US Military Prepares Transport of Tens of Bunker Buster Bombs for Iran Nuclear Strikes

It's a scary report, very scary, and what happens when governments very openly frightens or terrifies masses of people? I've read from evidently respectable people that the result often or usually is that the government(s) gain greater control of or over the mass of people who are frightened "out of their wits" (in quotes, or, and for emphasis, in square brackets).

The bombs being shipped to Diego Garcia certainly give the apparence of there being an intention to use these bombs, and what would they be used for, if not to attack Iran? Government and imperialist, ... leaders would know that many or most people would think of the shipment(s) in this manner and know that many or most people are afraid, very, very afraid that the U.S. may directly strike Iran, or that the U.S. will allow Israel to strike Iran and will back Israel in this, while the latter would be something or a way that the U.S. leadership would publicly deny being criminally complicit in. If the U.S. leadership is silent about the latter scenario, or states denials about being guilty, we can nevertheless be certain beyond reasonable doubt that the U.S. leadership has definitely [allowed] Israel to strike Iran and that the U.S. leadership therefore is complicit with Israel. Israel can't really attack Iran without U.S. authorisation, secret or public. U.S. leadership denials would only be more lies, which is what we should expect, since they've provided awfull little for any important truths; well, either little, or else nothing, for important truths.

I believe that we can be [certain] of this; not that I believe the above, but certain that the U.S. would definitely be complicit in any attacks on Iran that would be conducted by Israel. The only difference would be that the U.S. just wouldn't be sending in bombers for the opening attacks on Iran. The bombers would be ready to attack, however, once Israel attacked and Iran started mightily retaliating.

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, but it can nevertheless retaliate quite mightily.

With all of the war-mongering scare-mongering from the Israeli and also U.S. leaderships vis-a-vis Iran, a lot of people are very, very frightened about attacks on Iran really being launched, but while this has me also concerned about this hypothetical future event, I've been seriously doubting that it'll actually be committed; having had this view for several years, now.

A "funny" thing is that making and keeping populations frightened out of their wits is a method imperialist, ... leaders sometimes use to have a dominating control over the populations. I always doubted there'd be real attacks on Iran, but have read from some people and listened to one, two or possibly three that the imperialist, ... elites always try to control the general public and one of the methods frequently used is FEAR, to make and keep the public frightened or terrified. And it's worked quite strongly since the pretext of the 9/11 attacks, too!

The bomb shipments to Diego Garcia might not be because the U.S. leadership actually intends to use these against any country. It could be only to try to make and keep populations very fightened so that they or we can be more easily or assuredly controlled or kept under control. But it could also or even alternatively be to be ready to strike once Israel begins strikes on Iran, for the U.S. leadership surely won't want to lead the strikes, but we can be certain that it'll want to back up Israel, to come in supposed defence of Israel, once Iran starts knocking the lights out in Israel based on defence of Iran against Israel, or really U.S.-Israel aggression against Iran. However, it could be for both of those reasons, while also another, which'd be related to the likelihood or certainty that Iran will treat any attack by Israel as authorised by the U.S., that is, Iran would justly perceive the U.S. as complicit, allied with Israel, in the attacks initially committed by Israel, after which Iran would strike at Israel, alright, but also all U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region.

"Of course" the U.S. leadership would want to minimize colateral damage (human and hardware, say) on the U.S. side of the war, so they'd massively bomb Iran for defending itself by retaliating against both parties guilty for the aggression; namely, Israel and the U.S.

But just the purpose of frightening the general public permits leaderships to also distract the affected population(s), by making them very frightened about one hypothetical event for which there are some visible, say, grounds for being frightened, and thereby getting these frightened masses to place a lot of focus on the hypothetical future event while shifting focus away from another event that's very real or in-process, very important, and very bad. It's akin to or like the strategy of divide and conquer. Like magicians, they do something with one hand shown to the public, while the other hand the public or most of the public is no longer paying attention to performs the real trick. The imperialists' magic to divide and conquer by using aspects of the art of deception, perhaps?

As much as I find it criminal to do this without ever attacking Iran, and while it's humanly possible that they could or might attack Iran, I've always perceived all of the threats as scare-mongering; with no real intention of striking Iran. And I hope that this is the correct guess.

I think it's something that all activists should keep in mind, while they also oppose threats of military strikes against Iran. This includes threats of sanctions, which, alone, are CRIMINAL. The UNSC should indict all state leaders complicit in these threats of sanctions being imposed, for imposing them is criminal, and threatening to commit a crime is also criminal; and when it's a state against another the state, then it is supremely criminal. I believe that it justifiably can be considered an act of war!

None of them, the U.S. and its allies threatening sanctions against Iran, has any legitimate grounds for doing this. And the sanctions effectively would not only be against Iran; they'd also be against China and Russia, both of which would be seriously affected, because they have serious relations with Iran; certainly serious or very serious business relations anyway.

Professor Chossudovsky speaks about the latter aspect of sanctions against Iran.

"VIDEO: Is Catastrophe Ahead for US-China Relations?" (6:50)

by Michel Chossudovsky, Russia Today, March 13, 2010, originally March 9th

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18091

There are other articles and probably videos with more information on the business relations between China and Iran, and possibly on those between Russia and Iran, but the above video is nevertheless good on this particular aspect of sanctions against Iran would mean.

Anyway, we should try to think about the whole situation in its full scope, say; all while opposing both threats of sanctions and threats of military strikes, that is, war against Iran. And if they do strike Iran, then who's to claim that we can be certain that Russia and/or China won't intervene on Iran's behalf? Some years ago, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said he'd send forces to try to help Iranian defence against Israeli and/or U.S. attacks. Would he really do this? I can't claim to have a clue about whether he would, or not; only knowing that he did state that he would.

Mike Corbeil

Right on...