"A war lost by the aggressor who initiates it is a war of miscalculation. . . .Proponents of an attack on Iran falsely claim that President Obama and other world leaders who urge restraint and caution are practicing appeasement against Iran. But this narrative implies that Iran is the aggressor while Israel and America are victims, which is blatantly false.
Wars of miscalculation have been the scourge of the twentieth century [and] another such war threatens to destroy civilization. It is therefore critical that we understand how they come about. The key is, of course, the fundamental misjudgement that the aggressor makes about his opponents: he underestimates their willingness and ability to resist.
. . . Instead of looking toward aggressors to explain misjudgements, it turns out that we must look at defenders. An examination of each of these cases of miscalculation reveals that it was the defenders who played the significant role in causing the aggressors to underestimate them. These defenders practiced "appeasement," that is, they allowed aggressors to take away rights and territories unopposed. From their inaction aggressors drew the reasonable but incorrect conclusions about their willingness and ability to resist." - James L. Payne. "The American threat: National security and foreign policy" (1981). This quote appears on page 60 in the textbook, "A Primer in Power Politics," by political scientist and historian Stanley Michalak. It was published in 2001 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
"Now, the United States has suffered—its reputation has suffered in recent years because of its catastrophic war in Iraq, its war in Afghanistan, the hostilities it has aroused throughout the Muslim world, especially in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, and so forth. Now, its ally, Israel, has also suffered recently, in recent years. It tried to crush Hezbollah in 2006, when it went into Lebanon. It tried to crush Hamas in Gaza when it invaded Gaza in 2008, '09. It feels that the combination of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah has made a dent in its military supremacy in the region. It's seeking to restore its overall dominance. Now, both these powers, United States and Israel, its ally, believe, I think, that overthrowing the regimes in Tehran and Damascus will allow them to restore their supremacy and come back on top. So that’s what we’re witnessing. It’s a struggle for regional supremacy, regional dominance." - Journalist and author Patrick Seale speaking on Democracy Now on Tuesday, February 7, 2012.
The whole world knows that the fascist terrorists who hijacked Israel and America committed the ultimate act of aggression against peace and humanity on September 11, 2001, when they slaughtered 3,000 American citizens in broad daylight, and then used the tragic event to mobilize world public opinion for greater acts of aggression and terrorism in the Middle East.
Only the demonic forces of Satan can spin reality to such an extent that Iran is perceived as the aggressor in this tragedy and Israel is portrayed as the poor, little victim who is crying for help in the wilderness of terror. In fact, Iran's leaders have so far appeased the belligerent Israelis and their warmongering comrades in Washington and London. Iran has not defended itself yet, it is playing it cool. But that will change if the pressure keeps up.
The day will come when Iran will kick out the duplicitous IAEA, and tell the Mossad to go to hell. Iran's response will be: If Israel wants war then war it shall get. Israel can start this damn thing, but Iran will finish it. Any other response is appeasement to aggression.
It would be a big mistake on the part of the demons in Washington and Tel Aviv to misconstrue Iran's patience and endurance to suffer acts of aggression for weakness. Attacking Iran on a full-scale/scorched-earth basis will wake a sleeping giant. History has taught the Persians, Kurds, and other Iranians to unite and fight foreign aggressors, not back down.
The Zionists, Neocons, and Globalist terrorists who did the 9/11 attacks are dreaming if they think they can overwrite geography and 2,500 years of history. They are not living in reality. Their idea that Iran can be carved up into little pieces and balkanized along ethnic lines to ensure American and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East is sheer lunacy. This criminal project of global conquest by the masters of terror will be resisted to the last breath by the Iranian people and the people of the Muslim world.
The war criminals are not merely playing with fire by provoking and attacking Iran, they are setting off a volcano that has been building up for years and will consume the entire region in flames. The war will only come to an end with the use of American and/or Israeli nuclear bombs on an Iranian city or two.
