Propaganda and a Potential War with Iran

Invasion of Iran by a US military force is possibly imminent. Likely many people cannot fully grasp the extreme devastation that such a horrifically brutal attack could bring, especially as mainstream media often covers up much of this sort of news — news involving shocking vivid portrayals of ruin and torment.

In a very short time, say in three days, the infrastructure of Iran would be shattered, probably much more so than the initial outcome that happened in Iraq. In addition, there would exist absolute chaos.

Tehran, with nearly a twelve million population, would probably be a bloody mess — scorched, beaten, humiliated, stripped of its human dignity and, to provide a comparative analysis, I’ll add that NYC had an estimated population of approximately eight and a quarter million residents in 2006. In other words, bombing by air or invading Tehran on the ground is analogous to doing the same to Manhattan almost one and a half times over in terms of the tragic human toll.

I, myself, know a bit about this sort of human toll as I have lived in Tehran since the start of Iran-Iraq war. On account, I, for eight years, witnessed bombs and rockets falling on crowded locations and heard the sound of explosions around twice a day for many days in a row.

With each air attack alarm, everybody felt distraught and wondered if it were his/her family’s turn to be killed under the Iraqi (America made) bombs. Obviously, everyone was beside him or herself and barely able to function under the circumstances. How could conditions be otherwise?

Yet, that war was child’s play compared to the ruinous outcomes in any sort of assault from America, which is, I repeat, perhaps imminent. (In any case, Bush has promised that! For example, he stated, “This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table.” At the same time, results of a Zogby poll, taken last year, indicate that fully fifty-two percent of Americans want to bomb Iran.)

This stated, there would be utter torture, misery and terror for years to come as a result, especially if nuclear bombs were used in the event that some leader or other were to get out of control. Could one?

In any case, the entire Middle East would be in utter turmoil were outright warfare, rather than small skirmishes, to include Iran. Aside from the repercussions due to oil disruption, millions of innocent civilians could be killed and maimed during which time Iran would be in complete shambles. In addition, it would be in ruin for years to come — just as are Iraq and Afghanistan now, and which has resulted in millions of their population fleeing to other countries so as to strain their resources, schools, job market, housing and so on.

Furthermore, Iranians, practically all of us, would fight back, even with a shattered infrastructure and paralyzed military power. Citizens’ defense of their nations and countrymen, as can be seen from current reactions in other lands, doesn’t even have to happen in typical ways. At the same time, it is clear that Western countries would not be “safe” after raiding Iran as there would be direct retaliations in scale and kind, a dramatic rise in gas prices and other repercussions too ugly to even mention.

All considered, one can conclude that some American administrators seem not to learn from history or present happenings wherein it becomes clear that overrunning an entire nation is simply impossible. Can’t it be clearly seen in Iraq, for example? Can one really call it a victory, as Bush announced when he said “mission accomplished?” What does those words really mean relative to actual events that drag on and on and onward for years on end?

In any case, the backlash in Iran could deeply harm the United States of America and any other country that helps it if its government, too, were to invade. As suggested, a conquered nation has its own unconventional ways to oppose aggressors and the real, full scale war starts after a nation is initially crushed. This is because war is not just between governments. As such, this would be a war of Iran’s whole NATION of people and all others who’d have the gall to aggress against us.

So under these deeply perilous circumstances, what do you think we, in Iran, should do? Should we firmly stand against those who would attack us or “go after” our own leadership, which we need to support (even if quite reluctantly) during this time of threat of violence from other countries? Which course is the lesser of the two evils?

On another note, there is no “either/or ” occurrence in social phenomena, for the most part. However, I appreciate and understand anyone’s anger over religious fanaticism and mistreatment of women as is promoted by certain factions of my country’s government and other leaders in Iran. Indeed, I don’t hate both types of wrong any less than many others do. However, there are so many “buts” and other contingencies. As such, most occurrences are neither totally black, nor purely white.

On account, we, in Iran, need to support our government, even though it is destructive and undesirable in some ways (as is America’s, which many Americans ratify even though it is, likewise, so). Especially we must do so while a bigger problem looms near to our doorstep…

Unfortunately, my country is surrounded by many hostile forces in contention with it. Then there are the greedy forces, too. Our oil and gas are a bit too attractive, and it is the real reason prompting some, although not all of the ones, who want to pick a fight.

Supposing I have some sort of choice on the way to react in this looming situation of war: Would anyone think I should take a casual stance, a ho-hum cavalier outlook, while the lives of millions of Iranians are at risk? Should I just be at ease because some people, secure and contented in their cozy corner of the world, consider my real concern that war could breakout in my country paranoid on my part?

