Iran War pushed till Spring 2013

Report: Iran Attack Postponed Until Spring 2013

Unsuccessful war simulation has given Israelis cold feet

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, March 29, 2012

credit: Infowars

Israel’s plan to attack Iran has been postponed until spring 2013 following a war simulation that showed Iran could kill 200 Americans with a single missile strike, according to a report by senior Haaretz correspondent Amir Oren.   

“At 8:58 P.M. on Tuesday, Israel’s 2012 war against Iran came to a quiet end. The capricious plans for a huge aerial attack were returned to the deep recesses of safes and hearts. The war may not have been canceled but it has certainly been postponed. For a while, at least, we can sound the all clear: It won’t happen this year. Until further notice, Israel Air Force Flight 007 will not be taking off,” writes Oren.

According to the report, a war simulation conducted by the U.S. Central Command found that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would immediately be followed by an Iranian missile launch that would kill 200 Americans, a price deemed not worth paying by U.S. generals.
During the same meeting, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak also acknowledged that Israel would not act alone in striking Iran before the U.S. presidential elections in November, according to Oren, meaning that, “For all intents and purposes, it was an announcement that this war was being postponed until at least the spring of 2013.”

A delay in launching the attack until next spring would scupper expectations that the military assault was set to take place before the end of this year, a time frame that Russia understood the Israelis were working to. Last month, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Nikolai Makarov stated that an Israeli decision on whether or not to attack would be made before the summer.

In January, the U.S. cancelled a joint military exercise with Israel which was perceived by many as a sign that the Americans were getting cold feet.

Earlier this month it was also reported that Israel had “agreed to hold off a strike on Iran’s nuclear sites this year in exchange for receiving U.S. military equipment,” including bunker-busting bombs and refueling planes. The deal was seen as a tacit admission that the Obama administration would support Israel in launching the attack but only after the election in November.

If a decision has been made to postpone the attack, expect the United States to withdraw at least some of its naval might from the Persian Gulf. The U.S. currently has the USS Carl Vinson and the USS Abraham aircraft carriers patrolling the Strait of Hormuz, along with the USS Makin Island, a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship. Earlier this month it was announced that four additional mine countermeasure ships were also heading for the region.

As the Stratfor Naval Update map below illustrates, the USS Enterprise, which many speculated was also heading to the Strait of Hormuz in preparation for a strike on Iran, is now scheduled to visit Piraeus, Greece instead, suggesting a cooling of tensions could be taking place – at least for the time being.



*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

Off to Iran: An amphibious assault group and 2,000 Marines...already along with 2 carrier strike groups, is invasion imminent?

US gears up for land operation in Persian Gulf?
RT News
Published: 28 March, 2012, 18:40

A helicopter flies near US ship Iwo Jima 
(AFP Photo / Johan Ordones) 

The US is sending an amphibious assault group and a couple of thousand US Marines to the Persian Gulf. With another US carrier making its way to Iran’s doorstep, US military still insist that this is a “regularly scheduled deployment”.

The Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group is comprised of amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima, amphibious transport dock USS New York, and amphibious dock landing ship USS Gunston Hall. It is also reinforced with an atomic submarine and a marine helicopter squadron.
The group, which is “a versatile sea-based force that can be tailored to a variety of missions,” left port on Tuesday and is heading to the Gulf, the US Navy says.

Over 2,000 US Marines are to come on board Iwo Jima when the group makes a stop in North Carolina.

Many of those marines are veterans of ground combat in Iraq and Afghanistan making their first shipboard deployment, dailypress.com points out.

The US already has an amphibious group with an expeditionary marine unit in the Gulf region. The Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group was deployed there in January, after Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route that allows the delivery of around 20 per cent of the world's oil.

Iran has repeatedly reiterated this threat over the last six month, while the US and its NATO partners kept increasing their naval presence in the region.

The US is aware that Iran has enough resources to mine the strait within a relatively short period of time. General Michael Dempsey, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier that the US must be prepared to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by force.

In March, the US sent another four minesweepers to join those already deployed there, bringing the overall number in the region to eight.

Two US aircraft carrier battle groups, headed by the USS Carl Vinson and USS Abraham Lincoln, are patrolling the waters around the strait. Another carrier, USS Enterprise, is expected to join them next month.

Although many US officials, including President Obama, still insist on using diplomacy and sanctions, they admit that “all options are on the table” to force Iran to drop its nuclear program.
Meanwhile, Israel – the closest US ally in the region – considers nuclear Iran to be “an existential threat,” which needs to be dealt with as soon as possible. Last week, Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak, spoke of a three-month deadline for Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions or face imminent attack.

