Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:58AM GMT
Press TV has conducted an interview with Kevin Barrett, editor with Veterans Today, Madison, about Western threats of war against Iran.
The following is an approximate transcript of the interview.
Press TV: Just how practical would a military attack on Iran be and what would be the consequences for both the US and the region?
Barrett: Well, we’ve known for many, many years that a military attack on Iran cannot possibly result in a victory for the attackers. There was a study conducted by a whole group of military experts for The Atlantic monthly magazine – I think this was in 2005 or something like that – and they found that when they ran the war game scenarios for a Western war against Iran that Iran always won.
The Atlantic monthly is a neo-conservative publication. They are drooling to attack Iran. They would love to attack Iran. But when they went and hired the people that they thought that they could show that it can be done, they learned that it can’t be done. That’s been the reality that’s governed what’s going on for the past decade.
The neo-conservative Zionists Likudnik extremists aligned with Netanyahu want a wide Mid-East war so they can continue the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and maybe finish it, chase all the Palestinians out and murder a large segment of them. They don’t really care whether the war is “successful”. They just want to ethnically cleanse Palestine under the fog of war.
Americans including top American diplomats should know that this is not in America’s interests. I’m sure John Kerry knows that and yet he feels compelled to issue these barbaric threats of war.
Essentially, these are threats to commit the supreme war crime, aggression, which has been viewed as the worst crime in existence since the Nuremburg Tribunals. He feels compelled to utter these threats because he’s under pressure from the Zionist lobby which has so much power here in the USA.
Press TV: The fact that these threatening statements are against international law and the UN charter, why don’t we see any reaction or rebuke from the United Nations itself?
Barrett: That’s a very good question. You know, I think one of the very purposes of the coup d’état on September 11, 2001, was to put an end to the Nuremberg period.
From the time of the Nuremburg Tribunals after World War II through September 11, 2001, leaders of countries that wanted to launch wars of aggression against other countries had to find a way to pretend that they were actually defending themselves because aggression had been defined as the worst war crime.
The Zionists didn’t like that. So, they setup the 9/11 attacks in part to unleash wars of aggression by Israel and the US. They call these preemptive wars.
The attack on Iraq and indeed the attack on Afghanistan are classic examples of wars of aggression that were redefined as preemptive wars due to the public relations bonanza that these people reaped after their 9/11 false-flag attack.