PDA

View Full Version : Article: War With Iran Would Destroy Democracy and Economy in America



LongShot
08-10-2008, 06:15 PM
A War of Self-Destruction
by Chris Hedges
Published on Monday, August 4, 2008 by TruthDig.com (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/04/10790/)




An attack on Iran, which Israeli and Bush administration officials appear set to carry out if Iranian uranium enrichment is not halted, would ignite a regional war in the Middle East and lead to economic collapse and political upheaval in the United States.”

In short and simple terms, we would be plunged into a depression that would make the Great Depression of the 1930s in which I spent my childhood look like boom times,” said William R. Polk, former professor of history at the University of Chicago and a member of the Policy Planning Council under President Kennedy. “Industries would fail, banks would collapse, government revenues would dry up, universities would have to close, health care, even as limited as it now is for roughly 75 million Americans, would virtually cease. In short, something like [what] the South suffered at the end of the Civil War would plague the country.”

The passage of vast amounts of oil and liquefied gas through the Persian Gulf would be disrupted. Iranian attacks, carried out with rocket- and bomb-equipped speedboats and submarines, would be deadly and effective. A classified Pentagon war game in 2002 simulated these swarming attacks by Iranian speedboats packed with explosives in the gulf; the Navy lost 16 major warships, according to a report in The New York Times. Iranian oil, which makes up 8 percent of the world’s energy supply, would instantly be taken off the market. And oil would jump to over $500 a barrel and perhaps, as the conflict dragged on, to over $750 a barrel. Our petroleum-based economy would come to a halt.

Israel would be hit by Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missiles. Hezbollah, with its new store of Iranian-supplied rockets that allegedly can reach any part of Israel, including Israel’s nuclear plant at Dimona, would enter the conflict. Israel would lash back. Terrorist attacks on U.S. targets would become frequent. U.S. casualties in Iraq would mount as the Iranians rained missiles down on U.S. bases and installations, including our imperial city, the Green Zone. Chaos and mayhem would grip the Middle East. The world financial markets would go haywire.

“Even at today’s price, as you know, 14 airlines have gone out of business while others are hovering on the brink of bankruptcy and most have curtailed service and laid off personnel,” said Polk, one of the country’s leading scholars of the Arab world. “At double or triple today’s price, none could fly unless nationalized. A whole range of other industries would be quickly drawn into the quicksand. Ironically, war would push America into a form of socialist economy.”

The U.S. economy is already tottering. We recently witnessed the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history, and there are fears that as many as 150 banks could fail over the next 12 to 18 months. There will be 6.5 million foreclosures over the next five years, according to Wall Street analysts. The government is furiously pumping billions of taxpayer dollars into private corporations to keep them afloat. The Congress bailed out the shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These bizarre “government-sponsored enterprises” own or guarantee half the mortgages in the country-some $5.1 trillion. The Federal Reserve evoked rarely used emergency powers to put billions of taxpayer dollars at risk to stop the meltdown of a non-bank, Bear Stearns, which it never regulated. More than $300 billion has been written down so far. Losses, by the time we are done, could exceed $1 trillion.

The already staggering debt generated by the war in Iraq would mushroom with an attack on Iran. Fighting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, we would soon be struggling to pay off a debt of at least two or three times the present amount. This is a weight the U.S. economy cannot bear, especially as the dollar tumbles against the euro and other major currencies. The government has borrowed abroad roughly a quarter of our annual national income in order to pay for the Iraq debacle. We have been told for the first time by a sovereign fund (South Korean, one of the world’s largest) that it will no longer buy U.S. Treasury bonds. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz estimates that the final cost of the war in Iraq, once all the hidden costs are added up, could be as high as $7 trillion.

“Financial capitalism is crashing,” wrote independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader. “So the lights are on late in Washington’s Federal Reserve, SEC and Treasury Department trying to figure out how socialism (your tax dollars and credits) can once again bail out these big time gamblers with our money. … Reckless, self-enriching capitalists get on your knees and thank the rescuing Washington socialists, for without them, you would surely be in chains.”

A war with Iran would also have grave political consequences. The specter of millions of Americans driven out of their homes, no longer able to afford basic necessities, out of work and enraged, would, as it has throughout history, embolden messianic right-wing and proto-fascist movements. Given the potential for social unrest, basic freedoms would be curtailed and in some cases abolished in the name of order and national security. The radical fringes of the Christian right could rise up with a vengeance. They would happily ally themselves with an assortment of oddballs, lunatics and corporate behemoths from Blackwater mercenaries to frightened capitalists at Halliburton. It was economic collapse, along with a climate of fear and instability, that was used to build the fascist and communist movements that plagued Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union during the last century. These same forces led to the collapse of the former Yugoslavia. We are not immune to these distortions.

