked page only presents historical citations for the most part.

Rod Robertson.

In terms of 'Which Nation since WW2 has use chemical weapons the most', does Agent Orange count?

Pan Marek:

Yes.
And no.

Saudi LOL…

I'd certainly be concerned, if I was Iranian. Not so long ago, W Bush condemned as an "axis of evil" North Korea, Iraq, Iran -- and Syria was also in neo-con sights as early as 2002. So here we are 15 years later, Iraq and Syria are broken, North Korea is on the brink of being "pre-emptively" attacked -- if Iran doesn't think they're firmly in the gun sights of the regime changers in Washington, they'd be much more foolish and naive than I think the Persians have ever been.

Rod,

The Guardian article uses a typical mis-quotation of Churchill's "infamous" memo to the FCO – quoted accurately in your second link – leaving out that he referred to "lachrymal" (ie tear) gasses, which he thought could be used to temporarily prevent enemy forces from using valleys. His science was wrong, but that's another matter; the Russian Civil War was considered an extension of WW1 in which all sides had used poison gas and – as Churchill pointed out – nobody had queried it.

Supercilius Maximus:

DM/Adamsite is an arsenic-based chemical weapon which if far more than just a lachrymal agent. It nauseates, blinds, blisters and incapacitated its victims killing about 1% of those soldiers exposed to it. If used on civilians with children and the elderly, the death rate rises to between 2-3%. The use in Russia, Iraq and even in Washington, DC during the Bonus Riots killed elderly and children.

Rod Robertson.

An essay here illustrates a new dimension to this issue -- how the US by its own actions has given Iran (or another "rogue" nation) every conceivable reason to WANT nuclear weapons, as the best guarantee against being "preemptively" attacked like so many non-nuclear states have been.

link

In other words, you don't help yourself by driving your opponents into taking the very actions you say you want to prevent.

I don't think Iran is all that worried. The warmongers who clamor for regime change will find it a much harder sell this time because of prior failures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.

American militarism in the ME doesn't exactly have a good track record.

I don't think regime change is the game any longer. It may be an added bonus but perhaps not the goal.

Looking at the two most recent strikes, Syria and Afghanistan, the goal seemed more to inflict punishment and damage than to decapitate. The Russo-Syrian airfield was damaged and some of the Syrian planes destroyed but the airfield was left functional and not all assets destroyed. In A-stan the tunnel complex was hit and I am sure heavily damaged but doubt that the network was completely destroyed. The enemy combatant casualties were just a lucky add-on bonus.

We may see more such arm and leg chopping but probably not any headshots. This would be an interesting strategy because it leaves the native forces degraded which may force the puppet masters with a need to commit more resources of their own. It would be interesting to see the strategy of chaos turned back on the perpetrators.

DM/Adamsite is an arsenic-based chemical weapon which if far more than just a lachrymal agent.

Not disputing that. Just stating that the dear old Graun was confusing two different instances – the RCW/WW1-plus incident and Churchill's later comment on Iraq/India, which involved dealing with banditry. It was also RAF practice in the Middle East to leaflet areas about to be bombed 24 hours in advance, to allow civilians to flee if they wished.

I was one of the few and I mean very few students in school to know that those two countries were at war.

What school did you go to? It's hard to know what Americans mean by "school" but at the university I attended, it was a topic of much discussion, both in & out of the lecture halls.

Maybe by "school" you mean "primary" or "secondary", though I'm still surprised if High school students weren't aware of the atrocities: it was in newspapers & nighty news broadcasts.

The current chemical weapon atrocity in Syria, to be more up to date, was being angrily discussed by my son (21 years old) & some friends a few days ago in our family home. I will admit it may be easier to keep up with CA today but keeping in touch with global affairs has always been important, I'd have thought.

Supercilious Maximus:

My apologies. Somehow I got it into my head that you were claiming that the UK were only using lachrymal agents in Russia, Iraq, Northern India and Washington (by the US). I stand corrected on my misunderstanding.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

No, Iran is not next.

Two questions:

Why is the US leadership (and presumably its military) so fixated on Iran and its nuclear programme when existing nuclear states like Pakistan, North Korea, Russia and I dare say Israel are much greater threats?

Why does the US reason it is sensible to threaten non-nuclear states which they suspect of developing nuclear weapons with military attack, when such threats only drive the desire for such non-nuclear states to go nuclear as a protection from US or other state intervention/attacks?

