Home | About | Donate

Echoes of Iraq Heard in Latest Threats Against Iran


Echoes of Iraq Heard in Latest Threats Against Iran

Ben Schreiner

Marx offered that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. A mere two weeks into the reign of a new administration in Washington, it appears the farce has already commenced.

In an eerie parallel to the George W. Bush administration’s fevered fixation on "regime change" in Iraq from its very earliest days, the freshly minted Donald Trump administration has wasted little time in laying the groundwork for a disastrous military confrontation with Iran.


Do they not realize that Iran has a military that will actually fight back?


They may find they have bitten off more than could chew. As is the case in most of those foreign "ventures" to prove some point nobody in their right mind cares about, the level of ignorance and miscalculation is extremely high. Iran is no Iraq: they have a sophisticated and well trained army and a much larger population. This would be a very, very serious mistake, should they decide to attack. I can see why they kicked the chairman of the JCS out of the NSC, he would have raised holy hell about such crass stupidity.


Leave to the Trump alternative reality gang to believe a Shiite country like Iran would be working with ISIS who are Sunnis. Saudi Arabia is the center of the belief system that drives ISIS. That is where Wahhabism started and is still the strongest.


Another excellent point.


Michael Flynn has great growing gratuitous and grandiose visions of military glory; he should like to be appointed Five Star Generalissimo of all the Armies, Grand Field Marshal of the Combined Forces, Supreme Commander of the Allied Coalition Invasion Forces and General Commandant of the American People in their massive mobilization against the forces of evil in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The elected government of Iran was never overthrown.

We would love to see gasoline go up to six dollars a gallon. Yeah, that would help bring jobs back to America.


In Hillary Clinton's own words:

Expect New Wars in the Middle East if Hillary Clinton Is Elected President

“ISIS was primarily the result of the vacuum in Syria caused by Assad first and foremost. Aided and abetted by Iran and Russia.”


“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel we would be able to totally obliterate them"

And how quickly we forget that Saudi Arabia donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation:

Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?


Isn't this all from the 'Republican' play-book? Create a war where none exists, to detract from the 'Raping and Pillaging' of America. When will the voters understand that Democrats and Republicans think War is good for business? When will voters stop voting for Death and Corruption? You would think, given a choice between, Death and Corruption and, People, Planet, and Peace over Profit, there would be only one choice. We are 20 Trillion dollars in debt, and the top 1 percent is doing better than ever. The rest of America, not so much. That's messed up People!


Can you give a source for the Clinton quote on attacking Iran? Then why did Clinton defend the Iran nuclear materials treaty? Wasn't it Trump who spoke of tearing up the Iran Treaty and attacking Iran?

And, in fact, it was the refusal of the brutal dictator Assad to step down in the face of peaceful protest, then proceed to massacre the peaceful protestors, which led to armed resistance, civil war and chaos that ISIL took advantage of.

And if you had a charitable foundation and, say, the Koch Brothers donated millions to it, would you turn it down? I might remind the Koch's of my charities mission, and politely hint that their donation would not change anything in my thank-you letter, but turn down badly needed funds? No.


If you go back a few months, I predicted, 8 months ago, right here, that Trump would start a ramp-up to attacking Iran. It was one of his campaign promises, and so far, he is keeping all of them plus some...


So? They don't have to worry about it. Its the soldiers who will do the direct killing and dying, not them.


This is getting tiresome, but your account of events in Syria really takes the cake. Consider the following questions (grammatical corrections courtesy of Seatower):

  • Are the United States and its allies legally in Syria?
  • Are the United States and its allies legally funding and arming terrorists against the sovereign nation of Syria?

If you cannot answer yes to either question, would you kindly consider doing the following:

  • Admit that you are uniformed and that taking the word of a country that has killed millions and utterly destroyed three countries in last sixteen years, practices and teaches torture, commits extrajudicial killings of people, and illegally supplies and supports Saudi Arabia and Israel in the massacre of the poorest populations in the Middle East... is not a very good idea.

  • Refrain from commenting about Syria without pointing out that it is an illegal war of agression.

  • If you are a US citizen and tax payer, reflect on how your taxes are being diverted from your fellow citizens to fund war crimes, to the detriment of people in need of clean water, education, and healthcare.

And if you had a charitable foundation and, say, Baby Parts Inc. donated millions to it, would you turn it down? I might remind Baby Parts Inc. of my charities mission, and politely hint that their donation would not change anything in my thank-you letter, but turn down badly needed funds? No.

No offense, but your explanation sounds straight out of the PR department of a 20th century European country that did many bad things.


Regarding the video clip, being 8 years old, the video uses the classic tactic of cutting off the context of her statement (in this case, whatever she said before the abrupt start) which at any rate means nothing now because Clinton fully supports the Iran nuclear materials agreement. Trump does not.

Regarding US' behavior in Latin America, Vietnam, and later in Afghanistan and Iraq, you are completely right. But regarding Syria you are spouting tin-foil hat nonsense. So are you denying the existence of a popular movement against Assad - and Assad's savage attacks against it in 2011?

Please read this from the reality-based world:

I side with the Syrian socialist left and Syrian Kurdish anarchists - all of whom despise Assad - he has got to go. I am also involved with some family members in getting Syrian refugees into Canada.

Please change you nick, you are not for peace or justice.

Gotta love those leftists for Trump!


The USA is collectively insane. Too much lead in the household water supply. If you must do Empire, do it the Chinese way. Buy it and trade. At least it won't leave the place you live in as a smoking, bombed-out wreck.


