The Coming Invasion of Iran

Posted on 07/02/2011 by


As the political situation in Egypt continues to spiral out of the US government’s control, there is an increasing likelihood that the US government will feel it needs ‘to do something’. This should be intuitively obvious: when events don’t happen according to the US government’s liking, it has ‘to do something’ to correct the ‘problem’. The severity of this ‘something’ is proportional, in this case, to the degree which Egypt moves outside the US sphere.

Briefly sketching out the near future of Egypt, I see generally two possible, mutually exclusive outcomes for the protests in Egypt. First, the protesters successfully drive President Mubarak from the country, and proceed to dismantle the remainder of the regime in a manner akin to the Tunisian Revolution. Second, President Mubarak initiates some sort of hard crack-down on the protests, most likely involving large causalities on the part of the protesters, and asserts even harsher dictatorial control over the country.

Whatever the case, however, the political situation will be highly unstable, and not at all favourable to any obvious, public interaction with US government activities. Either the new Egyptian government will be forced to recant from accepting US aid, or the Mubarak dictatorship will have to distance itself from obvious US interaction in order to maintain stability.

In either case, the perception in the US government will be that Egypt is no longer a stable ally. This has serious repercussions to the US government’s plans for the Middle East, because Egypt is a lynchpin for the US programme of spreading democracy by the sword. Amongst other things, Egypt represents the most agreeable launch pad for short-hop air transport of war material to Afghanistan and Iraq; Egypt could also serve in that manner for any invasion of Iran.

Ever since the Iranian Revolution which overthrew the US-backed Shah and created the Islamic Republic, the US government has desired to reassert its control over the country. Iran has been a painful thorn in the US government’s plan for a world corporate police state, but even so the country has been uniquely able to maintain its autonomy despite diplomatic, economic, and military pressures for it to conform.

The Afghan and Iraq invasions can both be seen as merely establishing launching pads for a future invasion of Iran, for example. Egypt, however, has been one of the most valuable asset in that plan. With Egypt suddenly entering a seriously unstable period, the very long-term US government agenda is threatened as well. Because of this, I posit that the US government will both react very strongly to maintain a degree of control over the most useful portions of Egypt, (eg the Suez Canal,) but more importantly, react very quickly.

Let’s step back for a moment, in order to regard how I suspect the US government sees the Egyptian Revolution. One of the primary threads of US-approved propaganda is that Iran is the primary destabiliser of the entire Middle East, especially now that Iraq and Afghanistan have been granted ‘freedom’. President Mubarak, as well as Israeli PM Netanyahu, have both considered Iran to be the primary enemy of ‘stability’ in the Middle East; the US government feels the same.

I personally take these governments at their word: they truly believe that Iran’s primary export is instability and terrorists. So, when these governments rant against Iran, and obliquely call (or, in the case of the Saudis, explicitly request) for ‘something to be done’, they are quite honest and sincere. Iran, to them, is indeed the biggest threat to Middle East ‘stability’.

Taking this as true, let’s turn back to the Egyptian Revolution with new eyes: not only is the ‘instability’ in Egypt threatening the US government’s plans to ‘liberate’ Iran, but that same instability is because of Iran. Therefore, the ‘renegade’ Iranian government must be neutralised to ensure both the stability of the Middle East, and the end of instability in Egypt. The screwy recursiveness of this logic does not dawn upon the US government, to be certain, but I posit this is indeed the thinking behind the scenes. In essence, the US government truly believes that by bringing ‘freedom’ to Iran, it can bring Egypt back into the world police state.

Neutralising the Iranian government has been the plan for quite some time, but the techniques have been diplomatic, economic, and military actions. These have clearly failed, and because of the Egyptian Revolution, the situation in the eyes of the US government has become acute. More direct action must be taken, in order to prevent the situation from spiralling further out of control.

The only remaining answer, therefore, is overt military invasion. This idea is nothing new, for indeed the US government has been making noises about ‘liberating’ Iran for quite some time. However, because the Iran ‘problem’ has become acute, plans need to be accellerated in order to contain the Egyptian Revolution, as well as prevent further ‘issues’ in other countries in the Middle East. In the institutional mind of the US government, military options are fast, direct, and achieve immediate and satisfactory propaganda material. There’s nothing quite so agreeable as blowing some stuff up, and then holding a press conference aboard an aircraft carrier with a “Mission Accomplished” banner in the background.

Military invasion of Iran is, I posit, quite near. Nearer still is the preliminary ‘stabilisation’ of Egypt by military force. NBC, for example, has begun to beat the dreaded drum of ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’: they’ve floated ‘concerns’ about Egypt’s WMD ‘ambitions‘, as well as exactly what would happen to WMDs if Egypt should get a new government. These I think are both pretences, and warnings. They will be excuses for US military action in favour of the Mubarak regime, and in so doing, make it clear to other proxy countries: leave our preferred leaders in power, or we will keep them in power, full stop.

Consider the potent military assets which have been deployed by the US in order to ‘facilitate the evacuation of US citizens from Egypt’. Although I could be passingly convinced that a detachment of Marines would be necessary to ensure the safe extraction of US citizens, there is very little which can be said to make the USS Enterprise seem helpful. A supercarrier is patently an offensive weapons platform; there are many, more flexible Navy assets, such amphibious assault ships like the USS Kearsarge, which are more appropriate to the job.

The Suez Canal, for example, will remain open to US naval assets, and if necessary, I have no doubt that the US will take steps to make certain that is the case. I would, frankly, not be surprised – if Egypt takes a decided turn away from the Mubarak regime – that the Israeli army will be invited to seize and hold the Canal, in effect keeping the shipping lane in friendly, proxy hands.

Given the WMD hysteria, as well of Egypt’s general military importance, expect to see US military assets deployed in support of the regime, whether openly or covertly. Even if the Mubarak regime manages to hold onto Egypt, US troops and assets will ‘assist’ and ‘oversee’ the situation as ‘peacekeepers’. In such a case, an invasion of Iran will be delayed, but not by much; the timetable has been irrevocably stepped up, as far as the US government is concerned.

However, should the Egyptian government actually become responsible to its citizens, and thereby no longer be a viable US proxy, then the invasion of Iran will happen very quickly indeed. I personally think that the Mubarak regime cannot win, and if this is true, I expect that there will be accusations of Iran having instigated this ‘deplorable act of terrorism against the America-loving people of Egypt’. At that point, expect the USS Enterprise to be doing more than helping evacuate US citizens from Egypt: it will be taking part of an unprovoked, preplanned war of aggression.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Posted in: Analysis