What if there is only a five percent chance that this new war should happen? Under the circumstances, should I back my government, which will stand up for me and my fellow citizens, or not? What makes anyone sure that certain US leaders are loathe to occupy my country out of concern for the response from a timid US Congress or the general public? How many from the latter group, to date, seems largely apathetic to their country’s ongoing military combat taking place in other lands? Would they get out in the streets and march in protest if Iran were added to the invasion list?

At the same time does anyone know what can make a majority of Americans shift 180 degrees? Perhaps it is a false red flag to shatter their feeling of security, to make them feel that they will lose their comfortable way of life. It doesn’t even need to be as big as the September eleventh happening, and this is because the mainstream media in many Western countries has done the damage already. It has done so by creating a sense of danger in people’s minds.

In short, it has demonized Iranians as much as could be done. Its writers have mobilized Western women already, especially feminists, thanks to boorish masculine ideology on the part of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a few other prominent figures. They, also, made us look positively hungry for a fight with Israel and rabidly hateful of all Jews despite that our own Jewish citizens are quite free from attack and prefer to live here in harmony rather than in Israel. Imagine that!

In any case, I am sure that many people, other than whatever they gained through deliberate propaganda, don’t know much about Iranians. They probably imagine Iranian women sitting in their homes, covering themselves like Saudi Arab women (favorite friends of America) while beaten and humiliated by men. Maybe they don’t even know that we are not Arabs. Indeed, I am sure that the majority of Americans don’t know that or that not all of us unswervingly support the Moslem faith.

All the same, the nasty mainstream media have made sure to lambaste Ahmadinejad and our way of life, not because news writers care for Iranian women and the manner in which we chose to exist, but because they have to make a very nasty monster of somebody who is easy enough to use to affect the lethargic minds of certain Western people. Doing so, of course, helps get the public supportive of “all options [being] on the table,” just as the threat of weapons of mass destruction had done for Iraq in the past. What a way to keep the war drums beating ever more loudly!

In addition, we will not be attacked, if it does come to pass, in any sort of slow build up towards war. As such, there are two main scenarios, it would seem, for an invasion of Iran.

One is a conventional battle starting somehow and going on for years. In this scenario, Iran would fight back, Israel would maybe receive missiles, Lebanon and probably Syria would likely attack Israel, many American soldiers would be captured by Iranian and the immediate global energy crisis will be disastrous to say the least. In brief, it could lead to something akin to the beginnings of a WW III crisis, and the whole world would be in a terrible mess.

On account, the alternative, a sort of “Shock and Awe” solution, seems perhaps more feasible to take place if our country is “brought to heel.” So it would, hypothetically, involve a secret rapid air strike, targeting major sites in Iran, practically all major areas in my country, with the upshot being their rapid and total obliteration.

Moreover, this course is the only way to paralyze Iran from forcefully fighting back. Even so, it, like any other sort of incursion, would lead to great strife throughout the Middle East — one involving several nations. At the same time, it would generate repercussions around the world relative to oil deliveries, further contention amongst other nations and some major decisions in alignments amongst various countries like Russia, China, US, Venezuela, Great Britain and others.

Now, do you think Bom-Bom McCain would be upset were this sort of offensive to occur?1 Do you think that most of the American public would care either way? Do they even now care about the Iraqi people — people already in deep, barely manageable pain?

In an analogous vein, do American feminists care about Iraqi women and girls being forced into prostitution as a direct result of invasion in the name of an American type of democracy? Is there real concern whatsoever? If so, why have they not risen up en masse over this issue rather than discuss ad infinitum the general repression of Moslem women?

All considered, Iranian women say: “No thanks, we don’t need your democracy. We are witnessing it already in Iraq. We can see the situation of Iraqi women. We prefer to support our disagreeable President with his silly obnoxious views on women’s place in life.”

Largely educated, these Iranian women, also, realize that subjugation of women is a global dilemma, part of a bigger problem — that of universal human oppression, which often is supported by administrations of Western “civilized” countries, as well as silently supported by their peoples, who do not speak up. So if some individual were truly worried about suppression of women, that person should try to solve the bigger problem, the root problem, which surfaces in many societies all across the globe, rather than look to Middle Eastern women as the be all and end all of tyrannical domination.

At the same time, many Americans have not been able to accept that they have been fooled, lied to and misinformed about the reason that their country engaged in warfare in Iraq. Analogously, they could right now be starting to fall in the same old trap: The trap is one of castigating a leader, such as Saddam or mine, a country, a religion and a way of life so as to make them all appear evil, illiterate, wild, barbaric, ugly and even threatening.

