[D66] Iran-VS

[A.O.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dogs_of_war_(phrase)
The dogs of war (phrase)
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see The Dogs of War.
Punch cartoon from 17 June 1876. Russia preparing to let slip the "Dogs
of War" and its imminent engagement in the growing Balkan conflict
between Slavic states and the Ottoman Empire, while policeman John Bull
(Britain) warns Russia to take care. The Slavic states of Serbia and
Montenegro would declare war on the Ottoman Empire two weeks later.

In English, the dogs of war is a phrase spoken by Mark Antony in Act 3,
Scene 1, line 273 of William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar: "Cry 'Havoc!,'
and let slip the dogs of war."
Contents

    1 Synopsis
    2 See also
    3 References
    4 Bibliography
    5 External links

Synopsis

In the scene, Mark Antony is alone with Julius Caesar's body, shortly
after Caesar's assassination. In a soliloquy, he reveals his intention
to incite the crowd at Caesar's funeral to rise up against the
assassins. Foreseeing violence throughout Italy, Antony even imagines
Caesar's spirit joining in the exhortations: "ranging for revenge, with
Ate by his side come hot from hell, shall in these confines with a
Monarch's voice cry 'Havok!' and let slip the dogs of war."

In a literal reading, "dogs" are the familiar animals, trained for
warfare; "havoc" is a military order permitting the seizure of spoil
after a victory and "let slip" is to release from the leash.[1][2][3]
Shakespeare's source for Julius Caesar was The Life of Marcus Brutus
from Plutarch's Lives, and the concept of the war dog appears in that
work, in the section devoted to the Greek warrior Aratus.[4][5][full
citation needed]

Apart from the literal meaning, a parallel can be drawn with the
prologue to Henry V, where the warlike king is described as having at
his heels, awaiting employment, the hounds "famine, sword and fire".[6]

Along those lines, an alternative proposed meaning is that "the dogs of
war" refers figuratively to the wild pack of soldiers "let slip" by
war's breakdown of civilized behavior and/or their commanders' orders to
wreak "havoc", i.e., rape, pillage, and plunder.[7][full citation
needed][8][unreliable source]

Yet another reading interprets "dog" in its mechanical sense ("any of
various usually simple mechanical devices for holding, gripping, or
fastening that consist of a spike, bar, or hook").[9][full citation
needed] The "dogs" are "let slip" – referring to the act of releasing.
Thus, the "dogs of war" are the political and societal restraints
against war that operate during times of peace.

Victor Hugo used "dogs of war" as a metaphor for cannon fire in chapter
XIV of Les Misérables:

    Another cannonade was audible at some distance. At the same time
that the two guns were furiously attacking the redoubt from the Rue de
la Chanvrerie, two other cannons, trained one from the Rue Saint-Denis,
the other from the Rue Aubry-le-Boucher, were riddling the Saint-Merry
barricade. The four cannons echoed each other mournfully. The barking of
these sombre dogs of war replied to each other.[10][11]

In modern English usage "dogs of war" is used to describe
mercenaries.[dubious – discuss]

The phrase has entered so far into general usage – in books, music, film
and television – that it is now regarded as a cliché.[12]

One notable example of the use of this phrase was by Christopher
Plummer's character General Chang in the film 'Star Trek VI: The
Undiscovered Country', in a scene which featured Chang's Klingon Bird of
Prey attacking the USS Enterprise.[13]

