|
|
|
|
SPEAKING
FREELY
Iran
approaches a flashpoint
By Kam
Zarrabi
Speaking Freely is an Asia
Times Online feature that allows guest writers to
have their say. Please click here if
you are interested in contributing.
For what might my draft-age son be
fighting? For whom will the bells toll this time?
Seymour Hersh's article "The coming wars"
in The New Yorker magazine should not have
surprised anyone. Iran has been in the crosshairs,
and remains there, ever since it was crowned as
the biggest threat to international peace and
security by the Bush administration soon after
September 11, 2001.
President George W
Bush, in his State of the Union address in
January 2002, lumped Iran together with Iraq and
North Korea as members of an "axis of evil", to be
confronted in the United States' "war on
international terrorism".
The real enemy,
or the source of threat against the security of
the United States, was reconfirmed to be the
al-Qaeda camp, headed by Osama bin Laden,
masterminding its operations from Afghanistan's
mountain strongholds. However, the September 11
attacks provided an unexpected and highly welcomed
opportunity for dormant power centers to come
together and join forces with a common agenda. The
target was broadened almost immediately to
encompass the entire Middle East, and later Islam
as a whole, called militant Islam, of course, for
political correctness.
Organizations and
think-tanks such as the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC), the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy and the Middle East
Forum, as well as many hardcore evangelicals,
found in the national tragedy the catalyst that
brought them together in a crusade against a
common enemy. A true national tragedy was thus
hijacked.
To summarize, this grand unified
powerhouse consisted of three major vectors of
influence, not all aligned in the same exact
direction, but with enough in common to evolve
into a united front.
First was the global
projection of America's military and economic
dominance, the stated agenda of PNAC (read
"American Empire"). The big fish floating in this
think-tank include Vice President Dick Cheney,
Pentagon head Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul
Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams of the National Security
Council, and several other high-profile people who
bear heavily on our foreign-policy decisions.
Second was the promotion and
implementation of policies that, first and
foremost, served the interests of the Israeli
government at whatever cost to whomever, friend or
foe. AIPAC, the most powerful lobbying
organization in Washington, after AARP, is the
only foreign lobby to become a favorite platform
for America's top executives and opinion molders,
from the president on down to the
influence-peddling journalists, whenever matters
of foreign policy are the issue.
The
hardcore Christian Right, whose evangelical vision
of global salvation would, to follow biblical
tradition, begin in the Middle East, was the
largest horse in the troika, in numbers, as well
as in appeal to the office of the commander in
chief.
These unleashed forces found the
American public, traditionally uninterested and
blissfully naive in international affairs, and now
in shock after September 11, ready and anxious to
support a strong leader committed to bringing the
wrongdoers to justice and to eradicating the
global evil. These promises were given to the
American people by the president, promptly and in
no uncertain terms. The next step was targeting
the wrongdoers, their supporters and the sources
or the breeding grounds of evil.
Call
for retaliation
The American people,
indeed the whole world, expected immediate and
massive retaliatory action against those who had
committed such blatant and bold savagery against
innocent civilians on America's own soil. The culprits
were the same folks who were responsible for
other attacks on US targets in the Middle East and
East Africa - bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.
But that was clearly not enough;
terrorists had to have sanctuaries in areas where
they could be sheltered and protected or tolerated
by tribes or regimes. Furthermore, some
governments in the region more than just
sympathized with the terrorists' goals and
objectives; these regimes might even have provided
material and strategic support for such groups and
facilitated their activities. It was, therefore, a
necessary part of the unfolding strategic planning
to chart out the states and regimes in the Middle
East that could be regarded as safe havens for
terror groups, or which might be active supporters
of terrorists' agendas.
Each of the
three main vectors of influence enumerated
above promptly jumped on the bandwagon and produced
their respective target lists. The
so-called neo-conservatives, variously known as
neo-cons, and alternatively described as neo-crazies
or neo-goons, are best represented by the roster
of the PNAC think-tank. The elite membership
here includes some rather strange bedfellows, but
all sharing in one basic principle: the
global expansion of US hegemony by any means
possible, including unilateralism, disregard for
international law, and war.
The
second phalanx, or the "Israel firsters", many of
them neo-conservatives as well, wholeheartedly
support the same thesis, as long as any action
taken serves the Israeli regime's regional
objectives, regardless of its costs to allies, including
its benefactor, the United States, or
catastrophic regional side-effects.
