by Stephen Lendman
Longstanding US plans call for regime change. America wants Iranian sovereignty destroyed. It wants pro-Western vassal governance replacing it.
Spurious accusations repeat. They're pretexts for lawless intervention. New ones allege Iran plans attacking US regional interests. Washington claims it's in response to Obama intervening against Syria.
Fabricated communication intercepts were cited. They don't exist. They're baseless. They're fake. It doesn't matter.
Obama may want Iran drawn into his war on Syria. Perhaps he plans attacking both countries. In the fullness of time we'll know.
On September 6, the Wall Street Journal headlined "Iran Plots Revenge, US Says."
Washington claimed it "intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the US Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria, officials said, amid an expanding array of reprisal threats across the region."
No intercepts exist. They're fabricated. It doesn't matter. Journal writers accept them as gospel.
"Military officials have been trying to predict the range of possible responses from Syria, Iran and their allies," they said.
"US officials said they are on alert for Iran's fleet of small, fast boats in the Persian Gulf, where American warships are positioned."
"US officials also fear Hezbollah could attack the US Embassy in Beirut."
"While the US has moved military resources in the region for a possible strike, it has other assets in the area that would be ready to respond to any reprisals by Syria, Iran or its allies."
The Journal misinterpreted Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Mohammad Ali Jafari saying: "An attack on Syria will be the imminent destruction of Israel."
He meant Israel's involvement is self-destructive. Tasnim News Agency quoted him. He said:
"Despite their bitter experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans will complete their consecutive failures and experience the most shameful historic defeat if they conduct military action against Syria."
"And Syria will turn into a more dangerous and deadly battlefield than Vietnam War, and, in fact, Syria will become the second Vietnam for the US."
It may become number three. Afghanistan's number two. According to deputy Iranian Armed Forces General Staff chief Masoud Jazayeri, the fire of attacking Syria will "burn" the Israeli regime.
"In case of a military action by the anti-Syria front, the Syrian nation will resist and the result of their resistance will be victory."
"What is currently referred to as the US and Britain's military action against the innocent Syrian nation is in fact a Zionist operation aimed at boosting the morale of the occupying and dying Zionists."
Attacking Syria is a "betrayal of humanity," he added. Its "heinous" repercussions are unpredictable.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Araqchi added:
"We want to strongly warn against any military attack in Syria. There will definitely be perilous consequences for the region."
"These complications and consequences will not be restricted to Syria. It will engulf the whole region."
On Friday, Iranian officials denied alleged plans to attack US or Israeli interests. Claims otherwise are spurious, they said.
Alireza Miryousefi is Tehran's UN mission spokesman. He called anti-Iranian allegations baseless. They meant to "provoke the Congress" into authorizing war on Syria. Perhaps it's to target Iran.
"We should remember that relying on US intelligence reports from anonymous officials will repeat the tragedy of Iraq," said Miryousefi.
It'll repeat numerous other US wars based on lies. They repeat with disturbing regularity. The worst of all outcomes follows.
According to the Journal, some US officials believe Hezbollah's more likely to respond than Iran if Syria's attacked.
Its fighters are aiding Syrian forces. It has a formidable rocket arsenal. It humiliated Israel's IDF. It did so during its 2006 Lebanon war. It's more able to do it now.
Israel's involved in Obama's war on Syria. It threatens repeatedly to attack Iran. Doing so will provoke retaliation.
It doesn't matter. On September 5, Haaretz editors published an inflammatory Alan Dershowitz op-ed. It's not the first time they permitted commentary demanding condemnation. More on that below.
Francis Boyle calls Dershowitz a notorious bigot. He advocates murder and torture. He's an "infamous self-incriminating war criminal."
He "publicly acknowledged being a member of a Mossad Committee for approving the murder and assassination of Palestinians, which violates the Geneva Conventions and is thus a grave war crime."
He's "unfit to educate lawyers. (He's) a sick joke and a demented fraud." He and others like him "torture the law."
"Harvard Law School is a neo-con cesspool." Faculty like Dershowitz and deans are "viscerally bigoted and racist against Muslims, Arabs, Asians, and other people of color since at least" 1971 when Boyle attended.
Dershowitz is one of the worst. He's a notorious Islamophobe. He twists fundamental rule of law standards and norms.
He believes "old rules" don't apply against alleged "fanatical foes." He called Geneva Convention principles "quaint and out-of-date."
He called UN Charter Article 51 prohibiting attacking other countries except in self-defense "anachronistic." It doesn't apply to targeting US/Israeli enemies, he said.
He supports Israel's worst crimes. He considers Israeli state terror self-defense. He headlined his Haaretz op-ed "Obama: Get approval from Congress on Iran now," saying:
"Congressional approval for a punitive-deterrent strike against Syria's use of chemical weapons should not be misunderstood by Iran, Israel, or anyone else."
"The decision, which involved many moving parts, was not intended to show any weakened resolve to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons."
Obama should secure congressional "red line" approval on Iran.
Dershowitz wants war on Iran. He wants Israel's main regional rival eliminated. Obama "should ask Congress for authorization now to take military action against Iran's nuclear weapons program if it were to cross the red line he has already drawn," he said.
Doing so "will increase the deterrent threat currently directed against Iran, by underscoring the red line as having been drawn both by the president and by Congress."
"It should leave no doubt in the minds of the Iranian mullahs that the president not only has the will to enforce the red line but also has the authority from Congress to do so."
Obama showed he's willing to attack Syria with or without Security Council authorization. "Congress is more likely to support military action against Iran's nuclear weapons program than is the international community."
"America's enemies, especially Iran, must be warned Congress won't stop him from" attacking Iran if he orders Pentagon commanders to do so.
Dershowitz knows Tehran's nuclear program is peaceful. He lies claiming otherwise. He calls Iran "different from Syria."
He does so based on lies. He omits saying it's Israel's main regional rival. It poses no threat. Dershowitz claims otherwise.
He wants congressional authorization for war. He claims doing so will "strengthen America's position in the world. (It'll) help to prevent the game-changing disaster of a nuclear-armed Iran."
Longstanding US policies make more enemies than friends. America risks being increasingly isolated. Israel operates the same way.
Dershowitz supports what demands condemnation. He dismisses inviolable rule of law principles.
US and Israeli interests alone matter. Doing so entails potentially catastrophic risks. It bears repeating. It risks WW III. Don't expect Dershowitz to explain.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.