July 1st, 2005
I thought for sure it would happen this
month. The attack on Iran, I mean, or the one on Syria. The Israelis
had said that by June Iran would pass "the point of no return"
in acquiring the ability to enrich uranium, had declared they
could not accept that possibility, and had purchased bunker-busting
bombs from the U.S. Seymour Hersh had reported in January that
the U.S. was conducting secret reconnaissance missions in Iran
preparatory for precision strikes and commando raids. Scott Ritter
had stated in February that President Bush had "signed off"
on an Iran attack in June.
The administration had been
relentlessly fixing intelligence around the policy of regime
change in both Iran and Syria, demanding that Mohamed ElBaradei
abet its efforts to stigmatize Iran, and attacking the International
Atomic Energy Agency for its failure to condemn Iran. It had
been preparing to sic John Bolton on the United Nations the better
to harness that body to its world-changing program (or to destroy
it). It had set up Syria for attack, accusing Damascus of occupying
Lebanon in defiance of Lebanese people supposedly united in hatred
for Syria, aiding the Iraqi "insurgency," maintaining
ongoing intelligence operations in Lebanon, interfering in Lebanese
politics and sponsoring "terrorism." It had accused
Iran of harboring al-Qaeda members and of interfering in Iraq
in various ways. It had been preparing a case for war with the
same dishonest proliferation of charges that had preceded the
invasion of Iraq.
So I was thinking that something
along the following lines might transpire. At the regular IAEA
meeting in Vienna in June, the U.S. would arrange the replacement
of ElBaradei by some lackey who'd damn Iran. The case would go
to the UN; the U.S. would get British, French and German support
but not Russian; and China would veto any anti-Iranian resolution.
Israel would attack Iran with tacit or active U.S. support; U.S.
and/or Israeli foces would attack Hizbollah in Lebanon; the UN
would collapse; the Shiites in Iraq would demand an immediate
U.S. withdrawal as Iranian forces amassed on the border; Putin
would demand payment for Russian oil and gas in euros; Japanese
and Chinese central banks would withdraw funds from the U.S.,
the U.S. economy would be in freefall.
But nope, nothing so dramatic.
I was mistaken. Here it is June 30, and still no fireworks. The
elections in Lebanon and Iran produced no crises, although the
corporate press is strongly suggesting that the election of Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, who apparently played a role in the "hostage
crisis" way back when, somehow constitutes a provocation.
ElBaradei remains IAEA chief for a third term after an embarrassing
Bolton-led U.S. effort to bounce him. Bolton still hasn't been
confirmed as UN saboteur. The Europeans continue to diplomatically
engage Iran, although Washington has forced them to agree to
haul Iran before the Security Council if it insists on its legal
right to enrich uranium. So maybe the next stage in the Terror
War will be in July. Or maybe the resistance in Iraq, the rebounding
Hekmatyar-Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, Bush's plummeting
polls and the military recruitment crisis have stymied the neocons'
grand plan.
And yet "We may be looking
at a summer of simultaneous crises on opposite sides of the world,"
says "one of Mr. Bush's closest aides" to David E.
Sanger of the New York Times. Sanger takes that to mean
Iran and North Korea, neither of which wants to provoke a crisis,
both of which want to be left alone but are confronted with an
administration that wants to defeat them while it remains
in power. The summer crises if they come will be contrived, involve
lies, shamelessly manipulate the stupider sectors of public opinion
and probably require further assaults on civil liberties. I don't
think another Korean War is in the cards; the "crisis"
in Korea can simmer indefinitely. All it does is make the U.S.
look unreasonable, in the eyes of the Chinese and most other
people; encourage South Korean sympathy with Northern compatriots
striving to stave off imperialist attack; and give the Japanese
right an opportunity to jettison Japan's "pacifist"
constitution. I think the real summer crisis will be the Middle
Eastern one.
So Iran or Syria, I was thinking.
But the fairly reputable Jane's Intelligence Digest points
in another direction. It reports that Rumsfeld plans a "confrontation
with Syrian troops" in the Bekaa Valley soon. That's in
Lebanon, from whence the UN has confirmed that Syria, in haste,
has recently withdrawn (in response to bulling U.S. demands)
the troops sent long ago---at Lebanese Christians' request---to
mediate in a brutal civil war. But constantly raising the bar,
the U.S. insists that Syria withdraw all its intelligence agents
from Lebanon too. Washington will---just watch---keep asserting
without evidence that Syria's intelligence apparatus, which like
any such apparatus is invisible, hard to identify or quantify,
remains in Lebanon screwing with Lebanese politics in a way that,
say, the U.S. CIA never screws with anybody.
Weak, divided, pulverized Lebanon
may well be the next stage for U.S. aggression. That would keep
the ball rolling. Bush would refer to the Bekaa Valley as "the
latest battleground in the war on terrorism"---all in response
to 9-11 when the terrorists attacked us. "Better get them
in Lebanon than face them here," he'll spew, and some will
swallow it. They'll buy the notion that Hizbollah, a Shiite-based
mainstream highly popular political party with an armed wing
in southern Lebanon, which embarrassed the U.S. by organizing
massive demonstrations dwarfing the its client parties in Lebanon
last month, is an al-Qaeda type terrorist organization. They'll
surely bring up the Reagan-era Hizbollah attack on the U.S. force
in Lebanon that shouldn't have been there to begin with, since
it was just deployed to abet Israel's criminal invasion.
So, yes, I'm still betting
on more war this summer. And expecting to march yet again in
the humid Boston heat against the neo-fascist beast, hell-bent
on obtaining empire in the "Greater Middle East."
Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University,
and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author
of Servants,
Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan;
Male
Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan;
and Interracial
Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900.
He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle
of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial
Crusades.
He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu