Is Iran already at war with the US?

No

1 of 8

by Gary C. Gibson

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

If buiding up nuclear forces and perennially increasing military budget were a war then Iran would qualify-yet then it would be an existential war upon anyone generally perhaps, rather than just with the United STates of America. China would thus qualify as well leading the world in military spending growth annually for a while. We prefer to not consider the buid-up to war, as actual war. Unlike world war one and two scenarios for Germany that in the pre-war phase nearly automatically started a war as the cars of war production had built up too much speed to stop in front of the starting line in 1914 and 1939 respectively, China and Iran could in theory yet avoid the problems of war. It is difficult to imagine an Iran with nuclear weapons in the hands of dogmatic Ayatollahs not able at some point to launch upon Tel Aviv. The United States is considered by some Muslim tacticians to be the fundamental obstruction to world conquest, yet simultaneously the enabler for Mohammedan hegemony and eventual takeover; the U.S. failure to develop independent from oil alternative energy has enriched the Muslim world far beyond what they should have expected. Muslim riots in CHina are in part a reciprocol of Chinese dependence upon fossil fuels as well.

The media and the democrats called the national political reconstruction of Iraq following the 2003 war, a war until 2009-the word has become debased quite a lot. Thus Iran may have a secret war on-going with the U.S.A. though no one knows about it except the cognoscenti. It is possible that Iran does terrorist organizations with the U.S.A.'s national interests occasionally a target. If so it would be better to ask if Iran is already doing secret terrorism upon the United States and or it's national interests. The answer to that question should be determined by the secret C.I.A. analytical people and perhaps provided for presentation by the Secretary of State to the United Nations. Transitions in post-war Iraq comprising reorganization and the fundamental Sunni radical opposition to democracy in preference for rule by Mohammedan theocratic law (Sharia) through civilian terrorism were not a war in a conventional sense, although casualties do occur in Muslim terrorist efforts to abort the growth of democracy in nations with a Mohammandanist majority.

It is difficult to credit the globalist broadcast media with trust-they support a globalist element concentrating wealth and political power and would obviously like to subordinate Iran to their profit potential; yet President Aminidinijab re-elected by a Nixon degree landslide that some say was a rigged election also has little credibility in the west for trust. He is a lunatic dedicated to the destruction of Israel and is radically arming his nation with nuclear weapons (in development) and missiles with cooperation from North Korea. Rather than taking an assertive policy for his nation's interests he takes an internationally belligerent position. With the U.S. election of a President of Barrack Hussein Obama Iranian Shi'a obviously were encourage by their own Shi'a leader's influence in making the United States select a man with the middle name of the founder of the Shia brand of Mohammedanism-that false religion worship a pagan god named Allah that was the tribal god of the Qu'raysh tribe from which Mohammad's father was keeper of the 360 pagan god at the Kaaba (Egyptian origin term for spirit house) were the black stone meteorite bowed to by pre-Mohammedan pagan followers of Allah and other demi-urges headquartered as idols. The petroleum and gas power of the warrior religion following the false prophet of syncretism is waxing with American dependence on foreign cars and fuel. Republican globalists have put America in deep foreign debt and kiss up to the OPEC nations; they lust after Iranian oil fields and hate any sort of barriers to their corporate expansion. Radical fundamentalist Mohammedanism is a speck in their eyes, a burr in their butt, a fruitcake in their lunchbox and understandably the dumb policies they exert to moderate Iranian belligerency are ineffective as is their domestic policies on health care reform, non-fossil fuel based trans-national corporate free energy independence and so forth.

Iran is the ancient Ayran nation ) pronounce the Ay as 'I'. It is a prideful and volatile nation full of the history of waiting for the perfect Imam to lead the people closer unto theocratic wonder. In Iran theocracy unities political and religious belief. The sons of Ali were slaughtered creating that permanent Sunni-Shi'a rift centuries ago, but somehow Americans need to get in to the Middle Asian problems in some way because it can. I it possible that American environmentalism could overcome Iranian hatred of American materialism, there are aspects of materialism I dislike myself-especially the triumph of Satanic spiritlessness over civil rights and individual free expression. Societies than punish the spiritually minded through financial means are closely aligned with the devil I would think.

The United States is at brain lock with Iran-a technical form of belligerency of a moderate sort. It is not within the intellectual capacity of U.S. politicians to think there way into forms of mutually better relations with Iran-they just can't do that nor get the U.S.A. onto independent home power electrical production to power U.S. built electric motivation platforms on intelligent American highways that also collect solar power when the sun shines.

Moderate amounts of belligerency in select bi-lateral political relations is advantageous for the maintenance of power by special interest groups that do not wish to become socially irrelevant such as could happen in a peaceable democratic society with no worries. Fossil fuels provide income streams to many global leadership cliques and politicians cannot much take the top jobs without baying loyally to the demi urge of oil wells, proven and hidden oil reserves.

Popular analysts of American foreign policy seem to often to provide an amnesia based policy that conveniently disregards cogent analysis of history and interrelated causation that have shaped the present state of political relations. In the case of Iranian-American bilateral relations the amnesia is nearly complete. At least selective memory is all that is allowed to disturb the frequently unilateral analysis that is predicated on the criteria that the United States is a sort of Mr. Goodness seeking only peace and distribution of Famous Amuses cookies to the world and nations such as Iran bite the hand that feeds them. Is that the real state of affairs?

http://www.iranian.c om/Opinion/2000/Apri l/Constitution/index .html

Not to seem to be supportive of the usual mix of anti-American rhetoric provided by those with trans-national interests from corporations to Muslims to communists, I nevertheless would point out some of the history that has shaped American relations with Mr. Putin and Russia as an example of the non-simplicity and amnesiac state of affairs. Since the end of the cold war America leaped into a pro-Muslim support of anti-Serbian elements of an orthodox nature that Russia supported angering the Russians at least a little. Iran as the Shi'a alternative to the Sunni is another factor, then the U.S. went and succeeded in Afghanistan a bit were the Soviets failed, and had agreements in Tadzhikstan and with the other Afghanistan revolutionaries. The U.S. supported the Ukraine and the independence of Russian affiliated states, and seeks to impose anti-ballistic missiles in Poland-the tradition of invasion of Russia from the west and east are traditional Russian concerns. All of these elements comprise some of the present fossil fuel prioritized policy with Russia, and of course the same elements with different content apply to Iranian relations...it just isn't simple.

