Regime Change Iran reports on Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statements at the recent "World Without Zionism" conference, at which he vowed to "wipe Israel off the map". Turns out that his threats regarding Israel, appalling as they were, amounted to just warming up the crowd:
For some reason the world media has largely ignored his statements against the USA. In his speech he said:
We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years. ...
The issue of this [World without Zionism] conference is very valuable. In this very grave war, many people are trying to scatter grains of desperation and hopelessness regarding the struggle between the Islamic world and the front of the infidels ...
Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved...
So how would the Iranian regime achieve this?
You only need to listen to Ahmadinejad's chief strategic guru Hassan Abbassi, for the answer. Abbassi is the architect of the so-called "war preparation plan" currently under way in Iran. This is the same Hassan Abbassi who said:
"We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization... we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them."
Abbasi believes that when President Bush says that no option is off the table he is only playing chicken. According to respected Iranian analyst, Amir Taheri, Abbassi has said:
"The Americans are not ready to send a million men (to defeat the Islamic Republic)," Abbasi said. "Even economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic will fail thanks to opposition from the Western public opinion and the refusal of most countries to implement (them)..."
But it is not only the US that Abbasi wants to take on and humiliate. He has described Britain as "the mother of all evils". In his lecture he claimed that the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and the Gulf states were all "children of the same mother: the British Empire." As for France and Germany, they are "countries in terminal decline", according to Abbasi.
"Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover," he told his audience.
Why do you suppose these statements got zero play in the recent press cycle? Because people might actually get the idea that Iran represents a clear and present danger, not just to Israel and the Jews but to the entire liberal West. This would run against the fashionable view that the US and Israel are at the root of most of the resentment of the Muslim world, rather than an ideology that embodies hatred of Western societies and liberal values.
Instead, we are being told day in and day out that confronting this ideology is the problem, not the ideology itself. We are being told that in Iraq, US and coalition soldiers are dying needlessly in a war that was sold to us on false pretenses by a White House cabal of neocons. We are being convinced that our presence in Iraq is making things worse, not better, and that every car bombing, IED or attack on Iraqi civilians is occurring because of the presence of our soliders. In short, we are losing the information war:
As everybody from the President to the Lance Corporals say, 'when a terrorist lights a fire cracker, its news, but when we take down a terrorist cell, no one hears about it.'
This new battlespace is not fought on a fixed terrain. In war, it is often said that terrain and technology are neutral, i.e., night sights don't know who is wearing them, the ground doesn't care who is walking on it and a concrete wall will stop rounds from an AK-47 or an M-4.
The battlespace, the terrain of an information war, is not neutral, it takes sides. In the same way it would be impossible for Marines to win a firefight if the ground they were standing on convulsed or shifted from hard dirt to quicksand, so to is it becoming impossible for them to win a battle in the information war, for the terrain of an information war is not newsprint or radio waves, but the thoughts, opinions and prejudices of the reporters and editors.
Many of the reporters and editors are predisposed to oppose the American military. Some just dislike the military and military action, others, due to their personal political view of the President, use the war as a tool to criticize the President...
The Marines are fighting in a battle space that shifts on them, but the insurgents do not suffer that disadvantage.
It is estimated by some officers and analysts, that up to 50% of the Iraqi 'stringers' for news agencies are actually members or fellow travelers of the insurgency. It is very common for the insurgent stringers to mislead the major news organizations and for the reporters to believe them because it fits their preconceived story line and the stringers will line up 'sources' for the story. In a country where first run movies are available on bootleg DVD before the first box-office gross is tabulated, 'sources' are murky at best.
The military media relations officers will field questions from reporters based on the disinformation and offer them a flight to the area to see for themselves, but rarely do the reporters take up the offer.
The information war is not just battled in the media consumed by Americans, but in the Iraqi media and information networks.
If the Iraqi's view the insurgency as being strong, they are less likely to help the coalition. If the insurgency is viewed as winning, it is easier for the terrorists to recruit impressionable young men.
The insurgency has mastered the favorable battle space and is using it to every advantage through an extremely sophisticated disinformation network.
But of course, the above can't have any bearing on Iran. After all, Iran is a separate country, run by Shi'ite Muslims, whereas in Iraq the insurgents who are murdering civilians and government officials to prevent the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq are primarily Sunni Muslims, many of whom are secular Ba'athists who lost power when Saddam was deposed. They were and are mortal enemies. So there's no real common thread, right?
Can it be possible that we're really that deep in denial? Sadly, yes.
Recent Comments