March 30, 2006
If
we want to secure our way of life, there is no alternative but to fight
for it. That means standing up for our values not just in our own
countries but the world over. We need to construct a global alliance
for these global values and act through it. The immediate threat is
from Islamist extremism.
We
will not defeat this terror until we face up to the fact that its roots
are deep and that it is not a passing spasm of anger but a global
ideology at war with us and our way of life. Their case is that
democracy is a Western concept we are forcing on an unwilling culture
of Islam. The problem we have is that a part of opinion in our own
countries agrees with them. – Tony Blair to the Australian parliament, 27 March, 2005.
Unlike
many of my brethren (and not for the first time), I am seem to be out
of step about the apocalyptic visions that are currently populating the
Webosphere concerning an immanent invasion of Iran.
No
doubt the US have plans for every country on the planet, that is after
all, one of the roles of the 'think tanks’, to do 'what ifs?’ What if
France goes really socialist? What if … But planning various scenarios
is one thing, following through is something quite different.
I
tend to view the release of documents that reveal the existence of
plans to invade Iran as being a quite deliberate ploy on the part of
the US ruling class (see the links at the end of this piece); on the
one hand to put the frighteners on any country that dares oppose US
objectives and on the other, they bolster just how 'serious’ the USUK
are about the alleged threat that Iran poses (or any other country that
challenges the US).
In
order to try and assess just what specifically the US is up to, it is
necessary to separate wishes from the actuality. If we take Iraq as an
example, prior to the actual invasion and occupation, there were twelve
years of 'softening up’ the target followed by an awful lot of work to
firstly assess what the reaction of the various interested parties
would be and what, if anything they could do to throw a spanner in the
works. National interests largely determined how the various parties
reacted.
The
key here is to look at what the gains and losses are, thus Russia and a
number of EU countries no doubt also did their own calculations as to
the possible outcomes. Would they end up as winners or losers? And of
course Israel, as the local outpost of US capital stood to gain an
awful lot from the removal of opposition to its occupation as well
access to oil a mere short range missile away.
As
far as the US is concerned, it would be foolish to think that the
ruling elite was under any illusions about the negative backlash that
would result from the occupation of Iraq, but they calculated that
their sheer military power would deter any country from intervening and
in this they were correct. But as to the eventual outcome, it would be
foolish to predict except to say that once ensconced, removing such an
outsized and heavily armed beast would be a difficult task. Can we
assume that the beast will also blast its way into Iran?
As
far as Iran is concerned, just as with Venezuela the first line of
attack is to try and foment an 'indigenous’ revolt, it’s not only
cheaper it’s also a safer option, although outcomes cannot necessarily
be as easily controlled.
There
are those who argue that the US simply doesn’t care how many countries
'hate’ it, that those who rule the US are so desperate that they are
prepared to risk everything. I am not so sure things are so cut and
dried.
What
would the outcomes be of either an invasion or perhaps selected strikes
for example, on nuclear sites? US strategic planners have no doubt
weighed all the options and various comments by high-ranking US and UK
military indicate that there are serious divisions about the efficacy
of an invasion or even the use of selective strikes that contradict all
the public pronouncements made by Bush, Rice and co.
For
example, let us assume that the US decides on selective strikes on
nuclear targets, what would be the advantage? It would bring them no
nearer to gaining access to the oil, or advance their strategic
positioning in their march East.
There
is no doubt that Iran is being used as one of the excuses to continue
the occupation that is the quagmire of Iraq and that the current
propaganda campaign around some kind of immanent 'civil war’ involves
the alleged role of Iran in supplying weapons to 'insurgents’ and its
alleged role in the alleged Sunni/Shi’ia 'divide’.
And
yes, the brief but intense propaganda campaign mounted by the USUK over
Iran’s alleged nukes also forms part of a larger strategic plan, namely
the creation of a false 'history’ similar to the WMD mythology invented
to justify the invasion of Iraq but remember that it took the better
part of a dozen years (and 9/11) to work up to the point whereby the
USUK could rationalise an invasion and even then it had to do it under
the most unfavourable conditions, conditions that it is paying dearly
for ignoring.
That
it had to go to war when almost the entire planet was opposed to the
invasion was proof not of strength but of weakness, not military but
political and, weakness where it hurt most – at home. Nobody in the US
had heard of Vietnam until the body bags started to pile up, so to some
degree things have changed since the 1960s.
Hence
the importance of creating an Iranian 'demon’ is largely for domestic
consumption and is another piece in the mosaic that is the
justification for domestic repression, for make no mistake, the biggest
obstacle to an invasion of Iran is not Iran itself but us!
Waging
imperial wars is a messy and uncertain business, 'the best laid plans
of mice and men’ etc. We need only look at the final outcome of WWII
for proof for although the West thought the Nazi invasion of the Soviet
Union solved the 'problem’ of communism (at worst, they would wipe each
other out), the final outcome was not one that could have been
predicted in 1941.
None
of the imperialist planners of the time thought the Soviet Union could
actually defeat Nazi Germany, let alone end up the only real military
power in Europe, with an invincible army that could, had it wanted to,
reached the English Channel. The creation of the Cold War is surely
proof of this, a tool that the 'war on terror’ is directly modelled on.
Hence
Iran is a useful diversion but in the current situation the US is a
long way from creating the necessary conditions that could justify an
invasion of Iran.
