Jeffrey Sachs Goes Yard, Crooke On Possibility Of Iran War
Jeffrey Sachs was talking with The Duran guys the other day and he really laid it all out in his concluding remarks:
Q: What do you say to the governments of Europe? What policy should they be following now?
A: Let me say that no country has more messed up the world and--certainly the Middle East--than Britain. Britain already made the problems that we're facing in 1915--basically in three years, 1915 to 1917--Britain promised, three times over, all of this land: first to the French, second to the Arabs, third to the Jews. This is in the Balfour Declaration. This is British imperial manipulations that now have a shadow and a legacy of more than 100 Years of chaos. Britain will never get this right. The Nostalgia for Empire, the bravado, the arrogance-- it's remarkably undiminished, 80 years after the end of the Empire. Keith Starmer, they all do, Boris Johnson--they all think they're Lord Palmerston! They're all going off to battle. So, Britain, I give no hope for at all in this, because nostalgia seems to have the longest lifespan of all--Imperial Nostalgia.
The French? Without a principle. Okay, the French are always a little bit second fiddle to the British, but they wanted their little imperial piece as well, and they got it in Lebanon, they have it in Syria, and what good has come out of any of this? Not at all. I have not understood for years continental Europe's European Union approach to any of this. Of course, there are glimmers where there's some insight. The Spanish government has been very good on Palestine, the Irish absolutely wonderful--they have their own colonial experience--but, in general, Europe lost any any insight into its own security, into its own well-being, when it basically handed off everything to the CIA and to NATO, and that's where Europe stands right now.
I was so sorry to see that, on the first day of the new European commission, where is the president of the European Council and the high representative for Europe--that is Antonio Costa and Kaja Kalas--the first day? They had to fly to Kiev to be with Zelensky. Oh my God! Even knowing that President Trump is coming in, Europe cannot even think politically to this moment. Europe cannot think in its own interest to this moment. I said to many of them, 'If you're going to do diplomacy on the first day, go to Moscow! Talk to Russia! Have a real diplomacy!' They can't figure this out, and this is tragedy--it's tragedy in Ukraine, it's tragedy in the Middle East. The United States stands behind both of those tragedies as the would be hegemon. It's all pathetic. The wars continue to spread and it's very dangerous.
Alastair Crooke was on with Chris Hedge, and in the closing portion was asked about the likelihood of a US/Israel war on Iran. Crooke sees such a war as probable. For my part, I wonder. Has Crooke placed too much credence in the war-talk-for-pay blather of retired generals? Will the Pentagon buy into such a war? The downside in the event of failure is huge, and would fall on the current complement at the Pentagon. Is Crooke mistaking paid-for-rhetoric of policiticians for the actual views of the Pentagon, who know the military is desperately short of the munitions and capabilities that would be needed for a war on Iran.
On the other hand, the ramping up of war tensions proceeds apace and that’s the other part of Crooke’s view—the primary focus is on preventing Trumpian peace initiatives. But those kinds of games can go wrong:
The Fall of Assad & What it Means for The Mid East (w/ Alastair Crooke) | The Chris Hedges Report
Q: How likely do you think a war with Iran is?
I think it's likely, for the following reason. I think that it's not about Iran, particularly. It's nothing to do with Iran. Firstly, they want to disrupt Trump, to pull him into a war on Iran. They think it'll be an easy war. I think they've got this totally wrong, but they want to reassert American power and leadership, and they feel that every so often throwing a small country against the wall and smashing it up is good for this. I don't think I'm being too cynical. I think that they feel they need a war. There is a strong sense in that ruling cadre--not for Americans as a whole--that they have to reassert those deep layers of American policy, which are: they will not tolerate any rival power, any challenge to American leadership and American greatness and American sense of its vision for the future, to occur on their watch. This has been bipartisan bedrock that no politician is allowed to challenge, and so I think they will probably do it. It's not about 'Is it good or bad?' I don't think Trump will be able to, because they control, the other thing is, basically, the Israeli firsters want it and they control Congress, and they have the money to do this and they probably will do it.
Q: But is that an aerial campaign? How physically would they send troops into Iran? They can't do troops ...
A: No they can't. [Iran's] population is 90 million and it is as big as Europe, virtually. I disagree with the consensus in America. They think it's by air assault salt, shock and awe, or a big campaign that will go in and bust it. But the technical reasons for why that won't work are plentiful. First of all, Iran has excellent defenses from Russia, but their own as well, and the Israelis--contrary to what the media say-- were not able to penetrate into Iranian airspace when they attempted that strike, 26 of I think it was October. They were not able to penetrate into [Iran's] air space. And when you're talking about a nuclear program or programs that are deeply buried underground, you saw what happened in in Beirut. To get at the Hezbollah leadership it took 85 heavy missiles.
I’ll add—the treacherous attack on Hezbollah’s leadership, who had assembled to ratify a deal with Israel, was attack on a single site. The complexities of attempting to “take care of Iran” once and for all—as the usual idiots are talking about—are exponentially greater. They simply dwarf anything that Israel—or the US—has ever attempted before.
If you're going to fly F-35s with JDAM missiles--each of those is about 14 tons. I mean, it's not just the weight--they can carry them--but the fuel they use, so you have to refuel maybe once, refuel twice. Then you have to have fighter aircraft to suppress air defenses. I mean, you're talking about a huge performance. Is America going to be able to do this? The Iranians have got multiple air defense systems and good radars, Over the Horizon Radars, as well. We were all told that [the Israelis] damaged this Parchin. There's been nothing. I think you mentioned in your leadin that I was involved with Iran on the nuclear site for the European Union, when Salana was leading that. We've been dealing with Parchin for 20 years. The Israelis have been claiming it's got a secret site there and the IAEA have inspected it multiple times and found nothing, and they was nothing this time. They bombed two empty warehouses. dur it was during Khatami's presidency that anything sensitive was taken away from Parchin and put deep into the mountain tunnels.
If you want more big picture stuff on why this is all such a terrible idea, listen to Danny Davis’ rant:
DD isn’t one for ranting, but here he does.
Of course, the reports re Trump/Iran appeared in the WSJ, so possible disinfo.
Listening to Sachs on The Duran, he pointed out that US Presidents come and go, but Netanyahu is still here 30 years on with his Clean Break plan in progress.
I fear the Trump administration is shot through with Israel Firsters, who believe what is good for Israel is good for the US, and what is bad for Israel is bad for the US. And they have the money to back that up. Also exploding pagers.
Compare this belief to the Catholic concept of "malum in se", bad-in-itself, intrinsic evil: some actions are intrinsically evil and must not be done, even in an attempt to secure a great good.
Yes, neocons gave us a great commission to go and make disciples of all nations. But it is the zionists who define what is "malum in se". Any actions opposed to Israeli interests are intrinsically evil: we must not do evil to Israeli interests in hopes that good may come for US interests.
This is a terrible state of play to find ourselves in. It is utterly opposed to Christ and his central message that he, not the Jewish nation, is the path to salvation. There is nothing in the Gospel from which you can derive the sending of weapons systems to Israel to bring about the second coming of Christ.