But maybe those who advocate a war with Iran know all this. Maybe this is what they want. Maybe they understand that a war with Iran would finally kill off our weakened and anemic democracy. Maybe they see this as the dawn of a new era, an era when the last impediments to a global totalitarian capitalism can finally be removed and we can all be ground under the corporate jack boot, from Shanghai to New Delhi to Ohio. There are huge corporations that make obscene profits from human misery. They run our health care industry. They run our oil and gas companies. They run our bloated weapons industry. They run Wall Street and the major investment firms. They run our manufacturing firms. They also, ominously, run our government.

Chris Hedges, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, is the author of “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.“

rwak9
08-10-2008, 06:22 PM
Very interesting theory.

Lau
08-10-2008, 06:40 PM
Very interesting theory.

And some of it plausible.

But:

"A classified Pentagon war game in 2002 simulated these swarming attacks by Iranian speedboats packed with explosives in the gulf; the Navy lost 16 major warships"


That just doesn't sound right. I'm no expert, but 16? You cant just destroy 16 major warships with speedboats and explosives, especially not if those warships are on 'full alert'.

The economic part of it, unfortunately, sounds right.

brainplay
08-10-2008, 06:40 PM
Wishful thinking on his part. I especially like the "speedboats packed with explosives" part which took out 16 major warships. I supposed Iranian mercenary ninja's would have a hand in all of this too.

Dang, I should have skipped to the end and saved myself from reading this thing.


Chris Hedges, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, is the author of “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.“

Mr.Flint
08-10-2008, 06:57 PM
I want back the brain cells i lost reading this junk.

Snoshi
08-10-2008, 06:58 PM
Why is every retarded "doom" article about Iran is from some crappy "Truth" groups or communist?

The Dane
08-10-2008, 06:59 PM
Leave it to the Israeli....

Lau
08-10-2008, 07:00 PM
Why is every retarded "doom" article about Iran is from some crappy "Truth" groups or communist?

LOL. :)

does it really sound that retarded to you? I mean, all of it?

Mr.Flint
08-10-2008, 07:02 PM
Why is every retarded "doom" article about Iran is from some crappy "Truth" groups or communist?
Because The International Proletariat is against the Evil Zionazi Imperialist push for war against the Peaceful Revolutionaries of Iran who defeated the Cowardly Agents of Imperialist USA.


Thats right, no commas, there shouldnt be ones in that sentence, and you are supposed to read it aloud on a single breath.



p-)

millstrong
08-10-2008, 07:05 PM
The author forgot Bush is pursuing diplomacy with Iran instead of war, So this aint happening.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/bush_diplomacy_best_route_in_i.html

BigDukaroo
08-10-2008, 08:17 PM
He forgot to add that while all this was going on Iran would be in an economic boom.

budgie
08-10-2008, 08:37 PM
And some of it plausible.

But:

"A classified Pentagon war game in 2002 simulated these swarming attacks by Iranian speedboats packed with explosives in the gulf; the Navy lost 16 major warships"


That just doesn't sound right. I'm no expert, but 16? You cant just destroy 16 major warships with speedboats and explosives, especially not if those warships are on 'full alert'.

The economic part of it, unfortunately, sounds right.


Probably in a 'worst-case' scenario, which I'm sure the navy can counter: train hard, fight easy.

But I doubt a war with Iran would undermine America's democracy, especially with the neocons out of power. It might destroy any scant hopes of democracy taking root in the Middle East however.

SoSo
08-10-2008, 08:42 PM
No one wants to fight a war with Iran. We are already stretched pretty thin. And we all know that the economic repercussions would be catastrophic. But what are we supposed to do? Sit back and let that loon Ahmedinejad develop nuclear weapons? He already has the missiles to carry them to Israel and US bases in the Middle East.

Calanen
08-10-2008, 08:48 PM
I tend to think that if anything was going to destroy the US it would have been wars with foes such as the Empire of Japan and the Third Reich. I think this guy is reaching a fair bit by saying a war with Iran would destroy the US.

INAT
08-10-2008, 09:06 PM
I tend to think that if anything was going to destroy the US it would have been wars with foes such as the Empire of Japan and the Third Reich. I think this guy is reaching a fair bit by saying a war with Iran would destroy the US.


I don't know Cal when you factor in the death of the midle class an attack on Iran and plans to create a North American union this could be it.Scary to think about but if the goal is a North American Union collapsing the economy and dollar would be the logical start.I watched a lecture my former LAPD officer Michael Rupert who said if you turn on your tTV and see Iran has been attacked kiss you ass goodbye.