This stated, I’ll add that I am so sorry that this unpleasant Ahmadinejad and his fanatic religious friends made it easy for the American administration to affect American minds so that our country and its people are viewed as terrible. Why, though, can’t the masses see this as a method to prepare the ground for nasty actions against us? I’ll add, just as ignorant Saddam made it easy for an excuse to be fabricated to invade Iraq, so doesn’t my country’s President offer the same — except that mine refuses to be caught off guard.

In the end, I apologize to any readers if any of these opinions seem insulting. They are not meant to be so. At the same time, I do know that there resides, in the US and elsewhere in the world, a dedicated minority of peace seekers and human rights advocates — people who are truly humane and ethical.

It is fortunate that they exist as these are the ones on whom I count to make the world right, including in the prevention of war, more than any others, especially any disliked governmental leaders who come and go. Furthermore, I know they they are the people who understand well that compassionate, moral and outreaching people, assuredly, are present everywhere across the globe — even in Iran!

On account, they are the first to be truthful about the state of affairs in and value the people of my country. They, also, remind me of Nelson Mandela’s words, “As I have said, the first thing is to be honest with yourself. You can never have an impact on society if you have not changed yourself… Great peacemakers are all people of integrity, of honesty, but humility.” Indeed, this thought and way to be provides hope for us all!

  1. What does this say about his capacity to make good versus poor judgements when a potential leader of a powerful country imagines that it is comical to sing a crude ditty condoning slaughter? What sort of sound assessments would such a person be capable to apply in his role of Presidential leader? What sort of values and principles does he exemplify when he shows that he thinks that it is an amusing clever joke, rather than a serious problem, to casually murder people, including innocent children and elderly civilians, which would assuredly happen if bombs are dropped? All the same, John McCain, obviously, delights in such an outrageous tragic vision: YouTube — Bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran and YouTube — McCain laughs, Sings Bomb Iran. []
Vahab is a person interested in environmental and humanitarian affairs. He has lived most of his life in Iran. Read other articles by Vahab, or visit Vahab's website.

10 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Michael Kenny said on June 14th, 2008 at 7:55am #

    As I’ve said before, I am always suspicious of people who conceal their true identity. It usually means that readers are being manipulated.

    That being said, anyone who thinks that invasion of Iran by a US military force is possibly imminent is living on another planet. The US has no military forces left with which to invade anywhere. It couldn’t even invade Liechtenstein, even supposing it had a general who knew where Liechtenstein was! So whatever might happen, a US military force is definitely not going to invade Iran!

    For that reason, the rest of the article is just fiction. A Hollywood script. If the US launched air strikes against Iran (and that’s all they could do), the common sense thing for the Iranians to do would be … nothing! All they would have to is to to the UN as the agressed party and a resoultion would be put down, which the US would discredit itself by vetoing. Since the Iranians have successfully been playing world power politics for several thousand years, and have managed the current conflict with supreme aplomb, why would they now suddenly let themselves be provoked? All they need to do is sit tight! This article doesn’t make sense!

    To come back to Mr “Vahab” (Google him!), does it not strike you as odd that someone who (supposedly!) has lived “most of his life in Iran” has such a flawless and colloquial command of English? I make more mistakes than he does! My political nose smells some sort of false flag operation here.

  2. HR said on June 14th, 2008 at 1:06pm #

    Well, Michael Kenny, time will tell which assessment is most correct. I believe that you vastly underestimate the capability of the U.S. military in regard to its ability to unleash devastation on Iran, not to mention the absurd, but absolute, commitment to complete world domination that drives the current regime in D.C. as well as its enablers, from “both” parties in “congress”.

    Neither is it hard at all to accept the poll results cited by the author — whatever that author’s motives may be — that most USans favor an attack on Iran. Hell, a majority in this pathetically backward, pathetically meanspirited and bullyish country would favor, or could be soon convinced to favor, an attack on almost anyone … at almost any time. Just read a little history. After all, nearly a majority of those voting put the current criminals into power, twice, and continue to give majorities to the criminally complicit in “congress”.

    Eventually the U.S. government will overstep its capabilities to wage war, but it isn’t there yet, certainly not with respect to its capabilities to wage war with Iran. And, as soon as the first bombs fall, watch USans fall into line with 80 or 90 percent support for the killing.