Finally, the
religious right, whose power and influence have
been steadily on the rise, provides the moral and
ethical grounds in the public domain to portray
the crusade against evil as exactly that, a
Crusade with a capital "C". Strong religious
underpinnings characterized the inaugural
ceremonies of January 20. George W Bush was
uncharacteristically eloquent as he waved his
magic wand, promising once again to promote
freedom and democracy and to fight tyranny
throughout the world. His well-rehearsed speech
was punctuated by references to god and divine
justice, befitting a true crusader on a Messianic
mission. As he stood there accepting the
responsibility to lead the most powerful empire
the world has ever seen, his sincerity, commitment
and resolve were never in doubt.
The
president's resolve and commitments were never in
doubt the first time he took the oath of office,
either. Neither were the determination and resolve
of the power brokers behind the mask of power who
could clearly see in the chief executive the
perfect vehicle for success in their respective
missions.
The public response to the
tragedy of September 11 was understandably
reactionary and volcanic. If 59 million voters
indicated their preference for the Republicans'
management of the tasks at hand last November, the
numbers were far greater right after September 11,
2001, literally endorsing any measure the
administration would choose to adopt against the
perpetrators of that terrorist act.
The
neo-cons and Israel-firsters and their cohorts and
moles in the departments of Defense and State and
the National Security Council, as well as among
the personal advisors to the highest-ranking
members of the administration, began to quickly
rise and shine in the new atmosphere of fear and
paranoia. It was time, they said, to seize the
moment to hit them, and to hit them hard. But hit
whom, where, with what, and in what order?
Targets identified
That answer was provided without delay: the enemy
was militant Islam in the Middle East. And, of
course, the United States had a close confidant and ally in
that turbulent region that had always been portrayed and
sold to the US public as a reliable
monitoring station safeguarding America's strategic
and security interests there - Israel, of course.
This "trustworthy" monitoring station didn't waste
any time to point to the various terrorist groups
and regional states that sponsored terrorism.
The Israeli lobby had worked long and hard
to infiltrate the US Congress and every other
agency or enterprise that had widespread influence
over public opinion and public policy. It had been
quite successful in establishing in the public
mindset a sense of moral equivalency between the
United States and Israel. Both nations were, according
to the propaganda line, sharing in basic values
and aspirations; two nations half a world apart,
but with one soul.
So, selling the
idea that those who opposed Israel's regional
ambitions were at the same time opposed to
America's interests was not a difficult task at all.
The State Department's list of terrorist
organizations includes Middle Eastern militant groups that
have never initiated or posed a threat to Americans
or US interests. The regional states who oppose
Israel's policies and sympathize with the
Palestinian or Lebanese militants who have been
thorns on Israel's side have, by extension, been
classified as sponsors of terrorism by the US.
This list conveniently excludes some
governments that, although among the most blatant
examples of tyranny and violation of human rights,
are considered friendly or compliant for various
strategic reasons. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are
America's strategic allies in regulating the price
and the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf.
Jordan has always done as it has been told, and
Egypt and Turkey have peace treaties with Israel.
The action begins
That left
Iran, Iraq and Syria for Israel to contend with.
Lebanon has been a de facto Syrian enclave,
sharing Syria's fate, whatever it might turn out
to be. Of these remaining Israel antagonists, Iraq
was the most suitable target once the first
logical target, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan,
was attacked and occupied. While the assault on
Afghanistan received relatively wide international
support, albeit for the wrong reasons, the premise
for extending the "war on terror" into Iraq was
quite shaky at the start.
The invasion of
Iraq was, however, pre-ordained as the first step
in a series of events that was to accomplish two
major objectives: first and foremost was to
eliminate any and all resistance or opposition to
America's extended control over the region's vital
resources; and second, to defuse any and all
challenges, existing or potential, to Israel's
security and military supremacy. The visionaries
at PNAC had, in fact, already produced the
blueprint for the transformation of the Middle
East, beginning with the invasion of Iraq, some
years in advance of George W Bush's presidency.
With the US public ready and anxious
for action, some justifiable pretext had to be
found to invade Iraq. However, the United Nations
team in search of Iraq's suspected weapons
programs and stockpiles of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) came alarmingly close to
refuting those allegations and defusing the
tension. This didn't sit well with the hawks in
the administration, who refused to be deterred
from their long-awaited ambitious dreams.