The level of spending is going to bankrupt future generations.The ecnomy
in its current form cannot be sustained and this pattern has helped many empires in history go down.


Decline in Morals and Values

Public Health

Political Corruption

Unemployment

Inflation

Urban decay
Military Spending all lead to the fall of the Roman Empire.
I hope the crazy neocons don't feel they must attack Iran.
What is more important Iran or US/world stability? If America goes down
the rest of the world is going to get hurt as well.

dutch508
08-10-2008, 09:07 PM
Do you remember all the reports about eh horrible casualties the US would suffer going up against the Iraqi Army...in 1991?


Oh yes. Tens of thousands of Americans were going to die in the sands of Iraq.

100 some hours later...

LaoSexMachine
08-10-2008, 09:36 PM
This article is trying to make 2+3=8. Too simplistic.

vryhpyammoadded
08-10-2008, 09:47 PM
And John Winger says dogs and cats will be living together too. Sheeesh...rofl

budgie
08-10-2008, 10:28 PM
No one wants to fight a war with Iran. We are already stretched pretty thin. And we all know that the economic repercussions would be catastrophic. But what are we supposed to do? Sit back and let that loon Ahmedinejad develop nuclear weapons? He already has the missiles to carry them to Israel and US bases in the Middle East.

Ahmedinejad is a spokesman for the Mullahs. It may be politically convenient to paint him as a mad dictator bent on world destruction but he's actually an impotent little loudmouth. He's not developing anything and probably has no say.

Lefty
08-10-2008, 11:28 PM
This article is trying to make 2+3=8. Too simplistic.


Agreed in full, it is one thing to scream "DOOOOOOOOOOOOM" for half a page, another thing to explain why such doom would occur. Kind of outlines a worst case scenario without even mentioning any of the variables.

Jacknola
08-11-2008, 12:16 AM
So, what do you all want? Do you want to allow some crazy, religous fanatics, who think international diplomacy is screaming about what country you are going to cause to "cease to exist," to have nukes? Do you want that ugly, disgusting excuse for intelligent man to threaten speed boat attacks..after he has nukes?

Fight'um now or fight'um later. We owe these creatins one anyway. Take out the leadership, the so called republican guard..who are 50 percent forigners anyway, and let the highly sophisticated and peaceful Iranian citizens have their country back. Like it or not, we are the only thing standing between Iran-induced world chaos.

And that communist (gezzzz..reporter for the New York Times? Harvard gradutate? need I say more?) idiot should know that things will be much worse if the loons are armed with nukes. Sometimes you have to man-up regardless of whether you want to or not. This is could be one of those times.

Mr.Armageddon
08-11-2008, 03:28 AM
Fight'um now or fight'um later. We owe these creatins one anyway. Take out the leadership, the so called republican guard..who are 50 percent forigners anyway, and let the highly sophisticated and peaceful Iranian citizens have their country back. Like it or not, we are the only thing standing between Iran-induced world chaos.


Whoa, maybe you should try to get your facts straight before you post?

Mr.Armageddon
08-11-2008, 03:37 AM
Do you remember all the reports about eh horrible casualties the US would suffer going up against the Iraqi Army...in 1991?


Oh yes. Tens of thousands of Americans were going to die in the sands of Iraq.

100 some hours later...

Remember how long Operation Iraqi Freedom and Reconstruction were suppose to last?

Oh yes, less than a year.

5 years later...

Point is wars almost never go as planned for the better or the worse.

Also sorry for double post.

Firefly26
08-11-2008, 03:55 AM
And John Winger says dogs and cats will be living together too. Sheeesh...rofl

I believe it was actually Peter Venkman who said that p-)

Calanen
08-11-2008, 04:32 AM
So, what do you all want? Do you want to allow some crazy, religous fanatics, who think international diplomacy is screaming about what country you are going to cause to "cease to exist," to have nukes? Do you want that ugly, disgusting excuse for intelligent man to threaten speed boat attacks..after he has nukes?

The President doesnt actually make decisions, he's just a figurehead. The mullahs tell him what to do.


Fight'um now or fight'um later. We owe these creatins one anyway.

Cretins has no 'a' in it. Just so you know.


Take out the leadership, the so called republican guard..who are 50 percent forigners anyway,

The Republican Guard were Saddam's men, and are long gone. Perhaps you mean, the Revolutionary Guard, which is actually called the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution.

50 per cent foreigners you say? Do tell. Do you have a source for that?



and let the highly sophisticated and peaceful Iranian citizens have their country back. Like it or not, we are the only thing standing between Iran-induced world chaos.


A really bad time for the US to have a war with Iran. It might happen, but let's hope it doesnt.