War and peace are not simply a matter of definition as specious as many 'wars' of American vintage the past 20 years. The war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on taxes, the war on illegal immigration, the war on organized crime, the war on illiteracy; when so many applications of the word war are use so liberally isn't it natural that some would wonder what war actually is? There must be a term better for describing mass civil mobilizations that aren't military and in opposition through military means to a foreign or domestic enemy beyond the scale of crime fighting. It may be alright to use the word 'war' in relation to the fight against transnational terrorism yet even that use tends too much to cloud the actual state of affairs of how things really are politically.

Can any American believe that Iran is so insignificant militarily, such a puny vermin that it could presently be at war with the United States and it isn't quite noticed, and no military forces are required to counter-attack more preserve life en mass. Does Iran present as great of a threat of invasion to Iraq as does Turkey with its parliament voting approval for petite blitzkriegs into Iraq as soon as American forces back away from the targeted region? Does Iran's history in the Iran-Iraq war ring any bells-wasn't that a real war and the hypothetical war of this subject just an imaginary state of affairs?

Iran may have some elements supply weapons and advice or elements in Iraq; one could ask is it a 'cold war' something like that between America and Russia during the Vietnam era when the Soviet Union supplied weapons en mass to North Vietnam and defeated the U.N.'s creation of South Vietnam in time. Does Iranian military assistance comprise a comparable level with that of cold war era Soviet supplying of the Viet Cong?

Iran had a government replaced by a Shah with American support known for it's Savak and that secret police agency detention and torture of its citizens. Before the atrocities of Saddam Hussein and his secret police, the Mukhabarat.

http://www.globalsec urity.org/intell/wor ld/iraq/mukhabarat.h tm

http://www.fas.org/i rp/news/1998/02/9802 23_iraq.htm

Revisionism ought not extend to the definition of war. War is a real thing that isn't engaged in by combatants with uncertainty as if it is happening or not. Maybe Hollywood fanaticism and the propaganda of pervasive transnational media have made the label of war a better way to agitate for the end of democracy and political determination by responsible political representation. Maybe asynchronous political goals developing with some friction would be a better way to describe the state of affairs in bilateral relations. Terror activities are a more natural activity for fundamentalist illiterates than sending a wing of stealth bombers with triple action fusion warheads. There is not a direct symmetry in political methods, terminology or comprehension. Each side may be partly right and partly wrong-neither are advantaged by incomprehension and rhetorically lubricate proprietary political diatribes that can sell at home but continue conflict abroad.

Iran is a smaller nation with a President emerged from the revolutionary cauldron and personal dangers presented by the forces of the Shah with a more visceral and slightly nonobjective approach to his foreign and domestic politics while President Bush is from a detached, wealthy background moderated by drunken binges and southern oil patchwork striving to act as the President without the interest of a Ronald Regan who pursued in the 1964 election primaries and finally took it in 1980 after the debacle of the quagmire that developed in Vietnam.

The Vietnam war wasn't won as easily as L.B.J. had believed possible. Though it was largely a conventional war until 1968 with the U.S.A. generally winning the public in the U.S. would not have support another 50,000 combat fatalities to secure a hard to defend national security along hard to defend borders. Not even in the U.S.A. today can the administration halt the flow of illegal aliens and along the Vietnamese frontier halting communist infiltration was even more improbable. In Iraq today political planning did not encompass the real political and geographical facts in advance of engagement well enough to anticipate the cost of intervention along inadequately designed parameters of war. Though the Viet Cong were decimated in the 1968 Tet offensive as the United States military rolled them up the willingness for Americans to support the unwell thought out war against an enemy they had been told was on the ropes decisively evaporated. In the ongoing propaganda interaction with Iran rational planning is again absent from the preponderance of public policy approaches the U.S. Government takes with the Iranian government. Not only is subtlety and nuance lacking in its policy enactments alternative paradigmata are absent as well. Deleterious and inadequate policy advanced seems to lack depth in comprehending Iranian and mid-Asian regional history and social background and of finding methods to let American policy interact with Iranian policy in such a way that Iran would perceive the people of the United States as a friend generally rather than a foe.

Transnational corporatism policy making implemented by the very untheoretically driven President Bush hasn't a good chance for much progress with Iran...that will have to wait until another President takes office in 2009. Iran does present dangers to the United States. A new President will need to discover ways to reign in transnational corporate and fossil fuel goals from conflicting with gals of value to Americans and Iranians. While Americans can fairly defend against Muhammadan crusaders financed by oil and gas into terrorism in an effort to expand the Dar al harb like a recrudescent expansion of the Umma against Europe and the west, we must also defend our own nation against reliance on fossil fuels instead of home generated electrical power from wind, solar and fuel cells to provide automotive power. The war of transnational oil corporations upon American foreign policy planning could be described as readily as Iran's war upon the United States (that concept makes it easy for the administration to seem non-aggressive in case it needs to bomb Iran;s nuclear facilities soon).

Learn more about this author, Gary C. Gibson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.