http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr07/Chomsky-Engelhardt09.htm
The =E2=80=9CIran Effect=E2=80=9D
by Noam Chomsky with an Introduction by Tom Engelhardt
www.dissidentvoice.org
April 9, 2007
First Published in TomDispatch.com
Last Tuesday, meeting with the press in the White House Rose Garden,
the President responded to a question about House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi's visit to Syria this way: "[P]hoto opportunities and/or
meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe
they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when,
in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror." There should, he added to
the assembled reporters, be no meetings with state sponsors of
terror.
That night, Brian Ross of ABC News reported that, since 2005, the U.S.
has "encouraged and advised" Jundullah, a Pakistani tribal "militant
group," led by a former Taliban fighter and "drug smuggler," which has
been launching guerrilla raids into Baluchi areas of Iran. These
incursions involve kidnappings and terror bombings, as well as the
murder (recorded on video) of Iranian prisoners. According to Ross,
"U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged
so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require
an official presidential order or 'finding' as well as congressional
oversight." Given past history, it would be surprising if the group
doing the encouraging and advising wasn't the Central Intelligence
Agency, which has a long, sordid record in the region. (New Yorker
investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has been reporting since 2005
on a Bush administration campaign to destabilize the Iranian regime,
heighten separatist sentiments in that country, and prepare for a
possible full-scale air attack on Iranian nuclear and other
facilities.)
The President also spoke of the Iranian capture of British sailors in
disputed waters two weeks ago. He claimed that their "seizure=E2=80=A6 is
indefensible by the Iranians." Oddly enough, perhaps as part of secret
negotiations over the British sailors, who were dramatically freed by
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday, an Iranian
diplomat in Iraq was also mysteriously freed. Eight weeks ago, he had
been kidnapped off the streets of Baghdad by uniformed men of unknown
provenance. Reporting on his sudden release, Alissa J. Rubin of the
New York Times offered this little explanation of the kidnapping:
"Although [Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar] Zebari was uncertain who
kidnapped the man, others familiar with the case said they believe
those responsible work for the Iraqi Intelligence Service, which is
affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency." The CIA, of course,
has a sordid history in Baghdad as well, including running car-bombing
operations in the Iraqi capital back in Saddam Hussein's day.
And don't forget the botched Bush administration attempt to capture
two high Iranian security officials and the actual kidnapping of five
Iranian diplomats-*****-Revolutionary-Guards in Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan
over two months ago -- they disappeared into the black hole of an
American prison system in Iraq that now holds perhaps 17,000 Iraqis
(as well as those Iranians) and is still growing. As Juan Cole has
pointed out, most such acts, and the rhetoric that goes with them,
represent so many favors to "an unpopular and isolated Iranian
government attempting to rally support and strengthen itself."
In addition, just this week, the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and other
ships in its battle group left San Diego for the Persian Gulf. Two
carrier battle groups are already there, promising an almost
unprecedented show of strength. As the ship left port, U.S. military
officials explained the mission of the carriers in the Gulf this way:
They are intended to demonstrate U.S. "resolve to build regional
security and bring long-term stability to the region."
And stability in the region, it seems, means promoting instability in
Iran by any means possible. So, the President's Global War on Terror
also turns out to be the Global War of Terror. No one has dealt with
the way "state sponsorship of terror" works, when it comes to our own
country, more strikingly than Noam Chomsky, who considers the larger
Iranian crisis below. His latest book, Failed States: The Abuse of
Power and the Assault on Democracy, is just out in paperback and
couldn't be more to the point at the present moment. Right now, if the
U=2ES. isn't already a failing state, it's certainly a flailing one.
-- Tom
What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico? Putting the Iran Crisis in Context
by Noam Chomsky
Unsurprisingly, George W. Bush's announcement of a "surge" in Iraq
came despite the firm opposition to any such move of Americans and the
even stronger opposition of the (thoroughly irrelevant) Iraqis. It was
accompanied by ominous official leaks and statements -- from
Washington and Baghdad -- about how Iranian intervention in Iraq was
aimed at disrupting our mission to gain victory, an aim which is (by
definition) noble. What then followed was a solemn debate about
whether serial numbers on advanced roadside bombs (IEDs) were really
traceable to Iran; and, if so, to that country's Revolutionary Guards
or to some even higher authority.
This "debate" is a typical illustration of a primary principle of
sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party
Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed -- or else. What you
actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In
societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force,
the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is
encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy.
The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief;
the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and freedom,
and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party Line. It
becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we
breathe.
The debate over Iranian interference in Iraq proceeds without ridicule
on the assumption that the United States owns the world. We did not,
for example, engage in a similar debate in the 1980s about whether the
U=2ES. was interfering in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, and I doubt that
Pravda, probably recognizing the absurdity of the situation, sank to
outrage about that fact (which American officials and our media, in
any case, made no effort to conceal). Perhaps the official Nazi press
also featured solemn debates about whether the Allies were interfering
in sovereign Vichy France, though if so, sane people would then have
collapsed in ridicule.
In this case, however, even ridicule -- notably absent -- would not
suffice, because the charges against Iran are part of a drumbeat of
pronouncements meant to mobilize support for escalation in Iraq and
for an attack on Iran, the "source of the problem." The world is
aghast at the possibility. Even in neighboring Sunni states, no
friends of Iran, majorities, when asked, favor a nuclear-armed Iran
over any military action against that country. From what limited
information we have, it appears that significant parts of the U.S.
military and intelligence communities are opposed to such an attack,
along with almost the entire world, even more so than when the Bush
administration and Tony Blair's Britain invaded Iraq, defying enormous
popular opposition worldwide.
"The Iran Effect"
The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous. After all,
according to a recent study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism
specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and
Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-
fold increase in terror. The "Iran effect" would probably be far more
severe and long-lasting. British military historian Corelli Barnett
speaks for many when he warns that "an attack on Iran would
effectively launch World War III."
What are the plans of the increasingly desperate clique that narrowly
holds political power in the U.S.? We cannot know. Such state planning
is, of course, kept secret in the interests of "security." Review of
the declassified record reveals that there is considerable merit in
that claim -- though only if we understand "security" to mean the
security of the Bush administration against their domestic enemy, the
population in whose name they act.
Even if the White House clique is not planning war, naval deployments,
support for secessionist movements and acts of terror within Iran, and
other provocations could easily lead to an accidental war.
Congressional resolutions would not provide much of a barrier. They
invariably permit "national security" exemptions, opening holes wide
enough for the several aircraft-carrier battle groups soon to be in
the Persian Gulf to pass through -- as long as an unscrupulous
leadership issues proclamations of doom (as Condoleezza Rice did with
those "mushroom clouds" over American cities back in 2002). And the
concocting of the sorts of incidents that "justify" such attacks is a
familiar practice. Even the worst monsters feel the need for such
justification and adopt the device: Hitler's defense of innocent
Germany from the "wild terror" of the Poles in 1939, after they had
rejected his wise and generous proposals for peace, is but one
example.
The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war
is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the
political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant
to send more troops to Vietnam -- fearing, we learned from the
Pentagon Papers, that they might need them for civil-disorder
control.
Doubtless Iran's government merits harsh condemnation, including for
its recent actions that have inflamed the crisis. It is, however,
useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada
and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on
the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called
"liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying
massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to
launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites -- nuclear and
otherwise -- in the United States, if the U.S. government did not
immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally,
dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened
after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a
vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a
Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as
the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing
hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of
Americans). Would we watch quietly?
It is easy to understand an observation by one of Israel's leading
military historians, Martin van Creveld. After the U.S. invaded Iraq,
knowing it to be defenseless, he noted, "Had the Iranians not tried to
build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy."
Surely no sane person wants Iran (or any nation) to develop nuclear
weapons. A reasonable resolution of the present crisis would permit
Iran to develop nuclear energy, in accord with its rights under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not nuclear weapons. Is that outcome
feasible? It would be, given one condition: that the U.S. and Iran
were functioning democratic societies in which public opinion had a
significant impact on public policy.
As it happens, this solution has overwhelming support among Iranians
and Americans, who generally are in agreement on nuclear issues. The
Iranian-American consensus includes the complete elimination of
nuclear weapons everywhere (82% of Americans); if that cannot yet be
achieved because of elite opposition, then at least a "nuclear-weapons-
free zone in the Middle East that would include both Islamic countries
and Israel" (71% of Americans). Seventy-five percent of Americans
prefer building better relations with Iran to threats of force. In
brief, if public opinion were to have a significant influence on state
policy in the U.S. and Iran, resolution of the crisis might be at
hand, along with much more far-reaching solutions to the global
nuclear conundrum.
Promoting Democracy -- at Home
These facts suggest a possible way to prevent the current crisis from
exploding, perhaps even into some version of World War III. That
awesome threat might be averted by pursuing a familiar proposal:
democracy promotion -- this time at home, where it is badly needed.
