|
Iran: The Next Neocon Target
HON.
RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives -
April 5, 2006
Iran’s history is being ignored, just as we
ignored Iraq’s history. This ignorance or deliberate
misrepresentation of our recent relationship to Iraq and Iran is
required to generate the fervor needed to attack once again a
country that poses no threat to us.
CLICK PLAY TO VIEW
Click below to read or post comments on this article
Iran: The Next Neocon Target
It’s been three years since the U.S. launched its war against
Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Of course
now almost everybody knows there were no WMDs, and Saddam
Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Though some of our
soldiers serving in Iraq still believe they are there because
Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, even the administration now
acknowledges there was no connection. Indeed, no one can be
absolutely certain why we invaded Iraq. The current excuse, also
given for staying in Iraq, is to make it a democratic state,
friendly to the United States. There are now fewer denials that
securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision
to go into Iraq and stay there. That certainly would explain why
U.S. taxpayers are paying such a price to build and maintain
numerous huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. They’re also
funding a new billion dollar embassy- the largest in the world.
The significant question we must ask ourselves is: What have we
learned from three years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for
regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely
nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who
daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I
wonder: If the past three years were nothing more than a bad
dream, and our nation suddenly awakened, how many would, for
national security reasons, urge the same invasion? Would we
instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad
dream, that we need not relive the three-year nightmare of
death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax
dollars. Conceivably we would still see oil prices under $30 a
barrel, and most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. causalities
would not have occurred. My guess is that 99% of all Americans
would be thankful it was only a bad dream, and would never
support the invasion knowing what we know today.
Even with the horrible results of the past three years, Congress
is abuzz with plans to change the Iranian government. There is
little resistance to the rising clamor for “democratizing” Iran,
even though their current president, Mahmoud Almadinejad, is an
elected leader. Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its
system is far superior to most of our Arab allies about which we
never complain. Already the coordinating propaganda has
galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed
threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are
no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have
had. It’s amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited
over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the Neo-cons are
willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It’s frightening
to see how easily Congress, the media, and the people accept
many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to
justify an invasion of Iraq.
Since 2001 we have spent over $300 billion, and occupied two
Muslim nations--Afghanistan and Iraq. We’re poorer but certainly
not safer for it. We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden,
the ring leader behind 9/11. This effort has been virtually
abandoned. Even though the Taliban was removed from power in
Afghanistan, most of the country is now occupied and controlled
by warlords who manage a drug trade bigger than ever before.
Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan actually served
the interests of Iran, the Taliban’s arch enemy, more than our
own.
The longtime Neo-con goal to remake Iraq prompted us to abandon
the search for Osama bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was
hyped as a noble mission, justified by misrepresentations of
intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein and his ability to attack
us and his neighbors. This failed policy has created the current
chaos in Iraq-- chaos that many describe as a civil war. Saddam
Hussein is out of power and most people are pleased. Yet some
Iraqis, who dream of stability, long for his authoritarian rule.
But once again, Saddam Hussein’s removal benefited the Iranians,
who consider Saddam Hussein an arch enemy.
Our obsession with democracy-- which is clearly conditional,
when one looks at our response to the recent Palestinian
elections-- will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership
title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized
government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of
the Iraqi Shia.
Talk about unintended consequences! This war has produced chaos,
civil war, death and destruction, and huge financial costs. It
has eliminated two of Iran’s worst enemies and placed power in
Iraq with Iran’s best friends. Even this apparent failure of
policy does nothing to restrain the current march toward a
similar confrontation with Iran. What will it take for us to
learn from our failures?
Common sense tells us the war in Iraq soon will spread to Iran.
Fear of imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving
Iran-- whether planned or accidental-- will rally the support
needed for us to move on Muslim country #3. All the past
failures and unintended consequences will be forgotten.
Even with deteriorating support for the Iraq war, new
information, well planned propaganda, or a major incident will
override the skepticism and heartache of our frustrating fight.
Vocal opponents of an attack on Iran again will be labeled
unpatriotic, unsupportive of the troops, and sympathetic to
Iran’s radicals.
Instead of capitulating to these charges, we should point out
that those who maneuver us into war do so with little concern
for our young people serving in the military, and theoretically
think little of their own children if they have any. It’s hard
to conceive that political supporters of the war would
consciously claim that a pre-emptive war for regime change,
where young people are sacrificed, is only worth it if the
deaths and injuries are limited to other people’s children.
This, I’m sure, would be denied-- which means their own children
are technically available for this sacrifice that is so often
praised and glorified for the benefit of the families who have
lost so much. If so, they should think more of their own
children. If this is not so, and their children are not
available for such sacrifice, the hypocrisy is apparent.
