[lit-ideas] Rhetoric of neo-conservative Jihad

From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
To: polidea@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 21:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1752058,00.html

If ever there was a nation not to drive to extremes,
it is Iran 

The US and Britain are goading Iran to acquire nuclear
weapons, while Blair's jihadist rhetoric is inciting a
fourth crusade 

Simon Jenkins
Wednesday April 12, 2006
The Guardian 


This week's most terrifying remark came from the
foreign secretary, Jack Straw. He declared that a
nuclear attack on Iran would be "completely nuts" and
an assault of any sort "inconceivable". In
Straw-speak, "nuts" means he's just heard it is going
to happen and "inconceivable" means certain.

A measure of the plight of British foreign policy is
that such words from the foreign secretary are
anything but reassuring. Straw says of Iran that
"there is no smoking gun, there is no casus belli".
There was no smoking gun in Iraq, only weapons
conjured from the fevered imagination of Downing
Street and the intelligence chiefs. It is a racing
certainty that Alastair Campbell look-alikes are even
now cajoling MI6's John Scarlett into proving that
Iran is "far closer" to a bomb than anyone thinks.

As for a casus belli, there was also none in Iraq.
Tony Blair had to beat one out of the hapless attorney
general before his generals would agree to fight. But
Iran's casus belli was set out in unambiguous terms by
the prime minister in his speech to the Foreign Policy
Centre in London on March 21. Blair was updating his
1999 Chicago doctrine of global intervention. Then it
was justified by humanitarianism and was optional. Now
it is vital for the "battle of values ... a battle
about modernity". Those who are not of our values are
to be subject to pre-emptive attack.

Blair demanded that the west become "active not
reactive" against alien values (obviously Islamic) as
"we risk chaos threatening our stability". The crusade
against them was "utterly determinative of our future
here in Britain". He accepted that Britain should seek
international agreement before going to war, but
should still fight without it. People were crying out
for democracy. We must bring it to them since "in
their salvation lies our own security".

The speech was full of jihadist rhetoric. Blair's
desire to wipe non-democratic values off the map is
akin to Iran's view of Israel. But we know that when
he says war he means war. The speech was the wildest
by a British leader in modern times and was the
clearest imaginable statement of a casus belli. He
mentioned Iran three times. It was gilt-edged,
copper-bottomed, swivel-eyed neoconservatism.

To such a world view, Iran is a far more plausible
target than Iraq. It is a nation approaching 80
million people, whose values would be a real catch for
"beacon democracy". Elements within its regime want
nuclear weapons. The country is rich and capable of
buying the relevant components. The mullahs have
sponsored terrorist groups abroad and fiddled
elections. In February, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
restarted uranium enrichment at the Natanz plant, in
defiance of the UN, and yesterday Iran's nuclear
energy chief announced that it had proved successful.
What does Straw mean, "no casus belli"?

Tehran has two more weeks to stop enrichment, after
which sanctions seem inevitable. Some ostracism of
Iran's ruling elite might lead the parliamentary
moderates and clerical oligarchs to force Ahmadinejad
to back off for a time. But sanctions will split the
world coalition against nuclear proliferation, since
Russia and China have close trading links with Iran.
The US and Britain would then be back to the same
"slide to war" as in Iraq. They would have to decide
whether to fight on alone or endure humiliating
retreat.

A land force attack on Iran is, for forces that cannot
even hold Iraq, out of the question. But sowing mayhem
through bombing military targets (always causing
civilian deaths) might instigate enough anarchy to
stir a putsch, a regional uprising or more subtle
changes within the regime. There are reports of US
special forces operating inside Iran and funds being
channelled to opposition groups. The US is said to be
aiding Sunni Baluchi insurgents in the south, as they
once did the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Bush's description on Monday of leaks about nuclear
bunker-busters as "wild speculation" was part
machismo, part tautology. Every weapon is an option to
a soldier. It would be unlikely even for the Bush
government (even with Blair's support) to put the
west's status as world policeman back in the stone
age. But such talk indicates the brain-scrambling
effect of the Iraq war.

Iran is the first test of Blair's interventionism, and
the auguries are not good. Every sabre rattle in
Washington must be music to Ahmadinejad's ear. Whether
or not a bombing attack might damage his factories, it
is unlikely to destabilise his government, rather the
reverse. It would heighten nationalist fervour and
increase hatred of the west.

Sanctions that stop Iranians going to conferences or
shopping in Knightsbridge are hardly of concern to
mullahs. Any nation supposedly forced to "choose
between weapons and the economy" chooses weapons (look
at the US). The more the west threatens, the stronger
is the case of Tehran's hawks for a nuclear arsenal.
Iran is within range of five nuclear powers, including
the US. What army would not want a deterrent when the
world is awash with crazies?

Confrontation without a willingness to use total force
is bluff. Many Iranian hardliners must be itching to
cause more trouble in Iraq, threaten tanker lanes in
the Straits of Hormuz and set Asian opinion further
against the west. As for backing the Baluchi
insurgents, this is madness. The most lawless group in
the region are, through the Taliban, the chief enemy
of British forces in Afghanistan. Is Blair aware that
the US is funding his enemies? This whole venture is
degenerating into a fourth crusade.

The much-vaunted neocon campaign for a secure and
liberal democracy in Asia is in retreat. It is ailing
in Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia,
Afghanistan and Pakistan. What might have been gained
through security and friendship has been wrecked by
the war in Iraq. War puts a premium on paranoia and
encourages existing regimes to crack down on dissent.
These may be rogue states, but it is time for the west
to decide again which are "our rogues".

One country in the region that has retained some
political pluralism is Iran. It has shown bursts of
democratic activity and, importantly, has experienced
internal regime change. If ever there was a nation not
to drive to the extreme it is Iran. If ever there was
a powerful state to reassure and befriend rather than
abuse and threaten, it is Iran. If ever there was a
regime not to goad into seeking nuclear weapons it is
Iran. Yet that is precisely what British and American
policy is doing. It is completely nuts.

simon.jenkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
[lit-ideas] Rhetoric of neo-conservative Jihad

Other related posts:
