Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Fallout from an Attack on Iran Would Be Devastating
The drumbeat of war in Washington is growing - and so must public pressure against British involvement in such folly
It seems almost incredible after the catastrophe of the Iraq war, but the signs are growing that the Bush administration wants to do it all over again - this time to Iran. Just as in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, the Washington air is thick with unsubstantiated claims about weapons of mass destruction; demonisation of the country's president has reached bizarre proportions; intelligence leaks about links with al-Qaida and attacks on US and British targets are now routine; demands for war from the administration's neoconservative outriders are becoming increasingly strident; the pronouncements of George Bush and his vice-president, Dick Cheney, are turning ever more belligerent - and administration sources claim that the British government is privately ready to play ball.
You might imagine after invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq at such huge human and strategic cost, an attack on another Muslim country would be the last thing on the US president's mind. But the drumbeat of war has been unmistakable since the summer, when Bush declared he had "authorised our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities", and the administration let it be known that it was preparing to brand Iran's Revolutionary Guards a "terrorist organisation".Last month Bernard Kouchner, the hawkish new French foreign minister, insisted that "we must expect the worst" and "the worst is war" - while Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN's chief weapons inspector in charge of overseeing Iran's nuclear programme, warned against the "neo-crazies" pushing for an attack after 700,000 had died in Iraq on "suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons". Meanwhile, Israel's recent air raid on Iran's ally Syria has been widely interpreted as, at least in part, a power play aimed at Tehran.
This week John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN, used the Tory conference to call for an attack on Iran, as leaks to the US press about war preparations continued. Newsweek reported that Cheney had been discussing the possibility of encouraging Israel to launch missile strikes at an Iranian nuclear site in order to provoke Iran into "lashing out", and open the way to a wider US assault. And in the New Yorker magazine, the investigative writer Seymour Hersh reported that in a videoconference this summer Bush told the US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, that he was thinking of attacking targets in Iran, and the British "were on board".
A Downing Street spokesman said yesterday that the "prime minister and president have never had a discussion about an attack on Iran in Iran" and that the government was pursuing a diplomatic solution. "Of course, it's the job of a lot of people to see that contingency planning is done," he added, but denied that any go-ahead had been given. The echoes of similar denials in the runup to the Iraq war, however, cannot be missed. Nor should the reference to an attack on Iran "in Iran". Both the US and British military now regard themselves as already involved in a proxy war with Iran in Iraq, as General Petraeus recently told the US congress.
What is becoming clearer is that the likely pretext for aggression against Iran has shifted from the possibility that Tehran might develop nuclear weapons to its role in supporting and allegedly arming the resistance in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration is increasingly convinced that it will be far easier to convince the American public of the case for war on Iran if it's seen as being about the protection of US troops rather than nuclear scaremongering from the people who brought you Saddam Hussein's WMD. So the focus of the military plans has changed accordingly: from a wide-ranging bombing assault on Iran's known and suspected nuclear sites to "surgical" strikes on the Revolutionary Guards, who the US claims are backing armed attacks on its occupation forces.
In reality, the growing confrontation between Washington and Iran has less to do with nuclear weapons or Iraqi resistance and more with the fact that Iran has emerged as the main strategic beneficiary of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran and its allies now offer the only effective challenge to US domination of the Middle East and its resources. It's hardly surprising that the US is alarmed by the increased influence of an avowedly anti-imperialist state sitting astride a sea of oil, now making common cause with other radical, independent regimes in Latin America. But it is of course the direct result of Bush's own policies, which have also provided an object demonstration of the advantages of possessing nuclear weapons - even if there is as yet no evidence that Iran actually intends to acquire them.
Of the three states Bush originally damned as the axis of evil, one - Iraq - had no nuclear weapons and was duly destroyed. The second, North Korea, managed to acquire some nuclear capability and is this week reaping the benefits in aid and negotiation. The third is Iran, a country surrounded by US troops and caught between two nuclear-armed US allies: Pakistan and Israel. And despite the populist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ugly remarks about the Holocaust, it is the nuclear states America and Israel that now threaten and have the capacity to attack Iran, not the other way round.
What should not be in doubt is that the consequences of an attack on Iran would be devastating, both in the region and beyond. Iran has the reach to deliver an unconventional armed response in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf - as well as on the streets of London. The economic impact could be even greater, given Iran's grip on the 20% of global oil supplies that are shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. It would also certainly set back the cause of progressive change in Iran.
Iranian leaders have dismissed the threat of attack as "psychological warfare", and no doubt the US would prefer to bring Iran to heel through political upheaval in Tehran rather than by force. But current destabilisation efforts seem unlikely to succeed, and so, short of a sudden US embrace of genuine negotiation, the chances of war before Bush leaves office look high. The likelihood of a Brown government directly participating in an attack must be small after the debacle of Iraq. But the possibility that logistical or political support might be offered is more serious. The need to step up public pressure to make sure that does not happen could not be clearer.
--s.milne@guardian.co.uk
© 2007 The Guardian
38 Comments so far
Show AllTurce, I guess my attempt at satire was feeble. Just switch the "we" to "they".
