Will US Attack Iran? Hersh, Kolko Weigh In

Seymour Hersh maintains that the Bush administration is determined to strike Iran, though tactics and justifications have changed:

This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism. …

I was repeatedly cautioned, in interviews, that the President has yet to issue the “execute order” that would be required for a military operation inside Iran, and such an order may never be issued. But there has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning. In mid-August, senior officials told reporters that the Administration intended to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. And two former senior officials of the C.I.A. told me that, by late summer, the agency had increased the size and the authority of the Iranian Operations Group. …

The revised bombing plan for a possible attack, with its tightened focus on counterterrorism, is gathering support among generals and admirals in the Pentagon. The strategy calls for the use of sea-launched cruise missiles and more precisely targeted ground attacks and bombing strikes, including plans to destroy the most important Revolutionary Guard training camps, supply depots, and command and control facilities.

But historian Gabriel Kolko writes in to say that “war with Iran is not likely.”

  1. THE U.S. AND EUROPEAN ECONOMIES are now in a crisis, and it may be protracted. The dollar is falling in value, Gulf States and others may abandon it, etc. A war with Iran would produce economic chaos, because oil would be scarce. There are states, like Russia and Venezuela, who can sell it. In a word, the balance of world economic power is involved, and that is a great issue.
  2. THE GULF STATES do not like Shia Iran, but they export oil, becoming rich thereby. They are dependent on peace, not war.
  3. THE U.S. PUBLIC AND CONGRESS are variable factors. As the last election proved, anyone who thinks the Democrats will stop wars is fooling himself or herself. But war with Iran would require new authorizations. Then the Congress would, potentially, be very important. I may be wrong, but I may be right.
  4. CHENEY AND THE NEOCONS huff and puff ideologies and are very articulate ideologues. Will they volunteer to fight Iran, and what will they do on the battlefield? How many effective fighters do they have at the Weekly Standard or AEI?
  5. THE AMERICAN MILITARY is at the present moment stretched to the limit. They are losing both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everything is being sacrificed for these wars: money, equipment in Asia, American military power globally, etc. Where and how can they fight yet another?
  6. BUNKER BUSTERS can knock out so many bunkers – not all. If they are nuclear they are very useful, but they are also radioactive. In addition to killing enemies, they may kill friends and nearby U.S. soldiers also. It depends where you must drop them.
  7. WHAT WILL IRAN DO, and what sorts of technology do they possess? They fought against Iraq about a decade, and suffered about half a million casualties. Perhaps they will roll over, but it’s not likely. There are a number of tiny islands in the Gulf they have had years to fortify. Can 90 percent of their weapons be knocked out? The remainder will be sufficient to sink many boats and tankers. The oil exported through the Gulf will thereby be reduced, and perhaps cease altogether.
  8. ISRAEL may be a factor. They must cross Syrian and Jordanian airspace, and the Iranians will be prepared if they are not shot down over Syria. Their countermeasures may be effective, but perhaps not. Hence a number of Israeli pilots will realize they are embarking on suicide missions. Will they? Some will, others will not.
  9. IRAN IS LIKELY TO GET NUCLEAR BOMBS, sooner or later. So will other nations. Israel has hundreds already. Israeli strategists believe deterrence will then exist. Why risk war?

There may be other factors. But these are sufficient.

The Bush-Cheney administration, as the Iraq war proved, is full of mad, irrational people, and there is no way to account for them. But not everyone in Washington thinks like them, especially in the military, and those on Wall Street who have the most to lose from a war have great political influence. We are obligated to count on them because that is they way the U.S. has operated for decades. According to an article in Salon, Sept. 28, “the military would revolt and there would be no pilots to fly those missions” were it ordered to war against Iran. Without them, there is no danger. The American public is a small factor, as elections have repeatedly shown, but may play some role also. But the U.S. fights wars and loses most of them. The U.S. is very likely to lose a war with Iran if it fights. It probably will not.

I recommend reading the Hersh piece in its entirety.

26 thoughts on “Will US Attack Iran? Hersh, Kolko Weigh In”

  1. Read carefully what Kolko is saying and realize that while the economic incentives to avoid an attack on Iran are very legitimate, because it is not profitable for certain elites, it is not part of the overiding interests of those needing control over the energy reserves in the long run, as superpower hegemony cries out for to maintain it's position.

