SPEAKING
FREELY Behind the plan to bomb
Iran By Ismael Hossein-zadeh
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
It is no longer a
secret that the administration of US President
George W Bush has been methodically paving the way
toward a bombing strike against Iran. The
administration's plans of an aerial
military attack against that
country have recently been exposed by a number of
reliable sources. [1]
There is strong
evidence that the US administration's recent
public statements that it is now willing to
negotiate with Iran are highly disingenuous: they
are designed not to reach a diplomatic solution to
the so-called "Iran crisis", but to remove
diplomatic hurdles toward a military "solution".
The administration's public gestures of a
willingness to negotiate with Iran are rendered
utterly meaningless because such alleged
negotiations are premised on the condition that
Iran suspends its uranium-enrichment program.
Considering the fact that suspension of
uranium enrichment, which is altogether within
Iran's legitimate rights under the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, is supposed to be the
main point of negotiations, Iran is asked, in
effect, "to concede the main point of the
negotiations before they started". [2]
The
Bush administration's case against Iran is eerily
reminiscent of its case against Iraq in the run-up
to the invasion of that country. Accordingly, the
case against Iran is based not on any hard
evidence provided by the International Atomic
Energy Agency, but on dubious allegations that are
based on even more dubious sources of
intelligence. Iran is asked, in effect, to prove a
negative, which is of course mission impossible -
hence grounds for "non-compliance" and the
rationale for "punishment".
The US
administration's case against Iran is so weak, its
objectives of a military strike against that
country are so fuzzy, and the odds against
achieving any kind of meaningful victory are so
strong that even professional military experts are
speaking up against the plans of a bombing
campaign against Iran. [3] Furthermore,
predominant expert views of such a bombing
campaign maintain that it would more likely hurt
than help the geopolitical and economic interests
of the United States.
So if the Bush
administration's "national interests" argument as
grounds for a military strike against Iran is
suspect, why then is it so adamantly pushing for
such a potentially calamitous confrontation? What
are the driving forces behind a military
confrontation with Iran?
Critics would
almost unanimously point to neo-conservative
militarists in and around the Bush administration.
While this is obviously not false, as it is the
neo-conservative forces that are beating the drums
of war with Iran, it falls short of showing the
whole picture. In a real sense, it raises the
question: Who are the neo-conservatives to begin
with? And what or whom do they represent?
The neo-conservative ideologues often
claim that their aggressive foreign policy is
inspired primarily by democratic ideals and a
desire to spread democracy and freedom worldwide -
a claim that is far too readily accepted as
genuine by corporate media and many foreign-policy
circles. This is obviously little more than a
masquerade designed to hide some real powerful
special interests that lie behind the facade of
neo-conservative figures and their ideological
rhetoric.
The driving force behind the
neo-conservatives' war juggernaut must be sought
not in the alleged defense of democracy or of
national interests but in the nefarious special
interests that are carefully camouflaged behind
the front of national interests. These special
interests derive lucrative business gains and high
dividends from war and militarism. They include
both economic interests (famously known as the
military-industrial complex) and geopolitical
interests (associated largely with Zionist
proponents of "Greater Israel" in the Middle East,
or the Israeli lobby).
There is an
unspoken, de facto alliance between these two
extremely powerful interests - an alliance that
might be called the military-industrial-Zionist
alliance. More than anything else, the alliance is
based on a conjunctural convergence of interests
on war and international convulsion in the Middle
East. Let me elaborate on this point.
The
fact that the military-industrial complex, or
merchants of arms and wars, flourishes on war and
militarism is largely self-evident. Arms
industries and powerful beneficiaries of war
dividends need an atmosphere of war and
international convulsion to maintain continued
increases in the Pentagon budget and justify their
lion's share of the public money. Viewed in this
light, unilateral or "preemptive" wars abroad can
easily been seen as reflections of domestic fights
over national resources and tax dollars.
In the debate over allocation of public
resources between the proverbial guns and butter,
or between military and non-military public
spending, powerful beneficiaries of war dividends
have proved very resourceful in outmaneuvering
proponents of limits on military spending.
During the bipolar world of the Cold War
era, that was not a difficult act to perform as
the rationale - the "communist threat" - readily
lay at hand. Justification of increased military
spending in the post-Cold War period has prompted
these beneficiaries to be even more creative in
manufacturing "new sources of danger to US
interests" to justify unilateral wars of
aggression. It is not surprising, then, that a
wide range of "new sources of threat to US
national interests" has emerged in the wake of the
collapse of the Soviet Union: "rogue states",
"axis of evil", global terrorism, Islamic
radicalism, "enemies of democracy", and more.
Just as the powerful beneficiaries of war
dividends view international peace and stability
as inimical to their business interests, so too
the hardline Zionist proponents of "Greater
Israel" perceive peace between Israel and its Arab
neighbors perilous to their goal of gaining
control over the "Promised Land" of Israel. The
reason for this fear of peace is that, according
to a number of United Nations resolutions, peace
would mean Israel's return to its pre-1967
borders; that is, withdrawal from the West Bank
and Gaza Strip.
But because proponents of
"Greater Israel" are unwilling to withdraw from
these territories, they are fearful of peace and
genuine dialogue with Palestinians - hence their
continued disregard of UN resolutions and their
systematic efforts at sabotaging peace
negotiations. By the same token, these proponents
view war and convulsion (or, as David Ben-Gurion,
one of the key founders of the State of Israel,
put it, "revolutionary atmosphere") as
opportunities that are conducive to the expulsion
of Palestinians, to the territorial recasting of
the region, and to the expansion of Israel's
territory. [4]
The
military-industrial-Zionist alliance is
represented largely by the cabal of
neo-conservative forces in and around the Bush
administration. The institutional framework of the
alliance consists of a web of closely knit
think-tanks that are founded and financed
primarily by the armaments lobby and the Israeli
lobby. These corporate-backed militaristic
think-tanks include the American Enterprise
Institute, Center for Security Policy, Middle East
Media Research Institute, Washington Institute for
Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, National
Institute for Public Policy and the Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs.
These think-tanks, which might
appropriately be called institutes of war and
militarism, are staffed and directed mainly by the
neo-conservative champions of the
military-industrial-Zionist alliance, that is, by
the proponents of unilateral wars of aggression.
There is strong evidence that the major plans of
the Bush administration's foreign policy have been
drawn up largely by these think-tanks, often in
collaboration, directly or indirectly, with the
Pentagon, the arms lobby, and the Israeli lobby.
These warmongering think-tanks and their
neo-conservative champions serve as direct links,
or conveyer belts, between the armaments and
Israeli lobbies on the one hand, and the Bush
administration and its congressional allies on the
other.
Take the Center for Security Policy
(CSP), for example. It boasts that "no fewer than
22 former advisory board members are close
associates in the Bush administration ... A sixth
of the center's revenue comes directly from
defense corporations." The center's alumni in key
posts in the Bush administration include its
former chair of the board, Douglas Feith, who
served for more than four years as under secretary
of defense for policy, Pentagon comptroller Dov
Zakheim, former Defense Policy Board chair Richard
Perle, and longtime friend and financial supporter
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
In its
1998 annual report, the center "listed virtually
every weapons-maker that had supported it from its
founding, from Lockheed, Martin Marietta,
Northrop, Grumman and Boeing, to the later
'merged' incarnations of same - Lockheed Martin,
Northrop Grumman, and so forth". [5]
Likewise, the American Enterprise
Institute (AEI), a major lobbying think-tank for
the military-industrial-Zionist alliance, can
boast of being the metaphorical alma mater of a
number of powerful members of the Bush
administration. For example, Vice President Dick
Cheney and his wife Lynne Cheney, State Department
arms-control official John Bolton (now US
ambassador to the UN), and the former chair of the
Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, all have had
long-standing ties with the institute.
The
AEI played a key role in promoting Ahmad Chalabi's
group of Iraqi exiles as a major opposition force
"that would be welcomed by the Iraqi people as an
alternative to the regime of Saddam Hussein". The
group, working closely with the AEI, played an
important role in the justification of the
invasion of Iraq. It served, for example, as a
major source of (largely fabricated) intelligence
for the militaristic chicken hawks whenever they
found the intelligence gathered by the Central
Intelligence Agency and the State Department at
odds with their plans of invading Iraq. [6]
Another example of the interlocking
network of neo-conservative forces in the Bush
administration and the militaristic think-tanks
that are dedicated to the advancement of the
military-industrial-Zionist agenda is reflected in
the affiliation of a number of influential members
of the administration with the Jewish Institute
for the National Security Affairs (JINSA).
These include, for example, Douglas Feith,
assistant secretary of defense during the first
term of the Bush administration; General Jay
Garner, the initial head of the US occupation
authority in Iraq; and Michael Ladeen, who
unofficially advises the Bush administration on
Middle Eastern issues.
JINSA "is on record
in its support of the Israeli occupation of the
West Bank and against the Oslo Accord ... In its
fervent support for the hardline, pro-settlement,
anti-Palestinian Likud-style policies in Israel,
JINSA has essentially recommended that 'regime
change' in Iraq should be just the beginning of a
cascade of toppling dominoes in the Middle East."
[7]
The fact that neo-conservative
militarists of the Bush administration are
organically rooted in the
military-industrial-Zionist alliance is even more
clearly reflected in their incestuous relationship
with the warmongering think-tank Project for the
New American Century (PNAC). Like most of its
lobbying counterparts within the extensive network
of neo-conservative think-tanks, PNAC was founded
by a circle of powerful political figures, a
number of whom later ascended to key positions in
the Bush administration.