Ray
I feel everyone has covered almost all I could have added. I am confused about the statement by Ray Kondrasuk regarding 'Iran borders Christian neighbors, we have to bomb Iran', Iran is bordered on the North by Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan;the East by Pakistan and Afghanistan;the West by Turkey and Iraq, then we have Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and the Caspian Sea. The only majority Christian country is Armenia. I realize they are in close proximaty to Europe but, HUH?
I will be in Paris over Christmas Holiday and will have the pleasure of attending a demonstration alongside The Ladies in Black. I hope to communicate how the majority of America feels about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Bush/Cheyney and every other sickening thing this administration has caused.
Oh yes one thing, when I was younger I attended meetings in my area for the SDS. It certainly brought up an era where many of us did many things pro-actively to end the war. I do think technology is great but it has allowed us the thought that all of this discussion and typing will change what is happening and what is about to happen, we have to become active in something, about something. At 53 I really do not want to be arrested and have my daughter's bail me out but I have become involved with as many groups as I can to do something. Alot of you will doubt it will make a difference, I am still going to give it a go, no matter.
I'm going to get personal. My grandson is only 12, but if Bush-Cheney bomb Iran, war will drag on to the point where my grandson at the age of 18 will surely be drafted.
The other alternative? Maybe an attack on Iran will trigger off nuclear war which could wipe out most of life before he turns 18. I am scared.
Israeli MK: "Whole areas of Iran will be wiped out & the Iranian people must suffer for voting for Ahmadinejad"
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6998
peacemaker, some excellent remarks there.
Honorable Bush is definitely a spoiled brat, whose failures (in business, in school, in the national guard, in his relation to his own body (alcohol and drug abuse) and to the law (two arrests that no one even remembers), and now as the leader of the nation and its armed forces) never had any consequences, never had any price. After all, he was awarded the highest office in the nation by a judge, and Congress still gives him all the money he requests for his absurd and criminal martial adventures.
Owing to the fact that his sorry life's misdeeds on this planet never cost him anything, he labors under the illusion that when something goes wrong, it is someone else's fault. Hence the blaming he engages in so frequently: it's the Iranians, it's Al Qaeda, it's foreign elements, it's a few bad apples in the military (when Abu Ghraib exploded), it's the Democrats, it's playing politics, it's socialized medicine, etc.
The man is ill-bred, ill-informed, uneducated, quasi illiterate, utterly lacking in curiosity, callous, cowardly, and he and the power elites of this country use these deficiencies of his as a smokescreen to make look him "human, all too human," quasi benign, and thereby deserving of our forgiveness.
As a spoiled brat and a total f...ck-up, he is not only given to blaming, but to manipulating. He is a masterful manipulator of public sentiment: he does this by means of his tone of voice, facial mannerisms, body behavior, etc., not to mention the content of his utterances and his linguistic deficiencies. The latter don't embarass him, as they might someone else, for he has learned long ago that they serve him well by endearing him to unfortunately too many folks and by closing the class gap between him and the hoi poloi at a fairly cheap price (bad grammar and impoverished lexikon are cheaper than, say, universal health care, aren't they?).
Bush is trying to minimize his failures in Afghanistan and Iraq both by playing the blame game. He is a blame game player from way back. He has been doing it his whole sorry pampered life. If he can convince people it's Iran's fault it might improve his future image in history books. If he had bothered to listen to the experts on the region he never would have opened the can of worms to begin with. Anyone with any knowledge of the region knew it would be a quagmire from the get go in both places! You can't force feed an idea to people expect them not to regurgitate it. He isn't bright enough to figure that out yet. He is trying to agitate Iran into making the first strike so he will have a good excuse to nuke them! No one will be able to condemn him for defending the country. Bush is one sick puppy! I don't think the last 7 years have helped his mental stability any. He doesn't seem to have a good firm grasp on reality. But, then again, that's what you get when you hire a sniffling coward to do a man's job.
Seems to me, no matter how large or small the air/missile strike on Iran, the price of oil will skyrocket and the dollar will plummet. If Americans end up paying five or six dollars per gallon of gas--as is likely--Republicans can kiss their collective ass good-bye. Permanently.
EveningLand well said..
Let me quote from Gardian journalist Milne's above article:
"And despite the populist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ugly remarks about the Holocaust, it is the nuclear states America and Israel that now threaten and have the capacity to attack Iran, not the other way round."
Does this tortured (contentwise, not syntactically) sentence mean anything at all? Or is it just an instance of nonsense?
Granted, the main part of the sentence (beginning with 'it is the nuclear states...') does make sense. The problem, rather, lies in the relation between the prepositional phrase preceding the main part ('despite the populist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ugly remarks about the Holocaust') and the main part itself.
Given the context of the above sentence, I am assuming that Ahmadinejad's allegedly "ugly remarks" are those relating to Israel, more specifically the one that allegedly states that "Israel must be wiped off the map" and the one that allegedly denied the historical occurrence of the Holocaust.
According to a faithful translation of the Iranian president's words regarding Israel, and not the much cited and willfully distorted rendering of them, he said the following:
"this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
First of all, please note that Ahmadinejad is speaking about the regime presently in place in Israel, not the country.
Second, there is no mention of wiping anything from any map.
