Reader Feedback 10/18/2005

 We fully expected a wave of hate mail pouring into our inbox after last week's article "Iran--the Inevitable War?"... yet the responses we received were amazingly subdued or even--aw shucks!--supportive. Read some of the replies here. (The letters have been edited for length.)

It is very likely the next war target will be, or is already, Iran. . . But the real reason behind that Iran nuclear scare hype?

It's all about natural resources for the future. . . The powers that be (TPTB) are international and they're out to garner control of the world's energy and resource reserves. It's their idea that if they don't do this, the world will disintegrate into WW III and worldwide revolution as everyone squabbles for what's left to run their necessary infrastructures, societies, cultures and civilizations as they know them.

TPTB will then dole out the energy and resources in a controlled fashion. It's kind of like trying to control an inevitable worldwide depression at least from degenerating into the end of global civilization. . .

[The] Sep. 28 issue of "Strategic Investment" (SI) has an interesting article on oil with very revealing statistics:

Where is the world's oil? Here, according to SI, are the world oil reserves by country as of Jan 1, 2005: Top, Saudi Arabia with over 250 Billion Barrel; second, Canada with about 180 BBs; third, Iran with about 135 BB; Iraq is fourth. . . Iran borders Iraq and is sandwiched between Iraq and Afghanistan, where wars are raging and it will be easy to trump up some incidents or reasons to go next door "to stop the trouble." Iran also has nuclear power stations, and, through fear-manipulative extrapolation, "nuclear weapons they may use against us" (whoever "us" is), providing another likely publicly palatable excuse for invasion, backed up by some Homeland--a term sickeningly reminiscent of The Fatherland--terror that is blamed on the new target country. . .

Rationing will most likely be the eventual outcome for oil some years down the road. Before then TPTB will collect Iran's oil supplies, and likely Kuwait's, too, if they don't already have post-Saddam agreements with the Kuwaitis to that effect.

(Chris L.)



The reason why the U.S. waited over 12 years to attack Iraq is so that the UN would have enough time to disarm it. The U.S. basically attacked a defenseless country. If the U.S. can't handle the invasion under these circumstances, what can we expect if they decide to attack Iran.

You might recall at the end of Desert Storm, Iraq sent more than 100 of their fighter planes to Iran, presumably a gift. In addition Iran had 300-plus F16 of their own. Iran is the greatest military power in the Middle-East next to Israel.

Iran is an ally of Russia and now China. Under common security treaties, Iran is under the intelligence gathering and highly sophisticated defense surveillance of Russia and China. Any surprise attack from Israel or the U.S. would likely be intercepted and shared with Iran. Perhaps this explains the arrogance of Iran. . .

The population of Iraq: approx: 15 Mi.
The population of Iran: approx: 60 Mi.

Think of the consequences of an attack on Iran after the debacle in Iraq. Based on Iran's population, it's likely to be 4 times worse.

If the U.S. or Israel uses nuclear weapons against Iran, what will gas prices be: $100, $200, $300 a barrel? Your guess is as good as mine. My conclusion is that the price will probably be an economic suicide for the U.S. and a political suicide for Israel. But nothing would surprise me from the new breed of messianic psychopaths.

Either way, the U.S. is in a quagmire.

(Michael R.)



War with Iran? How do we know our intel info is any better than the completely wrong WMD scenario in Iraq?

The late and slow rescue effort in New Orleans does not boost my confidence that much has improved with our government handling of important matters.

Attacking Iran will pretty much guarantee a draft.

I was in Beirut with the Navy many years ago. I think every one should at least fight in a war for a year or so and see how much the big-picture guys really know.

It will make for a more educated voting public.

(Stephen F.)



I enjoyed your thoughtful article on Iran, but I think this particular war is unlikely for several reasons:

1. Unless the Iranians are mad enough to attack the U.S., it would be hard to justify a first attack on Iran after the Iraq WMD fiasco.

2. America (and for that matter, Britain) does not have the cash--alright, they always seem to dredge up other people's cash for their wars, but you know very well the mountain of debt (Govt and private) that the West is mired in. Think of the huge costs of Iraq massively multiplied--it might well bring the whole house of cards down.

3. Manpower. The U.S. Army has too few men and too few are joining. . . Conscription? Bush isn't that well-liked already.

4. The fighting itself. I wonder how naive the Iranians are--after all, they've seen their foes in action in Iraq. . . I don't think Iran can win outright, but the price will be vast and you then have to hold the country. Also, what will the U.S. do if the Iraq Shiites rise to support their attacked fellow religionists in Iran, and the Sunnis rise to get their own country, and the Kurds rise to do likewise (bringing the Turkish Kurds with them), and so on and so on.

Bush is a vicious idiot and the slugs around him are actively evil, but I believe even their stupidity has some limit--could be I'm naive.

(Paul R.)



There is certainly the possibility we can end up at war with Iran. Also, that other countries may enter per security agreements. But "uncovering" that both the U.S. and Iran are involved in preliminary military posturing and preparations is not evidence of war being imminent. It means it's a possibility, and readiness is essential. This is common and often does not end in an all-out conflict.

Also, if Israel strikes Iran, it will be as an unavoidable necessity and as our proxy. If they had not hit Osiraq in '81, the scuds Iraq shot at them may have been nukes. They simply cannot allow Iran to have that ability, either. . . To promulgate the concept of "Israel starts WW3" is irresponsible. They have the military power to destroy their enemies, but remain in defensive mode. If WW3 starts, blame the parties seeking the destruction of their neighbors, not the neighbors who, for some inexplicable reason, don't agree to just sit back and be destroyed.

(Daniel L.)

** Advertisement **

Listen to What the Greatest Pioneers of the 21st Century Have to Say

Why there's no reason you couldn't live to a healthy 300... how big politics really works and how strings are being pulled in Washington... why you may soon be able to come back from the dead... what's really going on in China and India... why human- and solar-powered flying machines may be the future of aviation... where America's population is headed--mega-trends in demographics...

These are only a few of the amazing lectures from the 2005 Eris Conference--an annual meeting of famous minds second to none in the U.S.

And now, for the first time ever, you can hear what these world-class thinkers have to say.

Posted 10-18-2005 2:03 PM by Doug Casey