On 11-05-19 11:36, A.O. wrote:
> https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/05/11/thre-m11.html
> 
> With B-52s, carrier battle group in place, US war against Iran on a hair
> trigger
> By Bill Van Auken
> 11 May 2019
> 
> The USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group made its way through the
> Suez Canal on Thursday entering the Red Sea and the heart of the Middle
> East, while a US bomber task force consisting of four nuclear-capable
> B-52s landed on the same day at a US airbase in Qatar. The two military
> deployments have placed the threat of a major and catastrophic new war
> in the region on a hair trigger.
> 
> B-52s arrive at Al Udeid Air Base
> 
> The deployments come in the midst of a new round of bellicose threats
> from Washington. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement on
> Thursday warning that the US is prepared to take “swift and decisive”
> military action against Iran.
> 
> With the Pentagon bringing its most destructive and powerful weapons to
> Iran’s shores, Pompeo justified the US military buildup by claiming that
> Iran had “engaged in an escalating series of threatening actions and
> statements in recent weeks.” He did not bother to provide any example of
> such actions and statements.
> 
> “The regime in Tehran should understand that any attacks by them or
> their proxies of any identity against US interests or citizens will be
> answered with a swift and decisive US response,” Pompeo said. “Our
> restraint to this point should not be mistaken by Iran for a lack of
> resolve. To date, the regime’s default option has been violence, and we
> appeal to those in Tehran who see a path to a prosperous future through
> de-escalation to modify the regime’s behavior.”
> 
> The talk of US “restraint” as opposed to a supposed Iranian “default
> option” of violence beggars belief. Pompeo speaks for a government that
> has been engaged in unending wars in the Persian Gulf region for the
> last 25 years, wars that have claimed well over one million lives and
> left entire societies in ruin.
> 
> As always, US imperialism is attempting to cast itself as the victim of
> aggression, mobilizing its unmatched military might only as an act of
> defense.
> 
> Pompeo’s remarks were echoed by those of the recently appointed chief of
> the US Central Command (CENTCOM), which is responsible for US military
> operations in the Middle East, Marine General Frank McKenzie, who
> delivered an inflammatory address to the right-wing, pro-Zionist think
> tank, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
> 
> “Any attack on US interests will be met with unrelenting force,” the
> general told the Foundation, which was used by George W. Bush as a forum
> for defending his war policy against Iraq. Reflecting the bipartisan
> support for US imperialist aggression in the oil-rich Middle East, the
> think tank includes on its advisory board, Donna Brazile, the former
> chairperson of the Democratic National Committee.
> 
> The Trump administration, meanwhile, has imposed yet another round of
> sanctions against Iran. On Wednesday, the White House issued an
> executive order imposing unilateral and extra-territorial sanctions
> against Iran’s iron, steel, aluminum and copper industries, threatening
> anyone trading in the materials as well as any financial institution
> facilitating such trade with US retaliation, including exclusion from
> American markets.
> 
> These new sanctions follow Washington’s termination on May 1 of waivers
> granted to China, South Korea, Japan, India, and Turkey, countries that
> had been allowed to continue purchasing Iranian oil without being
> sanctioned. The stated US aim is to reduce Iranian oil exports to “zero.”
> 
> Just one year ago this month, the Trump administration unilaterally
> abrogated the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)
> reached between Iran and the US, Russia, China, Germany, the UK and
> France and both re-imposed and escalated unilateral US economic
> sanctions aimed at strangling the Iranian economy and creating the
> conditions for toppling its government and replacing it with a puppet
> regime.
> 
> Meanwhile, the US Maritime Administration (MARAD) issued an advisory on
> Thursday warning US commercial ships, including oil tankers, that they
> could be targeted in the growing buildup to war in the Persian Gulf.
> Given the crippling embargo that Washington is mounting against Iranian
> oil exports, the advisory warned:
> 
> “Iran or its proxies could respond by targeting commercial vessels,
> including oil tankers, or U.S. military vessels in the Red Sea,
> Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, or the Persian Gulf. Reporting indicates
> heightened Iranian readiness to conduct offensive operations against
> U.S. forces and interests.”
> 
> This advisory, like Pompeo’s warnings, is an unmistakable provocation,
> aimed at creating a pretext for an all-out US war.
> 
> Pompeo and US national security adviser John Bolton, who has publicly
> called for bombing Iran, have both threatened that the US will unleash a
> devastating attack on Iran against any and all attacks on US troops or
> “US interests” anywhere in the Middle East by a host of actors that
> Washington deems to be “proxies” of Tehran, ranging from Shia militias
> in Syria and Iraq to the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon
> and Hamas in the Palestinian Gaza Strip.
> 
> In any one of these countries, the Pentagon or the CIA, or, for that
> matter, Washington’s principal regional allies, particularly Israel and
> Saudi Arabia, which both want a US war against Iran, are capable of
> staging a provocation that can be used as a pretext for launching an
> all-out war.
> 
> NBC News revealed that last week top Trump administration officials
> convened a highly unusual summit meeting at the CIA headquarters in
> Langley, Virginia to discuss the war buildup against Iran. Present were
> CIA Director Gina Haspel, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan,
> Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joe Dunford, Secretary of
> State Pompeo, and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and
> others, US officials told the network.
> 
> The officials told NBC that the session was not convened to discuss the
> supposed “intelligence” about alleged Iranian plans for attacks on “US
> interests” that served as the pretext for the dispatching of the carrier
> battle group and the bomber strike force to the region. The evidence to
> substantiate the claims of impending Iranian “aggression” is as
> fabricated as that used to bolster the claims about “weapons of mass
> destruction” in advance of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.
> 
> What were these officials talking about in the CIA’s bunker in Langley?
> Former CIA operations officers and military officials told NBC that such
> meetings at CIA headquarters are normally convened to discuss highly
> sensitive plans for “covert actions.” Whether such actions will be aimed
> against Iran and its government, or at staging a “false flag” operation
> somewhere in the Middle East that can be used as the pretext for a US
> attack remains to be seen.
> 
> The recklessness and criminality that characterize Washington’s threats
> against Iran are an expression of the deep-going social tensions,
> economic instability and political crisis gripping American capitalism,
> which the ruling financial oligarchy seeks to divert outward in an
> explosion of military violence.
> 
> A war against Iran would eclipse the horrific bloodshed of the Iraq war
> launched in 2003, drawing in the entire region and all of the major
> powers, including US imperialism’s so-called “great power” rivals,
> Russia and China, bringing humanity face-to-face with the threat of a
> nuclear Third World War.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> D66 mailing list
> D66 at tuxtown.net
> http://www.tuxtown.net/mailman/listinfo/d66
>