Third, uttered in the context of a speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, this remark was not a threat, but rather an expression of the fate of certain mighty entities. Before issuing this line, the president of Iran had pointed out to his audience the fact that despite their might the Shah's regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein's political status in Iraq had all undergone dramatic changes, the first two for they had disappeared from the page of time altogether, and Hussein for he
was now sitting in a jail somewhere, waiting to be removed from the page of time. Ahmadinejad was thus drawing a comparison between the fate of those three exemplars of might and the present Israeli regime. The comparison said that if they could wither as they did, the regime now occupying Jerusalem must someday wither, too. Such is the fate of certain formations of power.
Is that an ugly remark? Is it ugly to state that all tyrannical forms of power must pass?
And, to return to my initial question, in what way is that remark relevant to Israel's and the United States' threatening war against Iran? Is it necessary to state that it is not at all?
If we now look at an accurate translation of the remark about the Shoah, this is what Ahmadinejad said about it:
"In the name of the Holocaust, they have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion, and the prophets."
Note that this assertion does not in the least deny the existence of the Holocaust. On the contrary, it presupposes it, for it says that Europeans and other Westerners have transformed a historical occurrence into a myth, into an idol. In other words, it charges that the relationship of a preponderance of Westerners to the Shoah is a case of idolatry. In that perception, Ahmadinejad is no different from those Western critics who have denounced the cult of the Holocaust.
As before, one may ask Mr. Milne: what exactly is ugly about saying that many Europeans and Westerners have turned the Holocaust into a fetish, which they brandish to justify the present Israeli regime's behavior?
And again, in what way is that remark about the Holocaust relevant to Israel's and the United States' threatening war against Iran?
In view of the foregoing, the answer to my initial question is that the sentence under scrutiny is a case of patent nonsense.
TComer:Ahmadinejad is a bit a loose cannon. But is a real threat to the United States? Is he really going to send a nuke over here or at Israel and guarantee the destruction of his nation? A nation in which he is anything but popular? No.
ENTERIK: If you believe Ahmadinejad would have his finger on the asserted nukular button, you are sadly mistaken. As far as Iranian foreign policy is concerned, Ahmadinejad ranks comparable to John Bolton, in that he his a loud mouth with a knack for making an ass of himself. Nothing more.
TComer: Should we strike with an unprovoked attack he might suddenly become quite popular.
ENTERIK: It is quite clear that the tide shifted against reformers like former Iranian President Khatami once US sabre rattling began in earnest. Ahmadinejad as the Supreme Jurisprudence sanctioned candidate was the recipient of much of the Iranian people switch back to conservative traditional values when faced with a life threatening external threat. It's called mortality salience. As it stands he is not nearly as popular as he was at the election. The slow pace of the promised economic reforms are the main culprit and many think such have suffered due to his pointless international grandstanding.
TComer: You know what? Had GWB been president in October 1962, we'd have had WW III. Can't you just see it? "I'm not talking to those Russkies, hell now man!"
ENTERIK: And all his prowar supporters would refuse to believe that US medium range missiles aimed at the Soviet Union that were planted in Turkey had nothing to do with the genesis of the crisis :-P
clyde paige?
"Most people never had it so good as when Mr. Clinton was president-that's why the rightwingers hate him so much because they are the do nothings so they blame soneone else"
SOME OF US DID! By the time Clintin came to office Reagan/Bush 41, & Maggie Thatcher, had already sowed the seeds of decline, and I was marginialized..........! Those people who so happily increased their fortunes in investing & the stock market during Clinton's 8 years, enabled the choke hold the Corporations have on us now!
I had it better under Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, NIXON, yes Nixon, Ford, Carter.................... Definitely DO a write in! Better still send in an absentee ballot in plenty of time; write in Kucinich, Gravel, Edwards, or Dodd............
In a scathing attack, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards went after front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Friday, calling her a "corporate Democrat," comparing top Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn to former Bush aide Karl Rove and assailing Penn's ties to Blackwater USA, the embattled private firm of military contractors accused by the Iraqi government of firing upon and killing 11 unarmed Iraqi civilians last month.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1984492
simonhhh said:
.I recently watch a documentary about a team of international archaeologists digging up the remnants of a highly advanced civilization in southern Iran circa 3000BC called ARUTTA.. It was amazing how advanced in writing, mathematics, mythology, town planning, building construction, agriculture etc they were. There is no comparison between the Aruttans and the crudities of the Bu$hco's vain glorious destructive tendencies…
pac says: Just imagne all the lost knowledge of history when shrub allowed 800 unexcavated Iraqi archeological sites to be looted by his new spawned twin children: Mecrcs and Warlords. Almost as devestating to the mind as the Romans buring all the ancient texts at the great library at Alexandria.
We will never really know who we were or who we could have been, all because we can't summond the courage to end this "long train of abuses" and throw off this despot.
God I mourn.
"If these morons thought that Iraq is a quagmire, Iran will make that look like picnic in comparison….."
