Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Occupy Our Fear of Iran
U.S. behavior long ago provided one causal context for our unease about the presumed nuclear aspirations of the Islamic Republic of Iran: the U.S. and Britain messed with Iran’s last authentically democratic election in 1953, fearing communist influence and the nationalization of oil. U.S. oil corporations, a minor partner before the CIA overthrew elected Mohammad Mossadegh and installed the dictatorial Shah, then became the largest profiting entity, even more than the country from which the oil came.
Fast forward past the hostage crisis of 1979-81 to the present. The dynamic remains pretty much as it was 60 years ago: strategic jockeying for oil and natural gas, raw exercise of military competitiveness, and now the understandable impulse to acquire nuclear weapons on the part of nations fearing superpower dominance. Iranian leaders were quick to note that Saddam and Khaddafy were vulnerable because the U.S. and friends didn’t have to be concerned about nuclear retaliation (though Messers. Bush and Blair were all too happy to use Saddam’s presumed nukes as a convenient casus belli).
This is the prevailing paradigm in the world, and those in favor of alternatives are forced to accommodate. Thousands of organizations may have put in millions of hours of peace activism, but we also continue to pay the taxes that fund futile wars in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan—and now possibly with Iran.
This paradoxical paradigm, like it or not, also defines our personal context. Humans are born, grow to adulthood, work or perhaps have a family, grub for money or prestige, exercise power over others or have it exercised upon us—and die—dog-eat-dog most of the way. Spiritual leaders past and present call us toward a different story, another set of values, where we are meant to mature into a compassionate identification with the whole earth and all people—a world that works for everyone, and feeds all children.
Too many of us still refuse to see the practical relevance of such values either to international or personal politics. We call them naïve, rationalizing our casual saber-rattling. We assume thousands of nuclear warheads in the control of a democratically elected leader are qualitatively different from the same weapons in the hands of a dictator—denying the reality that fallout from such weapons, no matter whose, would pollute the rain that falls on the just and unjust, the warriors and the babies, alike. “Our” nuclear weapons are justified by our need for security, while “theirs” indicate an unacceptable aggressiveness. Even within the existing paradigm of national rivalry they are strategically obsolete, as former high officials like Kissinger, Nunn, Schultz and Perry have eloquently demonstrated.
Meanwhile candidate Romney demagogues the security issue by advocating more “full-spectrum dominance,” or candidate Santorum waxes bellicose about doing more to stop Iran’s nuclear program; Obama is forced to maintain his own cred by dubious if popular ventures like high-tech extra-judicial assassinations. Nuclear weapons, potential or actual, become mightily convenient to the perpetuation of these circular adversarial systems, built upon fear, that prevent leaders from breaking beyond the status quo—a status quo that is not static. As more and more nations acquire these weapons, the possibility of error or deliberate misuse (as if there could be a “right use”) steadily increases.
The existing paradigm pits governments against each other under the misapprehension that nuclear weapons can produce clear winners and losers instead of universal catastrophe. The emergent paradigm pits thoughtful, active citizens in every nation against war itself, demonstrating personal and local models of how nations can resolve their inevitable conflicts without violence. That is only the route to real security. Its source is the practical, beyond-politics Golden Rule, variants of which are found in every major religion—but also in the conclusions of ruthlessly realistic psychological insight. Back in 1964, the Freudian analyst Erik Erikson, worried about nuclear weapons, called for application of the Golden Rule to the international scene:
“Nations today are by definition units of different stages of political, technological and economic transformation . . . Insofar as a nation thinks of itself as a collective individual, then, it may well learn to visualize its task as that of maintaining mutuality in international relations. For the only alternative to armed competition seems to be the effort to activate in the historical partner what will strengthen him in his historical development even as it strengthens the actor in his own development—toward a common future identity.”
In an already dangerous world where nine countries of diverse political persuasion possess the bomb, it matters little whether a tenth does. What matters is that the people of the world occupy and reanimate with a spirit of good will the tired tropes of bellicosity—good will based on a common understanding of the evils of war, especially nuclear war. The 80 million citizens of Iran long for the same prosperity and liberty that most Americans enjoy, and many of them risked life and limb to demonstrate their yearning. Superpower leadership on disarmament initiatives, along with more people-to-people exchanges, would consolidate Iran’s security and strengthen our own far more effectively than military threats.
42 Comments so far
Show All"Obama is forced to maintain his own cred by dubious if popular ventures like high-tech extra-judicial assassinations."
I was unaware that Obama was "forced" into his illegal and destructive policies. I am quite certain that if Bush was carrying out the policies of this president, it would be referred to as Texas-style cowboyism by so-called liberals. But when Obama does the same or worse it is either ignored by these same so-called liberals or apologized away through attempts to lessen his responsibility for the policies in question.