The list of
signatories of PNAC's founding statement of
principles include Elliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Elliot
Cohen, Frank Gaffney, Zalmay Khalilzad, I Lewis
Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul
Wolfowitz. Add the signature of Cheney to the list
of PNAC founders, "and you have the bulwarks of
the neo-con network that is currently in the
driver's seat of the Bush administration's
war-without-end policies all represented in PNAC's
founding document". [8]
A closer look at
the professional records of the neo-conservative
players in the Bush administration indicates that
"32 major administration appointees ... are former
executives with, consultants for, or significant
shareholders of, top defense contractors".
For example, Rumsfeld is an ex-director of
a General Dynamics subsidiary, and his deputy
during the first term of the Bush administration,
Paul Wolfowitz, acted as a paid consultant to
Northrop Grumman. Today the armaments lobby "is
exerting more influence over policymaking than at
any time since president Dwight D Eisenhower first
warned of the dangers of the military-industrial
complex over 40 years ago". [9]
This
sample evidence indicates that the view that the
neo-conservative militarists' tendency to war and
aggression is inspired by an ideological passion
to spread American ideals of democracy is clearly
false. Their successful militarization of US
foreign policy stems largely from the fact that
they in essence operate on behalf of two immensely
powerful special interests, the
military-industrial complex and the influential
Israeli lobby. Neo-conservative architects of war
and militarism derive their political clout and
policy effectiveness primarily from the political
machine and institutional infrastructure of the
military-industrial-Zionist alliance.
It
is necessary to note at this point that despite
its immense political influence, the Zionist lobby
is ultimately a junior, not equal, partner in this
unspoken, de de facto alliance. Without
discounting the extremely important role of the
Zionist lobby in the configuration of US foreign
policy in the Middle East, I would caution against
simplifications and exaggerations of its power and
influence over the US policy in the region.
It is true that most of the
neo-conservative militarists who have been behind
the recent US military aggressions in the Middle
East have long been active supporters of Israel's
right-wing politicians and/or leaders. It is also
no secret that there is a close collaboration over
issues of war and militarism among militant
Zionism, neo-conservative forces in and around the
Bush administration, and jingoistic think-tanks
such as AEI, PNAC, CSP and JINSA.
It does
not follow, however, that, as some critics argue,
the US-Israeli relationship represents a case of
"tail wagging the dog", that is, US foreign policy
in the Middle East is shaped by the
Israeli/Zionist leaders. While no doubt the
powerful Zionist lobby exerts considerable
influence over US foreign policy in the Middle
East, the efficacy and the extent of that
influence depend, ultimately, on the real economic
and geopolitical interests of US foreign-policy
makers.
In other words, US policymakers on
the Middle East would go along with the desires
and demands of the radical Zionist lobby only if
such demands also tended to serve the special
interests that those policymakers represented or
served, that is, if there were a convergence of
interests over those demands. [10]
Aggressive existential tendencies of the
US military-industrial empire to war and
militarism are shaped by its own internal or
intrinsic dynamics: continued need for arms
production as a lucrative business whose fortunes
depend on permanent war and international
convulsion.
Conjunctural or reinforcing
factors such as the horrors of the attacks on the
US of September 11, 2001, or the Zionist lobby, or
the party in power, or the resident of the White
House will, no doubt, exert significant
influences. But such supporting influences remain
in essence contributory, not defining or
determining. The decisive or central role is
played, ultimately, by the military-industrial
complex itself - that is, by the merchants of arms
or wars.
Notes 1. See,
for example, Seymour M Hersh, The military's
problem with the president's Iran
policy, The New Yorker (July 10, 2006);
Evan Eland, Military action
against Iran? Antiwar.com (January 24,
2006). 2. Hersh, "The military's problem with
the president's Iran policy". 3. Ibid; see
also Ismael Hossein-zadeh, US Iran policy
irks senior commanders: The military vs
militaristic civilian leadership,
OpEdNews.com (July 24, 2006). 4. A detailed
discussion of this issue, and of the de facto
alliance between militant Zionism and the powerful
beneficiaries of war dividends, can be found,
among other places, in Chapter 6 of my recently
released book, The Political Economy of US
Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2006). 5.
William D Hartung, How Much Are You Making on
the War, Daddy? (New York: Nation Books,
2003), page 101; William Hartung and Michelle
Ciarrocca, The
military-industrial-think tank complex,
Multinational Monitor 24, No 1 and 2
(January/February 2003). 6. Hartung, How
Much Are You Making on the War, Daddy? pp
103-106. 7. Ibid pp 109-11. 8. Ibid p 113.
9. William Hartung and Michelle Ciarrocca,
"The military-industrial-think tank complex".
10. I have provided a longer discussion of the
role of the Zionist lobby in the configuration of
the US policy in the Middle East in Chapter 6 of
The Political Economy of US Militarism.
Ismael Hossein-zadeh is an
economics professor at Drake University, Des
Moines, Iowa. This article draws upon his newly
released book,The Political
Economy of U.S. Militarism
(Palgrave-Macmillan Publishers).
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