And if you doubt it, go to google maps and just look at the *topography* of the place. An army of videogame warriors will acheive nothing there.
we must stop by any means nesscessary, these shadow government moles, the council of foreign relations, the international bankers, the rockerfellars, Rothchilds, Bilterbergers, illuminaties, neo cons zionist warmonguers,the purpetraters of One world government, if they are not stopped, we are looking at a thermo nuclear world war with russia and china rightfully fighting for whats left of the oil deposits in the middle east, we are now at the crossroads of the next bush regime bait and switch tactic to throw us into the next theatre of hostilities, they will if not checked halt, the next rightful election in this country, by staging their next false flag event, like a dirty bomb, blame it on terrorist, institute marshall law, suspend all elections and quite cleavorly steal the elections,(republicans staying in power) for the second time, as we all know they are way behind in all polls, but it does'nt matter, they have no intentions of letting a woman, (hillary clinton0 or a black (obama) win any election in this the land of the new world order win any election no century soon. checkout this movie at www.zeitgeistmovie.com its one hour and fifty six minutes long, but you can fastforward to the final 1:25 minutes to see and hear startling revelations by nicolas rockerfellar!!!
VINCE LAWRENCE
i second that...........
Will we see another staged attack like 911 soon? "powers that be" appear to need a justification to go 1 step further?
I fear for America and Iranian lives that are caught in the middle of the powerplay that just may unfold.
Money is not evil, but greed is. I see circles of combination of people creating something that our Creator abhors.People in Iran need to do what is truly needed there to free themselves from evil minded powers.
The problem we face in America,is that we are always given bad choices to "we the people" at election time.
Bush/Kerry, 2 skull and bones members. Give Americans a choice.
We need to find representatives that CHANGE the status quo, from what has been controlled, for too long.
The puppetmasters behind the curtain have dangled "spokesmen" for us to choose from.
America needs to not let us get "divided and conquered" by the puppetmasters.
Vote for someone who will meet OUR needs.
My vote is going to go to Kucinich. Write ins has been my vote for quite a few years.
Wake up and choose who will help YOU and not the biggies who contribute to both sides so they will get what they want no matter who wins.
Don't vote for the lesser of 2 evils.
Vote for someone that represents you, your family, friends, and "we the people."
Make your vote count.
Vote for the representative who looks after you and not corporations.
"In reality, the growing confrontation between Washington and Iran has less to do with nuclear weapons or Iraqi resistance and more with the fact that Iran has emerged as the main strategic beneficiary of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran and its allies now offer the only effective challenge to US domination of the Middle East and its resources."
This is it, folks. The above paragraph says it all, and it all came about thanks to Mr Bush's mess, aka policies. So now, he and his gang want to undo what he's done which will only create a much larger mess beyond his imagination.
However, I still believe there would be no war because the alternative would be unthinkable and disastrous. Sure, bombing may reduce Iran to rubble and the regime may be forced to fight for its life. What would you do if you were forced to fight for your life?
I believe Iran would savagely retaliate and attack all those directly and indirectly responsible for the war, including those providing psychological and logistical support, such as bases in England and Italy and the Persian Gulf states, some directly some by sympathizers, aka "terrorists". All oil installations in the Persian Gulf states would go up in flames. Sympathizers may blow up sites in unfriendly countries including, perhaps, Big Ben and the Eiffel Tower. We may even come very close to WWIII. The US and Israel would be among the losers.
What would be one of the most stupid things this nation could do? Answer___Attack Iran. So with Bush and Cheney in control and no one to stop them, what should we expect to happen? Attack Iran. Of course, when we are already nine trillion in debt, what is another one or two trillion?Just get it from Japan and China and let the kiddies worry about paying the interest on it, not to mention paying the debt back. The good thing is, our billionaires won`t have to pay their rightful share, thanks to Bush and his voodoo economics, so all that wealth will eventually trickle down to the rest of us. Even the religious people don`t seem to be too concerned about all of the dead and injured so that is no problem either.
If Ahmadinejad looked like George Clooney, people would love him.
Ahmadinejad is a bit a loose cannon. But is a real threat to the United States? Is he really going to send a nuke over here or at Israel and guarantee the destruction of his nation? A nation in which he is anything but popular? No.
Should we strike with an unprovoked attack he might suddenly become quite popular.
You know what? Had GWB been president in October 1962, we'd have had WW III. Can't you just see it? "I'm not talking to those Russkies, hell now man!"
T Comer
hey Clyde... armybrat hinted at one bit of truth without explaining it about Clinton. I'm no Clinton hater but it is fair to point out that the media conglomeration we have was accelerated as result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that he signed.
I really don't get the overall Ahmadinejad-is-evil-incarnate branding he gets. He has said some goofy things, true, but I've watched quite a number of interviews with him over time and just don't get the sinister vibe. Besides, the IAEA has given Iran a pretty much clean bill on the enrichment issue.
armybrat:Now I've heard everything blameing Clinton for the loss of free speech. Clinton didn't listen to your phone calls,read your emails or spy on you. the moron Bush is doing all of that illegally but some how you Clinton haters will blame Bill for that. I'm suprized you don't blame Clinton for Bush vetoing the child health insurance bill hell you might as well you blame him for everything else. Most people never had it so good as when Mr. Clinton was president-that's why the rightwingers hate him so much because they are the do nothings so they blame soneone else
Then I suggest Mr. Milne that you Brits convince Gordon Brown that the only moral and ethical thing to do is to denounce publicly the war-mongering and crisis-mongering coming from Washington.