Iraq, Syria, Lybia and Ukraine all gave up their aspirations to be nuclear powers and all have been attacked and severely damaged by great powers intervention as a result. If the great powers want to stop nuclear proliferation, doesn't it make sense to end the threats and attacks coming from the great powers rather than bullying and destabilising the intermediate and minor powers who seek protection from foreign intervention by developing their own nuclear weapons technology?

To me it seems that the practical effects of threatening and bullying non-nuclear states is counter productive to stopping nuclear proliferation. It is instead driving nuclear proliferation forward. Why can't or won't the great powers acknowledge this and act accordingly? Is it that the great powers are really only interested in preserving their ability to militarily intervene in other states' territories without the threat of nuclear reprisals?

Rod Robertson

Rod-
Hard to answer because you asked more than two questions and went into different directions and from the "US" (single) to "great powers" (plural).

One simple reply would be to look at the other threats and problems posed and enacted by these "victim" nations (my use of quotation, not yours), not just limited to their aspirations to become nuclear powers. Anything from supporting and/or conducting terrorism to domestic and foreign genocide.

The Ukraine is as close to a valid example as you gave. It agreed to give up nuclear capability in exchange for autonomy. That deal was not lived up to. Although the US govt. at the time allowed this to happened it did not perpetrate the actions.

The other three examples were very active themselves as "threatening and bullying" states and/or fell victim to their own atrocities not necessarily related to nuclear capability. All three are separate cases not easily lumped into the same category without a lot of twisting and bending.

So nobody wants to answer the two questions which I asked in the first two paragraphs of my post above? They're pretty straight forward questions despite ZoC's objections. The lack of answers to date is telling me most here know this is really not about nuclear non-proliferation but is rather about protecting an self-assumed right of military intervention by great powers like the USA and Russia.

Rod Robertson.

ZoC:

Whether you approve of the behaviours of the state's I mentioned above or not is likely irrelevant to the issue of nuclear non-proliferation and Iran. What is important is that their examples clearly point to the utility of military nuclear capability for states which wish to protect themselves from great powers' military intervention and attack. It's their thought process and not ours which drives this desire for nukes and pushes forward this cycle of threats, violence and escalation. Greater restraint in the use of military force by great powers would likely reduce the desire for nations to develop military nuclear capability and threats or use of military force only seems to increase that drive. It's just dumb policy unless other goals are at play.

Rod Robertson.

Why is the US leadership (and presumably its military) so fixated on Iran and its nuclear programme when existing nuclear states like Pakistan, North Korea, Russia and I dare say Israel are much greater threats?

I don't think there is an easy answer to this question. Russia IS a worry for the US, but it is not more worrisome, actually less, than back in the day when she was the USSR. Russia's leadership is perceived as ambitious and expansionist, but rational. Bussiness can be done with them.

Israel is not an US adversary, even if sometimes looks like a cocky younger brother looking for trouble. And to booth, there is not a certainty that Israel has actually a nuclear arsenal. I concede that it is a strong possibility, but not an absolute certainty.

Pakistan is an ally… of shorts. Her nuclear arsenal isn't a clear and present danger for the US or her allies… probably. As long as it doesn't collapse and government is replaced by Islamists radicals, the US will turn a blind eye to Pakistan nuclear capabilities. Alas, if sometime in the future an Islamic revolution sweeps the country, then you will see the US and India -possibly China too- suddenly all hell bent against Pakistan nuclear capabilities.

As for North Korea it isn't true that the US doesn't pay attention to her nuclear program. She does. However, as long as China supports the N.Korean regime there's not much that the US can do short of risking a war with her main commercial partners, the Chinese. It will change if the Beloved Leader makes a blunder and actually attacks with nukes South Korea or Japan, in which case not even China's backing would save him from retaliation.

The point is that nuclear power is not a deterrent per se. It works when it is combined with being under the protection of a superpower (China and N.Korea, or Pakistan and Israel and the US) or if the country is not perceived as a threat (Israel) or, at the contrary, the nuclear arsenal of the country and the means to deliver it are perceived as unstoppable after a first strike. That would be the case of Russia: even weakened by the loss of her empire in the 90s, Russia still has the ability to respond successfully to an US nuclear strike; probably, Russia would be wiped out, but not before hurting the US. That is something that no US government wants. Only if Russia's government would fall in the hands of a madman would the US actually contemplate to take the risk of intervening in order to destroy or put under her control, Russia's nuclear arsenal.

