Back in September 2007 I wrote an article for Antiwar.com called “What World War III May Look Like.” The article, which presumed that an incident involving U.S. troops on the border between Iraq and Iran could easily escalate into what would eventually become a global conflict, was widely replayed in the alternative media and even in the mainstream. Well, I am pleased to report that no such war has yet started, though there has been a disturbing expansion of U.S. military activity through the deployment of drones to hit targets in assorted countries without having to worry about American casualties or niceties like declarations of war. Other geopolitical elements that figured in my 2007 analysis have also changed, so I believe that the time has come for an update.
Iran is clearly the target of choice, just as it was in 2007. Despite President Barack Obama’s assertion that he would open up avenues to talk to the Iranians, he has failed to do so, he has rejected Iranian initiatives to start a dialogue, and he is showing every sign of unwillingness to negotiate on any level. Congress has even moved to block any contact between American and Iranian diplomats. The sanctions that recently took effect against the Iranian banking system can be construed as an act of war, particularly as Iran has not provided any casus belli. Further sanctions that will restrict energy imports are impending and will bring the country’s economy to a halt. There are already signs that the Iranian government feels itself compelled to demonstrate to its people that it is doing something about the situation. That “something” might well be a confrontation with the U.S. Navy that will have unfortunate results. In light of all that, it might be useful to imagine just how war with Iran could play out if the Iranians don’t roll over and surrender at the first whiff of grapeshot.
It might start with a minor incident, possibly involving an Iranian armed small craft manned by the Revolutionary Guard. Though the Strait of Hormuz is generally considered an international waterway, the Iranians claim that half of the strait is within their territorial waters. Tehran, in response to intensified sanctions, declares that it can determine who can use the strait and says that it will take steps to keep American warships from entering. The frigate USS Ingraham, patrolling off of Bushehr, is confronted by the small craft and ordered to heave to, an order it rejects. The Iranian commander, ignoring instructions to back off when confronted directly by the U.S. Navy, opens fire with rocket-propelled grenades. The frigate’s Phalanx rapid-fire battery immediately responds by blasting the Iranian boat, killing the entire Revolutionary Guard crew, but two American sailors are also killed in the exchange and four are wounded.
Fighters from the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis are immediately launched under standing orders, and they devastate the naval base that the Iranian boat departed from. President Obama holds a press conference and calls the incident an act of war and vows to do everything necessary to support U.S. forces in the region, but he stops short of a commitment to stage a full-scale attack on Iran. A hastily called meeting of the U.N. Security Council results in a 17–1 vote urging the United States to exercise restraint, with only Washington voting “no.” In the General Assembly, only the United States, Israel, Micronesia, and Costa Rica support possible military action.
The United States is effectively alone, but Israel takes advantage of the growing war fervor in the United States to launch an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities. The recently completed nuclear reactor at Bushehr is destroyed, killing 13 Russian technicians working on the site, and the aboveground buildings at the Natanz nuclear research facility are leveled. Russian-supplied Iranian air defenses shoot down six Israeli aircraft. Washington receives no prior warning of the Israeli attack, though it does pick up the signal traffic that precedes it and knows something is coming. It makes no effort to stop the Israelis as they fly over undefended Iraqi airspace.
Congress and the media rally behind the Israelis and demand war. A bill in the House of Representatives calling on the White House to take military action in support of Israel passes 431–4. A similar bill in the Senate receives only two nays. President Obama hesitates but then approves a limited offensive, directed against Iran’s military, its nuclear sites, and, most particularly, its Revolutionary Guard installations. In the first few days, overwhelming American air and naval superiority destroys Iran’s principal air, naval, and army bases. Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities are obliterated, as are the known Iranian nuclear research and development sites. The limited offensive soon becomes anything but that, with strategic bombers dropping 30,000-pound Big BLU bunker-buster bombs to strike underground labs and processing centers. Population centers are avoided, though smart weapons are used to destroy communications centers and command and control facilities. There are nevertheless large numbers of civilian casualties as many of the targeted nuclear sites are close to or within cities and large towns. Infrastructure is also hit, particularly bridges, roads, and power-generation stations close to known nuclear research centers and military sites.
There is a pause in the attacks, and Iran strikes back. With nearly 10 years to prepare, Tehran has successfully hidden and hardened many of its military and nuclear facilities, a large percentage of which are undamaged. The aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis operating in the Gulf of Oman is hit by a lucky strike by a Chinese Silkworm cruise missile that comes in low and successfully evades countermeasures. The Stennis retires to port in Bahrain. Three other support vessels are also hit and severely damaged when they are attacked by waves of small craft manned by suicidal Revolutionary Guards, not unlike the kamikaze attacks in the Second World War. The Iranian attackers are annihilated, but the Pentagon refuses to say how many American sailors have been killed in the exchange.
Pro-Iranian riots break out in Beirut. In the south of Lebanon, Hezbollah fires salvos of rockets into Israel, striking Tel Aviv and killing several hundred Israelis. Israel responds by bombing Lebanon and Syria, which it blames for supporting the attacks. Upgraded Iranian Shahab-3 missiles also strike Israel, killing more civilians. The Israeli Defense Forces are fully mobilized, and troops are sent to the northern border. Syria and Lebanon also mobilize their forces. Rioters in Baghdad attack the American embassy, which demands that the Iraqi government “do something” to protect it, but Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shrugs and says that the situation is out of his control. Large public demonstrations demand that Iraq support Iran in a fraternal struggle against the United States.
Shi’ites sympathetic to Iran sabotage Saudi Arabian eastern oil fields. Hundreds of alleged saboteurs are shot dead by Saudi security forces. An oil tanker out of Kuwait is hit by a Silkworm and runs aground to keep from sinking. Another hits a mine. Insurers at Lloyd’s of London refuse to cover any tankers transiting the Persian Gulf, claiming that damage incurred during a state of war is not covered by the policies. Oil shipments from the region, one quarter of the world’s supply, stop completely, and oil goes up to $300 a barrel. Wall Street suffers its biggest loss in 20 years, with the Dow Jones index plummeting more than 900 points.
The United States offers Iran a cease-fire, which Tehran rejects. Two days later, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan is assassinated by a Shi’ite bodyguard under orders from Tehran. Pakistan declares that it is neutral in the conflict and orders the U.S. embassy to reduce its staff by 50%, including the CIA station chief and his deputy. Order breaks down in both countries, and the Pakistani army declares a state of emergency, closing the border with Afghanistan. NATO calls an emergency meeting and decides to begin the evacuation by air of the multinational force trapped in Afghanistan, leaving many weapons and heavy equipment behind.
In the power vacuum, NATO troops withdraw to their bases while Taliban-backed militias take over much of Kabul and Kandahar. Afghanistan’s Mazar-i-Sharif, which is largely Shi’ite, declares itself a part of Iran. The government resigns in Beirut, and Hezbollah forms a new one. A salvo of Iranian Silkworm missiles sets the Saudi Arabian eastern oil fields ablaze. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates send an urgent diplomatic message to Tehran declaring that they will be “neutral” in the fighting and will not assist the United States in any way. Kuwait sends the same message, while Egyptian volunteers gather along the border with Israel in Sinai, demanding that Cairo take steps in support of their Arab brothers in Lebanon. Kuwait refuses to allow the United States to use its men and supplies at Camp Doha against Iran. In Bahrain, rampaging Shi’ite crowds depose Sheikh Khalifa al-Khalifa and set up an Islamic Republic, forcing the U.S. Fifth Fleet to abandon its only secure base in the region. The Dow Jones index loses another 1,000 points.
The United States attempts to get China and Russia to mediate with Iran to end the fighting, but they refuse to do Washington any favors, noting that they had opposed the attack in the first place and also citing their countrymen killed in the U.S. attacks. Suicide bombers attack in London, Washington, New York, and Los Angeles. The attacks are poorly planned and inflict only a few casualties, but panic sets in and the public demands that the respective governments do something. The United States tells the Iranian government that unless resistance ceases, nuclear weapons will be used on select targets. India and Pakistan are alarmed by the U.S. threat and put their own nuclear forces on high alert, as does Israel. Russia and China also increase their readiness levels to respond to the crisis.
Iran refuses to concede defeat, and the Iranian people rally around the government. The U.S. public is clamoring for action. Oil prices continue to surge, and the long-term viability of petroleum supplies is in question as the Strait of Hormuz continues to be closed. Another U.S. ship is badly damaged by suicide attackers in the Persian Gulf. American embassies throughout the region are attacked. Anti-American rioting takes place in Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Mindanao, and in Dhaka. The United States consulate general in Karachi, Pakistan, is sacked and burned. Forty Americans die along with scores of Pakistanis when the Marine guards open fire.
There are frequent terrorism scares in a number of American cities, which are under red-alert security lockdown, though there are no new attacks. Domestic air travel declines by more than 50%. As a preventive measure, there are mass arrests of American Muslim leaders. Some antiwar activists are detained at military prisons, including Guantanamo, under the provisions of the Military Commissions Act and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. Israel continues to be bombarded from inside Lebanon. Its air attacks inflict massive damage on civilians but are unsuccessful in stopping the rockets. Its government falls and is replaced by a hard-right regime headed by former Foreign Secretary Avigdor Lieberman. Rioting rocks the West Bank and Gaza, forcing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to resign and flee to Paris. Hamas forms a provisional government. India threatens to attack Pakistan if there is any question about the security of Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal.
The United States uses a neutron-type bomb against the main Iranian nuclear research center at Natanz, which both Washington and Israel had already bombed conventionally and destroyed. It vows to bomb again if Iran continues to resist. Iran is defiant and fires another wave of Silkworms at U.S. ships, hitting one. Russia and China place their nuclear forces on high alert. Pakistani militants assume control of the government, aided by radical elements in the army and the intelligence service. India launches a preemptive strike against the main Pakistani nuclear centers at Wah and Multan, where the country’s arsenal is believed to be concentrated. Pakistan has some of its nukes moving around on trucks to avoid such a scenario, however, and is able to strike back by bombing New Delhi.
A minor engagement between American and Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf has ignited World War III.
Read more by Philip Giraldi
- The New World Order is Unimpeachable – May 22nd, 2013
- Boston Becomes Toxic – May 15th, 2013
- Gatekeeping for Zion – May 9th, 2013
- Kristol Clear – May 1st, 2013
- What Has Bibi Been Doing? – April 24th, 2013





RickR30
January 11th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Chilling account of what we have to look forward to.
But what would Turkey do?
"The United States attempts to get China and Russia to mediate with Iran to end the fighting" not so sure about that. Why would the US want the fighting to end? At best, Europe would try to get Russia and China to mediate.
I think if bibiaviehud and the legion of neocon zombies were to read this article they'd all engage in simultaneous Viagra-mediated self-molestation. This is the stuff their dreams are made of.
Talha
January 11th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
May God help us all…an according to this scenario, the US would be the only country to use (twice) the worst weapon imaginable on a country incapable of responding in kind. The fact that this is an imaginable scenario does not speak well for us.
ToivoS
January 11th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
I do love Giraldi. He seeks to go where others avoid. Even if this is an improbable scenario, it is not that improbable that something like might happen (game theory question: what if it might have a 10% chance of occurring?). In my worst case scenarios the situation of the 5th Fleet could even be worse. The Russians have been supplying ram-jet anti-ship cruise missiles to Iran for the last ten years (look up sunburn-22 and onyx) that may very well have the ability to sink any US warship including an aircraft carrier inside the Gulf. If so (who knows how effective these weapons might be in a real war) the escalation envisioned here by Giraldi could go critical much fast than even he has suggested.
David Grayling
January 11th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
The U.S. is an immoral, fascist nation, one that has no place among civilized nations. It should be BDS'd out of existence, isolated, condemned, blacklisted.
Along with its little mate, Israel, it has been leading the world on an imperial dance since Vietnam. It's time for the dance to stop, time for it to get its just deserts. It has killed millions. Now it must pay the price!
P.S. EVERY COMMENT I HAVE MADE HAS BEEN MODERATED. WHY?
David Grayling
January 11th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Hooray! One comment actually went through. Three didn't! What's going on Anti-War? Are you misnamed?
Garyp
January 11th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
A good analysis Giraldi but you seem over-optimistic about the minor loss on US side.
Do you remember the Exorcet missiles in the Malvinas (falklands) war? Iran has Russian Sunburn supersonic missiles, which is yet more sofisticated than the Silkworms. The western "powers" lacks any type of protection against it and fortunately (for the non-anglo-american world) "stennis" along with a bunch of the sitting duck vessels inside the gulf will indeed sink . i also believe that Iran will take out the trapped ocupation forces in Afghanistan at an earlier stage. Either the US will then nuke the most of Iran or loose the war appetite entirely. The latter seems more obvious…
Dr.Khan
January 11th, 2012 at 11:11 pm
At some point in the near future even a half brainy willl be able to skatch such scenerio as by all illigical logics we are moving towards that self-destruction.Therfore it doesn't require a rocket scientist to figure out what you have posted here.Anyway we wish leave mother earth a peaceful place to let live our coming generation,and let them decide what they want to do with it.
WhichWaldenPond
January 12th, 2012 at 12:03 am
This narrative of war omits the consequences of bombing nuclear reactors and nuclear refineries. Namely, tons and tons of radioactive materials cast into the atmosphere. The Bushehr reactor reportedly has 80 tons of enriched uranium fuel in it. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that the bombing of the Natanz refinery near Isfahan will irradiate and kill 5 million Iranians in the vicinity, and then blow on to our troops and allies in Afghanistan, and then on to Pakistan, India, and on around the world to California. And why write that it is only "by luck" that a Silkworm anti-ship missile hits a US ship? That is what they are designed to do. Also, omitted is the fact that the oil infrastructure of the Persian Gulf region (pipelines, storage tanks, loading terminals, etc.) are all fixed targets that would be the targets of retaliation. The jump in oil prices will not be a "spike" but will be permanent considering the destruction of the infrastructure and considering the radioactive contamination of the region. In other words, Americans will not be driving cars any more, nor getting food and other necessary stuff trucked around. A war on Iran will quickly turn to riots in the USA. A war on Iran is a form of national suicide for the USA. Mitt Romney wants such a war, and Obama cannot say "no" to war. Ron Paul is the only sane voice on this topic. Donate your time and money to getting Ron Paul elected.
ahmadi
January 12th, 2012 at 12:17 am
You are obviously underrating the capability of the Iranians to destroy firstly, your satellites and secondly, to launch an electro-magnetic pulse against Israel. This would be done very early together with closing the Straits. Your analysis is a slow build-up. Given the number of provocations against Iran, which already constitute a declaration of war, I think Iran's response would be TOTAL war It always amazes me though how analysts in the West never envisgage the use of suit-case chemical weapons in their societies at the first onset of hostilities. Anyhow your analysis is that of a white viewing others as possessing inferior military forces and strategy. That attitude will be part of your defeat.
baz
January 12th, 2012 at 12:35 am
Phil,
If i may be allowed to interject here very briefly and casually because Antiwar most likely would not bother posting my comments as a dedicated article if i were to write one
1) While some may saw we have been at war with Iran since 1953 or 1979, I say we should at 2003 to that list. The real objective of invading a helpless Iraq was to flood the world with its oil and bankrupt Iran. When that failed, we had to resort to plan B, the imaginary nuclear program. I am sure you know that even in 2003 while the bombs were dropping in Iraq, the neocons were more busy talking about Iran and how Iran was the real prize
2) The sanctions on the central bank are important for 2 reasons. 1) I know for a fact that the neocons had been pushing for sanctions that would prohibit iran from buying gasoline from india, rice from thailand and wheat from australia….but these sanctions would not have been acceptable to the american public given their draconian nature….however, sanctions on the central bank of Iran would be far more palatable politically since nobody would understand what they really are…the average american does not understand what a central bank is let alone what its function is. Well, Sanctions on any countries central bank, is basically a lump sum sanction of every imported basic good and service lumped into one mega sanction. As the key payment system for international trade, sanctions on Irans central bank would mean that the country would be barred from buying anything in the international markets including gas, rice and wheat!! unless they were to pay in gold. Can you imagine! Also. the timing of these sanctions is not coincidental. We are trying to starve the Iranian people into submission just prior to the parliamentary elections in march, with the hope that they will demonstrate with greater ferocity against the regime than in 2009
3) The US and Israel are trying to provoke iran into doing something stupid so they can justify an attack. This WILL NOT HAPPEN. I guarantee it. The Iranians will not get frustrated. I have put the scenarios through a game theory test and in no case does Iran initiate hostilities….In fact, even if Israel attacked Irans nuke sites, but only inflicted moderate damage, Iran would not fire a shot back.