It would be naive to believe that the
US, British and particularly the Israeli
intelligence services were actually mistaken in
their findings regarding Iraq's nuclear and other
weapons programs or stockpiles; there couldn't
have been such a grand intelligence failure. It
would be much more reasonable to assume that the
facts about the non-existence of such WMD were
clearly established, just as the United Nations
team was about to report before their mission was
suspiciously aborted.
If there were,
in fact, any doubts about Saddam Hussein's WMD,
it would have been militarily foolish to expose
the US forces, or Israel's population
centers, to potential nuclear or chemical attacks. The
very real suspicions about North Korean nuclear-weapons
capabilities have already demonstrated why in that
case caution and diplomacy became the strategy of
choice.
And now for Iran
This
brings us to the current developments with regard
to Iran and the heightened state of alert that has
been saturating the media, especially since the
president's inaugural address last week.
Accusations against the Iranian
regime parallel those brought against Iraq shortly
before the actual invasion of that country by
US forces. These accusations can be split into
three main categories: First is the threat that
a nuclear-armed enemy state could potentially pose
against the United States and its strategic interests
elsewhere. Second is the issue of Iran's alleged
support for terrorist groups in Middle East
hotspots. Finally, it is the humanitarian concern
over Iran's treatment of its own citizens,
particularly women and minorities, and the general
atmosphere of suppression of civil liberties.
These allegations constitute ample pretext for
the Bush administration hawks to put Iran on
notice, as verbalized by the president and his
secretary of state-designate, Condoleezza Rice.
She was not short for words when questioned by
senators during her confirmation hearings about
her views regarding the issue of US-Iran
relations. In response to Senator Joe Biden, she
resorted to her usual rhetorical style of
stringing along a profusion of academically
erudite yet contextually vague phrases, simply
echoing unsupported charges that have been mouthed
by her superiors. In her case, that is actually
all that is expected of her, and that is exactly
how she acted in her capacity as the president's
national security adviser.
Here it
is important to note that, just as was the case
with Iraq, suspicions, allegations and accusations
do not require verification and proof to
justify action. When it comes to foreign policy,
the philosophy of this administration has been
quite simple: do what you want to do; rationalize
it later. This has been a time-tested Israeli
model, now openly and, unfortunately proudly, adopted
by the US administration.
Those who
mobilized anti-war demonstrations, gave speeches,
wrote books and created websites to reflect the
perspectives of reason, sanity and experience in
world affairs did find a substantial nationwide
audience. However, the voices of reason, as
welcome as they were, had the same effect as
singing to a chorus. Now it is Iran's turn to
become the subject of brilliant news analyses and
debates between pro-war and anti-war journalists
and opinion gurus.
A
well-intentioned scientist with vast experience in nuclear-weapons
technology and proliferation issues has been
writing articles for a prestigious anti-war
website, pointing to the fact that Iran is far
from being able to develop a nuclear bomb. There
is an international consensus, outside of the US
and Israel, that Iran, far from causing agitation
in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq, has been
quite helpful in supporting the stability of those
countries, even if for Iran's own sake.
Iran's alleged support for
terror organizations such as Hezbollah is yet
another guise, both in terms of what defines terrorism
and what constitutes support, that seems to suit the
agenda at hand. And when it comes to promoting
democratic reforms and fighting tyranny, injustice
and violations of human rights, Saudi Arabia,
Egypt and China, among many others, are, as Biden
pointed out to Rice, far more deplorable than what
we are accusing the Iranian regime of.
Are
we forgetting that the invasion of Iraq was
carried out with similar pretexts or excuses? Iran
is, of course, a much larger country, with three
times the population of Iraq and a terrain that
is, unlike Iraq, nearly as difficult as
Afghanistan's. Short of an all-out military attack
from several flanks, followed by a massive
invasion, no military action or insurgency can do
to Iran what was done to Afghanistan or Iraq.