Democracy promotion at home is certainly feasible and, although we
cannot carry out such a project directly in Iran, we could act to
improve the prospects of the courageous reformers and oppositionists
who are seeking to achieve just that. Among such figures who are, or
should be, well-known, would be Saeed Hajjarian, Nobel laureate Shirin
Ebadi, and Akbar Ganji, as well as those who, as usual, remain
nameless, among them labor activists about whom we hear very little;
those who publish the Iranian Workers Bulletin may be a case in
point.
We can best improve the prospects for democracy promotion in Iran by
sharply reversing state policy here so that it reflects popular
opinion. That would entail ceasing to make the regular threats that
are a gift to Iranian hardliners. These are bitterly condemned by
Iranians truly concerned with democracy promotion (unlike those
"supporters" who flaunt democracy slogans in the West and are lauded
as grand "idealists" despite their clear record of visceral hatred for
democracy).
Democracy promotion in the United States could have far broader
consequences. In Iraq, for instance, a firm timetable for withdrawal
would be initiated at once, or very soon, in accord with the will of
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis and a significant majority of
Americans. Federal budget priorities would be virtually reversed.
Where spending is rising, as in military supplemental bills to conduct
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would sharply decline. Where
spending is steady or declining (health, education, job training, the
promotion of energy conservation and renewable energy sources,
veterans benefits, funding for the UN and UN peacekeeping operations,
and so on), it would sharply increase. Bush's tax cuts for people with
incomes over $200,000 a year would be immediately rescinded.
The U.S. would have adopted a national health-care system long ago,
rejecting the privatized system that sports twice the per-capita costs
found in similar societies and some of the worst outcomes in the
industrial world. It would have rejected what is widely regarded by
those who pay attention as a "fiscal train wreck" in-the-making. The
U=2ES. would have ratified the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon-dioxide
emissions and undertaken still stronger measures to protect the
environment. It would allow the UN to take the lead in international
crises, including in Iraq. After all, according to opinion polls,
since shortly after the 2003 invasion, a large majority of Americans
have wanted the UN to take charge of political transformation,
economic reconstruction, and civil order in that land.
If public opinion mattered, the U.S. would accept UN Charter
restrictions on the use of force, contrary to a bipartisan consensus
that this country, alone, has the right to resort to violence in
response to potential threats, real or imagined, including threats to
our access to markets and resources. The U.S. (along with others)
would abandon the Security Council veto and accept majority opinion
even when in opposition to it. The UN would be allowed to regulate
arms sales; while the U.S. would cut back on such sales and urge other
countries to do so, which would be a major contribution to reducing
large-scale violence in the world. Terror would be dealt with through
diplomatic and economic measures, not force, in accord with the
judgment of most specialists on the topic but again in diametric
opposition to present-day policy.
Furthermore, if public opinion influenced policy, the U.S. would have
diplomatic relations with Cuba, benefiting the people of both
countries (and, incidentally, U.S. agribusiness, energy corporations,
and others), instead of standing virtually alone in the world in
imposing an embargo (joined only by Israel, the Republic of Palau, and
the Marshall Islands). Washington would join the broad international
consensus on a two-state settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict,
which (with Israel) it has blocked for 30 years -- with scattered and
temporary exceptions -- and which it still blocks in word, and more
importantly in deed, despite fraudulent claims of its commitment to
diplomacy. The U.S. would also equalize aid to Israel and Palestine,
cutting off aid to either party that rejected the international
consensus.
Evidence on these matters is reviewed in my book Failed States as well
as in The Foreign Policy Disconnect by Benjamin Page (with Marshall
Bouton), which also provides extensive evidence that public opinion on
foreign (and probably domestic) policy issues tends to be coherent and
consistent over long periods. Studies of public opinion have to be
regarded with caution, but they are certainly highly suggestive.
Democracy promotion at home, while no panacea, would be a useful step
towards helping our own country become a "responsible stakeholder" in
the international order (to adopt the term used for adversaries),
instead of being an object of fear and dislike throughout much of the
world. Apart from being a value in itself, functioning democracy at
home holds real promise for dealing constructively with many current
problems, international and domestic, including those that literally
threaten the survival of our species.
Noam Chomsky is the author of Failed States: The Abuse of Power and
the Assault on Democracy (Metropolitan Books), just published in
paperback, among many other works. Copyright =C2=A9 2007 Noam Chomsky.
Tom Engelhardt is a fellow at the Nation Institute who researches,
writes, and edits Tomdispatch.com for anyone in despair over post-
September 11th US mainstream media coverage of our world and
ourselves.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