Rand Paul to the rescue: Blocks Senator Reid`s new Iran sanctions bill he secretly tried to pass by unanimous consent

Rand Paul Stands Between US War With Iran

Senator blocks sanctions bill saying it could be used as a means to go to war

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
March 28, 2012

Rand Paul has effectively single handedly blocked a bi-partisan bill to place yet more crippling economic sanctions on Iran, by demanding an amendment to prevent the White House using the legislation as an authorization to attack the country.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) wanted to immediately pass the sanctions bill by unanimous consent Tuesday. However, Paul intervened and blocked it, in order to ensure that unauthorized use of military force against Iran does not transpire.

• Read: Reid tries to push through Iran sanctions bill - FP 3/27/2012

Paul’s one sentence amendment reads: “To clarify that nothing in the Act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran or Syria.”

“Our Founding Fathers were quite concerned about giving the power declare war to the Executive,” Paul said on the Senate floor. “They were quite concerned that the Executive could become like a king.”

“Before sending our young men and women into combat, we should have a mature and thoughtful debate over the ramifications of and over the authorization of war and over the motives of the war,” he added.

Paul noted that in the lead up to the NATO led conflict in Libya, several Senators, including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), were beating the war drums. The Kentucky Senator warned that the same rhetoric is now being used in relation to Iran and Syria.

“Many in this body cannot get boots on ground fast enough in a variety of places, from Syria to Libya to Iran,” said Paul. “[I] urge that we not begin a new war without a full debate, without a vote, without careful consideration of the ramifications of a third or even a fourth war in this past decade.”

Watch Rand Paul address the Senate:

The bill, S. 2101, aims to level broad sanctions at Iran and any persons and firms who supply Iran with technologies. Under the legislation, firms traded on the US stock exchanges must disclose any Iran-related activities and could have their assets frozen.

The legislation passed through the Senate banking committee in February, and was also passed in the House.

Reid said he opposed Paul’s request for the amendment, claiming that the sanctions bill had nothing to do with war and could even help prevent conflict by “preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, threatening Israel and further terrorizing other parts of the world.”

“I really am terribly disappointed,” said Reid. “There is nothing in the resolution that talks about war, in fact it’s to the contrary. This is not a declaration of war or anything in the neighborhood of that.”

Reid now has to formally decide whether to cut a deal by allowing Paul’s amendment to be considered, or to attempt to defeat the senator’s objection by obtaining 60 votes in his favor.
—————————————————————-
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

How would Abraham Lincoln advise you today on defending the the US Constitution?

Abraham Lincoln on defending the US Constitution: his message to YOU today
Carl Herman
Examiner.com
September 3, 2009

Abraham Lincoln is considered among the top writers in world history for eloquent and powerful precision. He is revered as the father of the Republican Party. His commitment to the nation “of the people, by the people, for the people” is revered by all.

What most people do not know is that Abraham Lincoln is also a hero for his acts as a freshman member of the House of Representatives in the Congress of 1847-1849. Lincoln demanded that the President of the US provide specific evidence justifying the US invading a foreign country, suspecting that the President’s claims of a defensive war were lies to propagandize an offensive war for territorial control against a weaker nation. He did so despite the lack of support from most of his own political party. He demanded the facts despite his being painted by political opponents and the press as “unpatriotic.” The propaganda defeated Lincoln at his next election; his name slurred as “spotty Lincoln.” Lincoln was correct that the US President had indeed lied about the cause of war.

In our current US wars of invasion, our own government committee investigations have revealed the exact evidence backing claims that these are defensive wars for our national security. We now know from the evidence that all of these claims were not only false, but definitely known to be false at the time they were told to the American people and Congress. Don’t believe me, read the documentation here and here.

Given that these are Wars of Aggression, that our Constitutional rights have been destroyed through torture, the 2006 Military Commissions Act accepted by Mr. Obama that allows the President to slur American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” and detain them forever without rights, Mr. Obama's defense of a War of Aggression in Afghanistan, and further rhetoric for war with Iran (and here), how would Abraham Lincoln advise you today?

We have a pretty good idea, as follows.

For more powerful quotes from our Founding Fathers, click here. For 20th Century quotes on defending freedom, here. As always, please share this article with all who say they want to be responsible citizens. If you enjoy my work, please subscribe for free by clicking under the article title.

The following six paragraphs are from Abraham Lincoln in his Lyceum Address, January 27 1838. http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm .

     “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, 
     it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we 
     must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all 
     time, or die by suicide...