    I agree with those above about the Navy and Air Force not being stretched in the least, and a draft can easily "fix" the Army's problem, within 120 days after the overnight missile onslaught.

    The attack can be extremely swift and of course never "surgical" but effective enough to spark the regional firestorm the Busheviks desire. Scott Ritter is right about the social base, still very considerable and largely conservative though quiet for now, they don't like to lose this war. They are not against the wars and think the energy reserves are American to have and squander as it and Europe see fit.

    The leaders in the White House know and are not telling the broad majority of their supporters because the truth is too brutal, better to cater to the most reactionary sentiments of the US population after the bombings. Then will be the sentimental calls for domestic rationing, sacrifice and blood echoing the strains from WWII.

    Here is another contributing key factor not mentioned in the discussions here.

    From Hersch's article linked above:

    Podhoretz concluded, “I pray with all my heart” that President Bush “will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel.” Podhoretz recently told politico.com that he had met with the President for about forty-five minutes to urge him to take military action against Iran, and believed that “Bush is going to hit” Iran before leaving office. (Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, is a strong backer of Rudolph Giuliani’s Presidential campaign, and his son-in-law, Elliott Abrams, is a senior adviser to President Bush on national security.)

    The warmongers have insulated themselves, even by bloodlines, in the bubble of their own soap machine of propaganda salvos.

    They believe because they know energy is that important to them.

    They will attack with the least public military provacation, even if they have to lie to their own supporters, for only a short while.

  2. Respone to Kolko:

    1. Depression never stopped war. Ever heard of WWII?

    2. The Gulf States would profit economically if the price of oil spike to $100-$200 which will likely happen during/after an attack.

    3. When did Congress ever stop a war? Or Bush?

    4. No neocons went to fight in Iraq either.

    5. The Air Force and Navy are not stretched to the limit by any means. And the Marines and National Guard are not close to the breaking point.

    6. Who says the U.S. will use bunker-busting nukes?

    7. Good question but not good enough to stop a war. Especially given that Bush might attack in Jan 2009 right before Hillary is sworn in. Then she’ll have to deal with 2 messes in the region instead of 1.

    8. Israel will not participate in any meaningful way due to the enormous political and logistical difficulties. Plus they have no bombers, only fighters.

    9. Because the U.S. wants to call the shots in the Middle East without worrying about anyone counter-attacking. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, the military option in the Middle East is basically off the table. The U.S. cannot afford that.

    1. Voice of America and Fiasco at Persian Service.
      Millions of dollars are spent in Persian Service of Voice of America but the end result is nothing but scandalous way of cockamamie management and programming.
      It is hard to believe but the Persian Service which supposed to be an organization to convey the policy of the U.S. has become a free platform for hard-line terrorist group of communists who attack the United Sates!
      I have the documents in writings to prove that these were done with the full knowledge of the management.
      I used to work there and as I said before, I have all the documents in writings.
      The manager is a woman called Sheila Gandji who can not read and write Persian. Therefore, in order to hide this shortcoming from the higher management, she has hired an eighty something man called Kambiz Mahmoudi who has a lengthy background as crook and in charlatanism.
      You expect a doctor to be in charge of a medical clinic. You expect an engineer to be in charge of an engineering department. You expect a plumber to fix your plumbing.
      So why do you expect a person who has no education in Iran and doesn’t know the language of that country should be in charge of publicity, literature or politic for such position?
      Sheila Gandji falsely pretended and presented herself as educated with background in journalism. These are absolute fabrications. Nobody in Iranian communities inside of the country or outside has any knowledge about her being a journalist, then and now.
      Her partner, Kambiz Mahmoudi is a hateful and despicable person whose activities as crook are widely known through out Iran. Can’t the U.S. government appoint somebody without such shameful background and baggage?
      Don’t think that this is a personal vendetta.
      Let me quote you a view from another media:
      “The Iran Steering group concluded that much of the anti-American perspective that is broadcast is the result of decisions made by station managers in Washington D.C. and Prague. Sheila Gandji, the manager of Persian service has faced sharp criticism, particularly for her decision to stop VOA shortwave radio program in July, 2006 in order to focus on television broadcasts, which are more susceptible to censorship, since the government regularly confiscates satellites dishes in order to prevent the infiltration of foreign broadcasts.”
      This is not the only one. The mismanagement at the Persian Service of Voice of America is the subject of hundreds of sites and articles indicative of disgusts and ridicules in the world about VOA.
      The bizarre situation at the Persian Service of Voice of America caused even the Republican Senator Coburn to write a long letter to President Bush about the fiasco there.
      It is only in America where the government pays to be insulted. Really, why Voice of America is doing this harm to our nation?