  3. bozhidar balkas said on June 14th, 2008 at 1:12pm #

    iranian gov’t must have thought/expected that their reactor(s) wd be bombed. osiraq reactro was bombed by Israel in ’81. a syrian site had been bombed by israel recently because US/IOF thought or merely said it that the bombed site was a structure for nuclear works.
    bombing of teheran is a possibility but not a probabiltiy. reactors, as we know, r not situated in huge cities or even towns.
    i suggest that israel is desperate; thus it is full of talk; hoping in desperation to disuade iran from manufacturing nuclear energy solely by threats.
    no country would be scared by threats. many wd rather die than to cry uncle to a state that ab 5-6 bn people hate soo much.

  4. Em said on June 14th, 2008 at 1:32pm #

    Michael, did it cross your mind that there might be repercussions for one’s openly sharing his views with an international audience while residing in some particular country? If not, please see: http://www.newsweek.com/id/33588 and http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GL10Aa01.html.

    In a similar vein, did you consider that this might be Vahab’s first public writing except for engineering reports, he might be fluent in several languages; he might have asked some American friends, including a niece who just finished her university degree, to help him with polishing his understanding of syntax and semantics conventions in English as pertaining to this particular composition; he might have been imprisoned and severely tortured for holding socialist views during Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s reign and, on account of disturbing memories, he does not wish to do anything in his country to draw negative attention to himself?

    On another note, please consider that many diverse and well informed individuals in the US, like Paul Craig Roberts and Scott Ritter, and other luminaries abroad do consider that there is some likelihood of an attack on Iran. Even if remote in actuality, it could happen. As such, anyone in Iran must keep alert to the possibility. Meanwhile, we back in the USA need to do so, too.

    This in mind, you might want to read Stefan Steinberg’s “Bush In Germany Beats Drum For War Against
    Iran,” Dana Milbank’s “It’s a Mitzvah” or any number of other recent assessments of the topic. Your doing could provide a way to measure the loudness of the drums and the depth of redness in any related flags.

  5. John Hatch said on June 15th, 2008 at 5:09pm #

    I don’t think an attack on Iran is at all farfetched, given the criminal nature of the Bush regime and the fact that it needs a ‘distraction’ from two failed invasions, an economy in serious trouble, a President who is a war criminal, and on and on. Bombing Iran, although unconcionable, might give Bush and his criminal cronies the excuse they need to hang on to power and avoid accountability for their crimes.

    However there are signs that perhaps for once the military is just saying ‘No’.

    I believe those nukes that ‘accidentally’ (impossibly) were transported across the country may have been intended for Iran eventually, and the Air Force blew the whistle. I hope so.

    Maybe instead of bombing Iran, America could instead apologise for deposing the Prime Minister in 1953 (when Iran had the audacity to declare its oil its own) and installing the odious and torturous Shah. That would be a start.

  6. Vahab said on June 15th, 2008 at 9:40pm #

    Michael,
    HR , John Hatch and Em and said whatever I might have told you. They made it easy for me .
    Plus:
    I didn’t mean to lament because my country is directly and shamelessly threatened everyday and surrounded by the military force of your country, administrated by those whom YOU elected twice.
    No, I didn’t mean to lament or arouse pity. I meant to warn against a global disaster, which is possible, even if not likely. Of course we will fight back, and the whole world will suffer, most of all your United states, and you will lose your cozy corner and your comfortable life . I promise you that!. Then, if your lethargic mind is not able to analyse the situation in Iraq, it would have to take a shock, to find out what is really happening in this world and what your beloved administration is doing to the world.
    Because, Iran is different. You will find that, with a shock.
    Then, whoever I am, wherever I live, doesn’t change the main point, unless you want to make a fuss
    about my identity or my command of english. This is a well-known tactic to divert the flow of
    reasoning.
    Consider me the very evil. but try to follow the reason.

    Besides, I don’t mind what you think about the likelihood of an attack .
    I can’t neglect the brutal military force of a far away country at my doorstep, a country who has the nasty habit of attacking weaker nations .
    Keep your comfortable corner for now, entertaining TV shows are waiting for you to make you feel
    happy.

  7. Adam said on June 17th, 2008 at 10:56pm #

    Vehab,

    I understand your resentment and anger towards the United States. As a citizen of the U.S. myself, I regularly find the actions of my government reprehensible. I am truly sorry for all the terrible things the United States has done in the past and continues to do in the present, particularly to citizens of other nations.

    It was very easy to see the Iraq war coming, it was blatantly obvious. What’s more, the American Zeitgeist at the time was one of blind patriotism and belligerence. These were optimal conditions for the Bush administration to exploit in order to go to war with Iraq.