     I know the American People are much attached to their Government;--I know they would 
     suffer much for its sake;--I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they 
     would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be 
     continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and 
     property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their 
     affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it  
     must come.

     Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected.

     The question recurs, "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every 
     American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of 
     the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to 
     tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the 
     Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every 
     American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember 
     that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of 
     his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every 
     American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, 
     in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in 
     Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and 
     enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; 
     and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes 
     and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.


     While ever a state of feeling, such as this, shall universally, or even, very generally  
     prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to 
     subvert our national freedom.


     …Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason,  
     cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future  
     support and defense.--Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound  
     morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws.”

War with Iran, sure seems like its not a matter of 'if' but 'when'

Gunboats, Super-Torpedoes, Sea-Bots: U.S. Navy Launches Huge Iran Surge
WIRED
Spencer Ackerman
March 16, 2012 | 11:55 am

The Navy practices a mock boarding operation on the U.S.S. Princeton in the Middle East, 2010. Photo: U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet 

Sending more aircraft carriers to the waters near Iran, it turns out, was just the start. Yes, the U.S. currently has more seapower aimed at Iran in the Persian Gulf than in the fleets of most countries on Earth, Iran included. But that was just the Navy cracking its knuckles.

In the next few months, the Navy will double its minesweeper craft stationed in Bahrain, near Iran, from four to eight. Those ships will be crucial if Iran takes the drastic step of mining the Strait of Hormuz, one of the global energy supply’s most crucial waterways. Four more MH-53 “Sea Stallion” helicopters, another minesweeping tool, are also getting ready for Bahrain, to give the U.S. Fifth Fleet early warning for any strait mining.

Then the Navy will prepare to get closer to Iranian shores. Much closer. It’s got five close-action patrol boats in the Gulf right now. Once the Coast Guard returns three that the Navy loaned out, the Navy will have five other patrol craft in the United States. All those boats are getting retrofitted. With Gatling guns. And missiles.

Sure, the guns aboard the two aircraft carriers currently near Iran are the seapower equivalent of high-powered, long-range rifles. “But maybe what you need is like a sawed-off shotgun,” capable of doing massive damage from a closer distance, said Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Navy’s senior officer. All 10 of those patrol boats, Greenert told reporters at a Friday breakfast in Washington, will get strapped with the Mk-38 Gatling Gun and should make it to the Gulf next year. (Though, alas, they won’t have the Gatling/laser gun mashup BAE Systems is working on.) They’ll also get close-range missiles that can hit Iranian shores from four miles away — the same kinds Navy SEALs use.

Consider it Teddy Roosevelt’s gunboat diplomacy for the 21st century. Over plates of greasy eggs and bacon, Greenert outlined a plan to give the U.S. what is almost certainly the biggest stick the Navy has ever had in the Gulf. The idea, which he didn’t make explicit, is to convince Iran to think long and hard before ever messing with either the U.S.’s Arab allies across the Gulf or disrupting a narrow transit point through which a fifth of the world’s energy supplies flow.

Add up the aircraft carriers, the Gatling-packing patrol craft, the Orions, the Sea Stallions and the minesweepers, and Greenert still isn’t finished with the surge. Then come the new, advanced torpedoes that can compensate for the “turpidity [and] particulate” drags of the Gulf waters. And the drone subs — or, as Greenert put it, “some underwater unmanned neutralization autonomous units” to help hunt mines. And every Navy ship that sails through the strait will come equipped with new, modular “infrared and electro-optical” visibility systems that clarify the foggy Gulf even at night. Extra spare parts and contractor crews will sustain the surge.

And if all that wasn’t enough, Greenert disclosed that he and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will soon ask themselves if the Navy needs to rotate more aircraft carriers to the Gulf. That decision, so important that it’s Panetta’s to make, will come “in the next few months.”

“I looked in every domain, undersea, surface and air,” Greenert said, “to make sure that we’re doing our best for the guys that are over there.”

Even with the prospect of an Israeli bombing campaign lingering overhead, the Navy has already proven it can get Iran to back off its bellicose rhetoric. Tehran hasn’t attacked the U.S. carriers, and it hasn’t mined the strait. Yet.

Greenert suggested that Iran’s naval forces are too sensible to actually challenge the vastly superior American force nearby. The regular Iranian navy is “professional, courteous [and] good mariners,” he said. Even the radical Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps isn’t “ramping up” in the Gulf and keeping its activities “normal.”

Perhaps true. And once the Navy’s surge forces all get into the Persian Gulf, the Iranian sea forces might not have any choice, if they want to continue existing. But if Iran’s pattern of miscalculation continues, then the larger Navy force nearby might be a provocation — and will have to end a fight quickly if it breaks out.

