IRAN DOUBLE DOG DARES WEST TO ATTACK. WEST MAKES PLANS IN CASE.

To say the news is getting worse every day is an understatement. DEBKAfile is reporting that Obama, along with France, the UK, Italy and Turkey are all drawing up plans for a joint assault on Syria. They are waiting for a gauge of the mood of the Middle East from Hillary Clinton after the gathering of high level individuals from the recent Tunis Conference which she attended. Assad is carpet bombing his own people and killed a journalist as a result. The fact that the Russians and/or the Iranian appear the lending their support to the brutal regime is one of the reasons the West is going to get involved. The Chinese have been smart enough to have only covert relations with Syria and Iran and not get dragged into what is going to be a bloody mess. The word is is that countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and even Egypt are going to sign off the doomed regime and will even help with active military support. The exact things that led to WW2 seem to be occurring again only this time nukes may be, and probably will, be used.

As if that wasn't bad enough, Iran has been posturing so much lately you'd think they tip over from exhaustion. Knowing the Russians have their back has made them belligerent and dangerous. This week, they threw out the IEAE, who had to call their latest venture a total failure. Then, if that wasn't ballsy enough, Iran threatened to pre-emptive attack any country who even appeared to be out to get them. The reaction from Israel has been palpable and hostile. Shocker.

We appear to be on the verge of a massive attack on both Syria and Iran, which would be the best way to deal with these problems militarily. Harvard historian Niall Ferguson wrote a great article recently debunking five myths about attacking Iran. Here they are and they should look familiar because I've said the exact same thing for the past six months:


1. The Iranians would retaliate with great fury, closing the Strait of Hormuz and unleashing the dogs of terror in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iraq.


2. The entire region would be set ablaze by irate Muslims; the Arab Spring would turn into a frigid Islamist winter.


3. The world economy would be dealt a death blow in the form of higher oil prices.


4. The Iranian regime would be strengthened, having been attacked by the Zionists its propaganda so regularly vilifies.


5. A nuclear-armed Iran is nothing to worry about. States actually become more risk-averse once they acquire nuclear weapons

As his answers mirrors mine exactly I'll summarize.

First, Iran's military, while strong, is no match for ours. Will it be bloody? Yes. Will the Russians get involved? Unlikely. First chance they'll turn tail and run unless Putin really is stupid enough to end the planet for two countries that mean little to his regime. We do have three aircraft carrier in the region with accompanying strike groups and enough ammo to blow Syria and Iran back to Mars.

Second, what about the Middle East? They may posture and cry for the cameras, but behind closed doors they will secretly be congratulating the President for a fine job. No one wants an nuclear Iran.

Third, Oil prices are going to rise, but as Naill also notices, the European seem hell bent on recreating the Great Depression which will send shockwaves, war or no war, through our economics. Oil prices will spike initially, perhaps as high as ten bucks a gallon, but that will be short lived as gas use plummets through the floor and the government will get involved somehow with subsidising gas, lest the whole economy crumble. The Saudis will pump more oil, along with other OPEC countries as their coffers empty as the world says no to high gas prices.

Fourth, no regime ever lasts an all out assault. If a country likes ours wants to get you, it will. It's just lacked the necessary will over the past sixty years. Screw with people's wallets however and the elites are going rain death upon these countries.

Fifth, and the dumbest argument, that a nuclear Iran is a stable Iran. On what planet have you been living? Nukes have completely destabilized areas like North Korea and Pakistan to such an extent that a nuclear war is much more likely there than anywhere else on earth. With an untested leader now at the helm of a nuclear arsenal in North Korea and Pakistan becoming very schizophrenic to its identity, tell me these are stable. Please tell me these aren't dangerous hair triggers that could end all life on the planet at any moment. You can't, not with a straight face at least.

And what makes people think that the country that has vowed death to the US and Israel is going to become a sane, rational individual overnight? They won't. They will use nukes as an extortion tactic and wait until you see gas prices then. Waiting to attack a country is inevitably a worse idea then going through with it. How much safer would the world be if we invaded North Korea, a country we are still at war with, rather than let them get nukes? Much better I can assure you as we wouldn't be wasting huge sums of money trying to protect our allies from a much more dangerous foe.

War sucks. War is terrible. War should never be entered into lightly. But Iran is giving us little choice in the matter. And I know a lot of you out there a calling every attack out there a false flag operation, which they aren't, but it is possible that we may use one to get the green light to destroy a dangerous enemy. The US has cried wolf so many times though, it's impossible to know whether it's real or not. But Iran, unlike Iraq, is a real threat with real consequences. Let's hope if the time comes for an attack it's not some wishy washy, half assed "Shock and Awe." tactic. This will be a real war with real after effects. We better treat it as such.