  3. "THE U.S. PUBLIC AND CONGRESS are variable factors"

    I like Kolko a lot, but come on, Congress a "variable factor?"

    With token exceptions, both parties are war parties. And the US public in the red states will do whatever FOX news tells them to do. All the President has to do is lie about Iranian provocation, and the MSM Press, Congress and most Americans will roll over like they do whenever a new war is started.

  4. Binh, he’s not talking about depression. He’s talking about the comparative advantage America’s economic adversaries will reap.

    Kolko’s analysis seems right on the whole, but as Alex Cockburn pointed out a few weeks ago, Bush and Cheney may try to roll the dice and hope, against the odds, that Iran will simply collapse and give the U.S. a cheap victory.

  5. I think Kolko makes good arguments, but I disagree on the first point.

    It may be true that the balance of economic power would shift, but I don’t think the people who decide on war have thought things through all that rigorously. If they did one would have to wonder what on earth they were thinking when they went into Iraq. Even assuming that Wolfowitz’ estimate that the war would pay for itself was correct an exacting cost-benefit analysis and sensitivity analysis would have revealed this choice to be pure folly. Moreover why isn’t this objection being voiced by any of leading presidential candidates. It was the same in WW1, we raised an army of 3 million men and resorted to costly inflation financing, but what was gained for the US?

  6. I think Kolko makes few good points, But regarding the USA military being streched to a limit. I dont think they are at this current point, Did we forget the USA in world war 2 invaded the whole of Europe?? In Iraq & Afghanistan they are currently using 5 % of there resources from Usa military .

    1. Comparisons to WWII are unhelpful. That was an over-the-english-channel assault with a large multinational force – and conscripts – against an forces that had already lost a lot of their mobility (due to weak airpower and many divisions being ground down by battles on the Eastern Front). Even then it was a close shave.

      This will be a strategic bombing campaign with minimal groundside intervention, blowing away civilian and military installations (cf Yougoslavia and Irak) with the result of creating yet another nation-wreck that will be left lying in the gutter for the next 10-15 years. Maybe the Republican Guard units will be quick by foot and rip the US forces in Iraq a second one before they can be picked off from the air but that is doubtful. Oh yeah, I do believe the US has enough air power in reserve for that, no problemo.

    2. American forces did not invade the “whole of Europe” in WW Two. They advanced to a line well east of Germany’s western frontier, but did so with comparative ease only because of the Russian offensive in the east.

  7. The neocons are driven by ideology and they are intimately aligned with Israel.

    They will do their utmost to attack Iran, regardless of any consequences. The Israeli right wing has been pushing hard on this for six months now, which is why Iran has been blamed for everything since then and why you didn’t hear squat about Iran before that time.

    Israel’s right wing nut-jobs will do their best to get the Americans to spend American money and lives to solve that problem for them. On top of that, they’ll get the US to also send tons of money to Israel during any such conflict. Pretty good racket they got going.

    To be clear, the majority of Jews don’t believe in this approach or in zionism in general, so don’t confuse this with a “Jewish” issue. This is a right-wing issue, regardless of religious background.

    Keep in mind Iran is not a problem for the US – nukes or no nukes. Iran has also repeatedly and publicly stated they’d like better relations with the US. Iran also hasn’t actually attacked a country in around 1,000 years. Therefore, the United States has absolutely no national interest in going to war with Iran and yet every reason in the world to better relations with them.

    Although Kolko puts forth very logical and rational points, those only apply to rational people.

    The Neocons are not rational and have never been. They are a bigoted, hateful, selfish, spiteful and fearful group of people – somewhat like a cross between the Nazis and religious fundamentalists.

    They show all the classic signs of being quite low on the scale of spiritual development. This is grossly evident in the things they say, the things they write and the things they do. Therefore, you can continue to expect acts that are selfishly motivated, driven by fear and hate. War, torture, imprisonment, slaughter of innocents, hate speech, slander – all these things are direct results.

    The scary part is that roughly 1/3rd of the US population STILL thinks all this is ok. That means these evil actions resonate with them too and that is very disappointing.