During mid 60's to mid 70's when SDS (Students for Democratic Society) -- a progressive, anti-Vietnam war and nation-wide organization -- was active, I had this argument with some of their active members: With millions of Vietnamese killed, maimed, poisoned by "Agent Orange" and their country ruined, why are these horrible facts hardly ever mentioned in your campaigns against the war? Their sad response was that if you want the Americans to support you in your efforts to end the war, you need to emphasize on the 50,000 dead American soldiers. They would also go on to say that, unfortunately, the majority of the public do not care much about other people as long as its own lifestyle is pretty much intact and its kids are not dead. The war ended and, unfortunately, so did SDS. That was not surprising! SDS came to existence because of the Vietnam war and performed mainly around that issue and without the war it had no reason to continue. Well, about forty years later I saw these articles by K. Darbandi and Jean Bricmont which I found them very interesting. Seems like not much has changed since then! Although I posted one of the articles here before, but it seems like hardly any one saw it because it was submitted too late. I hope this time it is early enough and we see what the intellectuals of the CommonDreams think about them.
The War on Iran, Iraq Fiasco & US Public
By K. Darbandi (August 31 2007)
Why is the US so close to another major war in the midst of the Iraq war fiasco? While polls show that the majority of the US public is for pulling out of Iraq, there is no indication that they are having any anti-war sentiments about an attack on Iran. In this country there is no massive outcry against the current administration's obvious and public call for yet another war. Ordinary logic would have guided one to believe that the global bully has learned its lessons and will start negotiating with the regional bully, Iran. To the amazement of many, it seems as if the political space is there for Bush administration to keep pounding the war drums. Reports indicate massive fire power is ready to be launched against the I.R. regime and the Iranian state and society as a whole. The US public is hardly blinking.
Only if People Knew
There are, of course, a lot of individuals and political movements and action groups in US and Europe that are spending valuable time and effort opposing US current policy. The vital connection, however, between these trends and the public at large is missing. Some in the progressive anti war camp might be thinking that the US public at large is not opposing Bush policies on Iran because of media propaganda by networks such as Fox, or the intrigues of big business like Halliburton and other employers of Bush and Cheney, or even maybe the Israeli lobby and other mysterious interest groups.
These assumptions, are however, truly insult to peoples' intelligence. It assumes that after 4 years the US public is not yet aware that 9/11 and Iraq are not connected,-other than the fact that both involve Arabic speaking peoples. It assumes that people do not still realize that Iraq war was pre-emptive, a war of choice, and waged on shaky allegations and against international law. It assumes that in the wealthiest democracy on earth, the public has been stupefied to such extent that they just need to know the facts and they'd be acting in a very anti-warish fashion. The Fox news and a few very large conglamorates have done it again: the US public still does not know that Israel is the biggest recipient of US aid and with it, has been slowly exterminating a whole group of people. Only if people knew after more than 40 months that their soldiers in the filed are also torturers, kill detainees in their custody, and rape and murder 13 year olds and their whole families; only if they had seen the Abu-Ghraib pictures and videos, they would know how criminally disposed the US military can be and how much worse the next war is going to get! Only if the US public knew how they have destroyed a country of 25 million people they would stop their president from picking on another one of 70 million!
The simple fact is that no public is that stupid and ignorant; they might not stand up to the moral and ethical standards of progressive intellectuals, but in the social context of US society, with all the availability of information, social comfort and leisure time, people can not be in such depths of intellectual deprivation. There is nothing in water or genetically wrong with the American public to force such general behavior, and there is no lack of access to alternative information other than big media in this country. The vast majority has enough leisure time and basic life comfort to access and pursue all sorts of information that affects them.
The US public is so not anti-war that in the past weeks, even front-running Democratic presidential candidates have shown their worth to be head of state to the public by leaving "the military option on table" against Iran (Clinton), or to promise to invade unilaterally another country's territory, in this case Pakistan, in pursuit of the 'terrorists' (Obama). Somebody needs to explain how front-runners of the so-called opposition party are so overtly against international law and pro-military in the midst of Iraq war fiasco? The lady and the African-American candidates are only responding to the trends already present in the country. They are trying to look Presidential in the eyes of the US public. As Mr. Chomsky has put it, the assumption of the US ruling elite is that they own the world, and in my view, Clinton and Obama are only working based on this assumption.
Anti-war activists in the US could be having a wrong assumption about US public, in that they assume people in general are inherently good, moral and ethical beings. So if they are complicit in participating indirectly in one genocide after another, send their sons to commit one atrocity after another, then there must be a lot of brain washing and false propaganda going on that has led them to act that way.
Superman, Video Games & Disney World
The US public turned against the Iraq war only after it started going South. Check the US opinion poll history on Wikipedia for yourselves. The public image of the war, promised by Rumsfeld was to get in quick, smash everything, make it safe for oil drilling and to pull out, putting the place in the hands of a loyal puppet regime to deal with the aftermath. Sort of like the rhythm of events in classic Superman movies, where things are as clear as black and white: it is Superman, and there are the Bad Guys. And the red and blue guy can't just take it slow like Sherlock Holmes and use his head to solve the problem. No, there is not much to dwell on; he is muscular, fast and invincible. And boy is he American!
