London and Washington are making it abundantly clear that their intent is to provoke Iran into involvement in the regional violence unleashed in Southwest Asia—or, failing that, manufacture an incident involving U.S. casualties that will be laid at Iran’s doorstep—for the next step in triggering a broader, regional war, with the underlying strategic objective being Russia and China. This is exactly what Lyndon LaRouche warned of immediately after the assassination of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and events since then have only further proven how correct LaRouche was.
The financiers’ press sewers are beating the “war with Iran” drum in near unison.
Take the late-Tuesday editorial Oct. 24 signed by the Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board, “Biden’s Red-Line Moment with Iran”. Secretary of State Tony Blinken’s promise that the U.S. would respond “swiftly and decisively” to any attack on American forces from Iran or its proxies is welcome, the editorial stated, “but will the President enforce the red line he appears to be drawing? He hasn’t so far,” they object.
Biden must not repeat Barack Obama’s failure to enforce his 2012 “red line” warning to Syria to not use chemical weapons, Wall Street’s urinal insists. “The fallout from that failure of deterrence and follow-through included Vladimir Putin’s intervention to save the Assad regime, then his invasions of Crimea and eastern Ukraine.” Instead, strike now, they argue:
“Failing to respond to Iran’s many attacks, even when there are so far no U.S. troop casualties, is an invitation to Iran to keep calling the U.S. bluff. This could invite the provocation the White House is trying so hard to avoid. One risk is that Iran or its proxies will eventually kill Americans in these attacks, which might require an even greater use of U.S. force and would be damaging politically. Or the U.S. might have to intervene to help Israel defeat Hezbollah.
“Iran is using its proxies to test U.S. resolve. The more they attack without Iran paying a price, the more likely that Iran will raise the stakes.… The most stabilizing move for the region would be restoring America as a deterrent power.”
Two days before, London’s The Economist breathlessly played up how “the warning signs that Israel’s war with Hamas may become a wider Middle East conflagration are flashing ominously,” because Iran plans to activate an “axis of resistance” of “violent proxies” in the region. So far, Iran wants to do so without getting directly involved itself, using “Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq’s plethora of Shi’a militias and Yemen’s Houthis” instead.
Behind it all is—guess who?—Russia, of course. “That strategy pleases Iran’s ever-closer friend, Russia,” The Economist asserts.
How could this all escalate? Genocide against the Palestinians could do the trick. “An Israeli ground invasion of Gaza could force their hand,” The Economist writes. The scenario could then unfold: “If Iran’s proxies attack American interests, or possibly Israel, it is most likely that America retaliates against them, rather than their sponsor Iran, in the first instance. Still that is a high-stakes gamble to make…. The odds of a catastrophic wider war, while still not very likely, are still far too close for comfort.”