    They will attack Iran and they will expect Israel to attack Syria and Lebanon. They will expect to win too. In a pinch, they’ll also resort to nukes. In their minds, it will be technology doing what you don’t have enough manpower to do.

  8. Though my admiration for Gabriel Kolko is great, I find his points unconvincing.

    As a consumer and spectator, I believe the current campaign to demonize Iran –not the poor/innocent Iranians that we need to liberate but the evil ones that are a threat to world security– on TV and in the newspaper is working quite well. Americans WILL be fooled again!

    Democrats and those who believe in peace must stop mulling the fragility and integrity of our armed forces (or even our economy). These are technical details for a nation at war (as we are), and the President will not allow them to interfere with his plans (whatever they may evolve into). As Greenspan says, the Iraq war has actually had minimal impact on our economy (so far). How many nations have destroyed themselves in order to forestall failure in war?

    Kolko’s arguments rest on the assumption that the promoters of war (1) are rational and dispassionate, and (2) have “our” interest in mind. The President has already started a war with little forethought or planning for the outcome.

    The President lost the first round to Iran in Iraq. Why not start a second round in Iran? Double-down. The President has nothing to lose.

  9. Kolko is just another victim of cognitive dissonance. He might as well be a Holocaust denier.

    The war in Iran is a done deal.

    "CHENEY AND THE NEOCONS huff and puff ideologies and are very articulate ideologues. Will they volunteer to fight Iran, and what will they do on the battlefield? How many effective fighters do they have at the Weekly Standard or AEI?"

    Is he nuts? Just exactly what could possibly happen to Bush, Cheney or the rest of the neocons that they would threaten either their lives, their incomes or their political positions or positions in neoconservative think tanks?

    These guys take absolutely no risks at all. Bush is on the way out anyway, and he's going to get a multimillion dollar Presidential library, some cushy book deals, and of course he'll join his father's crowd of war profiteers and fly around the world talking to rich Arabs. Cheney is in the same boat.

    So what possible motivation would they have NOT to attack Iran?

    Somebody in Sy Hersh's articles explicitly said this – that neither Bush nor Cheney give a damn about the Republicans in 2008. And they don't. People who think this is all about politics and screwing the Democrats just don't get it – this is about power and war profiteering. It has little to do with politics. It's a pure criminal enterprise!

    1. Kolko “might as well be a Holocaust denier” because he’s skeptical that something will happen in the future? That would be an outrageous libel if it weren’t so nonsensical.

      Seriously, people, think before you type.

  10. Look for Iran to escalate the rhetoric, wrong foot the US in the region, and rob us of any meaningful initiative.

    If worse comes to worse (as it often does) Iran believes that drawing a US attack would actually be a boon to their regional standing.

    Eventually, Israel will probably end up bombing Iran themselves.

  11. “In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran.”

    Here, in my view, is the definitive statement. Having bluddered unbelievably in starting the war and, after having ousted Sadam Hussein, creating the circumstances for the very analysis it presently makes by erecting a Shia puppet that by its very nature could only have been an ally of Iran, the Regime is now placed in the uncomfortable position of devouring its own offspring if it attacks Iran. Given the history and intimate connections between the Shia and Iran, an attack on Iran now becomes, for all intents and purposes, an attack on the al-Malaki government. In its present search for connections with the Sunni leadership, one wonders if the Regime sense Sadam Hussien laughing at them from beyond the grave.

  12. This whole debate is what the 'Chaney crew' is trying to initiate. By discussing these issues in the current manner, we are providing them with valuable 'market research', which I bet they will exploit at the moment the first bomb falls on Iran (because Iran WILL be attacked).

    This is in fact the beauty of the NeoCon approach. By discussing their misinformation openly, we provide them with arguments to be countered when the war starts. By not discussing this, we allow them a blank check to attack Iran.

    As things stand in the US at this moment (with the complete nullification of the constitution), there is no option for the people who don't want war. The checks and balances have been removed from the equation and all we are left with are some racists, megalomaniac and not 100% sane people in ABSOLUTE power.

    It's ironic that the people who were the vanguard of fighting Soviet-fascism have converted US into the new Soviet, controlled by one 'party' of lunatics.

    And on 'How to stop the war' … it's a bit too late and not possible anymore. If US wanted peace, then they shouldn't have voted for 'God-told-me-to-go-to-war'. What were you expecting with rhetoric like that? Nelson Mandela?