the game changes if either Israel or the US initiate conflict and hit either population centers or Irans oil facilities. In that case, Iran would fire back with all its might, knowing that its capacity to respond militarily would be limited to maybe 10 days. In this case they would likely ignore Israel at first and concentrate their fire power on Saudi oil stabilization plants like ab-qaeq or their loading facility at ras tanur. If they successfully hit either of these two facilities, Saudis oil production would fall from 12mbd to 4!!!!. Thats 8 less from Saudi plus another 3 that Iran would obviously lose itself plus maybe another 1 they could potentially shut in basra…Thats a full 12 million barrels a day off the market for at least 6 months….you dont need to be an oil trader to know that brent would rise to over 300 dollars a barrel in such a situation. Global depression would ensue. Also…have you seen goldfinger? Personally, i dont believe Iran would do this but they could quickly build a dirty bomb and use those to hit saudi wells….6 months would then turn to 600 years
one question nobody ask about all this is a simple WHY? Iran is no threat to the US nor an "existential" threat to Israel as the media would have us believe. so the question remains…WHY?
baz
January 12th, 2012 at 12:41 am
if we make war on iran, russia will take over saudis role as the world only swing producer…..they will buy new york state after. …maybe florida too
baz
January 12th, 2012 at 1:08 am
All this is just one more reason to go out and vote for RON PAUL!!
notinmyname
January 12th, 2012 at 2:36 am
It might be the chosen ones are trying to destroy the goyim.
Will there be a World War 3? Philip Giraldi wonders… « Indian Traditionalist
January 12th, 2012 at 2:45 am
[...] Article Link [...]
von Salza
January 12th, 2012 at 2:48 am
Who will be the four American representatives that say "no" to war with Iran?
And who will be the two senators?
Michael
January 12th, 2012 at 3:21 am
Wars are rarely started, if ever, by people who are convinced they will lose, or that the costs, if things go drastically wrong, will far, far, outweigh the benefits.
There are multiple "good" reasons for attacking Iran. Rolling back the tide of Islam, crushing the last bastion of resistance to Israel in the region, gaining effective control of the Middle East's oil and gas reserves, sending a cystal clear message to both Russia and China by destroying their ally, isolating Pakistan even further, moving even closer to the Asian heartland and its vast resources, preparing the ground for a future conflict with China…
Empire's and their legions, (and it's usually the legions that eventually form the core of the empire, even when their are clear signs of both economic and cultural decline) are either expanding, moving forward, or contracting, being forced to retreat. I don't believe there's a middle way. Also empires never merely choose to exit the stage of world history gracefully and peacefully. The last thing they do is accept their decline, on the contrary, their ruling elites begin to actually believe their own mythology and often launch themselves into symbolic wars that are far from necessary.
The relationship between the US and China reminds me of the conflict between the UK and the rising power of Germany, let's hope we don't go down that particular road to hell.
Michael
January 12th, 2012 at 3:41 am
I'm convinced that Iran is going to be attacked either by the US or Israel, the question is when and how, and what "excuse", if any, will be trotted out to "justify" the war in the eyes of world and US domestic opinion.
Indeed, one could argue that the war has already started using terrorist bombings and assassinations as a first step. It's possible to see the Iraq/Iran war as the US using Iraq as a proxy in a reckless attempt to strangle the "Islamic Revolution" from the beginning. That war failed miserably, but probably delayed the spread of radical Islam and severely weakened Iran, so maybe it was worth it, and it had the advantage of weakening Iraq in the process, if it ever became opportune to invade Iraq.
The Big Question is, how will Iran react to being attacked? Will it just roll with the punches and survive with the Islamic regime strengthened over the long term, or will it see a US attack as an attempt to topple the regime and therefore it'll become a life and death struggle where the Iranians retaliate.
In theory the Iranians could inflict serious losses on the American forces in the gulf and US interests in the region, but would they dare fight back, knowing that the US might resort to the use of nuclear weapons if US loses were unacceptable. How does one judge these things? There seems to be a lot of room for miscalculation here and things rapidly getting out of control, which seems to characterize warfare, doesn't it? Once the killing and destruction starts logic and calculation seems to fly out the window and raw emotions take over, which can lead anywhere.
The danger is that the Americans seem to have calculated that the Iranians will take the punches and not fight back and land punches of their own. Iran will be taught a lesson and that will be that. The regime will be weakened and maybe even toppled when it's clear that they cannot defend Iran's sovereignty and that their confrontation policy with the West is counter-productive. But this is a big gamble on the part of the Americans, which could go drastically wrong, leading to something close to WW3 as outlined by Giraldi.
The Big Question
sherban
January 12th, 2012 at 4:35 am
At least to understand what is the stake ,for what to risk the whole world?Israel and her fear of Iranian "threat"is a lie.Even almost half of Israeli are against an attack on Iran.Some important people from Israeli elite spoke openly against war:Dagan,the former Mossad chief,Prato,the actual Mossad chief.What Giraldi forgot is the reaction of Israeli people when a war begin:they will leave in mass Israel for ever.What happened in 1990 while the first Golf war had broken(when thousands of Israeli people left the country) is nothing compared with what will be now.So,i ask myself:who is so imbeciles to want the war with so determination,what these rascals see to obtain with the war?They know that all is their invention,so why to do it?
Smithboy
January 12th, 2012 at 4:56 am
And all of this because one shitty little country by the name of Israel has a paranoid personality and a stranglehold on US politicians. Such a shame.
What compounds the military war is the what happens here at home when our fragile economy goes into depression mode. With the recent lack of interest in our loss of civil liberties, I fear for our democracy.
Michael
January 12th, 2012 at 5:03 am
Put bluntly, the benefit to the West of destroying Iran as an independent nation, as with Libya, far outweighs the costs and the risks involved. After all it will be the Iranian people who will pay the highest price in the conflict. Iran cannot attack the US mainlained or destroy US cities. Seen from the perspective of the US leadership, a few thousand dead servicemen, is a small price to pay for toppling the regime in Iran.
But, it's so easy to miscalculate in warfare when peoples emotions are involved, once the bombs are dropping and the corpses pile up. Things can rapidly escalate out of control. How much retaliation from Iran's side will the US accept, not to mention Israel, before they launch an even more devastating onslaught with tense of thousands of civilian casualities to follow?
Does Iran defend itself with everything it's got and risk being "wiped off the map", or does it restrain itself, accept its "punishment", learn its lesson, bow its head like a good slave – and survive? Is Iran's national pride worth the risk of being destroyed like Iraq and Afghanistan?
And what about China and Russia? Do they just sit back and watch the Americans crush yet another "ally" and move even closer to their borders and undermine their interests, or do they react in some way?
popsiq
January 12th, 2012 at 5:31 am
As plausible a scenario as the 'wag the dog' jingoistic pap Americans feed on every day.
Do you not think that terrorists inside America haven't realized that an envelope full of white power has more prctical effect and costs far less than knocking down a building? I think you'll see domestic terrorists attack the power grid and water resources and use threats of disease to disorganize security.
liveload
January 12th, 2012 at 5:51 am
I laughed at this line, "Population centers are avoided, though smart weapons are used to destroy communications centers and command and control facilities." This is complete bullsh-t. They will fully target population centers, just like they did in Iraq.
" On 12 February, the Pentagon announced that "Virtually
everything militarily … is either destroyed or combat
ineffective." Washington Post, 13 February 1991, p. 22, citing Rear Admiral
Mike McConnell, intelligence director for the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
Yet the next day there was a deliberate
bombardment of a civilian air raid shelter that took the lives of
as many as 1,500 civilians, a great number of them women and
children; this was followed by significant bombardment of various
parts of Iraq on a daily basis for the remaining two weeks of the
war, including what was reported for the 18th in The Guardian of
London as "one of [the coalition's] most ferocious attacks on the
centre of Baghdad." The Guardian (London), 20 February 1991, p. 1, entitled:
"Bombs rock capital as allies deliver terrible warning"
What was the purpose of the bombing
campaign after the 12th?
The United States said it thought that the shelter was for
VIPs, which it had been at one time, and claimed that it was also
being used as a military communications center, but neighborhood
residents insisted that the constant aerial surveillance overhead
had to observe the daily flow of women and children into the
shelter. Western reporters said they could find no signs of
military use.