What did she have to say in 2013:

What Hillary Clinton Privately Told Goldman Sachs

Clinton also makes clear that Syrian "jihadists" are being funded by Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. In October 2013, as the U.S. public had rejected bombing Syria, Blankfein asked if the public was now opposed to "interventions" -- that clearly being understood as a hurdle to be overcome. Clinton said not to fear. "We're in a time in Syria," she said, "where they're not finished killing each other . . . and maybe you just have to wait and watch it."

Lovely person. But what about Iran?

Clinton replies that Iran can just be bombed. Blankfein, rather shockingly, appeals to reality -- something Clinton goes on at obnoxious length about elsewhere in these speeches. Has bombing a population into submission ever worked, Blankfein asks. Clinton admits that it has not but suggests that it just might work on Iranians because they are not democratic.

Not good when Blankfein makes you look like a blood thirsty lunatic. You can look up the contents of the leaks yourself if you want to verify what the article states and the context.

You left out Libya, but who's keeping track right? Especially when Gaddafi's weapons stash was smuggled into Syria to terrorists. No need to introduce inconvenient facts.

That might explain your erroneous view of reality. I asked two simple questions and you completely ignored them. I'll ask them again:

  • Are the United States and its allies legally in Syria?
  • Are the United States and its allies legally funding and arming terrorists against the sovereign nation of Syria?


Not these days - ever heard of drones?


What I don't understand about these Iran articles is why they all fail to note the military cooperation agreement between Iran and Russia. Seems like that might be important. Unless that hurts the narrative being written of course.


"Are the United States and its allies legally in Syria?"

The US has been engaged in various anti-ISIL actions in Syria. Assad was largely going along with this - so you could call it legal.

"Are the United States and its allies legally funding and arming terrorists against the sovereign nation of Syria?"

No. The idea that the US was "arming terrorists against a sovereign nation" statement is complete fabricated conspiratorial nonsense. The reality-based facts are that the US, for a few years provided non-lethal aid then some very limited weapon aid to the generally secular and leftist Free Syria Army which formed in the wake of massacres against efforts to make Assad step down peacefully. The Free Syria Army accepted the aid - why not? Their mission was to defeat the savage murderous dictator Assad. The US abandoned this effort when that the FSA leadership has been largely taken over by Islamists - more extreme groups like Al Nursra Front tool over - mostly as a result of Assad brutally arresting and murdering much of the secular left opposition and forcing the rest to flee to exile.

Since 2014 US military actions in Syria have been entirely aimed at ISIL and this has included assistance to Kurdish and other secular Syrian opposition groups to liberate their cities and regions of ISIL - not Assad. The idea that the US is fighting some kind of contra-style proxy war against Assad is fabricated nonsense. The idea that Assad can be likened to the embattled Sandinista government of the 1980s is nonsense. Except for a brief period from 2011 to 2013, the US has been and is, an arms-length, and sometimes not-so-arm's length supporter of Assad.

And since when is the internationalist socialist left supposed to be supporting "sovereignty" - particularly when that "sovereignty" is a rule by a savage murderous thug who is an enemy of the left?

Here some stuff from the world of facts:

The N American tin-foil-hat left as totally isolated itself from the global left regarding Syria and has become the target of nothing but derision and mockery.

The world is a complex place - sometimes we have to keep three or even four thoughts in our mind at the same time, and sometimes our fights are tree or even four-way - making expedient temporary alliances along the way.


And please read this from a Syrian leftist whom we should be in full solidarity.

Will the idiotic US left please open up their fucking myth-addled neurotic minds?


Really? This is the response I would expect from a child. So, Assad is going to allow the United States, who listed Syria as a country it was going to overthrow back in 2002, is backing groups seeking to overthrow him, bombed his soldiers and destroyed his infrastructure, and ran out of bombs to drop on his country? Are you daft?

Syria has complained to the Security Council multiple times about the violation of its airspace. The only countries legally in Syria are Russia and Iran, both by request of the Syrian government. The United States and its allies are in Syria in violation of international law.

Right from the beginning the CIA was involved in smuggling heavy weapons into Syria from Libya (and continues to this day):

How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria (Oct. 19, 2012)

Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition (JUNE 21, 2012)

A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.

The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain the false narrative of the "Moderate Rebels" or the fact that ISIS and al-Nusra have US weapons including humvees, Abrams tanks, and howitzers. Or even that Representative Gabbard introduced the "Stop Arming Terrorists Act":

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Bill To Halt U.S. Arms Supplies To Syrian Allies

GABBARD: Well, I'd like to just point directly to what is happening in Syria today, where we are providing - the United States is providing - this direct and indirect support to terrorist groups in order to overthrow the Syrian government. So we will end up with a situation where not only will the Syrian people be under greater human suffering and an even more dire situation. We will end up with al-Qaida now having far greater military capability, far greater strength and posing a greater threat not only to the region but to the United States and the rest of the world.

But it matters nought. Arming an insurgency against a sovereign nation, even if it's Mother Teresa and her merry band of nuns, is a violation of international law and a war crime.

I wish you would have said that right from the beginning so I would have known that you have no fucking idea about what you are saying. The United States was planning regime change as early as 2006!

WikiLeaks Reveals How the US Aggressively Pursued Regime Change in Syria, Igniting a Bloodbath

We believe Bashar's weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising.

Look Yunzer, the United States is committing a war of aggression by both being in Syria and arming groups against a sovereign nation. Let me remind you what the Nuremberg tribunal had to say:

"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

People like you are not only supporting war crimes, but perpetuating the slaughter, beheadings, mutilation, torture, and rape of innocent civilians. Shame on you.