Possible US Strike on Iran?

Since Iran ended a generation of US/UK-installed fascist tyranny in 1979, both wings of US duopoly rule waged dirty war on the country and its people by other means.

They stopped short of attacking Iranian territory militarily.

Will US hardliners reverse this policy ahead? Will they do what no previous regime in Washington did before?

Will they risk embroiling the Middle East in more all-out war than since US and UK forces challenged and defeated Nazi General Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Korps during WW II in the region?

While Iran can’t match the US militarily, it’s strong enough to hit back hard against any attack on its territory, making Washington pay a big price for aggression if launched.

If Iranian oil shipments are blocked, its forces can retaliate by preventing hydrocarbon supplies of other regional countries from getting through the Strait of Hormuz — shutting off their crude to world markets.

According to the petroleum geoscience magazine GEOExPro, oil from Middle East countries is nearly half of proven recoverable crude worldwide — a resource too invaluable to lose even short-term.

When Iran struck the Pentagon’s Ain al-Assad airbase in Iraq — causing significant numbers casualties to US forces and damage — for assassinating its Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani last January, the IRGC said the following:

“We warn the Great Satan, the bloodthirsty and arrogant regime of the US, that any new wicked act or more moves and aggressions (against Iran) will bring about more painful and crushing responses,” adding:

“The brave soldiers of the IRGC Aerospace Force in a successful operation in the name of martyr Gen. Qassem Soleimani… launched tens of surface-to-surface ballistic missiles” on the Ain Al Assad base occupied by the “terrorist and aggressive US army.”

“We are warning all US allies who gave their bases to its terrorist army that any territory that in any way becomes the starting point of hostile and aggressive acts against the Islamic Republic of Iran will be targeted.”

“We in no way consider the Zionist regime (of Israel) to be separated from the criminal US regime in these crimes.”

It would be unwise for the US to ignore Iran’s “harsh revenge” pledge of retaliation against any preemptive Pentagon strikes on its territory.

In response to a dubious NYT report, alleging Trump sought “options” from the Pentagon and advisors about striking Iran’s legitimate nuclear facilities, government spokesman Ali Rabiei said the following:

“Any action against the Iranian nation would certainly face a crushing response.”

US forces and facilities anywhere in the region, along with Israel, would be vulnerable to painful retaliation.

According to the UN Charter and other international law, the right of self-defense is inviolable.

At the same, no nation may legally attack another preemptively for any reason. There are no exceptions to this fundamental law — that’s automatically US law under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

While it’s possible that US forces might attack Iran militarily while Trump is in office or a successor, it’s unlikely based on the historical record over the past 40 years.

Regardless of what the Times claimed in its report — an unreliable source time and again — it’s unknown if Trump actually considered attacking Iran militarily.

He hasn’t done it during nearly four years in office.

Why now with weeks to go in his term? Why change tactics at this time?

Longstanding Iranophobe claims that it’s close to producing nuclear weapons have been debunked time and again by the US intelligence community and nuclear watchdog IAEA.

Iran’s legitimate nuclear program has no military component, no evidence suggesting otherwise.

What Trump may do in a second term if litigation against brazen fraud is successful is an issue for another time.

On January 20, 2021 — two months from now — his current term ends.

Would he really consider embroiling the Middle East in major conflict as his parting shot before returning to civilian life if things turn out this way?

Would he want to be remembered as a US head of state who launched war on a nonbelligerent country threatening no one during his final days in office?

I think not. Make your own judgment.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from InfoBrics


Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research


Articles by: Stephen Lendman

About the author:

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]