    1. How can you talk about the “complete nullification of the Constitution?” If the Constitution has been completely nullified how do you have the freedom of speech to lambaste the United States on this blog? If the Constitution has been nullifed how do you and the anti-war crowd have the freedom of speech and assembly to have large protests? I think you should stop the hyperbole, it is not helpful.

      And why can’t more people study history, Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, but yet our nation, and our Constitution are still here! Lincoln would make Bush look very mild by comparison. If you study Constitutional law and history, you will see that the powers of government tend to increase during war-time. The rationale being that a nation’s pirmary duty is to protect its citizens from attack.

  13. Unfortunately, Kolko's #5 (senior military resistance/revolt) is the only possible check on the Empire's war plans.

    I had long ago concluded that Democrat and US public resistance would be a non-issue against preemptive (and nuclear) expansion of the Empire's oil-war from Iraq to Iran.

    I had long ago concluded that the only "hope was in the Generals"

    But now the global corporate fascist war Empire behind this facade of "Vichy America" has even thrown out the last defense of the "Generals" (including Peter Pace, who aborted the Feb 2007 war launch plan) — and brought in their own War Admiral, "Mad Dog" Mullen.

    There is no question that military revolts have been the only thing standing in the way of the Empire's planned nuclear war in Iran. In fact, there have already been several military revolts, starting with Pace's clear instructions to his senior officers that they are "not to carry out illegal and/or immoral orders" in February — which stopped the Empire's first planned war launch, and predictably got him removed by the Empire as Jont Chief's Chairmam — right up to the latest military revolt, just recently, to abort Cheney's planned B-52, ACM/W-80 nuclear bomb 'accidental strike'.

    However, not with standing Cheney's premature ejaculation of nuke cruise missiles on the aborted B-52 scam the Empire will not have long to wait now in launching their long planned global strike preemptive attack on Iran with the cover of entirely legal means — thanks to the installation by the Empire of their preferred nuclear spear carriers, Admiral Mullen and his spacebot bomber side-kick, StratCom "Ripper" Cartwright. Aided and politically endorsed by the AIPAC greased US Senate passage of the "Attack Iran Now" sense of the Senate vote last week!!

    Note, for those who do not remember (including the MSM from their own reporting) Admiral "quick trigger' Mullen is the one, who as CNO during the Iran/British seaman capture dust-up, infamously growled that "if that had happened to my sailors there would have been shots fired — even if it started a war".

    Perhaps that was the cameo role and performance that earned Admiral "war starter' Mullen his new 'stripes'.

  14. Israel will not participate in any meaningful way due to the enormous political and logistical difficulties. Plus they have no bombers, only fighters.

    Slight correction here. The Israelis do have F-15 long range fighters and airborne tankers, giving them an air-to-air refueling capability. So it’s not technically impossible for the IAF to hit targets in Iran. But I doubt that they would do so anyway. After all, from the Israeli perspective that’s what the US is for, to carry out Israeli policy without risking any Israeli lives.

    1. Bourgeois Liberal,

      “After all, from the Israeli perspective that’s what the US is for, to carry out Israeli policy without risking any Israeli lives.”

      Yes, it would seem so, wouldn’t it? But while considered a “friend” and, therefore, blameworthy in having such a perspective at all, have they not been taught over the years that there is virtually no limit to what we will tolerate from them? I recall once having an e-mail exchange with Gary Bauer, one time Republican presidential candidate, and among those currently leading ReichsChurch support for a confrontation with Iran, asking him for a satisfactory explanation of the Pollard episode. Oh, everybody does it, he offered. Perhaps Bauer and those like him with similar viewpoints ought to be to be tried for espionage along with Rosen and Weissman next January.

      John Lowell

  15. I stand corrected on point 1. In any case, if it’s a case of short-term/medium-term economic loss vs. controlling the world’s energy supply (he who controls the oil, controls the world), then we should be clear about what choice Bush will make there.

    Bourgeois Lib wrote in response to me: Slight correction here. The Israelis do have F-15 long range fighters and airborne tankers, giving them an air-to-air refueling capability. So it’s not technically impossible for the IAF to hit targets in Iran.

    They have refuelling capability but they’d have to refuel twice over Iraqi/Saudi airspace to get there and back. Furthermore, the nuclear sites are deep underground and the munitions their American-made fighters carry cannot really do a lot of damage to them (I’m assuming they won’t use nuclear weapons). To carry out a semi-effective strike they need B52s, B2s, and F-117 stealth bombers and only Uncle Sam has those.

    Also, Iran is pretty mountainous, which would eat up quite a bit of fuel flying under the radar. Lastly, the IAF does not have enough tankers to refuel their entire AF which would be necessary to take out the air defense systems that surround their nuclear reactors and government buildings.

    This is why I say the IAF won’t play any significant role in the attack on Iran. Too many logistical and political hurdles to overcome.

  16. I have read your complete article and found it very very informative and realistic, I know currently the Govt. of Pakistan is supporting USA and in fact USA is allowed by pakistani Govt. to deliver bombs anywhere in Pakistan,

    USA is getting support by Paki Govt. not by paki people as USA is considers in pak the biggest enemy of Pakistan especially Muslims, As it has shown the willingness to kill muslims everywhere in the world.

    USA and Israeli is shouting that Iran can produce nuclear weapons which is completely baseless as Iran accepted the supervision of (IAEA) but when this organization took actions according to USA and Israeli desire than Iran had no choice except stop cooperating with IAEA and Iran did that which is his right !

    I have to point out to you that USA is the only nation who has more than 10,000 nuclear weapons and it is still producing more nuclear weapons which is quite amazing,

    I want to ask any American including you, that why your country produced such a big quantity of nuclear weapons, i think 150 to 200 nuclear weapons will be enough for the destoryment of the whole world, so in that occasion 10,000 or more nuclear weapons should be considered to threaten the world or it should be considered for the betterment of the humanity ?

    Did you remember what Israel did with Lebanon in recent years and what was USA attitude towards the fight ? I can tell you truly and frankly, that USA was supporting Israel to kill innocent people of Lebanon bcoz they were Muslims, The United Nations passed the resolution and condemned Israeli act but it was your country dear who continued supporting Israeli and WETO the resolution.

    And then Lebanon people along with Sheikhs started fighting and sent many Rockets in Israel which caused the several causalities and fear in people and as the time passed Sheikhs gain more power and it was time when Israel was under attack, which was not acceptable for USA.

    Then simply USA supported the resolution and fighting was stopped but during air strikes in Lebanon, Israel killed countless innocent people including innocent kids which were just like roses.

    Can anybody tell me how much money USA has spent on producing these nuclear weapons, I think the amount can’t be calculated as it must be in countless figure, so what do you think my dear, if this amount could have spent for the betterment of poor nations and for those who have no food, no water, no cloth, no medication, I am quite sure said amount might have changed the whole life of those needy people if it was used for the betterment of these people but why?

    It was not a duty of USA to help those needy people, instead of this, the aim of USA was to kill more and more innocent people around the world especially Muslims.

    Now the Israel pushing USA to attack IRAN due to iran nuclear activities which are not true, Did you remember, the same objection raised by USA before attacking IRAQ but could not find any prove of nuclear/chemical weapons, and during this war, You americans lost your soldier who were you sons, brothers, fathers and of course they were killed as they considered enemy.

    I am quite sure, if the USA will attack Iran, then it must be a start of world war 3 which will spread around the world, and i am sorry but it is true that you ( Americans ) will have to face toughest time during war as you will be fired from everywhere and you know why it will be bcoz of your Government’s adopted policies.

    Here, In pakistan, if you are a foreigner then people will honor you but if they come to know that you are a American, You will see an anger in their eyes which is bcoz of your Govt. policies for the Muslims,

    Now USA and allies ( NATO ) attacking pakistan everyday and Govt. of Pakistan (PPP) is just formally protesting the strikes, In these Strikes they have killed many many females and kids who were completely innocent.

    I do not why USA is not understanding that these kind of activities will make more terrorist’s bcoz if a family member dies in these attacks, the other family members have two options, 1.keep silence and be patient, 2.fight with them.

    So in this way, many of them keep silence and many of them decides to fight and kill their enemy who killed their loved ones.

    Therefore they are not terrorists but you are terrorist who insisted them to take gun for their satisfaction.

    I am writing this letter to you just to clarify the differences between terrisiom bcoz i know the life is so small and it’s better for every one to spend life peacefully.

    In the meanwhile, However, Neither Pakistani Govt, nor Pakistani Armed Forces responding Amercian Attacks which will be caused biggest violation in country.

    Your comments will be awaited !

    Regards, A Peace Lover

Comments are closed.