An American journalist in Jordan who viewed unedited
videotape footage of the disaster, which the American public
never saw, wrote:
They showed scenes of incredible carnage. Nearly all the
bodies were charred into blackness; in some cases the heat
had been so great that entire limbs were burned off. …
Rescue workers collapsed in grief, dropping corpses; some
rescuers vomited from the stench of the still-smoldering
bodies: Laurie Garrett (medical writer for Newsday), "The Dead",
Columbia Journalism Review (New York), May/June 1991, p. 32.
Said White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater after the
bombing of the shelter: It was "a military target … We don't
know why civilians were at this location, but we do know that
Saddam Hussein does not share our value in the sanctity of
life.""
So yeah, they're gonna slaughter Iranians by the millions without batting an eye. Civilians will be deliberately targeted just as they always have been.
richard vajs
January 12th, 2012 at 6:10 am
From my experience working with radars and counter-measures, the US Navy long ago concluded that surface ships are indefensible against modern anti-ship missiles. These things skip across the surface of the water evading radar, then go nearly straight up , and then come straight down onto the target. When it is coming down on your head, how do you shoot it down? The Iranians have these missiles, Iraq didn't. It would be suicide to send surface ships into Iranian waters.
kelley
January 12th, 2012 at 6:23 am
Sanctions, smanctions, we saw how well they did in iraq
Imagine if McCain had won in 2008 — your WWII scenario might not have been far off! thanks for the insights, Phil, as usual. but i hope you are wrong
henry
January 12th, 2012 at 7:54 am
I call this article very accurate, except it's missing an important part; where do you think all those nuclear war heads are after the soviet collapse?…………
James
January 12th, 2012 at 8:03 am
Hormuz Straitjacket: US-Iranian standoff – on the brink of WW3 for Israel?!
http://tinyurl.com/onthebrinkofworldwar
Iran nuclear sites may be beyond reach of “bunker busters” – Reuters | smart blogger master
January 12th, 2012 at 8:04 am
[...] the brainsYnetnewsWhat War With Iran Might Look LikeAntiwar.comCommentaryall 4,181 news [...]
RickR30
January 12th, 2012 at 8:05 am
Why, that is the question. What do you think?
Perhaps, israel's leaders, are the real suicidal ones, and not the Iranians.
Strider55
January 12th, 2012 at 8:05 am
According to Wikipedia, the Persian Gulf has an average depth of only 50m (~160') and maximum depth of 90m (~300'). If Iran can sink one of those big warships in a shallow area near the Strait of Hormuz, they could conceivably block the entire Gulf for months. The same thing would have happened at Pearl Harbor had the USS Nevada not been able to beach itself. The Gulf's shallowness also makes it impossible for submarines to function safely.
James
January 12th, 2012 at 8:05 am
Scary thing is that McCain might just be appointed by Romney as his Secretary of Defense (scroll to article at following URL) which makes it more important to support Ron Paul to the hilt:
Romney Embraces the Neocon Israel firsters and their war for Israel agenda against Iran:
http://tinyurl.com/romneyembracesneocons
What War With Iran Might Look Like
January 12th, 2012 at 8:11 am
[...] http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/01/11/what-war-with-iran-might-look-like/ [...]
Jaime
January 12th, 2012 at 8:18 am
Turkey is a riddle. Its government is probably going to play safe and do nothing seein where the current blows, but the people at large may change these plans because they will press the governement to do something in favor of their Muslim brethren.
Jaime
January 12th, 2012 at 8:25 am
Having used it twice before (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), I am sure the US will have fewer qualms to "drop" them again. Likewise for Israel. That's why it's essential for Iran to have a nuclear weapon (or more) because it's the only way to disuade both the US and Israel from nuking it. If Iran threatens to annihilate the US army in Afghanistan, Washington will think twice before resorting to its atomic shit.
Jaime
January 12th, 2012 at 8:43 am
Unfortunately a sane person like Ron Paul doesn't seem to have a large following in his country. Considering all the blunders the US has made, Dr. Paul should lead in all the surveys and he should have gone through both Iowa and New Hampshire like a breeze. That this is not happening may mean two things: either the US public is so deeply brainwashed in their belief that they are always the good guy (exceptionalism) and everything the US does is good and holy, or Americans are such bloody-minded people that they really love war and beat others. Of course, a third alternative is also possible: Americans are brainwashed and inherently aggressive.
Michael
January 12th, 2012 at 9:15 am
My cynical, though realistic "take", is that Obama was chosen by the ruling party in the United States, which crosses party lines on most important subjects connected with domestic and foreign policy, precisely because one needed a radically different face after Bush, and Obama was certainly that, if nothing else.
Put very crudely, Obama stood a far better chance of "getting away" with attacking Iran than another, rich, dumb, unattractive, inarticulate, white guy… leading the Republicans and America off to war again. So a old, grey-haired, aristocratic, Caesar, was replaced by someone who appeared on the surface to be his exact opposite, and that opposite face was tragically confused with opposite policies. But whilst the face on the imperial coins may change, as in anciet Rome, the interests of the empire and how they are protected and projected, remain remarkably similar, with an extraordinary degree of continuity.
Stopping an attack on Iran is going to be extremely difficult, because there is almost total support in the legislature and among all the leading Republicans and Democrats. The War Party has a massive and overwhelming majority, with literally only a tiny handful sceptical or in opposition, and this in a situation where the American people are truly sick and tired of war, hence the widespread support for Ron Paul, who isn't perfect, but seems sincere about avoiding more incredibly expensive and destructive wars, that are totally unecessary, unless one really is only interested in making sure China doesn't gain access to Iran's energy reserves.
Duglarri
January 12th, 2012 at 9:40 am
The one grim element missing from this already grim enough scenario: the second the attention of the world is drawn away, that new Israeli government you envision would set about driving the Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Jordan with artillery fire, as Martin Creveld, the Israeli military analyst, only partly tongue in cheek, suggested some years ago. They'd probably do the same thing to Gaza, and to Israeli Arabs as well.
An Israel emptied of Arabs, from their point of view, would at least mean that having started World War 3, at least one country involved would achieve it's main objective for the conflict.
That is, of course, unless a nuclear power decided it could spare a nuke or two to lob in Israel's direction, and turned the country to glass.
FBastiat
January 12th, 2012 at 9:41 am
Dueling Defense Charts: Cato Wins; Heritage Loses
dave742
January 12th, 2012 at 10:02 am
//Are you misnamed?//
Yes, they are:
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/01/08/antiwa…
dave742
January 12th, 2012 at 10:21 am
//WHY?//
Maybe any comment that contains the word "Israel" gets moderated and/or deleted. Try using a nickname like "anti-assimilation land"
baz
January 12th, 2012 at 10:37 am
I think that after the 2006 war, Israel and the US both learned that Iran is far too dangerous a country to leave intact. Even with a friendly, puppet regime. Their objective since the lebanon war has been regime destruction….destroy Iran as a modern nation state and turn it into a loose federation, not unlike what is happening in Iraq right now…
Why? Israel has always hated Iran. Israeli leaders since the 60's has always said they will not allow Iran to Industrialize otherwise Iran would become so rich and influential that 1) The US would dump Israel and reconcile with Iran. 2) Irans international influence would spell doom for Israels racist dreams of a purified jewish state built on stolen palestinian land. THAT IS YOUR EXISTENTIAL THREAT!. Not some imaginary nuclear bombs!
Jaime
January 12th, 2012 at 10:38 am
It's the money…
baz
January 12th, 2012 at 10:39 am
Iran will not be attacked before March elections. The US is focusing on sanctions and economic war to starve the iranian people into a revolution. If their is civil unrest in april, they will continue with the economic war. If there is no effect and the Iranians go about their daily lives, then we need to start factoring in the probability of more dangerous tactics by the US and Israel
Dan
January 12th, 2012 at 10:49 am
Michael, you're wrong about Iran being unable to attack American cities, although the effect will be indirect. If Iran succeeds in closing the strait and annihilating Saudi oilfields, pipelines, and terminals, the economy of our country will implode with $300/bbl oil (a given). Commerce will grind to a halt just as if our own cities and transportation infrastructure were bombed. The dollar will be finished. Take it from there.