US warns Iran: 'Agree to talks or be bombed,' but the case for war seems set, not a "matter of if but when"

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Russian 

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and Iranian 

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. 

Photo by Reuters and AP

Report: U.S. asked Russia to warn Iran of 'last chance' to avoid military strike
Haaretz
Published 11:58 14.03.12; Latest update 11:58 14.03.12

Clinton reportedly told her Russian counterpart to rely message to Tehran that it must engage in talks with world powers or face a military strike within months, according to Russian daily Kommersant.

The United States has asked Russia to deliver an ultimatum to Iran, warning the Islamic Republic that it has one last chance for talks before a military strike, the Kommersant daily quoted Russian diplomats as saying on Wednesday.

According to the Russian newspaper, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in New York on Monday to tell Tehran that it has one last chance to solve the conflict peacefully by making progress in the talks with the P5+1 group - United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany. Otherwise, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will occur within months, the diplomats said.

The report in Kommersant did not give further details regarding the kind of military action the U.S. was threatening, but quoted Russian diplomats at the UN as saying they believe that it is a "matter of when, not if" Israel would strike Iran's nuclear facilities.



The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65) (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Brooks B. Patton Jr./Released) on to Iran, RT NEWS

Last week, Clinton said that there is still space for diplomacy to resolve Iran's nuclear standoff with the West shortly after European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton announced that the P5+1 group agreed to restart talks with Iran. A time and venue of the talks has yet to be set.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a series of television interviews, said last week that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities could take place within months.

"We're not standing with a stopwatch in hand," he said. "It's not a matter of days or weeks, but also not of years. The result must be removal of the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran's hands."

Netanyahu met with U.S. President Barack Obama last week and tried to pressure him to harden his tone on Iran.

Netanyahu told Obama that he had not yet made any decision about whether to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, though he made it clear he did not rule out such a move in the future. In statements to the press both before and after the meeting Netanyahu said Israel has the sovereign right to defend itself against Iran.

Yeah...,we are addicted to WAR

RT News

US: Turning war-fear into warfare
RT NEWS
Published: 10 March, 2012, 11:49

Ever since its creation, the US has had a role to play in combat operations worldwide. Today the country’s public opinion is dominated by warfare, making American society all-too-easily manipulated and turned against practically any country.
The US has a strong record of persuading the public that war is the only way. A military industrial complex worth billions of dollars is largely America’s driving force. Deeply rooted in the system, it would serve no purpose if there was no one to fight.

“If there were no more enemies left, there would be a loss of a sense of mission,” anti-war activist and journalist Don Bebar told RT.


U.S. Military Academy cadets wave a flag in the stands prior to the 112th Army-Navy football game in Landover, Maryland. (REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst)
 
Serving Americans are on permanent stand-by to deploy to battle zones on command.
“The US army flag has 183 campaign ribbons on it. Those 183 ribbons each represent wars,” Iraq war veteran Matthis Chiroux from New York shared with RT.

“When you compare that to the 236 years that we’ve actually been around as a country, you’re talking about a war on average of once every year and three months,” he calculated. As a consequence of the American bellicosity in general, Matthis Chiroux is now soothing his nerves in company with 170,000 American soldiers suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.

The US always has a bone to pick with one enemy after another. For nearly half a century it was the Soviet Union.

“The communist threat was the most useful enemy. Where legitimate, and where completely fantastical, it was always available as a global conspiracy against which to justify anything,” Roots Action campaigner David Swanson told RT.

With the Cold War declared over, the list keeps expanding to smaller antagonists.
So it was with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1991, when then President George H. W. Bush Sr. announced that “Allied forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait.”
Or with the former Yugoslavia, to which former President Bill Clinton signed a sentence in 1999 by announcing that the American Air Force was conducting “Air strikes against Serbian forces.”

Then it was ex-President George W. Bush, who was let off the leash after 9/11 terror attacks and announced a global War on Terror symbolized by Al-Qaeda. He started by invading Afghanistan in 2001 and continued with the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In 2003, the US Air Force was “Striking selective targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage war,” announced George W. Bush, meaning that waging wars is an exclusive privilege of the chosen mighty ones.

Ultimately, it has been current President Barack Obama, who was elected on promises to end wars, but now looks forward to military conflict with Iran after lending a hand in toppling the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. As in previous cases, last spring he made a characteristic “We hit Gaddafi’s air defenses” statement on the American TV.

With a defense budget that surpasses the military expenditure of all other countries combined, no other nation drums up war as consistently as America.