Well, the Iraq war started and was projected like the ending of a Superman movie, but in time gradually turned into Raiders of the Lost Arc, with the US forces playing the German Nazi nitwits of the movie: they are on the set only to be blown away. And Harrison is, by the way, totally absent from the Akron! So people gradually lost interest, and I don't blame them; what happened to the happy ending? Most of them want Out now, allowing Iraqi warring factions to fight each other to total death and destruction. You see, even the sentiments against the Iraq war has a very Xenophobic and racist tone to it: they know fully that it was US boys that smashed up the place, but the ethical conclusions are not drawn from it. Instead, the slimy sense of superiority kicks in that the Iraqi's are not worthy of our reconstruction help and our boys getting blown apart for it, so give me the remote and let's change the channel; forget about it! All right, maybe the mess is too much for Iraqis to clean up by themselves, let's 'internationalize' the situation, i.e.: let's call the foreign-speaking Cleaning Ladies to take care of the mess, just like how the German, Polish, S. Korean and other forces are cleaning up Afghanistan. You see, it is not inspired labour to do a spotless job cleaning another one's mess, hence the perpetual dirt in Afghan land!
The opposition of US public to Bush policies in Iraq is not really against the initial policy of going to war, and it is not really about abandoning the 'mission' and the devastated Iraqis, but simply that the 'involvement' in Iraq is not culturally digestible any more: it has become too culturally alien to watch.
It used to look like video games: buildings or tiny figures on the screen only to be blown away in a cloud of dust. It used to be sanitized. It is now a bit too messy: the tortures, civilian deaths; the clean-cut look is not there any more. What happened to the smart bombs Rumsfeld?! US Military spent billions since Vietnam war to repackage foreign wars and bring a whole new look to the sensory internalization of its global crimes in US public eye. The US public is now used to this cleansed packaging and gets very uncomfortable when wars are not presented to it in that way. The US military has succeeded very well in its packaging strategy since Vietnam, so much so that the public does not even have the stomach to tolerate the real thing any more!! Pentagon strategists over the years have indeed become victims of their own success!
The number of injured-to-deaths is disproportionately high in this war thanks to the same Military planners that repackaged wars since Vietnam. So too many young soldiers are coming home without limbs or faces, and that have totally ruined the Superman image all were expecting. This war has caused a cultural crisis in this country.
The advance in medical evacuation and body armors has not helped much to foster the culturally familiar ways of war. The idea was to bring down the death casualties, but Pentagon and its huge Medical establishment got so busy saving combat wounded lives that they totally forgot that what is saved are basically human remains with heart beat: mutilated, faceless and brain-damaged young men and women of the volunteer armed forces. The number of these victims of the economic and educational system of US is growing everyday, and the financial, social and medical infrastructure to support their tattered existence has yet to be constructed.
Cultural identity is dear to all but the pocket book is a completely different matter for the public. The US public has realized that this war is costing us too much and might, just might, ruin the plans for the next vacation to Disney World. Taking away the fairy tale image is one thing, but you can't rub us of our fairyland! Hardship is for losers, and Americans are winners, especially when it comes to their fun time! People did not turn against the Iraq occupation because of the crimes against the Iraqis, or the complete disconnection of 9/11 with Saddam; but they did partly depart from supporting it after all the implicit economic rewards turned into a financial nightmare.
At this juncture, the cultural crisis is compounded with the financial fiasco, one that the public knows it has to pay for it sooner or later. The public needs a change, is desperately awaiting a solution to this quagmire. The progressive intellectuals propose solutions; the Democrats have several solutions, but so does president Bush. Frighteningly, his might be the most compatible in presenting itself as a solution to the current cultural crisis.
Give me Back my Culture
Well then, Bush says, let's reflect calmly on the true reasons for this fiasco. There must be something in the picture now that was not there when we went to save the Iraqis from Saddam. Uh of course, it is the hostage-taking terrorist-breeding, girl-stoning Jew-hating Iranians! They are the real cause for the havoc in Iraq. Bush says: "I can fix it for you all; I will restore your Superman, fix your video games and arrange your trip to Disney World. Just let me get these hairy dark bastards, and I will get you to your blond Cinderella in time for the 9 o'clock fireworks extravaganza!
So says Bush:"Hear me out folks! I have the cruise ships ready in the Gulf. We'll go in fast and swift, mostly from air and the sea; from that altitude you won't even see blood; I promise it will be clean, like the games. Then we occupy the southern oilfields, and I will bring all the money back with cheap Iranian oil, and Iraq will be ours again to manage…How's that?" Go get them Tiger!
Fox News and '300'
What Fox news does in the current political and cultural context is quite similar to what the movie 300 has done: to make the public feel good about itself by inviting them to attack and destroy a sub-human race of evil creatures. A "Few Good Men" will annihilate the incompetent, savage and inhuman enemy in a very one-sided event. A large number of people who watch Fox actually do not care about the truth, they want to hear what is said, it is a sort of an affirmation ritual to feel better; but as the war-junkies that they are, they won't rest until they get their war. In this context, the movie 300 is part of the war plan; to de-humanize the Persians, who are depicted in the picture as actually all the colored and sexually ambiguous people on this earth. The neurotically selfish culture will reaffirm its racial superiority once again while we all wait for the anti-war sentiments to grow in the US public. As Ostad Dehkhoda would have said it: this calf has aged, but has yet to turn into a cow!
We need to understand better why people turn against wars. The US public, by and large, is disposed of a very anti-intellectual culture and with the current popular cultural traits, it will never turn against wars for the reasons that progressive intellectuals do. The link is missing, and has been missing for decades between us and the social body. The prime reasons lie in the current cultural traits of the public and our failure to understand the public in its fullness, with the good and evil that it carries with it, like all other peoples in other societies.
More wars will come and go, but what we can start to accomplish for a beginner, in my opinion, is to smash the Democratic hold on the Left in this country. Everything else will follow from that.
When Wishful Thinking Replaces Resistance
Why Bush Can Get Away with Attacking Iran
By JEAN BRICMONT
Many people in the antiwar movement try to reassure themselves: Bush cannot possibly attack Iran. He does not have the means to do so, or, perhaps, even he is not foolish enough to engage in such an enterprise. Various particular reasons are put forward, such as: If he attacks, the Shiites in Iraq will cut the US supply lines. If he attacks, the Iranians will block the Straits of Ormuz or will unleash dormant terrorist networks worldwide. Russia won't allow such an attack. China won't allow it -- they will dump the dollar. The Arab world will explode.
All this is doubtful. The Shiites in Iraq are not simply obedient to Iran. If they don't rise against the United States when their own country is occupied (or if don't rise very systematically), they are not likely to rise against the US if a neighboring country is attacked. As for blocking the Straits or unleashing terrorism, this will just be another justification for more bombing of Iran. After all, a main casus belli against Iran is, incredibly, that it supposedly helps the resistance against U.S. troops in Iraq, as if those troops were at home there. If that can work as an argument for bombing Iran, then any counter-measure that Iran might take will simply "justify" more bombing, possibly nuclear. Iran is strong in the sense that it cannot be invaded, but there is little it can do against long range bombing, accompanied by nuclear threats.
Russia will escalate its military buildup (which now lags far behind the U.S. one), but it can't do anything else, and Washington will be only too glad to use the Russian reaction as an argument for boosting its own military forces. China is solely concerned with its own development and won't drop the dollar for non-economic reasons. Most Arab governments, if not their populations, will look favorably on seeing the Iranian shiite leadership humiliated. Those governments have sufficient police forces to control any popular opposition-- after all, that is what they managed to do after the attack on Iraq.
With the replacement of Chirac by Sarkozy, and the near-complete elimination of what was left of the Gaullists (basically through lawsuits on rather trivial matters), France has been changed from the most independent European country to the most poodlish (this was in fact the main issue in the recent presidential election, but it was never even mentioned during the campaign). In France, moreover, the secular "left" is, in the main, gung-ho against Iran for the usual reasons (women, religion). There will be no large-scale demonstrations in France either before or after the bombing. And, without French support, Germany--where the war is probably very unpopular -- can always be silenced with memories of the Holocaust, so that no significant opposition to the war will come from Europe (except possibly from its Muslim population, which will be one more argument to prove that they are "backward", "extremist", and enemies of our "democratic civilization").
All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American "left". The issue of course is not whether Iran is nice or not Âaccording to our views -- but whether there is any legal reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant ideology of human rights has legitimized, specially in the left, the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time, and that ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor issue of international law.
Israel and its fanatical American supporters want Iran attacked for its political crimes--supporting the rights of the Palestinians, or questioning the Holocaust. Both U.S. political parties are equally under the control of the Israel lobby, and so are the media. The antiwar movement is far too preoccupied with the security of Israel to seriously defend Iran and it won't attack the real architects of this coming war--the Zionists-- for fear of "provoking antisemitism". Blaming Big Oil for the Iraq war was quite debatable, but, in the case of Iran, since the country is about to be bombed but not invaded, there is no reason whatsoever to think that Big Oil wants the war, as opposed to the Zionists. In fact, Big Oil is probably very much opposed to the war, but it is as unable to stop it as the rest of us.
As far as Israel is concerned, the United States is a de facto totalitarian society--no articulate opposition is acceptable. The U.S. Congress passes one pro-Israel or anti-Iran resolution after another with "Stalinist" majorities. The population does not seem to care. But if they did, but what could they do? Vote? The electoral system is extremely biased against the emergence of a third party and the two big parties are equally under Zionist influence.
The only thing that might stop the war would be for Americans themselves to threaten their own government with massive civil disobedience. But that is not going to happen. A large part of the academic left long ago gave up informing the general public about the real world in order to debate whether Capital is a Signifier or a Signified, or worry about their Bodies and their Selves, while preachers tell their flocks to rejoice at each new sign that the end of the world is nigh. Children in Iran won't sleep at night, but the liberal American intelligentsia will lecture the ROW (rest of the world) about Human Rights. In fact, the prevalence of the "reassuring arguments" cited above proves that the antiwar movement is clinically dead. If it weren't, it would rely on its own forces to stop war, not speculate on how others might do the job.
Meanwhile, an enormous amount of hatred will have been spewed upon the world. But in the short term, it may look like a big Western "victory", just like the creation of Israel in 1948; just like the overthrow of Mossadegh by the CIA in 1953; just like the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine seemed to be a big German victory after the French defeat at Sedan in 1870. The Bush administration will long be gone when the disastrous consequences of that war will be felt.
PS: This text is not meant to be a prophecy, but a call to (urgent) action. I'll be more than happy if facts prove me wrong.
