Anti-Iran Saber Rattling
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org - Home - Stephen Lendman)
For over 40 years, the US never attacked Iranian territory — other than by covert operations.
Tehran's legitimate nuclear energy program has no military component — confirmed time and again by the IAEA and US intelligence community assessments.
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh earlier said the following:
According to US National Intelligence Estimates on Iran's nuclear program, "there is no conclusive evidence that Iran has made any effort to build the bomb," adding:
"Despite years of covert operations inside Iran, extensive satellite imagery, and the recruitment of many Iranian intelligence assets, the United States and its allies, including Israel, have been unable to find irrefutable evidence of an ongoing hidden nuclear-weapons program in Iran…"
It's because none exists, not now or earlier.
Iran's nuclear program is the world's most heavily monitored by IAEA inspectors.
Their reports across the board stress the program's legitimacy.
No evidence suggests a future Iranian aim to develop the "bomb."
In stark contrast, Israel is nuclear armed and dangerous. It maintains stockpiles of chemical, biological and other banned weapons.
The US operates the same way, using banned weapons in all its preemptive wars.
Yet the UN, most of its member states, and corporate-controlled establishment media turn a blind eye to vital information everyone has a right to know.
At the same time, US major media promote the myth of an Iranian threat — when none ever existed throughout Islamic State history. More on this below.
Iran is the region's leading proponent of peace, stability, and mutual cooperation with other nations — seeking confrontation with none, threatening no other countries.
Throughout nearly four years in office, Trump waged all-out war on Iran by other means — short of military confrontation.
The one exception of sorts was last January when the Pentagon assassinated Iranian Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani and deputy head of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in their car after departing from the Baghdad International Airport.
While continuing wars he inherited, Trump launched no new ones on his own.
With his tenure nearing an end — barring a highly unlikely 11th hour Supreme Court ruling that invalidates fraudulent election results — why would he risk embroiling the Middle East in potentially greater war than anything seen since WW II?
Would he want his legacy more greatly tarnished than already?
If Iranian territory is attacked, retaliation would be swift and harsh against US regional forces, possibly against Israel.
Russia and/or China might intervene to protect their regional interests - a worst case global war scenario.
Where US ruling authorities never went since Jimmy Carter was president is highly unlikely to happen now — especially near the end of Trump's time in office.
Yet saber-rattling US media suggest possibly otherwise.
In November, the NYT claimed Trump "asked senior advisors (for possible) options to take action against Iran's main nuclear site in the coming weeks," adding:
He was "dissuaded" from striking Iran militarily, including by Joint Chiefs chairman General Mark Milley.
According to the Middle East Eye (MEE) on Tuesday, Iranian Quds Force commander General Ismail Qaani told Iraqi PMU officials in Baghdad to halt attacks on the Green Zone and US bases until Trump's tenure ends.
According to a senior PMU commander quoted by the MEE:
"Qaani made it clear that Trump wants to drag the region into an open war before leaving, to take revenge on his opponents over losing the election, and it is not in our interest to give him any justification to start such a war."
While it's highly unlikely that Trump would order an attack on Iran militarily at this time, Iranian officials don't want a pretext created for him to do the unthinkable.
Qaani added that "(i)f war breaks out between Iran and America, its repercussions cannot be contained, and Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran will all be a battleground for both sides."
"Therefore, the higher interest must be taken into consideration…So all attacks targeting US interests in the region should be stopped."
According to a November 21 CENTCOM press release, a nuclear-capable B-52 bomber was sent to the Middle East on the phony pretext of "deter(ring) aggression and reassur(ing) US partners and allies."
Reportedly, a US aircraft carrier task force is en route to the Persian Gulf, what appears to be a saber-rattling move, not preparation to strike Iran.
On Thursday, WaPo said "(a)nti-Iran hawks in the (US) and Israel see the window closing on the possibility of a preemptive US-Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program," adding:
Netanyahu, Pompeo, and other Trump regime hardliners support what cooler head US and Israeli officials reject.
Netanyahu cried wolf about a nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons program countless times before — knowing it doesn't exist. Last week, he was quoted saying:
"There must be no return to the previous nuclear agreement."
"We must stick to an uncompromising policy to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons (sic)" — ignoring his own illegal stockpile.
According to an unnamed US war department official, the idea of a "clean, limited surgical strike" on one more Iranian nuclear facilities is folly.
All-out regional war could follow with potentially devastating consequences for Iran, Israel, and US-allied Arab countries.
According to individuals close to Trump, he values preservation of steps taken to draw down US regional forces, an effort to stop endless wars.
Striking Iran militarily would be a polar opposite step.
His regular intelligence briefings surely explained that Iran's nuclear program has no military component.
On November 25, Reuters reported that Trump's envoy for regime change in Iran Elliott Abrams said more US sanctions on the country are coming regularly through January 20.
He stopped short of suggesting possible military confrontation.
Because high-level US political and military officials oppose the idea — along with the type legacy Trump wants to preserve — anything potentially leading to war with Iran is highly unlikely.
Separately on Wednesday, Axios reported that Israel's IDF was "instructed to prepare for the possibility that the US will conduct a military strike against Iran before President Trump leaves office," adding:
The move was unrelated to an "intelligence assessment" or belief that Trump would order such a strike.
It's another example of saber-rattling.
With Trump's tenure near an end, his focus mainly on convincing at least five Supreme Court justices to reject rigged election results against him in hopes of a second term, Iran is a side issue by comparison.
The clock is ticking on his remaining days in office, as things now stand.
As January 20 inauguration day draws closer, chances for Trump ordering a military strike on Iran will likely diminish and fade away.
Hostile US actions on Iran — short of hot war — will continue as it's played out endlessly since its 1979 revolution.
VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home - Stephen Lendman). Contact at email@example.com.
My two Wall Street books are timely reading:
"How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War"
"Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity"