|
Why Bush Can Get Away with
Attacking Iran
JEAN BRICMONT
Counterpunch
Wednesday September 5, 2007
Many people in the antiwar movement try to reassure themselves:
Bush cannot possibly attack Iran. He does not have the means to
do so, or, perhaps, even he is not foolish enough to engage in
such an enterprise. Various particular reasons are put forward,
such as: If he attacks, the Shiites in Iraq will cut the US supply
lines. If he attacks, the Iranians will block the Straits of Ormuz
or will unleash dormant terrorist networks worldwide. Russia won't
allow such an attack. China won't allow it -- they will dump the
dollar. The Arab world will explode.
All this is doubtful. The Shiites in Iraq are not simply obedient
to Iran. If they don't rise against the United States when their
own country is occupied (or if don't rise very systematically),
they are not likely to rise against the US if a neighboring country
is attacked. As for blocking the Straits or unleashing terrorism,
this will just be another justification for more bombing of Iran.
After all, a main casus belli against Iran is, incredibly, that
it supposedly helps the resistance against U.S. troops in Iraq,
as if those troops were at home there. If that can work as an
argument for bombing Iran, then any counter-measure that Iran
might take will simply "justify" more bombing, possibly
nuclear. Iran is strong in the sense that it cannot be invaded,
but there is little it can do against long range bombing, accompanied
by nuclear threats.
(Article continues below)
Russia will escalate its military buildup (which now lags far
behind the U.S. one), but it can't do anything else, and Washington
will be only too glad to use the Russian reaction as an argument
for boosting its own military forces. China is solely concerned
with its own development and won't drop the dollar for non-economic
reasons. Most Arab governments, if not their populations, will
look favorably on seeing the Iranian shiite leadership humiliated.
Those governments have sufficient police forces to control any
popular opposition-- after all, that is what they managed to do
after the attack on Iraq.
With the replacement of Chirac by Sarkozy, and the near-complete
elimination of what was left of the Gaullists (basically through
lawsuits on rather trivial matters), France has been changed from
the most independent European country to the most poodlish (this
was in fact the main issue in the recent presidential election,
but it was never even mentioned during the campaign). In France,
moreover, the secular "left" is, in the main, gung-ho
against Iran for the usual reasons (women, religion). There will
be no large-scale demonstrations in France either before or after
the bombing. And, without French support, Germany--where the war
is probably very unpopular -- can always be silenced with memories
of the Holocaust, so that no significant opposition to the war
will come from Europe (except possibly from its Muslim population,
which will be one more argument to prove that they are "backward",
"extremist", and enemies of our "democratic civilization").
All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place.
The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice
to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize
a large part of the American "left". The issue of course
is not whether Iran is nice or not according to our views
-- but whether there is any legal reason to attack it, and there
is none; but the dominant ideology of human rights has legitimized,
specially in the left, the right of intervention on humanitarian
grounds anywhere, at any time, and that ideology has succeeded
in totally sidetracking the minor issue of international law.
Israel and its fanatical American supporters want Iran attacked
for its political crimes--supporting the rights of the Palestinians,
or questioning the Holocaust. Both U.S. political parties are
equally under the control of the Israel lobby, and so are the
media. The antiwar movement is far too preoccupied with the security
of Israel to seriously defend Iran and it won't attack the real
architects of this coming war--the Zionists-- for fear of "provoking
antisemitism". Blaming Big Oil for the Iraq war was quite
debatable, but, in the case of Iran, since the country is about
to be bombed but not invaded, there is no reason whatsoever to
think that Big Oil wants the war, as opposed to the Zionists.
In fact, Big Oil is probably very much opposed to the war, but
it is as unable to stop it as the rest of us.
As far as Israel is concerned, the United States is a de facto
totalitarian society--no articulate opposition is acceptable.
The U.S. Congress passes one pro-Israel or anti-Iran resolution
after another with "Stalinist" majorities. The population
does not seem to care. But if they did, but what could they do?
Vote? The electoral system is extremely biased against the emergence
of a third party and the two big parties are equally under Zionist
influence.
The only thing that might stop the war would be for Americans
themselves to threaten their own government with massive civil
disobedience. But that is not going to happen. A large part of
the academic left long ago gave up informing the general public
about the real world in order to debate whether Capital is a Signifier
or a Signified, or worry about their Bodies and their Selves,
while preachers tell their flocks to rejoice at each new sign
that the end of the world is nigh. Children in Iran won't sleep
at night, but the liberal American intelligentsia will lecture
the ROW (rest of the world) about Human Rights. In fact, the prevalence
of the "reassuring arguments" cited above proves that
the antiwar movement is clinically dead. If it weren't, it would
rely on its own forces to stop war, not speculate on how others
might do the job.
Meanwhile, an enormous amount of hatred will have been spewed
upon the world. But in the short term, it may look like a big
Western "victory", just like the creation of Israel
in 1948; just like the overthrow of Mossadegh by the CIA in 1953;
just like the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine seemed to be a big
German victory after the French defeat at Sedan in 1870. The Bush
administration will long be gone when the disastrous consequences
of that war will be felt.
PS: This text is not meant to be a prophecy, but a call to (urgent)
action. I'll be more than happy if facts prove me wrong.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