It's disheartening that most Americans still turn to the MSM and cable TV for the "news", which is always and in every respect propaganda. As for the American people, the best educated, who imagine themselves above propaganda, also tend to be the ones who most immerse themselves in the "news", and are therefore propaganda's most naive victims. In a similar vein, the members of Congress, who imagine they're insiders being supplied with "secret" intelligence, which is always and in every respect spun into propaganda, are that propaganda's most naive victims, making Congress itself the apex of naivete.
Govt needs personal info on journalists so that when someone gets “out of line,” he can be easily captured and detained (or assassinated) » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog
January 12th, 2012 at 11:56 am
[...] Philip Giraldi: What War With Iran Might Look Like [...]
Chris Mallory
January 12th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
It doesn't even have to be an envelope of anything but talcum powder.
Thanks for the Brioche Janet « The Vigilant Lens
January 12th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
[...] upcoming war with Iran, will look much the same as Obama’s wars with any brown-skinned humans who currently live near [...]
jerry
January 12th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Giraldi should also add, "a draft is implemented". I think they will bring back the draft when war with Iran breaks out. It wont be hard. Everybody is on the selective service anyway.
ANU News.net What War With Iran Might Look Like
January 12th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
[...] It might start with a minor incident, possibly involving an Iranian armed small craft manned by the Revolutionary Guard. Though the Strait of Hormuz is generally considered an international waterway, the Iranians claim that half of the strait is within their territorial waters. http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/01/11/what-war-with-iran-might-look-like/ [...]
Debbie(aussie)
January 12th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
i dont think the PTB give rats aas, would be just another excuse to nuke Iran
the lion
January 12th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
The whole US/Iran thing has been about stopping China from getting the resources of Iran, Israel's Problem is its Paranoia, but we shouldnt forget that Israel has been more than happy to make a Buck from Iran when they can either, It chould have been called the Iran Israeli Contra Affair, and Israel was trading with their OWN enemy as well, The US Public and its pro War Pundits forget that Iran has weapons that the US Navy have said they have NO COUNTERMEASURES for 200 Knot torpedoes fired from Mini Subs built especially for the Straits of Hormuz.
If Israel kills any Russians there is a very high chance that Russia will use the law it made a few years back and Just Bomb Israel itself. I believe that in the past here on Antiwar.com there have been stories that have come from Russia warning that they will retaliate if any Russian Citizen is killed in the Iranian Power reactor. Also I believe that if Iran is attacked with any Nuclear Weapons Russia will in fact directly on the basis of Humanitarian aid enter Iran and defend her, Giving them that often wished for Russian Port on the Indian Ocean.
Debbie(aussie)
January 12th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
I would hope that this would be unacceptable to most of the worllds citizens. Persian civilisation should be.important to all of us
baz
January 12th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
whatever happened to Mansour Arbabsiar, the alleged Saudi ambassador assassination plotter and absentminded alcoholic used car salesman? Not of word about him has been mentioned since the 2 day media blitz
Terrence
January 12th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Kind of disappointing, as usual, to hear all the smart and correct but limited and lacking wisdom remarks, discuss how things will work out with the puppets. Not one comment about going to the cause of all this. The puppet masters. The guys with the 'long green', which is the real power and control.
It's like they're all invisible, like the man behind the curtain in OZ. Talk about things instead of about persons. Talk about 'corporations' as though they were persons…. and the living persons just smile and go about taking more wealth and power from those who create it. Could that be addressed?
bajajoes
January 12th, 2012 at 3:13 pm
When it's over one of Isreal's cities will be no more……..Pick One!
bajajoes
January 12th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
I hope you are right!
What war with Iran might look like - openresource.ca | openresource.ca
January 12th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
[...] Read the rest on antiwar.com. [...]
bajajoes
January 12th, 2012 at 3:18 pm
"It won't be hard"????? Sr, you are badly mistaken. There will be riots in every city at every office
bajajoes
January 12th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
There were 2 false flag attacks(Lavon & Liberty)attempting to bring the US into previous wars and I hope they would not present another by nuking an American city if the US hesitates to help.
Blaming it on Iran of course.
omop
January 12th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
After the worldwide publication of a photo showing American soldiers "pissing" on dead Afghan bodies its hard to imagine that any one except the die hard zionists/neocons would side with the only two democracies in the world in their wars against Iran.
But then as the lady opined, "its worth starving 500,000 Iraqi children to make Iraq as democratic as Israel". America has become "addicted" to wars and we all have an idea of how addicts end up don't we?
bajajoes
January 12th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
See my comment below!
bajajoes
January 12th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
The Iranians have little more to lose by uneashing everything they have at hand and freeing all surrogates elsewhere. If I were an Iranian I would fire every missle, torpedo, and bullet in inventory all while knowing we are going to die anyway so why not unleash HELL!
BUT……WHY all this American dead, dying,destruction, and depletion of treasure for a little puny piss-ant country with whom we do not even have a TREATY??
What is all this WAR gaining the US? Nada, nothing! So why are we forced into it?
What does Isreal have on the US that forces us to do this?
Johnny in Wi.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
I think and hope Turkey will attack the Israeli planes before and after they attack Iran. It might just do the trick of stopping this insanity. Whatever happens Turkey will be drawn into the war and so will Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. The Jordanians would also be involved, perhaps their small, but good air force, would fight the Israeli's as well. Dr Girardi paints a horrible picture of what could happen. I happen to think it could be far worse. China could stop all this by moving fighters and other air defenses into Iran. So could the Russians Let the israeli's tangle with them.
bajajoes
January 12th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Answer: Isreal, but why do they feel so threatened by Iran?
Jaime
January 12th, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Don't discount the Brits and the frogs.
denis
January 12th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Your scenario is a bit late. From my viewpoint we are already in the early throws of WWIII, To date no big bombs have been dropped but thousands of little ones have exploded. Islam is at war with the west and with Christianity. Islamisism is the driving force, funded by Wahabists from Saudi Arabia. Iran is a powderkeg of Islamist fundamentalist ideology. A theocracy is the absolute worst kind of government as it has one purpose, power by religion, which allows for no value on human life or rights of individuals. As for Islamists it is their wayand if you don't like it they will kill you. Iran may want war with the USA and may go so far as to provoke an incident that would draw Russia, India and China into the conflict. War would unite all the Islamic nations against America.
Wolfgang9
January 12th, 2012 at 6:41 pm
I think it is wishtinking that Russia and China AGAIN will stay out of the conflict for a long time. They cannot loose the strategic important country ran so easily. And they have learned from Iraq and Libya. IMO, Russia will respond, maybe not directly against the US Forces but against some supporting countries. They will do what on their list of priorities is top: destroy the anti rocket systems in Poland and Romania which are still in construction. And I do NOT think that the US and NATO will respond directly against Russia. I'm not entirely sure what China will do, maybe Taiwan? But they have to respond to stop NATO and Israel, and I think they will do so in letting the US know that they will loose more than they ever thought. If NATO and the US would respond that would mean full blown WW3 and the US is not ready for that.
patriothere
January 12th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
I would imagine turkey, pakistan, india and china and russia would like to remain neutral when all of this plays out. If there is to be war with Iran which looks more and more a reality as time goes on, the US, UK and Israel will have to go at it alone. The Chinese and the Iranians and the Russians etc. are doing everything they can to avert war. The US is not bluffing and unless Iran totally submits to the west culturally, financially, politically, religiously etc. you can expect war any day now, my guess is this summer.
I mean how much can Iran take? How many more terror attacks, how many more scientists assassinated? How many more sanctions that cripple it's economy?
patriothere
January 12th, 2012 at 7:12 pm
What I meant was that from the governments stand point, they already have everybody a part of the selective service so if they wanted to draft you tomorrow, it wouldn't be hard.
Dahszii Ya'ai Jii
January 12th, 2012 at 7:14 pm
I have breaking news about the coming open war against Iran. An apology for the U.S. mistreatment of P.O.Ws. entitled: AMERICA’S CAPTIVES: TREATMENT OF POWS FROM THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR TO THE WAR ON TERROR, Paul J. Springer, 2010, University Press of Kansas: Lawrence, Kansas makes clear that the F.E.M.A. concentration camps are to hold millions of Iranian POWs; not American patriots. Goto: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
“In diplomacy, the term convention does not have its common meaning as an assembly of people. Rather, it is used in diplomacy to mean an international agreement, or treaty. The first three Geneva Conventions were revised and expanded in 1949, and the fourth was added at that time.”
Conventions
—————-
* First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 1864
* Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 1906
* Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1929
* Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949
“The whole set is referred to as the “Geneva Conventions of 1949″ or simply the “Geneva Convention”.
Protocols
————
“The 1949 conventions have been modified with three amendment protocols:”
* Protocol I (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
* Protocol II (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts
* Protocol III (2005) relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem.
Springer first explains away all of the mistreatment of foreign POWs ever held by the U.S. as due to not being prepared to have them in the first place. But, this wears thin beginning in Vietnam and especially in Afghanistan.
Second, pp. 196 and 197…”Bush, denied POW status to Taliban captives despite the Taliban’s de facto control of the nation for years before the conflict…it would not accord them prisoner of war status.” The U.S. State Department has now listed the Revolutionary Guards of the Iranian military as being a terrorist organization. When we capture Iranian military members they will be denied POW status. With the current status of Enemy Combatant and Unlawful Enemy Combatant, all Iranian prisoners will have NO rights. Whenever the case of a prisoner from Iraq or Afghanistan currently being held prisoner has made it to the Supreme Court and found to have certain rights, the U.S. Congress has passed laws taking away those rights, pp. 200 and 201. In fact, we Americans now have NO rights ourselves under the current N.D.A.A. that became law last month on the anniversary of the signing of the Bill of Rights.
Third – Why?? According to Springer, America has almost always failed to use POWs for labour as allowed under the Conventions and Protocols. But, our Jewish leaders have fixed that problem. We’re now ready with the F.E.M.A. concentration camps. Most P.O.Ws can be forced to work at non-military jobs. Of course, prisoners with NO rights will be forced to do anything. When 2,000,000 Iranian prisoners with no rights are shipped to America, they will free up millions of unemployed young Americans to join the military and continue our conquests in South Asia. In the military they’ll receive more than they would in America in a job market and economy that will be further depressed by millions of free labourers. Because of the forced Iranian POW labour our war economy will be able to continue and most important, there won’t be a need for a military conscription. No anti-draft marches on Washington or sit-ins at college R.O.T.C.
Is everyone happy knowing that the American concentration camps are not for Americans???? Is everyone happy knowing that our dear leaders have figured out how to have perpetual war, a bankrupt economy, while at the same time having full employment, wealth and prosperity (O.P. – Other People’s)???
Ar\chie1954
January 12th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
It seems as if Obama is no better than the despicable cretin that preceded him in office.
camus10
January 12th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Paul has offered impressive anti-imperialist options but he has basically achieved nada in congress
what is at issue is restoring the USA to the people, a true democracy. Getting there will require wholesale incarceration of banksters, crony capitalists, blasphemous christian insiders, zog sociopaths at every strata embedded fearlessly. Spineless Paul lacks even the audacity to call out the treasonous nativists who occupy zog. True libertarians should seek a daring leader and challenge the evil 2party duoply. Is this site open for discussion
Jim Bovard
January 12th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Excellent analysis! I'm glad to see it get so many comments. I hope it is getting re-posted far and wide.
Maybe your sage observations will knock some sense into some of the American policymakers…assuming that they have not already bought options for oil price spikes.
@PlatonicAnalyst
January 12th, 2012 at 11:21 pm
Interesting essay, but here is a much smarter scenario:
1. Ahmadinejad instructs his state-sponsored TV to air everyday "Blueprint for Truth," his state-controlled high schools to quiz their kids on it, and his state-controlled mosques to preach that the real 9/11 terrorists were not bearded fanatics, but the highly skilled engineers and the support personnel who blew up the twin towers with explosives before their complete evacuation.
2. Ahmadinejad goes on TV and invites Iranian engineers to join the 1700 architects and engineers who have requested a real technical investigation into the three 9/11 World Trade Center skyscraper disintegrations.
3. The Iranian population, who was already widely aware of 9/11's essence, rejoice, as for once their government's message is congruent with reality. They massively demonstrate with 9/11 Truth signs, both in Farsi and in English.
4. The Western anti-war leaders, who have tried hard to ignore and dismiss 9/11 Truth, run as fast as they can to tell their followers to ignore Ahmadinejad's “lies and delusions.”
5. Too late! The many Western peace activists who already knew 9/11’s nature have received, at last, an acknowledgement from a leader they are tuned to. They slowly realize that Western pacifist leaders have been in cahoots with the 9/11 terrorists. They bypass their leaders through their social media and demonstrate en masse for 9/11 Truth.
6. The phenomenon snowballs. Worldwide, political activists realize that anti-neocon leaders have censored 9/11 for 10 years, and that these leaders are more dangerous than the neocons. Soon NATO military personnel cannot enter or leave their bases without passing through demonstrations against U.S. military responsibility for 9/11. Liberal, socialist, union, pacifist, Muslim leaders are inundated with reproach and with requests to explain why they censored 9/11 against their professed interests.
7. Within a few weeks, all leaders who have denied 9/11 Truth realize that they have been unmasked and that their authority is no longer recognized.
8. The whole human community enters the highly favorable paradigm shift announced, among other places, in the “global Platonic theater” e-book.
But let us not hold our breath. Ahmadinejad, like Gaddafi, Saddam and the Taliban, does not like congruence between his message and the reality, and seems committed to not rock the 9/11 boat. He’ll get a war going, lose his comfortable job, sacrifice his life, rather than spill the 9/11 beans.
Love,
Johnny in Wi.
January 13th, 2012 at 12:17 am
They didn't cave in after a million casualties in the Iraq Iran War. They are fighting in their own neighborhood. When the prices of oil spikes at 500 a barrel they have their own economic weapon. We had trouble in Vietnam with a smaller country, and lost the war. Uri Avery says there will be no war. He thinks Netanyahu is just bluffing. If Obama gets us in another war, in Iran, the world economy may collapse and people will be fighting for food and gas.
What War With Iran Might Look Like | CounterPsyOps
January 13th, 2012 at 1:29 am
[...] original.antiwar.com) Share this:TwitterFacebookPrintEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. By [...]
Stiri scurte: 13.01.2012 « George Valah Blog
January 13th, 2012 at 5:03 am
[...] What War With Iran Might Look Like [...]
larry
January 13th, 2012 at 8:14 am
yes i do agree we dont need another war. I like food and well yeah gas too !
jerry
January 13th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Well, that's the only way we are going to avert war. Is if the Iranians cave in. Iran is really afraid of the US. BIG time. Yet, at the same time they are very nationalistic.
War with Iran is right around the corner. Obama already signed the sanctions against it's central bank. The EU and I'm sure the US already signed on crippling Irans oil sector. So where does this lead? This leads to a major western economic collapse this summer! Iran no longer accepts dollars for it's oil, that means japan and china and japan are dumping their dollars which will cause a major economic crisis this year.
So, look at it this way, obama already signed on for war and the economic crisis be a result of that. Gerald celente has a pretty good formula to use for this. Currency war, trade war, real war. Well we are already in the first two, it's just a matter of time before the third one drops.
LGLKen
January 13th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
I think you hit on a key point that the Chest Thumpers in America overlook.
Once we start this crap, the Iranians will be the ones that decide when it stops, and I'm guessing that it will be long after we want it to.
So many people in this country are used to war as a spectator sport. They think it will be another cake walk. The Iranians are way more numerous than the Iraqis, they are better educated, and they have better technology. Not to mention, their country is mostly mountainous.
If we go after the Iranians, even if we don't touch off WWIII, we will get hurt bad.
-Ken http://www.LaserGuidedLoogie.com
Italian Cruise Ship Reported Torpedoed By Iranian Submarine « Mystery of the Iniquity
January 14th, 2012 at 9:31 am
[...] officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) warned in his latest column, “What War With Iran Might Look Like,” that an attack by Iran, like the one suspected against the Costa Concordia would, indeed, be [...]
Italian Cruise Ship Reported Torpedoed By Iranian Submarine (False Flag Act of War?) « jimmyprophet
January 14th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
[...] officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) warned in his latest column, “What War With Iran Might Look Like,” that an attack by Iran, like the one suspected against the Costa Concordia would, indeed, be [...]
James
January 14th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Am very unhappy we are all humains and deserve to be treated as such.I care less weather its for Americans Canadians or Iranians it illegal and wrong.I hope people start standing up like never before against these crimes made law including the wars,and sanctions that killed over 1 million in Iraq before the 2003 war.Its probably more than 2 million now,Evil as evil gets and I'm a white Canadian and would love to be part of the people that stop America and Israels illegal actions,and others.IT'S TIME PAST TIME.