Bush was the choice of the PNAC crowd and had their support. Their political machine was years in the making and has a lot of momentum. Now Obama must deal with it.
"Smallbear"
Obama is not "dealing with it (the PNAC crowd)". He is the the current face of it.
Obama and Bush (and every president since, at least, Reagan) are different versions of the same agenda.
The creation of the Obama presidency was a brilliant move by the same money which brought us Bush.
Obama has taken the worst aspects of Bush and made them acceptable to the majority of people who were (supposedly) repulsed by Bush.
Two cards from the same crooked deck.
Thank you. Well said.
BA,
I agree.
President Obama is simply a continuity of the previous administrations. Each President passes something on to the next. (that is the main reason I find it pointless to waste my time bashing Presidents.) Presidents work for a system. (I bash the system itself)
Somewhere, there exists a very powerful board of directors. A board of directors that we the people had no say in selecting. (powerful, private global interests)
What really happens during the Presidential transition period? Naomi Klein tells us that it is in this period that we lose our Presidents. (Or the presidents lose themselves)
Two cards from the same crooked deck indeed.........
Take care
Thomas Gilbert-
Popular with whom? Adolescents and psychopaths?
."Obama is forced to maintain his own cred by dubious if popular ventures like high-tech extra-judicial assassinations."
That phrase struck me as well. The question immediately popped into my mind "maintain his own cred" with who? Who thinks that a leader GAINS credibility with such actions. I would think that in any civilized country, a leader who killed both foreigners and its own citizens using high-tech extra-judicial assassinations would lose all credibility.
Find out what the world financial elite will settle for, at minimum, that the 99ers can actually LIVE with (and not be killed by), and all war-fever will stop, as if by magic (for the 99er statesmen/women learned by the end of WWII that war was obsoleted). 1. Its' only purpose now, is as a tool of the financier imperium, to undermine the 99er nations everywhere. 2. This imperium, after many centuries of bloody contention, has been checkmated. They are dying. 3. In view of #2, their last, desperate move is to destroy the world in nuke-war ("...if I can't have it, NOBODY will...).
It is the financial elite that are guiding this hysteria. They market it and they are agressively selling it. And outrageously profitting from it.
Iran is no threat to the US, if the US would let them alone. Why was it we allowed North Korea, Pakistan and India to gain the bomb? And we are aiding Saudia Arabia in getting the bomb? Not to mention totally shining on the fact that Isreal has the bomb and lied about developing it for decades, probably funded with US aid. But Iran is seen as an imminent threat? The global financial players want Iran and they're not going to rest until we at our expense not their's wrest control of Iran for their purposes.
They want WAR between U.S, Russia, China, for total destruction. Israel-Iran is that trigger. They already have easy means of getting any resource they want (though that is evaporating as we speak; hence the going for control-by-force). They CONTROL the buying game and the controlling cartels. What they don't control are the ideas animating the 99ers, to the point of self-sacrifice if neccesary. And the 99ers DO MEAN to have their heads on pikes (Don't doubt that. Some of the 99er factions have been CENTURIES at this game.), and will make it so, eventually, IF allowed to exist any longer. ALL other issues are camoflage to HIDE this one supreme policy at all costs.
Iran as a nuclear power is beside the point.
While the Neocons gin The Iranian Menace up and up, they ignore the fact that our "ally", Pakistan, already has 100+ loose nukes, rolling around in unsecured vans: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11/pakistan-nukes-delivery-vans/
Nothing to worry about there, though. Because dedicated, suicidal extremists are surely incapable of hijacking a bread truck.
We're being played again, folks. And it's working.
The article by Wired is as misleading as it is incorrect. Pakistani devices are modular, very different to US designs. The individual components are stored safely in many secure bases across Pakistan, and are assembled prior to use. Pakistan has a policy of not storing complete devices, so "[nukes] rolling around in unsecured vans' is pure fantasy.
Thanks for pointing out that fallacy.
Do you mean to tell me that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons, fully assembled, on hair triggers, in anticipation of a sudden attack from India?
Somehow, I find that hard to believe.
We are indeed being played. The problem with nukes and the Russians or Chinese is the question of survivability. Russia (as the Soviet Union) and China have both endured horrific famines, wars, and political purges. Their belief, however misguided, that they can manage to survive a nuclear holocaust, is visceral. The US, however, only believes in it's survivability because of it's supposed moral superiority. All members of the nuke club have a minority of scientists and policy wonks whose warnings a roundly ignored. Additionally, each nuke club member has it's own version of Dr. Strangelove, calculating survival percentages in the single digits, and proclaiming the preservation of "our way of life". Adding religious fanaticism to the mix virtually negates the need to calculate survivability, because the "winners" will go to heaven.
The US already has full primacy over every other nuclear power combined. It can launch a first strike and either wipe out all nukes or intercept the few that managed to get through with its missile defense batteries. So long the balance the terror, hello full spectrum dominance.
