Oil, Israel, and America: The Root Cause of the Crisis
There is no shortage of examples of historical points of friction between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States to draw upon in order to illustrate the genesis of the current level of tension. One can point to the Islamic revolution that cast aside America’s staunch ally, Reza Shah Pahlevi, the period of reactionary exportation of Islamic “revolution” that followed, the take over of the US Embassy and subsequent holding of Americans hostage (replete with a failed rescue mission), the Iranian use of proxies to confront American military involvement in Lebanon, inclusive of the bombing of the Marine barracks and US Embassy compounds, America’s support of Saddam Hussein during the 8-year war between Iran and Iraq, the ‘hot’ conflict between Iran and the United States in the late 1980s, or Iran’s ongoing support of the Hezbollah Party in Lebanon. The list could continue.
With the exception of the current situation in Lebanon, most of these “friction points” are dated, going back nearly three decades past. And when one examines the ‘root’ causes of these past points of friction, we find that there is no simple ‘black and white’ causal relationship which places Iran firmly in the wrong. Much of the early animosity between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States was derived from the resentment most Iranians felt over American support for a brutal, repressive regime. This resentment, coupled with an uncompromising approach taken by the United States towards maintaining cordial relations with a post-Shah Iran, manifested itself in the furtherance of anti-American activity in Iran, which in turn hardened the posture of the US government against Iran, leading to a cycle of devolution that ultimately resulted in the severance of all ties between the two nations.
The animosity between the United States and Iran was further exacerbated by the US support for Saddam Hussein during the bloody 8-year war between Iran and Iraq. This support, which manifested itself by actually drawing the US military into a shooting war with elements of Iran’s military during the re-flagging of Kuwaiti oil tankers in the late 1980’s, in turn created the conditions which led to the policy of “dual containment” of both Iran and Iraq from 1991, in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. “Dual Containment” was more a product of the lack of policy between the United States and Iran than it was representative of a singular policy direction. The end result, namely a failure to achieve any discernable results, created the conditions for “policy drift,” which by 1998 led to the adoption of a policy of regime change in Iraq, and the embrace of ideologically-driven national security strategies which expanded regime change to be inclusive of the Islamic Republic of Iran. These policy directions on the part of the United States took place in a virtual reality-deprived atmosphere, being driven more from the perspective of a domestic American perspective based on inaccuracies and misperceptions of Iran than they were from any hard, factual analysis of the genuine state of affairs inside Iran. It is largely because of this systemic lack of intellectual curiosity regarding Iran that many in America, including the main stream media, find themselves divining models of national behavior derived from actions and events more than 20 years past.
Iran’s nuclear program, far from being the “root cause” of Iranian-American animosity, is simply a facilitator for those who are predisposed to accept at face value anything that paints Iran in a negative light. The same can be said of almost every effort undertaken by the US government, post-1998, regarding Iran. A major impetus behind this trend towards rhetorically-based negativism regarding Iran is the influence exerted on the US national security decision making process by the government of Israel, and those elements within the United States, both governmental and non-governmental, which lobby on behalf of Israel. Israel has, for over a decade, listed Iran as its most serious national security threat, and has lobbied extensively to get the United States to embrace a similar policy direction.
A pre-occupation with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq during the 1990s up to 2003 precluded such a shift in policy. However, while the deteriorating situation in Iraq since the march 2003 invasion and occupation by the United States has dominated the US national security decision making hierarchy, the elimination of Saddam Hussein, coupled with a less than satisfactory outcome regarding holding to account the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the united States, created an ideologically-driven gap in the threat models pushed by those making policy in the United States, and since 2004 Israel has been successful in pressuring American policy positions vis-à-vis Iran to more closely model the positions taken by Israel, up to and including a characterization of Iran as a nation pursuing nuclear weapons ambitions, operating as a state sponsor of terror, and possessing a government which is fundamentally incompatible with regional and global peace and security.
The Israeli perspective on Iran is driven by two primary factors: a “zero tolerance” for the acquisition of nuclear weapons by any nation deemed a threat, either real or potential, that is so strict even nuclear energy-related programs permitted under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (which Iran contends, and the IAEA concurs, is the case regarding its nuclear activities) are deemed unacceptable, and an inability to diplomatically resolve the reality of the Lebanese Hezbollah Party on its northern borders.
The Israeli posturing regarding Iran’s nuclear program, and America’s unquestioning support of the Israeli position, has nullified any chance of meaningful diplomacy in this regard, since diplomacy is at least nominally based upon the rule of law as set forth under relevant treaties and agreements, a reality Israel refuses to acknowledge as legitimate concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Hezbollah has further complicated the issue given the fact that it a) receives considerable support, financial and material, from Iran, and b) it has demonstrated an ability to embarrass Israel’s vaunted military machine on the field of battle. National hubris, more than legitimate national security concerns, drives Israel’s unyielding stance concerning Hezbollah, which in turn colors American policy pronouncements which list Iran as a state sponsor of terror, even though there is little in the way of concrete evidence to back up such claims other than Iran’s ongoing status as a major benefactor of Hezbollah.
But the key factor in the calculus of what serves as the root cause of conflict between Iran and the United States is energy, namely Iran’s status as one of the world’s leading producers of oil and natural gas. The United States has, for some time now, placed a high emphasis on Middle Eastern and Central Asian oil and gas when it comes to determining future economic development trends. In a fossil-fuel driven global economy, energy resources have become one of the major factors in determining which nation or group of nations will be able to dominate not only economically, but also militarily and politically.
In the “Power Equation” that gets factored into national security decision making here in the United States, fossil fuels play a dominant role. America’s interest in dominating the Middle Eastern region is driven almost exclusively by the energy resources of that region. Iran’s situation is further exacerbated by the reality that Iranian oil and gas represent a critical part of the future economic growth of the world’s two largest expanding economies, namely China and India. By leveraging its control over Iranian energy production, as well as the other major centers of fossil fuel production in the Middle east and Central Asia, the United States is positioning itself to be able to control the pace of economic expansion in China and India, a capability deemed vital when it comes to the national security posture of the United States in relation to these two nations and the rest of the world.
In short, there are many factors involved in what one might term the “root cause” of Iranian-US animosity. But the reality is all of the points of friction between Iran and the US could be readily resolved with viable diplomacy save two: Israel’s current level of unflinching hostility towards Iran, and America’s addiction to global energy resources. These two factors guarantee that there will be tension between Iran and the United States for some time to come, and place blame for the continuation of tension firmly on the side of the United States.
Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) , “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement” (Nation Books, April 2007).
© 2006-2007 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
Thank you, Mr. Ritter,
As always an excellent and informative article. I admire your long efforts and am grateful for the light you’ve shed on the situation since your days as an inspector.
The one glaring omission to your list is the assassination of Iran’s first elected president, Mossadegh, by Allan Dulles’s new CIA. This was certainly the opening act and initiator of the historic line of hostility your article follows. Mossadegh’s killing opened the way for the installation of Reza Palavi and ended talk of nationalizing Iran’s oil.
Otherwise a sterling and valuable article.
Sincere thanks for your work.
egon fawlkner
America’s addiction to global energy resources can only be cured with a change of lifestyle. An since our lifestyles are dictated by corporate America, there isn’t much chance of that happening. Corporate America wants sheep and robots, not independently thinking people who just might question the need to buy all that stuff we think we can’t live without. So all Americans should leave the country and travel all over the world and see the reality of the world today. See how our lifestyle impacts on these global energy resources. That’s the only way to learn because the mainstream media in America isn’t going to show it. When they come back home they will promptly throw out the current government and replace it with true American statesmen and women. People who will put America back on track.
Hoa binh
Thank you, Mr. Ritter. As egon329 mentioned, however, let us not be understated. America did not just “support” the Shah, it helped overthrow Iranian democracy to put him in power! Iranian mistrust of America is not hard to understand with that in context. The American public would do well to understand these basic points of why “they hate us.”
Here I thought Iran might identify ‘root causes’ for ‘hostilities’ (such as they are) as primarily the direct-overthrow of their nascent-democracy by Ike/Dulles/Rockefeller and the good-old CIA in the early-1950’s (at the behest of Oil-interests), the CIA/Mossad training provided the Dictator-Shaw’s secret-police/SAVAK (who terrorized Iranians for decades), the CIA/Defense-interests that forced expensive weaponry&nuclear-technology on Iran during the Shaw’s reign-of-terror, the CIA’s attempts to defeat the Revolution early-on (including by efforts from several of those Embassy-hostages…who were, in-reality, CIA covert-operatives), the American’s supplying Saddam with nerve-gas and weapons and other-support for use in the 8-year war already initiated/fostered by US-interests, and the repeated US-backed Israeli invasions into Lebanon (where allied Hizbullah Shite-fighters continued to deny Israel the addition of the Litani River and southern-farmlands of Lebanon to Israel’s long-occupied Sheba-Farms)?
Not that Iran seems very-hostile, really, seeing as how they were a helpful-Ally during the recent/early-part of our GWoT in both Afghanistan and Iraq (since they dislike the Taliban, and terrorists like MEK and Al-Quada, even more-than the West). Now, what were those ‘root-causes’ and good-reasons for why the US is hostile towards Iran, again? Something about “the Carter-Doctrine”, was it? Hostages (who were all released, unharmed, in much shorter-order than our Shaw held all of Iran-hostage)? [And, as soon as Reagan was safely-”in” via ‘October-Surprise’, while prior to Reagan/Israel embroiling them in the Iran-Contra nonsense…]
I’ve read better from-you, Scott…
To the degree that Iran’s Interests are contradictory to ‘legitimate’ American/Israeli Interests, I’d also favor the latter…every-single-time. But to pretend that America has more to fear from ‘Iranian-hostility’ than Iran has to fear from the US is ludicrous. ‘Tension’ does seems inevitable, given the History and contradictory-Interests, but ‘war’ could only be a sign that diplomacy was disfavored as viable-alternative.
Earth to Scott Ritter, bombardment of Iran does not achieve improved access to Iranian oil or oil at lower prices. If you want to obscure the role of zionism in the US aggressions, you need to make a case that has some logical basis. Direct colonial control of oil has been abandoned as noneconomic for half a century now. You might as well divine that the aim is to conduct slaving raids for the new slave trade.
Bush and Cheney(and Israel) have pulled it off!
With the bases in Iraq and the huge embassy for the CIA in Bhagdad and the base being constructed in Afghanistan the oil fields are surrounded.
With a client state in Iraq the middle east in now ’stabilized’ for the corporate interests.
Lose the war, win the policy.
IT actually goes further back, to the USA overthrowing the democratically elected President of Iran when he wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry…. and installing their puppet the Shah, who tortured and imprisoned dissenters for the USA.
Can you imagine how Americans would feel if a foreign country overthrew their President? Not too bad today, probably.
atheo
Good observation
egon329, you’re certainly right about the CIA’s deposing of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953; Kinser’s book, “All the Shah’s Men” cover its well. But I do believe that after an initial three-year imprisonment, he died much later, in 1967 while under house arrest.
A remarkable man, familiar with western culture and fluent in French.
Zionism + Oil = WMD
guilfoil,
The middle east region is far from stable and won’t be until the US military leaves and Israel recognises Palestine. The huge embasy in Baghdad is nothing more than a money pit. Your perspective seems to promote the wars as successful when they are nothing of the sort. The only party that has gained is Israel, which has had a free reign at ethnic cleansing while the world has been aghast at the other zionist occupations.
In the US Government lexicon, ‘terrorist” is, among others, any foreign government that does not kowtow to the US.
Among the belligerent actions of the US one should also mention the drowning by US of some Iranian navy ships as well as the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane killing approximately 200 civilians, for which Bush the Bigger said he would not apologize to anybody. And let’s not forget the seizer of Iranian assets in the US and it sanctions against Iran.
The seizer of the American Embassy by a group of university students called the Student Followers of Imam Khomeini Line was a precautionary action to prevent the repeat of a 1953 CIA coup which was forged in the US Embassy and which toppled the democratic government of Mossadegh and brought back the venal Shah. For this reason, the seizer was justified.
For the US and Iran to establish diplomatic relations there must be a lot of give and take on both sides as the policies of the two governments are diametrically opposite. An article within the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran requires the government to give aid and support to the world’s oppressed peoples and nations. Iran, and virtually the world, considers the Palestinian people, and to a lesser degree the people in southern Lebanon, as being the oppressed, and hence the reason for Iran’s support. The world community, especially in the Middle East, sees the US actions, particularly during the Bush regime, to be indicative of an oppressor nation. The beauty and the beast will have to change a lot to be friends again.