“While people are still responding and recovering from the violence that’s been committed in one place, or even in the same place, we’re launching new operations and more atrocities in different parts of the world,” acknowledged war correspondent Keith Harmon Snow.

So Fox News cannot but reiterate that Iran is the biggest threat, Syria is a minor threat, Russia is a traditional threat and China is an emerging threat.

That makes America's top brass state that a strike on Tehran is in the planning stages.
It also makes the US President Obama latest quest for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear program look derisive in the face of a pending military confrontation.

Year in, year out, Americans are convinced that the US has to remain on the defensive.
“We’re petrified of death by terrorism. Shoot, I think a lot of Americans wish we’d spend more money on war,” veteran Matthis Chiroux confessed.

Finding the next target is never difficult.

Campaigner David Swanson says “We are inventing the nation of Iran as an enemy, as a threat to the United States, as a possessor of nuclear weapons it does not possess, a nation that has not attacked another in literally centuries, and has no capability or desire to attack ours.”

RT's Anastasia Churkina asked people on the streets of New York “Which country is the US going to be in a war with next?”

The most common answer she got was “Iran.”

The US has been picking and choosing which countries to intervene in for centuries. As the list of nations the US loves to hate expands, the concept that no war at all is also an option seems to have been forgotten.

Naval blockade of Iran needed says US Senator - Really? Congress is just getting funnier by the day...

Senator Levin Calls for Naval Blockade of Iran
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 10, 2012

US Senator Carl Levin, Infowars

Democrat Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has called for an international naval blockade of Iranian oil exports. He said the action should be taken before the U.S. and Israel attack Iran.


“I think (these are) options that whoever is willing to participate should explore, including Israel and including the United States,” Levin told C-Span on Friday.

A naval blockade is considered an act of war.

In order to minimize the impact on world oil prices, Levin said alternative oil supplies should be put into place before the blockade. Iran is the number two OPEC oil producer. The EU has agreed on an oil purchase embargo scheduled to begin on July 1.

If sanctions do not force Iran to drop its nuclear program, a “strike is likely” within “months,” Levin warned. He said an Israeli missile system installed by the United States had minimized Iran’s ability to retaliate against Israel after an attack.

President Obama and the impending Middle-East wars

credit: Inowars

Obama Plans More Middle East Wars
Stephen Lendman
Infowars.com
March 10, 2012

Cheerled by America’s major media scoundrels, war looks increasingly likely. Syria and Iran both are targeted.

Imagine the potential catastrophic consequences, especially if nuclear weapons are used. They were before. Why not now. The prospect’s chilling.

In his Der Ring des Nibelungen operas (the Ring), Richard Wagner portrayed his apocalyptic version musically. Gotterdammerung (Twilight of the Gods) prophesied the end of the world.
Einstein suggested it, saying he didn’t know what WW III weapons would be used, “but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Around the same time, Bertrand Russell warned:
“Shall we put an end to the human race, or shall mankind renounce war” and live in peace. The stark choice is clear. The wrong one suggests consequences too grim to imagine.

It’s terrifying to imagine nuclear bunker-buster bombs used against underground targets. Whatever the physical damage, irradiating vast areas could kill millions, and set a precedent to keep using them like king-sized hand grenades.

A 13,600-kilogram bunker-buster’s being developed. Called “the massive ordnance penetrator,” allegedly it can smash through 65 meters of reinforced concrete before detonating.
Defense Secretary Panetta said work on an array of military options are being considered if sanctions don’t curb Iran’s nuclear program. He added they’ve been underway “a long time,” and Washington’s “weighing all of the ramifications of how best to deal with Iran.”
It’s hard imagining the mindset of hawkish policy makers. Grave consequences aren’t considered, let alone waging permanent wars against nonbelligerent countries threatening no one.

Yet Obama’s fulfilling Dick Cheney’s promise about wars not ending in our lifetime. Former CIA Director James Woolsey said America’s “engaged in World War IV, and it could continue for years….This fourth world war, I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us.”

In his September 11, 1990 joint session of Congress speech, GHW Bush called it a “New World Order” ahead of Operation Desert Storm.

In its 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Pentagon called it the “long war.” It rages daily for unchallenged world dominance, no matter the potentially devastating consequences...

(click here to read the full article)

America's Perpetual State Of War (MOXNews)

America's Perpetual State Of War
Mary L. Dudziak, author of War Time: An idea, its history and consequences talks about the reality of war and politics

http://youtu.be/y-24sFFj6Hc
Uploaded by MOXNEWSd0tCOM on Mar 7, 2012


March 07, 2012 MSNBC News
http://MOXNews.com