What it wants in Iran is something else. It's almost as if the US and the West are destined to play the part of old Rome to Iran's Parthia.
Fewer active or total warheads than Russia, and a first strike ain't going to help against ballistic missile submarines, though I guess once you get into three or four figures it all becomes pretty academic.
I just chipped in because I think the US assumption of invulnerability is a dangerous mistake. That way (as you rightly point out) Empire lies. And, in time, falls.
Here's something I found reading Chalmers Johnson
"Between the 1940s and 1996, the US spent at least $5.8 Trillion on the development, testing and construction of nuclear bombs. By 1967, the peak year of its nuclear stockpile, the US possessed some 32,500 deliverable atomic and hydrogen bombs, none of which, thankfully, have ever been used."
Chalmers Johnson’s “Dismantling the Empire” pg. 144
Something, equally interesting, as it may put American military spending in a new perspective to many people.
According to the US Dept. of Defense, during the 4 decades from1947 through1987 it used (in 1982 dollars) $7.62 Trillion in capital resources. In 1985, the Dept. of Commerce estimated that the value of the nation’s plant and equipment, and infrastructure, at just over $7.29 Trillion. In other words, the amount spent over that period could have doubled the American capital stock or modernized and replaced its existing stock.
Chalmers Johnson’s “Dismantling the Empire” pg. 145 – attributed to Thomas Woods
.
Why isn't the rest of the world as empathic as I am? It's so frustrating. Do you feel me?
Most of the world is empathetic, witness the hospitality bestowed on strangers in many parts of the world. It's just USAns is not very empathetic.
Definitely!
How heartening our possible futures appear. 1) A nuclear holocast - to the cheers of Pat Robertson and all the other end times supporters; 2) Control of our private lives by the radical fundamentalists that would reinstitute, and mandate marriage for every man and woman (no gays allowed), zero birth control, and no divorce, plus regular church attendence and strict adherence to the churchs' teachings ... ; 3) a sharp razor blade to the wrists, or a quick bullet in the brain.
Now I'll wait to see how long this one remains posted. ;-<
Gays can marry. A Gay man can marry a lesbian.
I have no "Fear of Iran."
Like Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea before it, the idea that the government of Iran is a threat to my or my fellow US citizen's security in any way whatsoever is just preposterous. They are not even a threat to this oddly staunch ally of the US, (its blue and white flag flying in at least one schoolyard in my home town), if they would simply cease their bellicosity and violence.
How is it that so many people can be convinced to believe in absurdities, and so, as Voltaire said, willingly commit atrocities?
"Occupy Our Fear of Iran" - Winslow Myers
Mr Myers, speak for yourself and the minority of cowardly Americans who do fear Iran. In the immortal words of George W Bush, I, and others, really just dont spend that much time thinking about Iran. The only cowards who fear Iran are war-profiteers, AIPACers, racial and religious intolerants, and suckers of the media mouthpieces who front for the 1%.
Actually, I do fear for the innocent Iranians who will be caught in the cross-fire of a war for oil control, and American soldiers who will be ordered to whore for the profits of the 1%.
I also fear that this "Occupy" movement is a toothless paper tiger that is being used/manipulated to defuse tensions here at home. "Hey look at the great work we are doing" occupiers cry. In reality, the Occupy movement has done f**k-all nothing. Profits for the 1% are up, our government is ignoring occupiers - the movement is nothing by fodder for water-cooler conversations, about as relevant to change as last night's TV rerun of Seinfeld.
How do you view the "teaparty"?
Its not fair to compare the two. The Tea Party took their movement to political action and were effective in moving the agenda.
Occupy has not moved past sloganeering and "celebrating press" attention (not my words, but taken from a prior article on CD) There is no way to tell if it moves on to action in the Spring or maintains its present mode. So we just can't compare the two yet. Don't forget, the Tea Party did not immediately move to political action.
The flower children of the 60s and 70s didn't move to political action (except for Pigasus), and look what happened to their movement.
The sooner efforts are made to provide the people with a functional, progressive 3rd party that can take votes away from the corrupt duopoly, the better are the occupiers' chances of success.
Occupy does not have the benefit (or appear to want it) of billionaire backers or airtime freely afforded the Tea Party ala' Fox TV
Looks like the "Occupy" movement is doing something we should all be doing. An Oregon Occupy group is holding public meetings at the local library to educate people on what is going on in their world and what the outcome will be if we don't all pay attention and do everything in our power - which would be mighty, unitied - to stop it. This includes everything they'll never see on public television.
Whether or not other Occupy groups are having similar meetings, I don't know. But I do know they aren't being "used/manipulated." And if they weren't making a difference, why are they getting all the war-like police attention from those willing to spend millions to get rid of them?
