Senior US Army Generals Warn against Dire Consequences of War Rhetoric against Iran

A large number of senior US Army generals warned that not only military action, but also war rhetoric against Iran is too dangerous for the US and israel, and cautioned the US presidential candidates to “curb their jingoistic, chauvinistic emotions and temper their world view with a little reflective, rational thought”.

The Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (LaRouche PAC) in a statement on Friday said a large number of US Army generals have voiced strong opposition to any aggressive move against Iran.

In addition to the exclusive EIR interview with former CENTCOM commander, Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (USMC-ret.), other military voices are being raised against the danger of general war, posed by the threat of an israeli or US attack on Iran.

On Nov. 14, General John H. Johns, a retired Army officer who is a signator on the Human Rights First letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warning against the police-state measures in the new defense bill, wrote an op-ed published in the New York Times, titled “Before We Bomb Iran, Let’s Have a Serious Conversation.” In the article, General Johns cites former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, another former CENTCOM commander, and former Congressman, Admiral Joe Sestak, all warning about the “unintended consequences” of any attack on Iran.

The general warned:

“While rhetoric about military strikes may work as an applause line in Republican debates, there is little or no chance that military action would be quite so simple. Quite the contrary. Defense leaders agree that the military option would likely result in serious unintended consequences.”

“Meir Dagan, the recently retired chief of israel’s Mossad, shares the assessment of the Americans cited above. He noted earlier this year that attacking Iran would mean regional war and went on to say that arguments for military strikes were the “stupidest thing I have ever heard“.

The General concluded with a warning to the Presidential candidates:

“America ought not consider another war in the Middle East without a very serious discussion of the consequences. Political candidates should curb their jingoistic, chauvinistic emotions and temper their world view with a little reflective, rational thought.”

Gen. Zinni appeared this week on Charlie Rose’s show on CBS TV to issue another warning about the consequences of an attack on Iran. Asked about the consequences of an israeli attack on Iran, Zinni gave a graphic answer:

“I think the problem with the strike is thinking through the consequences of Iranian reaction. One mine that hits a tanker, and you can imagine what is going to happen to the price of oil and economies around the world. One missile into a (Persian) Gulf oil field or a natural gas processing field, you can imagine what’s going to happen. A missile attack on some of our troop formations in the (Persian) Gulf or our bases in Iraq, activating sleeper cells, flushing out fast patrol boats and dowels that have mines that can go into the water in the Red Sea and elsewhere. You can see all these reactions that are problematic in so many ways. Economic impact, national security impact – it will drag us into a conflict. I think anybody that believes that it would be a clean strike and it would be over and there would be no reaction is foolish.”

Also, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, on the eve of talks with zionist israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, underlined Iran’s major role in global economy, and said the US would not dare to attack Iran since the move would devastate, not just the US, but the world economy.

“There are going to be economic consequences to that (an Iran strike), that could impact not just on our economy but the world economy,” Panetta told reporters traveling with him on Thursday to Canada, where he will attend a security forum and hold bilateral talks with Barak.

Analysts believe that the statements by the US defense secretary prove that the US and zionist israel have intensified war rhetoric against Islamic Republic of Iran since almost two months ago in a bid to convince other countries, specially Russia and China, to accept harsh diplomatic actions, including sanctions against Iran, to avoid a US and israeli strike on Tehran.