To all you who pointed out Mossadegh’s political assassination (in fact h died in his bed under house arrest in ‘67) and the undoing of his early democratic initiatives in Iran in the early ‘50s by the CIA and MI6 as a point not lost on Iranians, I agree that the importance is a key example of neo-colonial regime change and a constant manipulation and/or threat by the US being the fundamental obstacle to relations between Iran and the US. It is difficult to develop any meaningful relations with a country that unless they are directly controlling your entire political system, your resources and running your secret police they are threatening you, providing your enemies with banned weapons and satellite intelligence for targeting, or shooting down your commercial aircraft “by mistake”.
It appears that Mr. Scott Ritter is trying to present this as US neo-colonial hegemony “light”, by an attempting at the journalistic method often used by mainstream media when describing Israeli crimes in Palestinian occupied territories, that is to say, by bringing “balance” to an argument which has none.
Iran can only be seen in terms of a power in the ME that is not under the control of US/Israel hegemony and therefore considered by them as a threat, as is Syria, and were in the “big plan” which was cooked up years ago between these criminal states, it was always on the cards for Iran and Syria to be “regime change(d)” to something in the “Mubarak” mould of a bloody dictator who does what he’s told and tortures whoever he’s told to, while throwing any journalist or dissident in prison for as long as he likes. (Not that Iran don’t do the same; they just don’t do it on Washington’s beck and call.)
It is obvious that Iran was next on the list of regime changes the day Saddam was removed, and a Shiia dominated government in Iraq was made inevitable. Iraq is a US/Israel, Zionist-NeoCon project in the works which includes breaking countries down to mere warring fiefdoms, and dominating them with US and Israeli military terrorism, and hopefully hammering them one day with economic shocks too, to privatize their resources and markets to global corporate players. The real picture is like Iraq today or much like extending the Palestinian territories to the entire ME, an on going process of destroy, divide, stimulate local conflict, and dominate with attack forces from strategically located bases (now 14 permanent bases in Iraq), and dangle a false carrot of world bank debt for privatized resources.
The irony is that just as in the case of Israel, and their crimes, it is all justified by calling the other guy the terrorist and blaming them for the mayhem …. Amazing, and most Americans have not got a clue as they soak up the propaganda. Welcome to the Fourth Reich, the New American Century. Freedom and Democracy… Yhaaa, pull the other one it’s got bells on!
atheo, imfedup-what makes you think Bush/Cheney want cheap oil?
namvet67,
My lifestyle isn’t dictated by corporate America.
Greg R
what makes you think Bush/Cheney wants global economic instability?
Greg R,
I don’t think the regime wants cheap oil, and I don’t believe the wars are to eliminate production either. If the wars were for removal of product from the global market, that could be accomplished through sanctions and naval embargo at relatively little cost or risk. Therefore, I don’t see a case for the “war for (or against) oil” memes.
As Ray states in correcting egon,Mohammed Mossadegh was not assassinated by the C.I.A.He came from a wealthy and well connected family and spent some of his education in the west.
bio-diesel……. it’s the answer……which is why it is terribly under-developed, under-funded, under-emphisized, and under the fossil-fuel-corp gun.
PrestonDigitator
bio-diesel……. it’s the answer……which is why it is terribly under-developed, under-funded, under-emphisized, and under the fossil-fuel-corp gun.
Read this and get back to me.
http://www.janes.com/press/press/pc070716_1.shtml
Thanks imfed’, but i don’t buy into the ‘all land needed for food stuff’
here’s why: http://herbal-medicine.philsite.net/tuba-tuba.htm
In fact the Jane’s article is a perfect example of corperate’s long arm.
atheo- Having China and India go along with sanctions is unlikely. Naval blockade is an act of war. I think America wants Iran to understand that Iran can control their own oil only up to a point. If Iran gets too far out of line with American and Israeli wishes, the hammer may fall.
Greg R,
China doesn’t have to go along with sanctions any more than it has to approve nuking.
Your suggesting that the US threats constitute some type of bluff goes against geopolitical logic. A threat that one is not prepared to act on is most likely to undermine the power and standing of the imperial power.
Update your perspective by reading this current analysis from Le Monde Diplomatique:
After the end of empire
http://mondediplo.com/2007/10/04empire
Mossadegh wanted the best for Iran and not for American Oil - Kermit Roosvelt of the CIA took care of that.
These Oil Wars were set in place well before the Balfour betrayal.
What Bush/Cheney want is no-secret, and is the same thing Mr. Ritter and I want — continued or improving American economic/military-dominance, Globally. Where Mr. Ritter (and I, as most-here) differ and take-issue is in regards the extremes of risk and Ethical-Rubicon’s being crossed to achieve those shared-Ends.
Iran’s problem with the US is not really her Independence or Oil, so much as her ‘accident of location’. Without a puppet-Dictator (as during the ColdWar), Iran is strategically capable of not-only providing considerable ME energy-resources to the Sino-’Soviets’/India, but also of influencing countries within the ‘next big prize’ in Global-chess — the Caspian Basin — to lean the same-way. The PNAC-plan, as extension to pre&post-ColdWar policies touted by the likes of Kissinger/Brzezinski, required only reliable-containment of Iran (Syria being a-different-story, it weakly standing between Israel and the ME-pipelines/refineries/portage deemed more ‘trustworty’ than even a compliant-Turkey, and oppositional to gains of Lebanese/Shite-resources). And, Iran should be ‘contained’ aplenty, with permanent US-or-NATO occupation within Afghanistan and weakened-Iraq, ‘terrorist’-controlling Pakistan/ISA under-thumb, and the distrust of Persian-Shites by long-enthralled Saudi-Arabia and Jordan (and post-Nassar Egypt). Carter accelerated this ‘rolling-ball’ by supporting Fundamentalist-resistance against the USSR in the NME. Clinton, too, with establishing the ‘Northern-pincer’ of re-Balkanized and allied EE, and always-useful Israel provided the ‘moral-imperative’ for US-interests (as well as the invention of a substitute-if-Faceless/Stateless Enemy, to replace Communism as threat and to gain initial-support from America’s/Israel’s/Europe’s own “too-Progressive” and “naive” citizenry for this ‘hard-work’ of seeing to “America’s Destiny”). Never about ‘cheap oil’ — the US could easily have purchased manipulated-cheap ME-oil for less than the 4+ trillion committed to-date on support for Israel and related military-costs in the ME and Eastern-Europe/Africa/Asia. The overall-intent is to deny flagging ME-oil AND the yet-larger reserves in the Caspian to either neighboring Russia, China, or an allied-India (the only possible-’threats’ to continued US-dominance, if enabled sufficiently by secured-control of the massive energy-supply possible via the Caspian and, potentially, a Cooperative Iran/Iraq). Such a disaster would also provide a dreaded ‘real-competition’ to Western Oil-Co’s, and remove the otherwise-worthless Fiat-Dollar as World Reserve/Oil-Currency — not to mention the fueling of massive development and carbon-burning in a newly-successful China/India/Africa (which the US/Pentagon has known for-decades would accelerate ‘tipping-points’ for environmental-disaster long, long before any ‘Peak-Oil’ could possibly present an issue).
The ‘problems’ with, and motives-for, such an Anglo-American (and, more-recently, Israeli)/Corporate scheme of co-joined-Interests in preventing the rapid/’unsound’-Development of the world’s-poor & masses is obvious. It was summarized, succinctly, by George Kennan of the U.S. State Department in 1948: “The US has about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”
Israel provided ‘moral-cover’, and built-in increasingly-abused ‘Islamo-Fanatics’ as the needed ‘Enemy’, and J/C-Values well-serves for alliance-cohesiveness. In spite of Reagan/Bush-era attempts to ‘prop it up’, the USSR fell-apart — for the good of Mother-Russia in staying a ‘playa’, after Gorbachev was enough-Realist to see ‘lose/lose’ in fighting elitist-Capitalism by ‘developing’ the 3rd-World (which would poison the planet, even if ’successful’). But, the ‘New Order’ was (and maybe-is?) a workable-plan — if your goal is for the ‘right-people’ to prosper at the majority-expense.
It’s all just ‘Global-Chess’, people. Your and my shock with the lack of Ethics and horrid-losses ensuing just shows why ‘those in control’ feel they need to pursue ‘your’ best-interests covertly, and with Mythos and Secrecy rather than transparency and directness — a Straussian-precept. Dems and Repugs needed to morph into ‘good-Cop, bad-Cop’. These people may have traded their humanity for security & greed, but they are-not ’stupid’. The Western-world (if not these ‘elite’) needed to belt-tighten, and ‘are’, finally — thanks to neo-Liberal Globalism (we ‘Western-middle-class’ are the ones it’s tightening-upon, and rapidly). And, 5-billion others must forgo their “grabs-at-the-ring” altogether [and their Resources, meanwhile] — or ‘none-survive’ the Century (or, worse to some, we’d need to learn to ’share’ and reform to ’sustainable economies’ and equalized standards-of-living). [And had Americans really wanted to do-that, they’d have learned it from and shared-with their own Western-Natives long-ago, and sans-Slavery — as we-here in CD seem to expect of Israel-today]
Good article by James Howard Kunstler today.
The gist of the article is that we need to look to our individual behavior as part of the problem rather than only laying blame on external forces.
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2588/81/
Kunstler concludes:
“In reality, there’s a lot more wrong with how we live and how we think about how we live than the mere presence of George W. Bush at the head of the federal government. Our expectations are deeply out of phase with what the earth can provide for us and what the future has in store for us, and this failure of our collective imagination goes down to the grass roots.”
PrestonDigitator
In fact the Jane’s article is a perfect example of corperate’s long arm.
I disagree with that but I find the tuba-tuba plant article very interesting. Thanks for the info.
Jeez MeAlsoToo, something tells me you’ve spent some time plying the upper level trenches…..knowing you’d be nice to “break wine with sometime”. The pathetic part is that our leadership has seen boogeymen behind so many trees for so long, it truly became a self fullfilling prophecy. What initiates that kind of deep seated paranoia…..yeah, that’s why I left off the question mark. I’ll remain confident that the establishment think-tank marvels have remaind true to character and gotten the whole scenario horribly wrong as usual. It’s not that they are not very bright and talented, it’s that they have to work in a fun house maze.
Huge blind spot: Ritter’s “history” starts in 1979.
The US, in particular Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of FDR, went to Iran and destroyed its democracy in 1953. This was accomplished by bribing newspaper editors and military officers to demonize and then to overthrow Mossadegh, the legitimate president of Iran.
Mossadegh’s crime was nationalizing the oil fields, thereby taking away British Petroleum’s cash cow, and angering the west.
So, this uppity democratic leader of a sizeable nation was removed, arrested and executed by treasonous Iranian military men who were paid off by US agents. The “Shah” was installed, and was a puppet client of the US, whose secret police the SAVAK were trained by CIA to torture and round up potential challengers. They murdered quite a few over their decades in power, in death squad fashion, much to the orgasmic delight of both Democrats and Republicans in Washington DC.
Quite a bit of history missed the final edit of Ritter’s history. I’m not sure if these events are routinely cut out because they lead back to the icon of the Democratic Party, FDR. But, this halfhearted critique style never really communicates the true story.
John Doraemi publishes crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
Whatfools,
You seem to be confusing the colonial era with the neocolonial era. Some things do change in over a century:
The sun sets early on the American Century
…Historical analogies are never perfect but Great Britain’s long exit from empire may shed some light on the present moment. At the end of the 19th century few British leaders could begin to imagine an end to empire. When Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee was celebrated in 1897, Britain possessed a formal transoceanic empire that encompassed a quarter of the world’s territory and 300 million subalterns and subjects – twice that if China, a near colony of 430 million people, was included. The City of London was the centre of an even more far-flung informal trading and financial empire that bound the world. It is unsurprising that, despite apprehensions over US and German industrial competitiveness, significant parts of the British elite believed that they had been given “a gift from the Almighty of a lease of the universe for ever”…
http://mondediplo.com/2007/10/04empire
The U.S. should make a fundamental change of course in the ME by (1) stopping its demonization of Iran, (2) stopping our support for the family-run mafia of Saudi Arabia, and (3) ending our special relationship with Israel, along with the $5B per year we give them and the diplomatic interference we run for them.
ow - scott ritter - that was good.
QUOTE:
egon329 October 9th, 2007 12:53 pm
Thank you, Mr. Ritter,
As always an excellent and informative article. …
The one glaring omission to your list is the assassination of Iran’s first elected president, Mossadegh, by Allan Dulles’s new CIA. This was certainly the opening act and initiator of the historic line of hostility your article follows. …
END QUOTE.
Agreed, fine, okay article, but, and based on plenty that I’ve read so far about the West, specifically Britain and the U.S., and with respect to their LONG efforts to gain control of Iran’s oil resources, Ritter’s article correctly says that there’s “no shortage of examples”, but it’s not a highly informative article; fine, right in the brevity of it, it’s brief statement, but not very informative.
Now I’ll quote a little with respect to former Iranian President Mossadegh and this is from the Wikipedia page copy at TheFreeDictionary.com.
Quote: “Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh ( (help·info))(Persian: محمد مصدق , also Mosaddegh or Mosaddeq) (19 May 1882 - 5 March 1967) was the democratically elected[1] prime minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953. …”
NOPE, that most definitely was not “the opening act and initiator of the historic line of hostility your article follows”, which instead was either in or around the first half of the 19th century, with Britain’s aggressive moves; and that’s if I’m not correct in what’s vaguely recalled from some articles that I’ve read. Those stated that the aggression against Iran for oil resources started even in the 18th century.
Britain was at this perhaps a century or more longer than the U.S. has been in Iran’s case, but U.S. is very much of British root and has LONG had relations with British elite, power elite that likely MOST Americans and maybe most Brits are unaware of. Some of those were hostile, corporate elites of the two countries aggressively acting against each other and for conquest, to control, resources of other countries. John or David Rockeller, with his Standard Oil business, aggressively obtained U.S. govt help to try to OUT the British oil corporation that was exploiting Mexican oil resources, f.e.
One author that provides quite a considerable amount on all of this history is Dr John Coleman, or I believe his name is John Anyway, and one of the very relevant books of his is ‘DIPLOMACY BY DECEPTION’, for which a freed PDF copy can be found with a Google search. There are others who have written very informative articles that were written for or posted at GlobalResearch.ca over the past year or two, and likely more.
Another strongly informative writer on U.S. and other Western countries aggressions for capturing control of energy and other profitable natural resources of other countries and continents is Keith Harmon Snow, who has some articles at the above GR site, and at his own, AllThingsPass.com.
Anyway, Western aggression for Iran’s OIL and now gas resources, as well as the ruling POWER ELITES’ really being the leaders of this and via the method known as ‘invisible govt’, and I supposed also the ‘hidden hand (in or running govt(s?))’, ALL OF THIS HAS LONG HISTORY, and the whole of U.S. history is strongly relevant for consideration in this. That was all the power elites ruling and corrupting the U.S. govt, and for natural resources and big PROFIT.
That’s also why I don’t give the Israel factor anywhere as much weight as a lot of people have been doing when referring to its influence on the U.S. govt in the context of the Middle East. Sure, the power elite get covered up with all of the distraction caused by people focusing solely or mostly on this Israel factor, and the power elite also get a lot of support for these wars for their profit and gradual formation of a One World Govt politically and economically ruled by and profiting the power elites, well, get a lot of support for all of this by staying as silent and thereby hidden as possible, while the Israel factor is given the front stage acting role.
The Zionist Christians in the U.S. are supporting the U.S. govt’s apparent support of Israel and because of the end times rapture nonsense, belief. Some of these false Christians may also be supporting the wars of aggression for the sake of profiting from stock ownership in the military-industrial complex corporations, but those who aren’t supportive for the latter reason will support for the sake of the insane rapture belief. As far as I’m aware, they are the most strongly supportive of Americans, for these wars of aggression and U.S. govt backing of the Israeli govt.
Etc.
The POWER ELITES love all of that sort of cover, all of the focus that Americans put on the Israel factor and while making either no or awfully little mention of the leading role of the power elites, that natural resources, gaining control of them is definitely a top goal of theirs, and that it’s related to their desire to established a One World Govt sort of situation over us ALL. The U.N. or really U.N.S.C. is a key instrument in this OWG project too. In this sense, it is hellbent but otherwise fitting that the U.N.S.C. never rejects totally criminal vetoes placed by the U.S. and against totally necessary UNSC resolutions drafted to try to get the govt of Israel to stop its hellbent crimes against Palestine, Lebanon, and so on. It’s the worldwide “network” of power elites that rule this “show”.
And basically the same thing is happening in Sudan and other African countries, where the call for U.N. “peacekeepers” and also the A.U. “peacekeeprs” to be moved in a large enough force is again part of the whole power elites’ OWG and warring for conquest and subsequent control of the natural resources of these countries.
That theme is like former USMC Major General Smedley Butler wrote about with his book ‘WAR IS A RACKET’! The theme, as he described it, is CONSTANT.
Etc.
There’re plenty of very informative writers on all of this and with much of what they have written freely available. I’ve referred to a few good resources above, and there are more.
Don’t misunderstand me on the Israel factor matter, for Israel is definitely a beneficiary of all of this power elites’ power gaming too. It’s OBVIOUS that the rulers of the Israeli govt, not the people really, but the rulers of the govt are beneficiaries with respect to the other Middle Eastern countries, as well as with regards to Israel also being involved in African and, as reported by Keith Harmon Snow and possibly other excellent resource people on the African contexts, for URANIUM. That’s most surely because of the U.S. govt’s and therefore the ruling power elites’ role, in making sure that Israel gets to also profit from devastating African economies, etc.
Many enough countries are there in Africa. There’s the U.S., Britain (corporate-wise anyway), France, other European countries, China, and perhaps Russia and others. Anyway, reading from people like Snow on these contexts will provide this additional info. and much more that EVERYONE should know about.
Israel is getting protection in the Middle East and because of the U.S., but protection from what? No other country there would be a threat to Israel if it was not first threat to them; and that’s when others are sufficiently capabable in military terms, which really NONE of them are. NO OTHER M.E. country is militarily capable of being a real threat to Israel.
Israel is the threat to them ALL, including itself and its own population; although we can likely expand this gravity of theat even further, for if ever Israeli leaders launched nukes, then even European and African countries, and perhaps others further away, will suffer radiological poisoning consequences.
So what is Israel being protected from? NOTHING; or, well, unless we consider that it’s being protected from being addressed for its extreme crimes of war and against humanity, etc. It is being protected from legal prosecution and death penalties, etc.
Quote: “namvet67 October 9th, 2007 1:02 pm
America’s addiction to global energy resources can only be cured with a change of lifestyle. …”
As per my prior post, I don’t think that Americans changing their lifestyles, and drastically would be needed, will put an end to the U.S. govt, military superpower of the world (for a while longer anyway) being used for ‘WAR IS A RACKET’. It’d take like forever for enough Americans to drastically alter their lifestyles enough and in massive numbers for this to have the kind of beneficial impact that namvet67 says is needed.
I agree that North Americans and perhaps also most Europeans, those of the wealthy countries anyway, should nonetheless drastically alter their lives in the manner namvet67 means, but out of principle more than because I believe there’s any realistic hope that enough of us will do this to sufficient extent, i.e., drastically, enough.
In principle though, YES. We should.
QUOTE: “correctivelens October 9th, 2007 1:15 pm
… America did not just “support” the Shah, it helped overthrow Iranian democracy to put him in power! … The American public would do well to understand these basic points of why “they hate us.”
They don’t hate Americans, but U.S. foreign policies of extreme aggression, hegemony and hypocrisy. That’s what is hated, really.
Of course they do not like Americans who support such policies by their govt, but it’s the policies that are the real problem.
QUOTE: ” MeAlsoToo October 9th, 2007 1:34 pm
Here I thought Iran might identify ‘root causes’ for ‘hostilities’ (such as they are) as primarily the direct-overthrow of their nascent-democracy by Ike/Dulles/Rockefeller and the good-old CIA in the early-1950’s …. …”
NOW, LET ME REMIND what Scott Ritter opened with.
“There is no shortage of examples of historical points of friction between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States to draw upon in order to illustrate the genesis of the current level of tension.”
I repeat, “THERE IS [NO SHORTAGE] OF EXAMPLES OF HISTORICAL POINTS … TO DRAW UPON … TO ILLUSTRATE THE [GENESIS] OF THE CURRENT …”.
Plus, and let me repeated MeAlsoToo’s opening words, “Here I thought Iran might identify ‘root causes’ …”. RITTER NOT Iran WROTE the article; he’s the one speaking of identifying ‘root causes’, instead of saying that Iran’s is doing so and thereby speaking on its behalf.
With respect to (wrt) MeAlsoToo saying, “the American’s supplying Saddam with nerve-gas and weapons and other-support for use in the 8-year war already initiated/fostered by US-interests”:
*) Some apparently authoritative, expert writers on that bit of history say that Iraq did NOT use nerve gas, but mustard gas; and that Iran had and used nerve gas in its chemical warfare against Iraqi forces in the Kurdish north of Iraq. These writers additionally say that mustard gas is generally not fatal, that it is very disorienting, but not deadly; while nerve gas is said to be very deadly.
*) The U.S. worked on getting BOTH Iraq and Iran to war against each other, providing Iran with strong coaxing and perhaps weapons (I’m not sure about weapons and would need to verify the articles I’ve read to be certain), while coaxing and providing weapons to Iraq, Saddam Hussein. The part of this with Iran was covert, while the part with Iraq was much covert but politically overt; overt, like with U.S. officials, such as Rumsfeld, visiting Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Much of what those political trips were about was not really political, per se, and was covert; for encouraging Saddam to war with Iran, trying to set up profitable business deals for Bechtel, selling of chemical and other weapons, and whatever other criminally insane politicking the U.S. officials did and said during these visits to Iraq.
That was all hellbent politicking and for what?
As said in my prior post, it was part of the POWER ELITES’ project of eventually gaining extremely profitable control of both countries’, two of the world’s richest, OIL RESOURCES; and also gas, if the gas was then sufficiently known about, anyway.
And what’s going on today remains the POWER ELITES’ worlds-scoped project for political and economic domination; and these power elites are NOT ALL Americans but in numerous enough countries. They’re definitely in North American and European countries, and they have “worker bees” in many other countries, corrupt govt leaders or if not already corrupt, then corruptible, accepting to “play ball” the way the power elites strategically need.
They ensure that real democracy does not exist in the U.S.A., and less power elites too much ensure the same thing in Canada or and minimally some Canadian provinces, such as in Quebec, f.e. There is NOT a real democracy in this province, and I don’t know how far back we’d need to look to find an example of real democracy here.
In my prior post, I recommend resources, and I [recommend] that people use these, and not superficially.
But, wrt HIZBOLLAH BEATING ISRAEL, I’m not sure anyone has really provided adequate evidence of this. I’ve read the claim many enough times, but none of the articles provided arguments that could be justly considered irrefutable right. They did not seem right but, and instead, too superficial; not really provided argumentative proof.
I think that there’s more evidence for Hizbollah not having really beat Israel, for, and for crying out loud, Israel warred more intensively on the rest of Lebanon than directly against Hizbollah. MUCH of Lebanon was blasted away, and it was widely covered with those damn bomblets numbering in what experts have claimed to have estimated to be like 1,000,000 or MORE.
Israel was NOT warring against Hizbollah per se; if it had been, then it would not have had cause to majorly hit and destroy much of the rest of the country, civilian infrastructure, the OIL refinery(ies?), bombed or missiled civilians fleeing in buses, vans, cars, and etc. It bombed very much throughout or all over the country.
That strikes me as far from warring in a per se manner against Hizbollah, though Israel hit the southern part of the country hard, but also and often not directly Hizbollah; instead, ALL OVER the south, again MUCH in civilian areas.
It was not Israel’s IDF fighting directly against the Hizbollah army, and not doing that would end with not stopping Hizbollah; all while Hizbollah would then and also not really stop or beat Israel.
It instead looks a lot more like Israel or U.S.-Israel was not really meaning to war against Hizbollah, but were instead implementing some other plan, acting for a different purpose; all while including some warring against Hizbollah.
The purpose was surely not of a singular facet; it must have been multi-faceted, and most likely plays a part in the overall Western war on the Middle East (and also broader, for there’s broader involved, indeed).
Scott Ritter mentioned the Central Asian part of this ‘broader’ aspect; but there’s also more, including African countries, and the U.S. and NATO, so European powers, enroaching on Russia and China, while Russia is perhaps the greater target of the two. Russia being targeted has much to do with the U.S. and NATO in the Balkans and former U.S.S.R states, although some of those have recently and intelligently given the U.S. and NATO pretty much the boot.
Uzbekistan has given the U.S. the boot, after the president found out that the U.S. was very much behind the massive enough revolt against the govt in that country over the past recent years. It was yet more of U.S. covert black ops “business” at work; AGAIN.
Etc.
QUOTING another bit of what MeAlsoToo posted, “Not that Iran seems very-hostile, really, seeing as how they were a helpful-Ally during the recent/early-part of our GWoT in both Afghanistan and Iraq (since they dislike the Taliban, and terrorists like MEK and Al-Quada, even more-than the West). …”
The West does NOT dislike the MEK; they work together. It’s another of the U.S. pet covert black ops matters or examples; AGAIN.
The U.S. has such black ops in plenty of countries, and it’s not a new theme; it’s a many decades old theme. Decades, if not much more than that.
Again, I highly recommend doing very serious reading at resources like those I referred to in my prior post.
“How west helped Saddam gain power and decimate the Iraqi elite”
“By Mohamoud A Shaikh”
“Iraqis have always suspected that the 1963 military coup that set Saddam Husain on the road to absolute power had been masterminded by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). New evidence just published reveals that the agency not only engineered the putsch but also supplied the list of people to be eliminated once power was secured - a monstrous stratagem that led to the decimation of Iraq’s professional class.”
“The overthrow of president Abdul Karim Kassim on February 8, 1963 was not, of course, the first intervention in the region by the agency, but it was the bloodiest - far bloodier than the coup it orchestrated in 1953 to restore the shah of Iran to power. Just how gory, and how deep the CIA’s involvement in it, is demonstrated in a new book by Said Aburish, a writer on Arab political affairs.”
“The book, A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite (1997), sets out the details not only of how the CIA closely controlled the planning stages but also how it played a central role in the subsequent purge of suspected leftists after the coup.”
“The author reckons that 5,000 were killed, giving the names of 600 of them - including many doctors, lawyers, teachers and professors who formed Iraq’s educated elite. The massacre was carried out on the basis of death lists provided by the CIA.”
“The lists were compiled in CIA stations throughout the Middle East with the assistance of Iraqi exiles like Saddam, who was based in Egypt. An Egyptian intelligence officer, who obtained a good deal of his information from Saddam, helped the Cairo CIA station draw up its list. According to Aburish, however, the American agent who produced the longest list was William McHale, who operated under the cover of a news correspondent for the Beirut bureau of Time magazine.”
“The butchery began as soon as the lists reached Baghdad. No-one was spared. Even pregnant women and elderly men were killed. Some were tortured in front of their children. According to the author, Saddam who ‘had rushed back to Iraq from exile in Cairo to join the victors, was personally involved in the torture of leftists in the separate detention centres for fellaheen [peasants] and the Muthaqafeen or educated classes.”
“King Hussain of Jordan, who maintained close links with the CIA, says the death lists were relayed by radio to Baghdad from Kuwait, the foreign base for the Iraqi coup. According to him, a secret radio broadcast was made from Kuwait on the day of the coup, February 8, ‘that relayed to those carrying out the coup the names and addresses of communists there, so they could be seized and executed.”
“The CIA’s royal collaborator also gives an insight into how closely the Ba’athist party and American intelligence operators worked together during the planning stages. ‘Many meetings were held between the Ba’ath party and American intelligence - the most critical ones in Kuwait,’ he says.”
“At the time the Ba’ath party was a small nationalist movement with only 850 members. But the CIA decided to use it because of its close relations with the army. One of its members tried to assassinate Kassim as early as 1959. Saddam, then 22, was wounded in the leg, later fleeing the country.”
“According to Aburish, the Ba’ath party leaders - in return for CIA support - agreed to ‘undertake a cleansing programme to get rid of the communists and their leftist allies.’ Hani Fkaiki, a Ba’ath party leader, says that the party’s contact man who orchestrated the coup was William Lakeland, the US assistant military attache in Baghdad.”
“One of the coup leaders, colonel Saleh Mahdi Ammash, former Iraqi assistant military attache in Washington, was in fact arrested for being in touch with Lakeland in Baghdad. His arrest caused the conspirators to move earlier than they had planned.”
“Aburish’s book shows that the Ba’ath leaders did not deny plotting with the CIA ro overthrow Kassim. When Syrian Ba’ath party officials demanded to know why they were in cahoots with the US agency, the Iraqis tried to justify it in terms of ideology comparing their collusion to ‘Lenin arriving in a German train to carry out his revolution.’ Ali Saleh, the minister of interior of the regime which had replaced Kassim, said: ‘We came to power on a CIA train.”
“It should not come as a surprise that the Americans were so eager to overthrow Kassim or so willing to cause such a blood bath to achieve their objective. At the height of the cold war, they were causing similar mayhem in Latin America and Indo-China overthrowing any leaders that dared show the slighest degree of independence.”
“Kassim was a prime target for US aggression and arrogance. After taking power in 1958, he took Iraq out of the Baghdad Pact, the US-backed anti-Soviet alliance in the Middle East, and in 1961 he dared nationalise part of the concession of the British-controlled Iraq Petroleum company and resurrected a long-standing Iraqi claim to Kuwait ( the regime which succeeded him immediately dropped the claim to Kuwait).”
“But the cold war does not by itself explain Uncle Sam’s propensity to violence. When president George Bush bombed Iraq to smithereens, killing thousands of civilians, the cold war was over. Clinton cannot cite the cold war for insisting that the brutal regime of sanctions imposed on the country should stay.”
“In fact the brutal, blood-stained nature of Uncle Sam goes back all the way to the so-called ‘Founding Fathers,’ who made no attempt to conceal it. As long ago as 1818, John Quincy Adams hailed the ’salutary efficacy’ of terror in dealing with ‘mingled hordes of lawless Indians and negroes.’ He was defending Andrew Jackson’s frenzied operations in Florida which virtually wiped out the indigenous population and left the Spanish province under US control. Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues were not above professing to be impressed by the wisdom of his words.”
