[lit-ideas] Chomsky on predators
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 00:27:28 -0800 (PST)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2030015,00.html
A predator becomes more dangerous when wounded
Washington's escalation of threats against Iran is
driven by a determination to secure control of the
region's energy resources
Noam Chomsky
Friday March 9, 2007
The Guardian
In the energy-rich Middle East, only two countries
have failed to subordinate themselves to Washington's
basic demands: Iran and Syria. Accordingly both are
enemies, Iran by far the more important. As was the
norm during the cold war, resort to violence is
regularly justified as a reaction to the malign
influence of the main enemy, often on the flimsiest of
pretexts. Unsurprisingly, as Bush sends more troops to
Iraq, tales surface of Iranian interference in the
internal affairs of Iraq - a country otherwise free
from any foreign interference - on the tacit
assumption that Washington rules the world.
In the cold war-like mentality in Washington, Tehran
is portrayed as the pinnacle in the so-called Shia
crescent that stretches from Iran to Hizbullah in
Lebanon, through Shia southern Iraq and Syria. And
again unsurprisingly, the "surge" in Iraq and
escalation of threats and accusations against Iran is
accompanied by grudging willingness to attend a
conference of regional powers, with the agenda limited
to Iraq.
Presumably this minimal gesture toward diplomacy is
intended to allay the growing fears and anger elicited
by Washington's heightened aggressiveness. These
concerns are given new substance in a detailed study
of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism experts Peter Bergen
and Paul Cruickshank, revealing that the Iraq war "has
increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide". An "Iran
effect" could be even more severe.
For the US, the primary issue in the Middle East has
been, and remains, effective control of its
unparalleled energy resources. Access is a secondary
matter. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere.
Control is understood to be an instrument of global
dominance. Iranian influence in the "crescent"
challenges US control. By an accident of geography,
the world's major oil resources are in largely Shia
areas of the Middle East: southern Iraq, adjacent
regions of Saudi Arabia and Iran, with some of the
major reserves of natural gas as well. Washington's
worst nightmare would be a loose Shia alliance
controlling most of the world's oil and independent of
the US.
Such a bloc, if it emerges, might even join the Asian
Energy Security Grid based in China. Iran could be a
lynchpin. If the Bush planners bring that about, they
will have seriously undermined the US position of
power in the world.
To Washington, Tehran's principal offence has been its
defiance, going back to the overthrow of the Shah in
1979 and the hostage crisis at the US embassy. In
retribution, Washington turned to support Saddam
Hussein's aggression against Iran, which left hundreds
of thousands dead. Then came murderous sanctions and,
under Bush, rejection of Iranian diplomatic efforts.
Last July, Israel invaded Lebanon, the fifth invasion
since 1978. As before, US support was a critical
factor, the pretexts quickly collapse on inspection,
and the consequences for the people of Lebanon are
severe. Among the reasons for the US-Israel invasion
is that Hizbullah's rockets could be a deterrent to a
US-Israeli attack on Iran. Despite the sabre-rattling
it is, I suspect, unlikely that the Bush
administration will attack Iran. Public opinion in the
US and around the world is overwhelmingly opposed. It
appears that the US military and intelligence
community is also opposed. Iran cannot defend itself
against US attack, but it can respond in other ways,
among them by inciting even more havoc in Iraq. Some
issue warnings that are far more grave, among them the
British military historian Corelli Barnett, who writes
that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch world
war three".
Then again, a predator becomes even more dangerous,
and less predictable, when wounded. In desperation to
salvage something, the administration might risk even
greater disasters. The Bush administration has created
an unimaginable catastrophe in Iraq. It has been
unable to establish a reliable client state within,
and cannot withdraw without facing the possible loss
of control of the Middle East's energy resources.
Meanwhile Washington may be seeking to destabilise
Iran from within. The ethnic mix in Iran is complex;
much of the population isn't Persian. There are
secessionist tendencies and it is likely that
Washington is trying to stir them up - in Khuzestan on
the Gulf, for example, where Iran's oil is
concentrated, a region that is largely Arab, not
Persian.
Threat escalation also serves to pressure others to
join US efforts to strangle Iran economically, with
predictable success in Europe. Another predictable
consequence, presumably intended, is to induce the
Iranian leadership to be as repressive as possible,
fomenting disorder while undermining reformers.
It is also necessary to demonise the leadership. In
the west, any wild statement by President Ahmadinejad
is circulated in headlines, dubiously translated. But
Ahmadinejad has no control over foreign policy, which
is in the hands of his superior, the Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US media tend to ignore
Khamenei's statements, especially if they are
conciliatory. It's widely reported when Ahmadinejad
says Israel shouldn't exist - but there is silence
when Khamenei says that Iran supports the Arab League
position on Israel-Palestine, calling for
normalisation of relations with Israel if it accepts
the international consensus of a two-state settlement.
The US invasion of Iraq virtually instructed Iran to
develop a nuclear deterrent. The message was that the
US attacks at will, as long as the target is
defenceless. Now Iran is ringed by US forces in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Persian Gulf, and
close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and Israel, the
regional superpower, thanks to US support.
In 2003, Iran offered negotiations on all outstanding
issues, including nuclear policies and
Israel-Palestine relations. Washington's response was
to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer.
The following year, the EU and Iran reached an
agreement that Iran would suspend enriching uranium;
in return the EU would provide "firm guarantees on
security issues" - code for US-Israeli threats to bomb
Iran.
Apparently under US pressure, Europe did not live up
to the bargain. Iran then resumed uranium enrichment.
A genuine interest in preventing the development of
nuclear weapons in Iran would lead Washington to
implement the EU bargain, agree to meaningful
negotiations and join with others to move toward
integrating Iran into the international economic
system.
© Noam Chomsky, New York Times Syndicate
· Noam Chomsky is co-author, with Gilbert Achcar, of
Perilous Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy
(Due to copyright restrictions this article will only
be available for 24 hours)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
