| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"The Last 1935 Days....HOOROO !" |
| Date: |
30 Aug 2007 10:35:46 PM |
| Object: |
U.S. IRAN POLICY DYNAMICS......by Noam Chomskey |
DISCLAIMER: Your Uncle Wally does not necessarily endorse the contents
or opinion expressed herein the following article..... HOOROO !
http://www.just-international.org/article.cfm?newsid=20002476
US-Iran Policy Dynamics
by Noam Chomskey
IN CRUDE and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed,
and it must be obeyed, or else. What you believe is your own business,
of lesser concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity
to control by force, the Party Line is not proclaimed. Rather, it is
presupposed, and then vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits
imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy.
The crude system leads to natural disbelief. The sophisticated variant
gives the impression of openness and freedom, and serves to instill
the Party Line as beyond question, even beyond thought, like the air
we breathe. In the ever more precarious standoff between Washington
and Teheran, one Party Line confronts another. Among the well-known
immediate victims are the Iranian-American detainees Parnaz Azima,
Haleh Esfandiari, Ali Shakeri and Kian Tajbakhsh. But the whole world
is held hostage to the US-Iran conflict, where, after all, the stakes
are nuclear.
Unsurprisingly, President Bush's announcement of a "surge" in Iraq -
in reaction to the call of most Americans for steps toward withdrawal,
and the even stronger demands of the (irrelevant) Iraqis - was
accompanied by ominous leaks about Iranian-based fighters and Iranian-
made IEDS in Iraq aimed at disrupting Washington's mission to gain
victory, which is (by definition) noble.
Then followed the predictable debate: The hawks say we have to take
violent measures against such outside interference in Iraq. The doves
counter that we must make sure the evidence is compelling. The entire
debate can proceed without absurdity only on the tacit assumption that
we own the world. Therefore interference is limited to those who
impede our objectives in a country that we invaded and occupy.
What are the plans of the increasingly desperate clique that narrowly
holds political power in the United States? Reports of threatening,
off-the-record statements by staffers for Vice-President Cheney have
heightened fears of an expanded war. "You do not want to give
additional argument to new crazies who say, 'Let's go and bomb Iran,"'
Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, told the BBC last month.
"I wake up every morning and see 100 Iraqis, innocent civilians, are
dying."
US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, as against the "new crazies,"
is supposedly pursuing the diplomatic track with Teheran. But the
Party Line holds, unchanged. In April, Rice spoke about what she would
say if she encountered her Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki at
the international conference on Iraq at Sharm el Sheikh. "What do we
need to do? It's quite obvious," Rice said. "Stop the flow of arms to
foreign fighters; stop the flow of foreign fighters across the
borders." She is referring, of course, to Iranian fighters and arms.
US fighters and arms are not "foreign" in Iraq. Or anywhere. The tacit
premise underlying her comment, and virtually all public discussion
about Iraq (and beyond) is that we own the world.
Do we not have the right to invade and destroy a foreign country? Of
course we do. That's a given. The only question is: Will the surge
work? Or some other tactic? Perhaps this catastrophe is costing us too
much. And those are the limits of the debates among the presidential
candidates, the Congress and the media, with rare exceptions. That's
part of the reason the debates are so inconclusive. The basic issues
are not discussable.
Doubtless Teheran merits harsh condemnation, certainly for severe
domestic repression and the inflammatory rhetoric of President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad (who has little to do with foreign affairs). It is,
however, useful to ask how Washington would act if Iran had invaded
and occupied Canada and Mexico, overthrown the governments there,
slaughtered scores of thousands of people, deployed major naval forces
in the Caribbean and issued credible threats to destroy the United
States if it did not immediately terminate its nuclear energy programs
(and weapons). Would we watch quietly? After the United States invaded
Iraq, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would
be crazy," said Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld.
Surely no sane person wants Iran (or anyone) to develop nuclear
weapons. A reasonable solution to the 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, under one condition: that the United States and
Iran were functioning democratic societies, in which public opinion
has a significant impact on public policy, overcoming the huge gulf
that now exists on many critical issues, including this one.
That reasonable solution has overwhelming support among Iranians and
Americans, who agree quite generally on nuclear issues, according to
recent polls by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, at the
University of Maryland. The Iranian-American consensus extends to
complete elimination of nuclear weapons everywhere (82 per cent of
Americans), and if that cannot be achieved, a "nuclear-weapons-free
zone in the Middle East that would include Islamic countries and
Israel (71 per cent of Americans)." To 75 per cent of Americans, it is
better to build relations with Iran rather than use threats of force.
These facts suggest a possible way to prevent the current crisis from
exploding, perhaps even to World War III, as predicted by British
military historian Correlli Barnett. That awesome threat might be
averted by pursuing a familiar proposal: democracy promotion - at
home, where it is badly needed. Although we cannot carry out the
project directly in Iran, we can act to improve the prospects for the
courageous reformers and oppositionists who are seeking to achieve
just that. They include people like Saeed Hajjarian, Nobel laureate
Shirin Ebadi and Akbar Ganji, and those who as usual remain nameless,
among them labour activists.
We can improve the prospects for democracy promotion in Iran by
sharply reversing state policy here so that it reflects popular
opinion. That would entail withdrawing the threats that are a gift to
the Iranian hardliners and are bitterly condemned for that reason by
Iranians truly concerned with democracy promotion. We can act to open
some space for those who are seeking to overthrow the reactionary and
repressive theocracy from within, instead of undermining their efforts
by threats and aggressive militarism.
Democracy promotion, while no panacea, would be a useful step towards
helping the United States 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, a functioning democracy at home
holds promise for a simple recognition that we don't own the world, we
share it.
Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and the author, most recently, of Hegemony or
Survival Americas Quest for Global Dominance.
====================================
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