Surgical strikes at nuclear facilities
by the Israelis, something that the US
vice president has already hinted at, will not
even effectively slow down any effort the Iranians might
be making toward nuclear-weapons development. Any
such attack will result in three outcomes: First,
it will generate an even greater animosity toward
the perpetrators and will strengthen the
hardliners' grip on Iran, thus creating added obstacles
for the reformists and pro-democracy movements to
achieve their goals. Second, efforts would then be
initiated or accelerated to acquire the ultimate
weapon as a deterrent, if not to use in
retaliation at an opportune time. Third, with its
vast resources and great influence, the Iranian
regime would do what it is already accused of
doing - supporting insurgencies and creating as
much trouble in the region against Israel and the
US as possible.
So why Iran?
So,
what is the logic, if any, behind all the recently
intensified saber rattling from Washington? To
answer that, we can believe the official
pronouncements that the administration is trying
to sell to the public, or an alternative version
that risks the chance of being labeled as too
conspiratorial; make your own choice.
The official version:
1
The world cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed
Iran.
2 Iran harbors and supports international
terror organizations.
3 Iran intends to disrupt
our efforts to bring peace and democracy to the
region.
4 Iran's mission is to destroy
Israel.
5 Iran must go through a regime change,
by military intervention if need be.
There are some who might question the method of
approach to defusing the Iranian threat, but few in the
United States would doubt that the Iranian threat is
real and that it must be dealt with. This
perception is not limited to political
conservatives or Bush supporters; the Democrats
share equally in this view, as was clearly
demonstrated by their candidates during their
presidential campaign speeches.
Nearly one-half of the US public is now
aware, and to a degree surprised, that the invasion
of Iraq was based on a less-than-honest appraisal of an
Iraqi threat to America's security, and that it
did not unfold as promised by the administration.
Having learned from those mistakes, they now
believe, the Iranian threat must surely have been
much more clearly verified, and any military
action will certainly be much better planned.
When the news of the death of talk-show
host Johnny Carson occupies all headlines for days
on end, and the major debate in the public domain
is over which weight-loss diet works better, can
we expect more?
Of course, if we accept
certain conjectures as facts, the situation and
the strategies to deal with it cannot be
challenged. These pretexts, in addition to those
enumerated above, include:
1 Iran is led by a
group of turban-headed crazies.
2 Given the
chance, they would not hesitate to destroy Israel,
even if it meant an assured total devastation of
their own country and people.
3 Iran is rapidly
developing its weapons of mass destruction,
including atomic bombs and long-range missiles,
not for defensive purposes, but to attack Israel
and to threaten Europe and North America.
4
Since they are lunatics, the Iranian Islamic
leaders believe they will ultimately dominate the
globe with their brand of fundamentalist Islam.
If such conjectures sound too stupid
to be taken seriously, just listen to and read
the same statements by some very
high-profile national figures, from such journalists as Charles
Krauthammer to the likes of House Majority Whip Tom
Delay, or influential evangelicals such as Jerry
Falwell and Pat Robertson, to the prolific
conservative radio talk-show hosts who influence
the minds of millions on a daily basis.
So, what might be an alternative view or
interpretation of the current state of heightened
anxiety between the US and Iran? But first, a list
of facts on the ground that may illuminate some of
Iran's concerns and objectives:
1 The average
Iranian, as any other human being anywhere else,
would prefer to live in a free and democratic
society, in peace and with guaranteed security.
However, just as is the case in the United
States, when a nation is threatened by terrorism
or military invasion, whether real or perceived,
many social liberties and democratic aspirations
or expectations may be put on hold, and in Iran's
case, kept on hold indefinitely.
2 More than
social liberties and democratic reforms, economic
conditions play the most vital role in a nation's
destiny. Sanctions and economic pressures imposed
on Iran do no more than postpone the natural
transition from a de facto theocracy to a more
open civil society. The perpetuation and
intensification of animosities toward Iran have
been, and continue to be, the perfect recipe for
further legitimizing the position of the
hardliners in Iran's sociopolitical affairs.
3
Again, just as is the case in the United States,
ultra-conservatives, even radical religious
fanatics, be it Tom Delay, Billy Graham, or
Ayatollah X Y Z at any given Friday sermon, do not
hate their own country, but see the best course
for their respective nations, each in their own
way, as misguided as they might be.
4 Iran
stands to gain nothing by posing a threat to
Israel, unless, of course, in self-defense. Any
hostile act toward the West or the US would mean a
catastrophic end to all of Iran's hopes and
aspirations as a viable nation. Aggression has
never been an Iranian agenda, and would serve
absolutely no purpose now.