Muslimedia: August 16-31, 1997
http://www.muslimedia.com/ARCHIVES/features98/saddam.htm
MikeCorbeil:
Correct re: gas (more-technically, the technology for same [but with limited-quantity/shelf-life]) — I hurriedly made my point. And yes, with both-sides (some Iranian ‘misses’ perhaps falsely-attributed to ‘Saddam vs. Kurds’, but ‘moot’ — since both-sides were ‘encouraged/enabled’). But, re: the MEK, certainly the Iranians don’t ‘like’ these (and most-other labeled ‘terrorist groups’, aside from allied Shite/nationalistic-fighters — notably the Hizbollah). While Iranians were allowed short-leash to actually air-strike the MEK in W.Iraq at start of war (part of their eagerness to ’sleep with the enemy’ in Allied GWoT), that was just as one ‘big-stick’ used until the US could personally fully-contain/control (for future-use) that particular-group — sworn/Terrorist enemies to Iran’s Revolutionary-regime. I was being somewhat sarcastic, in light of too-common and hypocritical US/Israeli-accusations that “Iran sponsors terrorism’, when obviously the US/Allied have far dirtier-hands with groups-mentioned than Iran (and ‘across the board’) — not that Iran wouldn’t also, if ‘more useful’.
PrestonDigitator:
It took a great-deal of hard-work/intent/treasure to “fulfill that Prophesy”, not ‘pathetic-paranoia’ at-all. And “ThinkTanks” aren’t commonly-wrong — just because their statements/predictions/policy-urgings seem to ‘fail’ or backfire — you need to consider underlying-intent. Think ‘onion-skins’ and false-Flag intents. [Not that its any mystery or requiring ‘insider-info’, QuoBono is still very-effective]. And, I ’shirked-trenches’ long-ago, having perhaps-similar (if different-branch) experience to Mr. Ritter’s. I know very-well that the ‘ColdWarriors’ of my generation (that once trained-him) incessantly bragged of success in installing a ‘moderate’ in Iran, and its strategic-importance. That’s why I thought, given that he was writing for this Progressive/Informed-audience in CD (not the WSJ), that he seemingly glossed-over such seminal/relevant ‘roots for hostilities’ in making his other/relevant points. It flew in the face of what I know to have been his far-less ‘cautious’ tones, previously — he’s been recklessly-brave and properly-motivated in ‘unfriendlier’ camps/venues… I didn’t mean to ‘pile-on’ — this man is a Patriot and authentic/selfless-Hero, and the likelihood of finding such-as-him in the US is a prime-factor in my ‘faith’ regards an American-future less-ugly than some current-events caution against.
“How west helped Saddam gain power and decimate the Iraqi elite”
Good find…more like-such here:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna11.htm
Dear MeAlsoToo –
Why bother to live?
“Mossadegh wasn’t assasinated. Can’t we get even basic facts correct here?”
Apparently he was sentenced to death at a show trial, but the sentence was reduced to 3 years imprisonment and house arrest until his death (a life sentence).
I also pegged Roosevelt as the grandson of FDR, when he was actually the grandson of Theodore Roosevelt, and a “distant cousin” of FDR. KR was also a CIA officer. The plot to overthrow Mossadegh was Operation Ajax.
Got oil?
Iran’s got oil, Iraq has oil (lots of it), Afghanistan has oil (and natural gas), Arabia has oil, etc. It all comes down to black gold. We have effectively made oil the basis of the world’s monetary systems, it would seem. Throw in the weapons selling business and let the profiteers rejoice. What a country(US)!! No blood for oil?
Meanwhile, Hollywood-media-violence-promotion continues apace as frustrated students/citizens/etc. go berserk and start gunning down anything that moves around them. The violent brainwashing has worked superbly. To pick-up arms is patriotic, they tell us. What a crock.
Terrorism is alive and well in Hollywood and in the military-industrial-congressional
complex.
“Terrorism is alive and well in Hollywood and in the military-industrial-congressional complex.”
Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower…
My fellow Americans:
Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.
My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
II.
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
III.
Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology — global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle — with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research — these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs — balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage — balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
IV.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
V.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
VI.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war — as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years — I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
VII.
So — in this my last good night to you as your President — I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I — my fellow citizens — need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation’s great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America’s prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
“Dear MeAlsoToo –
Why bother to live?”
Why not? [One has all of Eternity to do ‘otherwise’]
[Wordier…in fear the question was sincere]
To do otherwise, to ‘quit’, is to betray all the past/current pains and struggles of billions gone-before in recognizing and (hopefully) contributing to the potential of the ‘civilized’ in our-Species/our-Nature to mature-enough to out-weigh the Primitive. It also would negate any opportunity, regardless ‘how-slim’, of a brighter-Future born of the blood-and-tumult preceeding it, and perhaps Grand-enough to be worth its ugly-Heritage.
We steward and must-husband the only Human-DNA in the Universe — for good or ill, why not Champion-it?
[You ask this question of a man who has lost, recently, his only son — whose ‘yielding to such despair’ contributed to his demise. “Asked and Answered” sincerely, in hopes fewer follow-him…I can only wish I’d known of his-Needs before it was futile.]
Ritter is of course right in stating the awfulness of the American committment to the “national interest” as Bush, and his predecessors have seen it, as the history of our military and “strategic” involvments throughout the cold war (some of which touched on by the comments) shows. There was no conflict between the individuals in the competing empires, but there were important parties interested in keeping the game going: the military-indudtrial-political-media-academic-secret police - complex, etc . This is where AL GORE FROR PRESIDENT comes in. Al Gore after 2000 has gotten out of politics and concentrated on GLOBAL issues, of which Global warming is the most prominent, but not the only one. He realized early on the importance of the INTERNET and has enjoyed excellent relations with Silicon Valley. Like Gore, many of them have a global viewpoint — in fact business in general and finance capitalism in particular, is completely global. Gore is comfortable and doesn’t need a political career, and should certainly not run in the primaries — can anyone imagine competing in the state primaries on a global platform? However, if the Democratic Convention were to reflect the votes in the primaries it would not be dominated by any single one of the current candidates. Under those circumstances, the delegates can take the nomination under their control, and nominate the person who can restore the vision of Roosevelt and Willkie, of the generation that defeated the horrible fascist domination of most of the “civilized world” of the 1930’s and early 40’s, not only militarily but also, in part, culturally. The candidates could easily fit their varying poses (Hillary strong on defense, Richardson strong on international collaboration, Edwards on health and welfare, etc.) within the vision of US leadership on a Global effort to serve the world’s population and save the planet itself. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE CONVENTION, NOT THE PRIMARIES, NOMINATING THE CANDIDATE..
Former UN Official: US blocked certification that Iraq had no WMDs in 1990s…
http://tinyurl.com/2utzhh