And that communist (gezzzz..reporter for the New York Times? Harvard gradutate? need I say more?) idiot should know that things will be much worse if the loons are armed with nukes.


Maybe. Pakistan has nukes. Im glad the US didnt go to war to stop that.


Sometimes you have to man-up regardless of whether you want to or not. This is could be one of those times.

Is that your beret in the avatar? If so, I assume you are in the military?

I-Tankman
08-11-2008, 08:13 AM
I want back the brain cells i lost reading this junk.

you make way more sense then this article

tbk107
08-11-2008, 09:18 AM
I stopped reading when I saw truth in the source name.

sgt_G
08-11-2008, 03:00 PM
well my take is this; bring it and...well you get the picture

LuKaZz
08-11-2008, 04:12 PM
Rather than war the best way to deal with Iran would be to support opposition groups within the country, there is a lot of discontent and a lot of people, especially from the middle class who can't wait to get rid of those throwbacks who rule the country.

There a lot of secular Iranians, I think the West should try to finance them.

LongShot
08-11-2008, 04:24 PM
Rather than war the best way to deal with Iran would be to support opposition groups within the country, there is a lot of discontent and a lot of people, especially from the middle class who can't wait to get rid of those throwbacks who rule the country.

There a lot of secular Iranians, I think the West should try to finance them.

Do that and we run the risk of being accused of installing a puppet government just like we did with the Shah....while not a bad thing to be accused of given the growing political tension in the region, such a move might further inflame Islamic extremists...seeing as we would be removing them from a seat of power in a sense.

deagle
08-11-2008, 04:54 PM
well, iraq is screwing us over right now, so conflict with iran would probably draw us out thinner and weaker.

vryhpyammoadded
08-11-2008, 10:09 PM
I believe it was actually Peter Venkman who said that p-)
Blast, you are correct sir! I got my Murryisms all mixed up. That danged sauce must be going to my head as it did the writer of the article or was it just the 80's being a blur.

Atlantic Friend
08-12-2008, 04:56 AM
And some of it plausible.

But:

"A classified Pentagon war game in 2002 simulated these swarming attacks by Iranian speedboats packed with explosives in the gulf; the Navy lost 16 major warships"


That just doesn't sound right. I'm no expert, but 16? You cant just destroy 16 major warships with speedboats and explosives, especially not if those warships are on 'full alert'.


What counts as a major warship these days ? Would a destroyer count as such ? If so, a speedboat (or mine) could cripple one, in the right circumstances.

It's the infamous 2002 war games that was supposed to serve as a simulation of the future Operation Iraqi Freedom, IIRC. The US general in charge of the "Iraqi" forces fought very unconventionally, eschewing radio communications for messages sent via loudspeakers and bike-riding messengers, planning to use private planes loaded with explosives as kamikaze, this kind of thing.

Apparently, he was doing so well against his colleagues that they stopped the wargame and demanded he fought "as he was supposed to", that is, right into their hands.

Too bad you can't do that in a war, just freeze the operations and demand that the enemy does what you had planned for him ! ;)

brainplay
08-12-2008, 02:22 PM
It's the infamous 2002 war games that was supposed to serve as a simulation of the future Operation Iraqi Freedom, IIRC. The US general in charge of the "Iraqi" forces fought very unconventionally, eschewing radio communications for messages sent via loudspeakers and bike-riding messengers, planning to use private planes loaded with explosives as kamikaze, this kind of thing.

Too bad you can't do that in a war, just freeze the operations and demand that the enemy does what you had planned for him ! ;)

You forgot to mentions that most of this was done in computer simulation. In other words this guy was probably a really good Warhammer 40k player. The fact of the matter is that like most AI simulations a ship, tank, etc is given a value which does not constitute anything similar to real life. The small speedboats weren't detected by the "major warships" because they were small and their assigned value made them hard to detect according to the rules.

Don't forget that the opponent turned out to be Israel since the US planners determined that they were have been the most capable/challenging force in the middle east area.


http://lek.net/~sam/tyrall01.jpg



2002 Wargames: Tyran...Iranian rapid strike force preparing to zer..assault US warships. US warships however relying on their lucky 30 sided dice to roll a high enough initiative and defense score.

Atlantic Friend
08-12-2008, 06:31 PM
You forgot to mentions that most of this was done in computer simulation. In other words this guy was probably a really good Warhammer 40k player. The fact of the matter is that like most AI simulations a ship, tank, etc is given a value which does not constitute anything similar to real life. The small speedboats weren't detected by the "major warships" because they were small and their assigned value made them hard to detect according to the rules.http://lek.net/~sam/tyrall01.jpg

I daresay the simulation was probably a wee bit more sophisticated than Warhammer 40K... :|