    However, I have to disagree with your assessment that a U.S. invasion of Iran is a plausible scenario. I don’t doubt that the Bush administration would love to invade Iran, and had probably even planned to do so as the next step after Iraq. However, the Bush administration’s vision of how the Iraq war would go was shortsighted and inaccurate, and as a result they lost the support of the populace.

    Now the Iraq war is unpopular with a majority of Americans, and so too is the Bush administration itself. Bush’s troop surge has been extremely unpopular as well, and most Americans just want to get out of Iraq. This is the year of a presidential election, and with Bush being so unpopular, it is increasingly likely that the Democrats will win the presidency, while retaining or increasing their majorities in the House and Senate.

    Although Americans are easily manipulated by their government, they simply won’t stand for another war right now. There wouldn’t even be anyone to fight the war, as the U.S. military can only draw from voluntary recruitment (which is dwindling as it is). There’s not even the smallest possibility that a draft count be reinstated, as the Democrats wouldn’t let it happen with their control of the House and Senate.

    I know that from an outsider’s perspective, the U.S. must seem capable of almost anything. However, as much as certain powers would like it to be so, the U.S. is not all-powerful. It has to answer to the will of the people occasionally.

    This is not to say that the U.S. won’t invade Iran in the future. One certainly can’t rule it out, even within the next ten years (especially if McCain miraculously manages to win the election). In the immediate future, though, I can assure you it’s not a possibility.

  8. HR said on June 18th, 2008 at 11:49am #

    Adam:

    The war in Iraq became unpopular for ONE major reason: people who were slapping on insipid car magnets and tattered antenna flags are disappointed and angry that they did not get the “cakewalk” victory that they were promised. Many of those folks are just itching for another fight, one that they would not be participating in directly, of course.

    From this “insider’s” perspective, the U.S. government is indeed capable of anything, not just almost anything. Look at the list of police-state legislation imposed since 2001, from the (Clinton-administration-proposed) patriot act, to the treasonous Harman bill for monitoring the public Internet. And look at how the pathetic U.S. herd has accepted imposition of the police state, surveillance cameras, and strip searches at airports, bleating the mantra of, “If I have done nothing wrong, I have nothing to fear.” Guess that lends some credence to your assertion that “our” government answers to the “will” of the people occasionally, since a lack of opposition indicates support for these reprehensible actions.

    As well, I consider it a pipe dream to consider that the current U.S. military is incapable of unleashing devastation on Iran. The decision whether to do so is solely a matter of politics.

    I also do not consider Obama to be much in the way of a lesser evil in terms of his foreign (or any other) policy. He has prostrated himself before the AIPAC Zionists, and he has spoken of “fixing” the unbroken Social Security program by exploring raising the retirement age, lowering benefits, and increasing the Social Security tax rate, with no mention of extending the current tax to include ALL income, not just that below $90,000 (though those high earners still get the full benefit even after paying a smaller proportion of their income in Social Security taxes). In my opinion, he is just as likely to unleash the military on Iran and to implement wealth-favoring domestic programs as McCain is.

    The current “congress” does indeed have a democratic majority in the House, but not in the Senate, given the games being played by the turncoat Lieberman. In both houses, however, democrats join republicans in being criminally complicit in war crimes by continuing to enable the war of aggression in Iraq by voting for every military appropriation presented to them. On other issues, the pretend democrats (blue dogs and such) show their true right-wing colors by voting with their real compatriots, the republicans (and neither “party” deserves capitalization in written reference).

  9. Vahab said on June 19th, 2008 at 9:40am #

    HR,
    I agree that the probabaility of invading Iran is low, but it can’t be neglected. You can not imagine what you, as an maerican , would feel if your country would be surrounded by an armada of powerful naval and arial forces, by a government with huge stock of nuclear weapons , with more than 700 military bases spread throughout the world and specially with a background of warmongering and conspiracy . We who live in this Iran, get enough dose of threat and bullying every single day to feel in constant danger. We are alarmed. We don’t like to be caught off guard.
    We iranians, didn’t forget 1953.
    There is a saying in persian (iranian language), something like:
    “It shouldn’t be a thief on the roof. Hopefuly its a cat”
    Do I make sense?
    Don’t take me wrong. I have lived enough to know that people and government ruling them, are of two different categories . I don’t feel any resentment against americans as “people”. I have many american friends online. They are very nice people. In fact, geographical boundaries are losing their importance as dividing lines separating people of the world. Humanity is reorganising based on other values and criteria than silly geographical boundaries. We are starting to reorganise, you and me, around true human values.

  10. Vahab said on June 19th, 2008 at 1:15pm #

    HR and Adam,
    Sorry for the mistake. I meant ADAM, NOT HR