Jean Bricmont teaches physics in Belgium and is a member of the Brussels Tribunal. His new book, Humanitarian Imperialism, is published by Monthly Review Press. He can be reached at bricmont@fyma.ucl.ac.be.
I think that the fall of the U.S. Dollar has little to do with the Administration's desire to go to war with Iran. The Administration could support the dollar but doesnt because it makes our products cheaper in other currencies which is part of the plan to reign-in the trade deficit. If, on the other hand there were a serious threat of oil bing denominated in Euros then you might see the Dollar defended. Chavez and Fidel have threatened to accept only Euros but as far as I know it hasnt happened and would be insignificant if they did.
Faux News reported that the attack on Iran (a bombing campaign of at least a week's duration, plus some cross border incursions) is scheduled by the Bush/Cheney insiders to take place "after the primary elections" but before the November, 2008 balloting.
Once again, sabre rattling and fear mongering abroad is being consciously timed to impact domestic partisan politics within the United States.
Rest assured that we will all be told that the bombing of Iran is even more successful than was the surge, and that real victory in the global war on terrorism through the surgical use of military technology is just within our grasp. That's what Bush's militarist base, and a lot of middle ground independent voters, want to hear and want to believe.
Will such a transparent stunt work again, or will the blowback from escalating into Iran be too sudden and too dramatic?
Bill from Saginaw
Iran is threat to us, a Christian nation.
Its Muslim armies have invaded and occupied our Christian neighbors on either border. We have but a small fleet; Iran's nuclear aircraft carriers patrol our coast. Our fledgling nuclear program has yet to produce a weapon; Iran possesses thousands that it can deliver anywhere in the world while our missile range is relatively limited. We haven't invaded another country in two centuries, yet Iran has more than 730 military installations around the world.
Iran is a threat to us... Iran is a threat to us....
the fascist states of israel, er, i mean the united states of america will attack iran because the zionists/neocons have told them to do it.
as sharon has said many times; "the united states will do what they are told."
gwynne dyer has also predicted that the war in iran will indirectly result in the starvation deaths of around 950 million africans.
which suits the zionists/eugenicists just fine.
they have good growing land over there that, like the palestinians, they are not using anyway.
Well, Simonhhh, this should make you just cry. The ruins of Ur, Kadesh, and Uruk have all been smashed and looted beyond any hope of recovery.
Galen..."The cradle of civilization… shattered and ruined for the greed and vanity of a handful of cowardly men"....I recently watch a documentary about a team of international archaeologists digging up the remnants of a highly advanced civilization in southern Iran circa 3000BC called ARUTTA.. It was amazing how advanced in writing, mathematics, mythology, town planning, building construction, agriculture etc they were. There is no comparison between the Aruttans and the crudities of the Bu$hco's vain glorious destructive tendencies...
It's sickening and indefensible these Bu$hites want to destroy something they have knowledge of or care to have knowledge of..
Rest assured that there is absolutely no support from the British, French and German people for a joint attack on Iran. Zero. Any official siding with this latest Bushit scheme would be committing political suicide.
The rogue Republican regime is isolated and exposed at this point. Very dangerous in it's death throes, of course. We must watch out for that thrashing tail when the dinosaur goes down.
Just for reference: The Canadian dollar has been at parity plus for almost three weeks now with the US dollar. Which means the US economy is tanking. Which means that YES, there WILL be a war. It's the only method the US economists know to 'stimulate' the failing economy.
The cradle of civilisation... shattered and ruined for the greed and vanity of a handful of cowardly men.
"...Ahmadinejad's ugly remarks about the Holocaust..."
I see the UK is repeating that tripe as well... as if saying that often enough will make it true. I lost family in 'the Holocaust' - so I make sure that any translations of 'denial' are accurate. It's outrageous that foreign countries control the US media. We will we have 'sovereignty' when we take back our airwaves, and our country - I expect hell will freeze over first. There is no 'freedom of speech' in the US anymore. Thank Bill Clinton for that. He sold us all down the river.
Bend over, put your head between your legs, and kiss your
a _ _ goodbye.
Sorry folks, but I finally had to say it. This was sick humor I learned in the military when asked what to do if a nuke fell near you.
Unfortunately this has been the Neocon's wet dream. Once they staged the needed military forces in Iraq & Afghanistan along with the carrier group in the gulf. They had the classic pincer movement. Look for surge-2 to get more forces on the ground, and redeployment along the border with Iran.
As Greenspan said it's all about the oil, Saudi Arabia is running out the Neocons want to make sure the reserves in the middle-east are under US control. Otherwise the Chinese (who own $400 billion of US debt) will be able to out-bid us for oil.
Another 'self-hating jew'
If these morons thought that Iraq is a quagmire, Iran will make that look like picnic in comparison.....
And excellent piece by Uri Avnery (a 'self-hating jew' by zionist definition):
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=13944
God Bless America, land of the fee, home of the knave...
pacplyer..
When the American Forces bombed and violently occupied Baghdad. Strenuously defending the OIL Ministery and deliberately allowing the Iraq National Museum to sack, pillage and desecrate nearly 5000 years of Mesopotamian History; the Principle Archiver of Antiquities CRIED...
This appalling International Crime by the Bu$hCo Regime will be recorded in Histories Annuls of Infamy as amongst the worst in over two millennium...