James
January 14th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Ahmadinejad said OBL was in America and it was an inside job,also has said the holocast was a lie thats why in many places its the 1 thing we can't have any opinion except what they tell us.He has said it and is in no way protecting lies.
eric siverson
January 14th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
China does have 1 new big aircraft carrier with a submarine base under the flight deck and between the two hulls . If this boats has Russia's new fighter jets on board I'm sure they want to demonstrate these planes . Its possible Israel could negotiate with Russia and China on their Islamic problem , for Russia and China understand Israel's predicament better than the United States . . In Yugoslavia both Russia and China were humiliated for trying to protect the Orthodox Christians . In Yugoslavia the United States wanted to empower the Nazis and the Muslims
eric siverson
January 14th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
I believe that time has passed for Russia and China . I rather believe they want to get even with NATO for what they did to Yugoslavia . China told us only 2 yrs ago they have not forgotten or forgiven what happend to them . When US general Wesley Clark issued the orders to shoot the Russian soldiers , this is something Russia is not likely to forget soon either .
I don't know how ? I feel they are ready to show us we have to treat them with a little more respect .
eric siverson
January 14th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Why doesn't Iran say you can inspect anything you want to when ever you want too, why don't they stop enriching Uranium ? Saddam always put up so many road blocks for the inspectors Why did he do this if he was not hiding WMDs . NOW look what Saddam has .
Why would Iran do the same thing don't they know what happened to Saddam ? Or maybe our news media doesn't report the truth . Maybe Iran allows careful and unannounced inspections , maybe Saddam did too . And we received false reports
Attack the System » Blog Archive » What War with Iran Might Look Like
January 15th, 2012 at 7:16 am
[...] Article by Philip Giraldi. [...]
What War With Iran Might Look Like « Truth2Freedom's Blog
January 15th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
[...] http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/01/11/what-war-with-iran-might-look-like/ Share this:TwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Search This Blog [...]
roger
January 15th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
You received false reports. Iraq was willing to do ANYTHING to avoid war. See this video with Susan Lindauer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed…
eric siverson
January 16th, 2012 at 10:16 am
thank you , but is Susan believable ? makes sense , but our government would be worse than Stalan or Hitler if this is true .
Jan 16, 2012 Has the war with Iran already started? « Twelve Books – Rapture, Antichrist, End Time Signs, Prophecy, News
January 16th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
[...] officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) warned in his latest column, “What War With Iran Might Look Like,” that an attack by Iran, like the one suspected against the Costa Concordia would, indeed, be [...]
Kratoklastes
January 16th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
This is not credible from the first few paragraphs; the assumption that the Iranian anti-shipping missiles will only inflict 'damage' on a carrier, flies in the face of what we know about the likelihood of carrier-damage. that is nonsense: their Yahkonts and Moskit variants – about which I wrote in **2004** but which were confirmed late in 2011 – are superior to Silkworms (and Exocets) in EVERY respect: bigger payload, faster airspeed 9both Moskit and Yahkonts are hypersonic), longer range, and better volatile-path guidance against which Phalanx CAN NOT acquire a firing solution in the time it has after radar acquisition.
I have mentioned this before, but here goes nothing. LtGen Paul K Van Riper's Red team DESTROYED the 'Blue' USN presence in Millennium Challenge 2002, using a fusillade of anti-shipping missles (1 carrier SUNK, 15 other support vessels SUNK, 20k 'Blue' casualties) and THEN attacked with small craft (inflicting heavy losses on what remained of the Blue fleet).
Red took Blue's flag in ONE DAY. it was such an embarrassment that the USJDC insisted that the US naval assets be 'refloated' and the exercise re-commence, with ridiculous constraints on Red – for example that they have their AA radar on at all times, and that they were not permitted attempt to target inbound Blue aircraft – which Riper refused to accept (he went back to retirement).
If the US and Iran kick off, the US must be ready to lose several guided missile frigates and AT LEAST one carrier.
And why no mention of OTHER oil chokepoints (e.g., the Straits of Malacca)? Almost all the oil that transits to the Eastern hemisphere passes through those straits – they are almsot as important as Hormuz. And there are PLENTY of pissed-off brown folks in the region who would be prepared to have a crack at choking off the oil.
Seriously – if I was writing a scenario that was designed to give succour to the idiots who run the USN's floating coffins, I would write something akin to this piece of hopey-changey stuff by Mr Giraldi. Reality will be significantly worse.
baz
January 16th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
i think your right, which is why i have repeatedly said, that the US will at some point resort to nuclear weapons to stop it amassing casualties.
LibertyRising
January 16th, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Israel's predicament is that they took over land that was inhabited at the time by someone else, and those people want their property back.
Amerika has already empowered the Nazis – the one's in Tel Aviv.
Bill the Butcher
January 16th, 2012 at 9:59 pm
What I find interesting is that this article ignores Iran's obvious tactic: sinking blockships in the Straits of Hormuz. One would have thought that this was the first thing that would have come to mind.
164: TZ Discussion – War, the Price of Oil and You
January 17th, 2012 at 12:38 am
[...] describing the tyranny of choice, the latest on Pluggio, AnyFu and Appignite, why Jason believes war with Iran is likely and how the price of oil will skyrocket if it happens, the story of how Jason’s [...]
What War with Iran Might Look Like | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG
January 17th, 2012 at 6:05 am
[...] Article by Philip Giraldi. [...]
Hostage To False Flag Terror: The Link Between The October Surprise And The September Surprise | Victors Post
January 17th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
[...] CIA counter-terrorism specialist Philip Giraldi gives a picture of “What War With Iran Might Look Like,” concluding that, “A minor engagement between American and Iranian forces in the Persian [...]
Bob
January 17th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
This response shows what happens when you make computers available to loonies.
Bob
January 17th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
A great article with a treasure house of intelligent responses. Not meaning to diminish the importance of these, I also feel the article would also make a great movie.
Bob
January 17th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
Rumors are afloat in the alternative press that Iran has already responded to provocations, with the downing of the US Predator. Perhaps the US missed the message, but what it said is that US troops in Afghanistan are sitting ducks. The second message, according to some conspiracy websites, is that the capsized tourist boat in Italy was taken down by Iranian sub torpedos. If true, it means that the US is not the only country that can create economic warfare with its sanctions against Iran banking, but by bringing down Italy's tourist trade, it can also undermine one of Europe's prime countries in the midst of Europe's deepening economic crisis.
What War With Iran Might Look Like | NO LIES RADIO
January 17th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
[...] READ FULL STORY HERE Share var button = document.getElementById('facebook_share_link_41225') || document.getElementById('facebook_share_icon_41225') || document.getElementById('facebook_share_both_41225') || document.getElementById('facebook_share_button_41225'); if (button) { button.onclick = function(e) { var url = this.href.replace(/share.php/, 'sharer.php'); window.open(url,'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=626,height=436'); return false; } if (button.id === 'facebook_share_button_41225') { button.onmouseover = function(){ this.style.color='#fff'; this.style.borderColor = '#295582'; this.style.backgroundColor = '#3b5998'; } button.onmouseout = function(){ this.style.color = '#3b5998'; this.style.borderColor = '#d8dfea'; this.style.backgroundColor = '#fff'; } } } [...]
Hostage To False Flag Terror: The Link Between The October Surprise And The September Surprise | NO LIES RADIO
January 17th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
[...] CIA counter-terrorism specialist Philip Giraldi gives a picture of “What War With Iran Might Look Like,” concluding that, “A minor engagement between American and Iranian forces in the [...]
Hostage To False Flag Terror: The Link Between The October Surprise And The September Surprise | Spirituality Matters
January 18th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
[...] CIA counter-terrorism dilettante Philip Giraldi gives a pattern of “What War With Iran Might Look Like,” final that, “A teenager rendezvous between American and Iranian army in a Persian Gulf,” [...]
What War With Iran Might Look Like | Spirituality Matters
January 18th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
[...] READ FULL STORY HERE [...]
Baba
January 18th, 2012 at 8:09 pm
I am a US citizen and I DO NOT support any negative action against Iran. Let them be. Hell! Maybe we could even work on improving relations.
