We Will Be Very Lucky To Escape a US Attack on Iran

The GEOFOR editorial board asked Paul Craig Roberts, Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy (USA), a PhD in Economics and US Undersecretary of Treasury in the Reagan administration, to give his assessment of the prospects for confrontation between Israel and Hamas, the likelihood of war between the United States and Iran, as well as the future of BRICS and the constitutional crisis in the US.

GEOFOR: In your publications you point to the need for a mutual defense treaty between Russia, China and Iran. What practical benefits do you see from such an alliance? The possibility of preventing a U.S. strike on Iran, either directly or with the help of Israel? And how realistic do you see the trilateral alliance in the current environment? Especially since Beijing has for decades avoided making such a commitment.

Paul Craig Roberts: The conflict between Israel and Hamas has already widened to Israel vs. Hamas and Hezbollah, to the US/UK vs. Houthis, and now with the attack on a US base in Jordan to the prospect of a US attack on Iran or on Iranian officials. We will be very lucky to escape a US attack on Iran. Israel, which has extraordinary influence on US policy in the Middle East, has been pushing Washington for many years to attack Iran. Such an attack has the support of the majority of the US Congress and is fervently desired by Israel’s neoconservative allies, such as Victoria Nuland, who hold powerful positions in the US government. It would require a miracle for a US attack on Iran not to start a major war from which Russia and China could not stand aside. A Century of War: Linc... John V. Denson Best Price: $3.72 Buy New $8.50 (as of 07:45 UTC - Details)

My conclusion is that proactive action is necessary to prevent an attack on Iran that would likely ignite a major world confrontation. A mutual defense treaty announced by Russia, China, and Iran would prevent an attack on Iran. The US, Israel, and NATO do not have the capability of fighting a war against three powerful countries. Without such an alliance, the determination of Israel and Israel’s neoconservative allies in Washington to expand Israel’s borders by removing Iran’s financial and military support for Hezbollah and the Houthis will result in a strike on Iran. It is what everyone in Washington wants, except the US military, but the decision will not be made by the military.

GEOFOR: What is your vision of the bilateral comprehensive Russian-Iranian treaty, which will obviously include a defense component. Can it be seen as a step in the direction we have been talking about? Is it possible for China to join it?

Paul Craig Roberts: The question you raise is whether the pact between Russia and Iran will fill this need. There is little news available to me about this pact. I have not seen any description of it on the English language Russian news services such as RT and Sputnik. I have not seen discussion of it even in the alternative media. Has this pact been concluded? Does it have a defense component or is one only implied? It seems that the pact was announced before it was concluded and in place, which would be an incentive for the US to strike Iran now. The pact has not received sufficient attention to make a US attack on Iran look like a mindless and reckless policy. There is no foreign policy discussion in the US about this pact or its meaning.

It other words, it is another Putin low-key response suggesting that nothing threatening is really meant by the pact. Only this time there are no 8 years to wait out the Minsk Agreement. No time remains for Putin to take his slow steps. What is needed, immediately in my view, is a highly publicized joint press conference of Putin, Xi, and the Iranian leader that a mutual defense treaty is in effect and that an attack on one is an attack on all. Such a proactive action would stop in its tracks the US/Israeli move to widen the war.

You ask about China whose government prefers words to actions. Watching Washington stir the Taiwan pot must cause Xi to realize that Washington is abandoning the One China policy announced in 1979, just as Washington abandoned the promise made to Gorbachev that “NATO will not move one inch to the East.” The foreign policy of Washington’s neoconservatives is American hegemony. The one sure thing that can discredit this policy and make it too ridiculous to continue is a highly publicized public announcement of a Russian/Chinese/Iranian Mutual Defense Treaty. The multipolar world that Putin is always talking about cannot materialize without such a treaty.

GEOFOR: In recent times, large-scale alliances are becoming more and more frequent on the agenda. In this context, we cannot but ask how do you see the prospects of BRICS, especially as it has grown considerably since this year and, judging by a number of reports, in 2024 we may hear again about the likely accession of new members? How much of a blow to the organization was Argentina’s decision not to join BRICS after Javier Milei came to power? Will BRICS be able to compete with the G20?

Paul Craig Roberts: Argentina’s decision has zero affect on BRICS. I am not saying that this is the case for Argentina, but Russia should understand that most governments are corrupt and that Washington will pay government officials not to join BRICS. Speed Reading: Learn t... Knight, Kam Check Amazon for Pricing.

BRICS is a Russian-led effort for countries to get out from under Washington’s control of their economic and foreign policies. The EU countries have locked themselves into Washington’s control. Countries in South America and Africa, due to the corruption of their politicians, have sold out to Washington for money and thereby avoid punishments and overthrows. The real question is how long will Washington be able to continue purchasing so much of the world.

Washington’s purchase of governments is what BRICS is supposed to end by creating an alternative financial mechanism for international trade that is not exploitative. BRICS success depends on how proactive Russia and China are in preventing Washington from starting more wars. It makes no sense for two powerful countries to leave the initiative in Washington’s hands.

GEOFOR: And traditionally, we cannot ignore the United States, where, apparently, the electoral struggle has intensified after the events in Texas. What consequences, in your opinion, can such events lead to?

Paul Craig Roberts: “President” Joe Biden, who is in office only through electoral fraud, has committed high treason against the United States of America. He should be arrested and tried for high treason against the United States.

The US Constitution requires Biden to protect US borders. Instead he has worked consistently to prevent the protection of the borders and to leave them wide open for millions of immigrant-invaders, now numbered by the latest account at 22 million invaders.

Article IV, section 4 of the US Constitution requires the federal government to protect each state against invasion. This the Biden regime has steadfastly refused to do, instead aiding and abetting the immigrant-invaders who are overrunning Texas and other states. Without any doubt, the Biden regime has broken the contract between the federal and state governments. Biden has openly invited civil war by repeating Abraham Lincoln’s violation of the Constitutional contract between the federal government and the states. Whereas Lincoln only targeted the Southern states, Biden has violated his responsibility to all states. Under Biden’s open border policy, even blue cities, such as Denver, are crying for help against the immigrant-invaders that the federal government is aiding and abetting.