Undoubtedly the push East is part of the long term Project for the New American Century
that is largely concerned with ensuring resources to power the US
economy and of course to fuel its military (currently the world’s
single largest consumer of oil), without which ensuring its dominance
would be impossible.
The
US are actually in a real bind when it comes to the strategy they are
attempting to apply to Iran, for on the one hand, Iran is no Iraq and
secondly, attempting to starve Iran into submission through sanctions
would be self-defeating. Unlike Iraq, the West has no pretext like
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait under which a concerted campaign can be waged
hence the creation of the fictitious nuclear 'threat’.
And,
there is the question of Iraq’s oil, still underground three years
after the invasion. To risk the same happening in Iran is simply
unthinkable. Thus, the US’s room for manoeuvre is severely restricted
and not only because of the disaster in Iraq but also because US
reliance on technology with which to fight its wars has, as with
Vietnam, come unstuck. The ace-in-hole, military power is proving to be
an illusory advantage.
But
there is also the issue of competition between the leading capitalist
powers, the most important of which is undoubtedly China. And it’s here
that we find that Iran is at the nexus of the race for resources. The
US has a real problem here for either it does a deal with Iran (not as
unlikely outcome as many think) or, it leaves all that oil for China to
buy and already China has struck deals not only to buy oil but to
finance oil exploration and exploitation.
At
all times it is vitally important for us to make a clear distinction
between what is designed for public consumption and what goes on in the
boardrooms and 'think tanks’, the military and diplomatic meetings as
any number of leaks show.
We
also should be under no illusions about the role of the Iranian ruling
class in the need of an external enemy to justify its continued rule
just as the mullahs’ relationship during the Carter/Reagan years
reflected their jointly held fears about the possibility of a socialist
revolution in Iran following the fall of the Shah (a revolution that
nearly succeeded and, I might add, it’s a largely unexplored terrain
from the perspective of the role of the USUK played in bringing the
mullahs to power). Have we forgotten the role that Iran-contra played
in the strategic game of the US with both Iran and Iraq as its pawns
during that period?
Remember,
the US never has friends, it only has 'strategic relationships’ that
come and go as situations change (in any case, with 'friends’ like the
US, who needs enemies?).
It’s
also a big mistake to view the rest of the world, especially countries
like Iran as innocent victims of an imperialist plot, not the least
because of the crucial role of oil in the political equation but also
because the economic interests of those who rule Iran are not so
dissimilar from those who rule the US, namely holding onto power and
their own role as a regional player.
The
central issue here is the role of propaganda, it's creating a context
that enables the USUK, at some point in the future, if the necessity
arises, to have an entire 'inventory' of reasons why it's so important
to 'take out the mullahs'. These reasons have to have a complete
ideological as well as false historical context in order to have an
effect. They have to exploit the deeply-rooted racist ideology that has
served the interests of imperialism down the centuries.
And
it's also important to take note of the attempts by the USUK to drag
Venezuela into the 'mix' with the stories planted in the media about
the alleged help that Venezuela is meant to be giving Iran in the
development of nuclear weapons. A long piece on Channel 4 News on 27
March, anchored by Jon Snow is indicative of the way the construction
of false history proceeds (see John Pilger's letter to Jon Snow).
Little 'nuggets' of false information are dropped in here and there,
thus no doubt, at some point, we will see a reference to the alleged
tie-up between Iran and Venezuela just as Judith Miller's fake stories
about Niger yellowcake, centrifuges, mobile CBW wagons et al, were
cited as 'proof' of Saddam's possession of WMD.
It
should surely be obvious of the intimate and vitally important
relationship between the MSM and imperialism without which such
disinformation campaigns, constructed often over several years, would
be impossible.
Blair's speech in Australia which
I quoted from at the beginning of this essay, pushes all the 'right
buttons' and is indicative of the nature of the ideological struggle
being waged and illustrates the key role Iran plays. Blair is
essentially saying that it’s an 'all or nothing’ game. The speech
throws down the gauntlet and in less than shrouded terms it’s being
presented as the Anglo-Saxon world versus the rest.
To
win this struggle we have to win the battle of values as much as arms.
We have to show that these are not Western, still less American or
Anglo-Saxon, values, but values in the common ownership of humanity,
universal values that should be the right of the global citizen.
The editorial in the Australian (Rupert Murdoch’s mouthpiece) sums it up as follows:
But what made the British Prime Minister’s speech historic was that he articulated these values as not only
the property of the Anglo-Saxon world but also as ideals that should be
common around the globe. "These are the values our two countries live
by, and others would live by, if they had the chance," Mr Blair said.
"We need to construct a global alliance for these global values, and
act through it." [my emph. WB]
And
there you have it, the 'Anglo-Saxon’ call to arms with all the sly
messages embedded in the Blair’s carefully chosen words such "act[ing]
through … these global values." In other words, although these are most
definitely the values of the leading imperialist nations, it is
necessary to present them 'shared values’.
In summation, I
would say that the timing is not yet right for either an invasion or
attack on Iran, a good deal of groundwork and preparation has first to
be done, some of which if successful might well remove the need for
direct military action.
The 'nuclear
threat', Iran's alleged role in Iraq, Islamic extremism, 'our shared
values', are all part of a carefully planned lexicon, built up over
time that will be rolled out by the MSM as and when the necessity
arises.
Further reading
Iran: Time To Leak By Katharine Gun
Whistle blower leaks UK plans for Iran
The Game Plan on Iran is becoming clearer - US wants Security Council resolution allowing for use of force
Sliding towards the vortex