"And if they weren't making a difference, why are they getting all the war-like police attention from those willing to spend millions to get rid of them?"
It's all about money. How can local government justify all that paramilitary technology that their PD wants, if the police are seen to be doing nothing? Breaking up occupy camps gives the PD attention... which means funding. "Your local PD is making the streets safe and clean for hard-working Americans". Heard that story before?
At least this author realizes that oil is the main objective here (unlike the other Iran article posted on CD today) however the overtures of spiritualism and good will are irrelevant if they don't manifest themselves in a representative government in D.C. Unfortunately most Americans are blind to the origins and nature of our corporate installed decision makers. The first step in solving any problem is the realization that a problem exists. This should be the primary objective of every progressive out there (enlightening the masses) if we are to have any hope of usurping the corpocracy. The good news is that the majority out there do sense that something is amiss and are suspicious of the official explanations for the mess that we're in. Now is the time to step up to the plate and define the differences between the 99% and the 1%.
"The 80 million citizens of Iran long for the same prosperity and liberty that most Americans enjoy, and many of them risked life and limb to demonstrate their yearning."
They do. But they got no support from the "Leader of the Free World" when they took to the streets. They got bullets and beatings instead. Mr. Baa played golf.
Of course our interest is the flow of oil. Stop it and you would see dire consequences in our country and people in other parts of the world would starve. This isn't a faculty lounge game.
At the same time Iran stands in no danger of military attack from us as long as they make no move to stop the flow of oil and make no provocation like a stupid demonstration attack on our ships or personnel.
They are in great danger from Israel who believes what Iran say's and will act if they feel the threat is great enough. And they will not consult us about that attack if they make it.
These are dangerous times, far too dangerous for semantic manipulation.
"say's" what, and which threat?
Here are some images of Tehran and a Cat Stevens song - note the people and place that we want to attack, Please help de-demonize Iran and its people before we start devastating it as we have done with Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98j0I7e5OHE&feature=share
occupy our fear.......
fear seems to be the preeminent preoccupation of most human beings. political misrepresentatives channel this and exacerbate it. to pay attention only to the usual narrative/paradigm is to be hopelessly, constantly insecure. and thus ready to more or less support whatever fanatical control freak in office at the time proclaims to be "the wisest and most prudent" course of action.
it is our duty as citizens of the world to renounce the heresy of living in constant fear as a normal and desireable attribute.
Thank you Winslow. Nobody need be afraid of Iran, but since our ruling class are determined we should be afraid of something Iran is there, it is Muslim, It is in the mid-east. I suppose the chicken hawks think it will do as well as anything.
"but we also continue to pay the taxes that fund futile wars"
No we don't. You might pay the empire tax. But many of us do not. Can we get some of the practices that actually work for the people into the public discourse sometime soon? Maybe we'll have to wait until the sh*t really hits the fan, ehh?
"The 80 million citizens of Iran long for the same prosperity and liberty that most Americans enjoy"
Not really. The author is talking in 20th century frames that are largely defunct today. Today, most people in the world do not aspire toward the "Merkan Way", but rather aspire toward something MUCH more just. I think this author is still locked into a chronically disjoint but wholly accepted Merkan worldview in which it's ok to seek good while continuing to participate in bad. The news today is that many more Merkans are breaking out of this disjoint worldview and entering one where the dots all connect, where everything makes sense, and where the good no longer camouflages/enables the bad. It's the end of the destructive reign of Merkan liberalism.
Oilbomber is not forced to do anything: he is a willing servant of the Evil Empire. His is a condition of self-incurred tutelage to some of the darkest forces marauding over the planet.
Who's we?
The attempted bullying of the world to forward the Likud agenda is a dangerous game that I predict will backfire and result in the end of dollar denomination of world oil trade.
What fear of Iran? That which the leaders of Isreal and hence, their followers in Washington, provoke among citizens to justify an attack on another oil-producing country? If the Iranian government wants to develop better means of protection who can really blame it? Isreal refuses to admit that it has a nuclear program, but it's a well-known fact. It is also well known that Israel receives the latest arms developed by the U.S. military. Isreal is a country that makes no effort to establish peaceful exchanges with its neighbors, but does quite the opposite, always citing its role as victim against overwhelming aggression then complaining that criticisms of its policies are anti-semitic or self-hating (if one happens to be jewish).
I heard Rick Perry say during the debates last night that we needed to go back into Iraq because of an Iranian insurgence there since we left. I've seen no proof of that. In fact everything I've read points to no tangible proof of those allegations. What Iranian presence is there is a splinter group (MKO) which seeks to overthrow the current Iranian government as well.
http://www.payvand.com/news/11/jul/1109.html
http://english.irib.ir/news/political/item/84843-no-reason-for-mko-presence-in-iraq
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/?option=com_content&task=view&id=6924