5 Iran is
a large country with some of the
richest natural resources, including the region's
biggest natural-gas reserves - the energy source of the future
- rich oilfields, ore deposits and a growing
industrial infrastructure. The Iranians are a
proud people, proud of their national history and
cultural heritage. They have shown resolve and
resiliency in the face of many historical
upheavals, ancient and recent, both foreign and
domestic. Iran rightly expects to be acknowledged
as a consequential player in the affairs of the
region. Attempts to isolate and exclude Iran from
any future designs for the Middle East will
inevitably result in an unstable imbalance.
6
Diplomacy between two nations, no matter how large
or small in relative terms, must be based on
mutual respect, not as a dialogue between a master
and a subordinate.
Who stands to
gain?
By perpetuating and intensifying the
tension between the US and Iran, who stands to
gain? It is certainly not Iran; even the
staunchest hardliner or religious zealot would
prefer to not rule over the dust of a devastated
nation. And it is certainly not the US, whose
interests can be much better assured through a
rapprochement with a strategically positioned and
energy-rich Iran. A friendly Iran would more than
help secure the stability of the neighboring
states and, with certain security guarantees,
would cease to be a concern as a military threat
to Israel or anyone else.
Why is it, then,
that while Iran has been trying so many times and
in so many ways to demonstrate its openness toward
a rapprochement with the US, the response has been
suspiciously cold and negative? Who benefits from
this arrogant defiance of common sense? It all
started by the grand unified troika galloping
ahead with the mask of power.
But
this is not where
the case ends. The neo-con gang is quickly coming
to the realization that their ambitious designs
for the creation of a new American empire
is neither good for the United States, nor
tolerated by America's allies in the West, or the
rising rival powers in the East.
Had the
situation both in Afghanistan and in Iraq been
resolved expeditiously, the grand design for the
conquest of the Middle East would have followed
without delay. The evangelical crusaders have
already accomplished more than they could have
bargained for right here at home. Both these
sources of influence are looking at the next
presidential term four years away that will, more
than likely, put the damper on their dreams.
That leaves us with only one
remaining culprit whose mission is seemingly never-ending,
and who has historically had the support,
sometimes covert and sometimes explicit, of
Washington, regardless of which political party
has come to power. Now, with even the faintest
prospects for a mediated agreement between Israel
and the Palestinians, the border issues, the
settlements, and the Palestinian statehood, the
Ariel Sharon government is finding things not
going its way. Nothing would serve the Likud
regime's ambitious agendas more than a
continuation of strife and hostilities in the
Middle East.
As long as the United States remains
militarily engaged in the region, Israel will
enjoy an unquestioned level of support on all
fronts, financial, military and diplomatic. This
is exactly why striking at Iran's nuclear
facilities, although a militarily fruitless act,
will be intended to provide added fuel for the
regional turmoil to further involve Iran and the
United States in protracted antagonism and threats.
Any
assault on Iran or Iranian targets would only
benefit Israel. Can the US escape this folly that
promises to be the biggest quagmire it has ever
encountered? Can the US curb the pit-bull and, instead,
do for a change what is best for the United
States?
Threatening to
attack preemptively a sovereign nation the size
and significance of Iran in violation of
all international norms should be taken a lot
more seriously by the US media than it seems to
be. A nationwide poll taken by America Online or
CNN, where the participants indicate their choice
of whether or not to attack or invade Iran, just
as they choose which color car to buy next, brings
the realities of life and death to the level of
virtual realities of computer games.
Humans do suffer and die by the tens of
thousands, as well as those American men and women
sent to fight an enemy created in the domain of
virtual reality by pundits with their own ulterior
motives, those whose own blood or that of their
children is never spilled in their pursuits of
grandeur.
May reason prevail.
Kam Zarrabi is a graduate of the University of
California, Los Angeles, in geology, exploration geophysics,
advanced management, economics. He
was director general, Ministry of Economy,
Iran, and chief of the Bureau of Mines 1969-74. He
undertakes research in humanities: philosophy,
cultural anthropology, archaeology, comparative
religion, cross-cultural studies and foreign
policy issues, and is a consultant in exploration
geology for various mining interests, as well as a
freelance writer and lecturer on foreign affairs,
with emphasis on the Middle East.
(Copyright Kam Zarrabi, 2005)
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click here if
you are interested in
contributing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette Middle East Sex News
|
|
|