Rouzbeh Parsi, a Research fellow at the EU Institute for Security Studies in Paris, writes in his article, "The Day After: What Desk Warriors and Arm Chair Revolutionaries Do Not Get":
"In the West, many policy makers answer the somewhat despairing question ‘what to do about Iran’ in terms of the false dichotomy of “war v. sanctions”, without thinking of the mid/long-term consequences. Economic war, in the form of sanctions, may push the Islamic Republic to make some kind of compromise on the nuclear issue. But, with sanctions often easier to implement than remove, the question remains as to whether these compromises would be sufficient for the United States and the EU. With this in mind there is little incentive for Tehran to compromise in the first place. By contrast the sanctions against Iran seem more likely to fit the Iraq scenario. Under this scheme, which involves permanent and crippling sanctions, the consequences to Iranian society will be severe. The sanctions will impoverish the middle and working classes and generally degrade social institutions. As in Iraq, those groups and institutions vital for regime survival will be the least impacted by the sanctions program.The long-term effects of a war against Iran initiated by the U.S, Israel, and the West are hard to predict. When Iran is attacked by the U.S. and Israel, the Iranian people will be handed several options that range from bad to worse. Here are four main options:For armchair revolutionaries, this kind of generalized social despair is desirable in its potential to unleash a popular uprising. These theorists forget, however, that there is little historical evidence supporting this outcome. They have also given little thought to who will lead the country the day after. Iran’s amorphous Green movement survived as long as it did because it did/could not create a hierarchical nation-wide organizational structure. While this may be desirable or unavoidable during the early stages of a revolution in a highly repressive society, establishing an organizational framework is crucial to governing any country, particularly during the chaos of a revolution and the immediate post-conflict phase. As we know, amalgamated opposition groups (whatever their compositions) rarely agree on much other than eliminating the old order. Ancién regimes do not typically leave without a fight and once they have been eliminated, intrigues and competition over resources begin, and the importance of having, and being able to use, an armed force grows. In order to control the state, its monopoly of violence must be re-established, something that itself usually requires the use of some violence. While some of these problems may find organic solutions, placing one’s hope on “things working themselves out” would be reckless to say the least. In Iran, it is difficult to point to a group or leader who can shoulder these burdens, a tall order that is further complicated by the West’s withering sanctions program."
- Fall in line with the regime's ideals, unite the population, and defend the nation from foreign aggression. Once the war starts, the regime will be strengthened. The loyal fighters of the regime will be seen as defenders of the Iranian people and the Iranian nation, not as oppressors, an image which they acquired after the regime's post-election crackdown on Western-engineered dissent in June 2009.
- Coordinate with Western-backed Iranian expatriates and Western spies in the regime to bring down the Mullahs, and transition Iran into a secular, pro-West democracy. I doubt many Iranians will accept this option at the beginning, but war is hell and people will want a way out, so if this option is given enough contemplation, something along this line may happen.
- Declare a revolution against both the Mullahs and the West that is rooted in Iran's ancient culture and rich history. Only through a miracle can this option succeed. The brutal Mullahs and the equally brutal Zionists and Globalists have no sympathy for the masses of men, and will try everything in their power to prevent a true democratic revolution that is neither Islamic nor submissive to U.S.-British interests.
- A new Persian King will rise out of the ashes of this world war, who will unite Iran against both the self-interested Islamic despots and the foreign aggressors. This option is called "abandon ship, but not country." The regime's hardcore Islamic leadership only cares about safeguarding its wealth and power and ensuring its own survival, not about Iran, so they'll lose public support as the war drags on. Public sentiment will aid the rise of a new political force in Iran. In that type of situation, a new King could emerge out of the war in a society that is blessed with ancient fertile social soil and has a long list of grievances against both foreign and domestic tyrants. Such a King must be possessed with dynamic qualities and a clean reputation in order to be able to inspire the Iranian people to rise up against the oppressive Mullahs, Zionist terrorists, and British-American occupiers. But he will also have to promise democracy because the Iranian people will not accept another permanent monarchical regime. Those days are over. After a brief stay in power in which he will restore the country to normalcy and stability, the King must step down. Of course, this King cannot be a descendant of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. He must be a George Washington type figure, or else this option will turn out to be another political disaster for the Iranian people.
