T Nation

Is Another 9/11 In the Works?


#1

Is Another 911 In The Works?

By Paul Craig Roberts
3-16-2006

If you were President George W. Bush with all available US troops tied down by the Iraqi resistance, and you were unable to control Iraq or political developments in the country, would you also start a war with Iran?

Yes, you would.

Bush's determination to spread Middle East conflict by striking at Iran does not make sense.

First of all, Bush lacks the troops to do the job. If the US military cannot successfully occupy Iraq, there is no way that the US can occupy Iran, a country approximately three times the size in area and population.

Second, Iran can respond to a conventional air attack with missiles targeted on American ships and bases, and on oil facilities located throughout the Middle East.

Third, Iran has human assets, including the Shi'ite majority population in Iraq, that it can activate to cause chaos throughout the Middle East.

Fourth, polls of US troops in Iraq indicate that a vast majority do not believe in their mission and wish to be withdrawn. Unlike the yellow ribbon folks at home, the troops are unlikely to be enthusiastic about being trapped in an Iranian quagmire in addition to the Iraqi quagmire.

Fifth, Bush's polls are down to 34 percent, with a majority of Americans believing that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

If you were being whipped in one fight, would you start a second fight with a bigger and stronger person?

That's what Bush is doing.

Opinion polls indicate that the Bush regime has succeeded in its plan to make Americans fear Iran as the greatest threat America faces.

The Bush regime has created a major dispute with Iran over that country's nuclear energy program and then blocked every effort to bring the dispute to a peaceful end.

In order to gain a pretext for attacking Iran, the Bush regime is using bribery and coercion in its effort to have Iran referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions.

In recent statements President Bush and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld blamed Iran for the Iraqi resistance, claiming that the roadside bombs used by the resistance are being supplied by Iran.

It is obvious that Bush intends to attack Iran and that he will use every means to bring war about.

Yet, Bush has no conventional means of waging war with Iran. His bloodthirsty neoconservatives have prepared plans for nuking Iran. However, an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran would leave the US, already regarded as a pariah nation, totally isolated.

Readers, whose thinking runs ahead of that of most of us, tell me that another 9/11 event will prepare the ground for a nuclear attack on Iran. Some readers say that Bush, or Israel as in Israel's highly provocative attack on the Jericho jail and kidnapping of prisoners with American complicity, will provoke a second attack on the US. Others say that Bush or the neoconservatives working with some "black ops" group will orchestrate the attack.

One of the more extraordinary suggestions is that a low yield, perhaps tactical, nuclear weapon will be exploded some distance out from a US port. Death and destruction will be minimized, but fear and hysteria will be maximized. Americans will be told that the ship bearing the weapon was discovered and intercepted just in time, thanks to Bush's illegal spying program, and that Iran is to blame. A more powerful wave of fear and outrage will again bind the American people to Bush, and the US media will not report the rest of the world's doubts of the explanation.

Reads like a Michael Crichton plot, doesn't it?

Fantasy? Let's hope so.


#2

Lucky for me, I distrusted Iran before the current issue came to a head.


#3

Whenever Bush's poll numbers were low, they used to declare Code Orange terror alert.

Unfortunately for the Bushistas, Dear Leader has jumped the shark as far as credibility on terrorism. According to polls, more Americans currently think the Dems are better on fighting teror than the GOP.

It's probably because "incompetent" is the number one most popular word that most people used when describing President Bush (according to a different, recent poll).

Raising the terror alert, or (god forbid) another terror attack on American soil would only drive the president's poll numbers lower. The public already thinks Bush is incompetent, so raising the fear level won't help him in the polls. And yet another attack like 9-11 happening on Bush's watch would only drive his popularity into to single digits.


#4

I hear another 9/11 will occur between September 10th and September 12th.


#5

The most important point you are missing is that the people of Iran are oppressed by a totalitarian regime. They will great US troops as liberators and shower them with rose petals while dancing in the streets.

Not only that, but Iranian oil will more than cover the cost of the invasion and occupation. A minimal number of troops will be needed, because security and stability after the Iranian regime is toppled are not an issue at all.

It'll be a cake walk, really. Iraq was just a dry run.


#6

It will be 911 times a thousand.


#7

911,000?


#8

the Iranian citizens are probably baking cakes right now to hand out to the U.S. troops when they come to town...


#9

Who the hell is Paul Craig Roberts and why did someone leave his cage door unlocked?


#10

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, and a prolific and popular journalist.


#11

sarcastic but a good one.


#12

Yes, but what is his MAX BENCH?


#13

He writes for the Independent Institute which is essentially a libertarian thinktank. I think he is spot-on with his article about Iran. He is one of the few voices of the anti-war side that actually gets heard.


#14

You're wrong, it has to happen before the end of the month, according to the imminently correct jlesk and his impeccable sources. I guess we should mark both months on our calendars.

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=918795


#15

I think he does 95 lbs raw, but he's hoping to get a shirt and hit 405 at a meet...


#16

60 minutes had a story last weekend about NYC having their own terrorist task force made up of ex cia etc. They have prevented a couple attacks already,and said they felt they needed their own force even though its expensive,they didnt feel homeland security or federal could do the job because of ego;\'s red tape etc.and they would have been bombed if they didnt protect theirselves.WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT HOMELAND SECURITY!!!


#17

Local people are always going to be more aware of their situation than the feds?

People shouldn't rely on the fed to take care of everything?


#18

What it says Doog is all the crap we have been handed the last few yrs.out of Washington is BULLSHIT!!!


#19

Homeland security funding is being doled out equally to all states, like Wyoming where there is no credible threat. Republican congress is passing out terrorism funding like it's pork. Many states turn around and use that money for unrelated spending (to make up state budget shortfalls because of cuts in federal funding).

4 years after 9-11 America is more aware but only marginally more prepared to respond to another attack. The bi-partisan 911 commission gave Bush failing grades on implementing their recommendations. You can see how unprepared we are, by the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, which we knew was coming ahead of time. A surprise attack would be even worse.


#20

The good thing about saying that attacks were prevented is that you don't have to prove it.