The 4th Media » How Iran Could Whip the United States and Israel Without Firing a Single Shot
January 18th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
[...] If this conflict did indeed represent a classic prisoner’s dilemma, we would have little reason to think that the conflict will not worsen dramatically in the future. We would have to assume that both sides would continue to escalate the conflict to a point from which it would be completely impossible to pull back. World War III would be virtually assured. [...]
How Iran Could Whip the United States and Israel Without Firing a Single Shot « En lucha constante contra el NWO…
January 19th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
[...] If this conflict did indeed represent a classic prisoner’s dilemma, we would have little reason to think that the conflict will not worsen dramatically in the future. We would have to assume that both sides would continue to escalate the conflict to a point from which it would be completely impossible to pull back. World War III would be virtually assured. [...]
Craig
January 20th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
I have to laugh at those who support Iran….. the Iranian government kills its own people, publicly calls for the destruction of Israel and threatens the US day in and day out….. there will be a war and Iran will get flattened……. and they'll get what they deserve……
Creating American Terrorists
January 21st, 2012 at 5:34 am
[...] What War With Iran Might Look Like – January 11th, 2012 [...]
Philip Giraldi | ANOMALY RADIO
January 22nd, 2012 at 4:51 am
[...] CIA officer Philip Giraldi discusses his article ”What War With Iran Might Look Like;” the many layers of obfuscation (like peeling an onion) in the Jundallah/CIA/Mossad [...]
How Iran Could Whip The United States And Israel Without Firing A Single Shot: Additional Considerations | TheCandidBull
January 22nd, 2012 at 6:33 pm
[...] If this conflict did indeed represent a classic prisoner’s dilemma, we would have little reason to think that the conflict will not worsen dramatically in the future. We would have to assume that both sides would continue to escalate the conflict to a point from which it would be completely impossible to pull back. World War III would be virtually assured. [...]
RT - EU adopts oil embargo on Iran - Page 8
January 23rd, 2012 at 9:23 am
[...] scenario but an interesting read all the same: What War With Iran Might Look Like by Philip Giraldi — Antiwar.com Reply With [...]
rangerdanger
January 23rd, 2012 at 8:43 pm
The Reps will be Lee(CA),Lee(TX), Paul, and Kucinich.
Senators would be Sanders, and possibly Paul, or Wyden or Merkley
Key Reasons against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran | Today's Defense
January 25th, 2012 at 5:22 pm
[...] The remarks by a US Chair of a Joint Chief of Staff, Martin Dempsey (20/12/2011) that a preparations for fight with Iran “are elaborating to a indicate that are executionable” [1] and that a US can successfully dispute Iran, if necessary, are presented as some-more of a warning hazard rather than an tangible countenance of intent. However, in a moving and paranoid meridian of bullying and formidable confrontation, fuelled by harsh vigour from Israel and a hawks pulling for war, it leaves no doubtthat they could fast actualize into an unstoppable and inauspicious fight [2]. [...]
Avoiding a ‘Dumb War’ With Iran
January 26th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
[...] What War With Iran Might Look Like – January 11th, 2012 [...]
stats
January 28th, 2012 at 12:01 am
Idiot.
stats
January 28th, 2012 at 12:11 am
It seems to me that Iran has only responded with threats when threatened by the US or Israel. I don't think you have really been paying attention if you think Iranian threats are unprovoked. Iran has not called for the destruction of Israel. And I guarantee you that before this mess is over, the American government will be killing its own people to hand onto power. You are stupidly smug, but reality bites.
Another War on the Cheap
February 2nd, 2012 at 6:05 am
[...] What War With Iran Might Look Like – January 11th, 2012 [...]
Matthew
February 6th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Ahmadi, I would like to kindly remind you that the author of this article's intent was to prove how horrific a war with Iran would be. He is 100% against attacking Iran, and 100% against hurting the millions of innocent people that live there.
The point of this article is to show one possible scenario to Americans/Westerners in which the US would not simply go in, take over, and close the case. This is only one of a million possible scenarios. The author wrote this directly to the Westerns you distaste, that "underate" the capability of Iran.
It is important for this point of view to come from one Westerner to the next. If he was too strong in his article, many of the readers would simply disregard it. The scenario he explained is easy for other Americans/Westerners to understand. Of course, the author knows that the true scenarios could be even worse.
I am also an American that is 100% against any war with Iran. I believe in love and respect for the beautiful people of the Islamic Republic. I believe that the author believes the same as well. I hope you can read this article again as it is intended to be understood.
Thank you
Anti Aggression / Pro Defense | Christopher David for Congress
February 23rd, 2012 at 4:33 pm
[...] Most importantly, any attack on Iran would quickly escalate into a major war, with disastrous consequences. [...]
steve
February 27th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
The Iranians have been very clear they want Israel destroyed. The facts are that while a war is a mistake the Iranian regime is disgusting and should be toppled by its own people.
Ever wonder why there are no Jews left in the Middle East outside of Israel?
Because the Muslims killed those who didn't flee!
Now they intend to finish what Hitler and Eichmann started.
Attack the System » Blog Archive » Ron Paul’s Hour of Decision
March 14th, 2012 at 5:14 am
[...] out is non-voters, new voters, and – most important of all – future events. If the US starts bombing Iran before election day, or, say, we have another economic meltdown, as we did in the winter of 2008, [...]
Ron Paul’s Hour of Decision : Deadline Live With Jack Blood
March 15th, 2012 at 6:08 am
[...] [...]
Ikke min krig – Norges delaktighet i angrepskriger og det tvilsomme «vi» : KULTURVERK
March 27th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
[...] [...]
Obama ,pudelul sau pit-bullul lui Netanyahu ? « Middle East atemporal
April 9th, 2012 at 4:16 am
[...] That the push for war is happening in the context of a presidential election season is all the more cause for worry: you’ll note Obama has taken to invoking Republican icons of late, from Eisenhower to Reagan, in order to justify his domestic policies, and there’s no doubt he wants to move to the “center” on the foreign affairs front, too. This means more than just toughening his rhetoric: as the issuing of this ultimatum shows, it means making real moves toward what seems nearly inevitable at this point –armed conflict with Iran. [...]
Hostage To False Flag Terror: The Link Between The October Surprise And The September Surprise | Independent News Hub
May 30th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
[...] CIA counter-terrorism specialist Philip Giraldi gives a picture of “What War With Iran Might Look Like,” concluding that, “A minor engagement between American and Iranian forces in the Persian [...]
International Community Will Ensure Strait Of Hormuz Stays Open - Page 2
July 25th, 2012 at 1:37 am
[...] of the Zionist regime is more important to your govt than lives of your people). I suggest to read this article by Philip Giraldi. (though within these months many things have been changed, e.g. Persian Gulf [...]
Key Reasons against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran | CASMII
July 26th, 2012 at 11:53 am
[...] The remarks by the US Chair of the Joint Chief of Staff, Martin Dempsey (20/12/2011) that the preparations for war with Iran “are evolving to a point that are executionable” [1] and that the US can successfully attack Iran, if necessary, are presented as more of a warning threat rather than an actual expression of intent. However, in the tense and paranoid climate of bullying and uncompromising confrontation, fuelled by unrelenting pressure from Israel and the hawks pushing for war, it leaves no doubt that they could rapidly actualise into an unstoppable and catastrophic confrontation [2]. [...]
Former Mossad head: Iran should fear next 12 weeks - Page 2
August 3rd, 2012 at 11:17 pm
[...] An Attack on Iran would be like an attack on Iraq or Serbia. Original Post By Wright What War With Iran Might Look Like by Philip Giraldi — Antiwar.com Reply With Quote + Reply to [...]
Auguries — The wolf at the door | Small Cap News | Mining | News | Financial Post
November 24th, 2012 at 1:00 am
[...] January 2012, Philip Giraldi’s essay “What War With Iran Might Look Like” concluded that it might look like World War III. Two [...]
Auguries — The wolf at the door — Financial Press
November 25th, 2012 at 12:29 am
[...] January 2012, Philip Giraldi’s essay “What War With Iran Might Look Like” concluded that it might look like World War III. Two [...]
Muftah » Wired Magazine’s Weird Propaganda on Iran
December 28th, 2012 at 7:02 am
[...] While an unprovoked attack on Iran is widely seen as a terrible, “stupid“ idea (and a war crime of obvious and unequivocal illegality) by those not of the [...]
john O duill
March 20th, 2013 at 10:39 am
Because its all a ruse eric. Iran wants to break from the petrodollar, China just did. That is what this is all about.