A nuclear Iran, on the other hand, would be a threat to the key US partner in the region: Saudi Arabia. While newspapers focus in the threat that an Iran with nukes would suppose to Israel, they are forgetting that the most intense, and more dangerous, rivalry in the Middle East is between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Nowadays they are fighting by proxy in Iraq and Syria. If Iran manages to develop a nuke, the Saudis would go mental with fear. Saudi and Israeli lobbies are most intense in their lobbying campaigns in the Hill; it is only natural that for US officials Iran looks like a more immediate strategic threat than any other of the countries you mentioned.

My two cents!

Maybe by "school" you mean "primary" or "secondary", though I'm still surprised if High school students weren't aware of the atrocities:

ahahaha
i think that to explain such things to guys interested only in tattoos, play stations and effeminate dancings is ridicoulous..let them discover the reality at their own expense later

RIR
i can answer only , and partially, to your first question
they threat Iran because Iran is an iconic bad boy and because they cannot stand national states and autonomous leaders..anyway. they did the same with Russia and N. Korea..they don't touch Pakistan, also if it's after the end of Musharaff leadership, a simple and true rogue state..because they do not want to annoy muslim extremism…i must add those way of thinking belonged to the past administration..let see with the new US President

about use of gas
I believe that Winston Churchill was of much the same opinion (although he didn't order the gassing of the Kurds, as is often wrongly stated) and prepared a number of nasty surprises for any Germans who tried to invade the British Isles in 1940."

that's not totally true..those nasty surprised had already been preoared , by both US and with Churchill complicity, to be used not specifically vs Germans soldiers invading British Islandsv but VS civilian population in Italy..and if it was'nt for an unexpected occurence we wouldìnt have waited until Irak/Iran War to see again the use of gases:
link

Italwars:

While I think there is an element of truth in what you say about Mr. Churchill's willingness or even enthusiasm to use chemical weapons on both military and civilian targets, I don't think you can lay the deaths at Bari at his feet. The presence of a chemical weapons stockpile in ships moored in the port of Bari while disturbing, shows at most perhaps an intent and premeditation with respect to their use in the future, but neither the US nor Britain actually used these weapons. They were released accidentally as a result of a Luftwaffe raid on the ships at anchorage and therefore it is a weak case to say that they were intentionally used on the Italian citizens of that unlucky city. That Britain and the US were criminally negligent in the matter is true but they were not wilful and witting instigators of an attack.

There is plenty of damning evidence to indicate Mr. Churchill's desire to use chemical weapons on Boors, Russians, Iraqis, British soil, Germans, French citizens,Japanese, Indians and Soviets. One need not lay Bari at his feet as an intentional act. The case is strong enough to win without such contortion of the evidence.

Rod Robertson.

"That Britain and the US were criminally negligent in the matter is true but they were not wilful and witting instigators of an attack." Considering that the US blew up West Loch in Pearl Harbor without an enemy within 500 miles, and Port Chicago in California without an enemy within 3,000 miles I'd say that the Bari disaster isn't a case of criminal negligence, but another example of the friction inevitable when countries go to war. It's easy to point to a particular accident and say "This is how to avoid it" but it impossible to prevent every single accident out there. Not when you have imperfect people involved.

sorry..RIR..i wrongly explained my thinking..
i'm not accusing Churchill to have planned to lay a chemical attack over Bari…neither i 'm speaking about direct responsibility for civliian deaths in Bari…it was, after all, a second line base of Allies also if formaly belonging to the Gvt of the coward King of Italy…but.the fact to store chemical ammo in great quantity in the South Italy is really sad…simply because the boot was an densily populated narrow field of battle with German defensive lines intermixed with civilian populated areas,,it was sort of sideshow for the Allied cause..this civilian population was, theorically, under the protection of the traitor Savoia house and hostage of Germans…and last the Allies were attacking..so a very bad choice for a probably planned chemical attack

I knew Churchill was an elitist prig, but surely a more socially appropriate response to boors is to just politely nod and walk away.

Henry Martini:

I didn't edit carefully enough and either the I-Pad auto-correct bit me in the posterior or I had an epic brain-fart. I'm not sure which. Of course I meant to write "Boers"! Well, I'm looking pretty stupid right now. Sigh.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.