P
-------------
At 01:22 PM 1/5/2006, you wrote:
Dear Prof. Chomsky,
I'm an antiwar activist in New York, and I was wondering: What are your thoughts about the likelihood of a US-led first-strike aerial attack on Iran using tactical nuclear weapons, to be
carried out as early as March, initially (perhaps largely) by Israel? In a recent talk here at Columbia, Robert Fisk opined that such a scenario was NOT likely, because he believes the US will need to use Iran as a sort of mediator for an end to the war in Iraq.
But here's a provocative new article by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky of Canada that suggests otherwise:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714
Seems fairly credible. I think popular resistance to the very notion of such a horrific attack must be vigorous and must build soon, even if it's a low-probability scenario. Any comments?
Thanks,
P
-------------------
----- Forwarded message from Noam Chomsky -----
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:49:51 -0500
From: Noam Chomsky
Subject: Re: War with Iran?
To: P
I think it's highly unlikely, for reasons I've discussed a number of times in print. In brief, if the US/Israel were planning an attack, they would not advertise it loudly for years in advance so that Iran could prepare for the attack and organize retaliation. Secondly, they know very well that Iran can cause plenty of trouble for the US in Iraq, where the astonishing failures of the US invasion has given Iran plenty of influence, and the US is up to its ears in problems there already which may be catastrophic for its ends. Also, they would be crazy to use tactical nuclear weapons.
I think there are better explanations for the saber-rattling of the past years, which I've discussed a number of times. In brief, intimidating Europe (which has succeeded: major corporations have withdrawn from Iran) and inciting the Iranian leadership to harsh
measures, expediting ongoing US efforts at subversion to weaken the society enough so that an attack might be contemplated.
That's assuming elementary rationality. However, a wounded beast may not behave rationally.