Remember, most Neo-con planners fall into the category of
chicken-hawks.
For the past 3 years it’s been inferred that if one is not in
support of the current policy, one is against the troops and
supports the enemy. Lack of support for the war in Iraq was said
to be supportive of Saddam Hussein and his evil policies. This
is an insulting and preposterous argument. Those who argued for
the containment of the Soviets were never deemed sympathetic to
Stalin or Khrushchev. Lack of support for the Iraq war should
never be used as an argument that one was sympathetic to Saddam
Hussein. Containment and diplomacy are far superior to
confronting a potential enemy, and are less costly and far less
dangerous-- especially when there’s no evidence that our
national security is being threatened.
Although a large percentage of the public now rejects the
various arguments for the Iraq war, 3 years ago they were easily
persuaded by the politicians and media to fully support the
invasion. Now, after 3 years of terrible pain for so many, even
the troops are awakening from their slumber and sensing the
fruitlessness of our failing effort. Seventy-two percent of our
troops now serving in Iraq say it’s time to come home, yet the
majority still cling to the propaganda that we’re there because
of 9/11 attacks, something even the administration has ceased to
claim. Propaganda is pushed on our troops to exploit their need
to believe in a cause that’s worth the risk to life and limb.
I smell an expanded war in the Middle East, and pray that I’m
wrong. I sense that circumstances will arise that demand support
regardless of the danger and cost. Any lack of support, once
again, will be painted as being soft on terrorism and al Qaeda.
We will be told we must support Israel, support patriotism,
support the troops, and defend freedom. The public too often
only smells the stench of war after the killing starts. Public
objection comes later on, but eventually it helps to stop the
war. I worry that before we can finish the war we’re in and
extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding into
Iran will drown out the cries of, “enough already!”
The agitation and congressional resolutions painting Iran as an
enemy about to attack us have already begun. It’s too bad we
can’t learn from our mistakes.
This time there will be a greater pretense of an international
effort sanctioned by the UN before the bombs are dropped. But
even without support from the international community, we should
expect the plan for regime change to continue. We have been
forewarned that “all options” remain on the table. And there’s
little reason to expect much resistance from Congress. So far
there’s less resistance expressed in Congress for taking on Iran
than there was prior to going into Iraq. It’s astonishing that
after three years of bad results and tremendous expense there’s
little indication we will reconsider our traditional
non-interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, regime
change, nation building, policing the world, and protecting “our
oil” still constitute an acceptable policy by the leaders of
both major parties.
It’s already assumed by many in Washington I talk to that Iran
is dead serious about obtaining a nuclear weapon, and is a much
more formidable opponent than Iraq. Besides, Mahmoud Almadinjad
threatened to destroy Israel and that cannot stand. Washington
sees Iran as a greater threat than Iraq ever was, a threat that
cannot be ignored.
Iran’s history is being ignored, just as we ignored Iraq’s
history. This ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of our
recent relationship to Iraq and Iran is required to generate the
fervor needed to attack once again a country that poses no
threat to us. Our policies toward Iran have been more
provocative than those towards Iraq. Yes, President Bush labeled
Iran part of the axis of evil and unnecessarily provoked their
anger at us. But our mistakes with Iran started a long time
before this president took office.
In 1953 our CIA, with help of the British, participated in
overthrowing the democratic elected leader, Mohamed Mossedech.
We placed the Shah in power. He ruled ruthlessly but protected
our oil interests, and for that we protected him-- that is until
1979. We even provided him with Iran’s first nuclear reactor.
Evidently we didn’t buy the argument that his oil supplies
precluded a need for civilian nuclear energy. From 1953 to 1979
his authoritarian rule served to incite a radical Muslim
opposition led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who overthrew the Shah
and took our hostages in 1979. This blowback event was slow in
coming, but Muslims have long memories. The hostage crisis and
overthrow of the Shah by the Ayatollah was a major victory for
the radical Islamists. Most Americans either never knew about or
easily forgot our unwise meddling in the internal affairs of
Iran in 1953.
During the 1980s we further antagonized Iran by supporting the
Iraqis in their invasion of Iran. This made our relationship
with Iran worse, while sending a message to Saddam Hussein that
invading a neighboring country is not all that bad. When Hussein
got the message from our State Department that his plan to
invade Kuwait was not of much concern to the United States he
immediately proceeded to do so. We in a way encouraged him to do
it almost like we encouraged him to go into Iran. Of course this
time our reaction was quite different, and all of a sudden our
friendly ally Saddam Hussein became our arch enemy. The American
people may forget this flip-flop, but those who suffered from it
never forget. And the Iranians remember well our meddling in
their affairs. Labeling the Iranians part of the axis of evil
further alienated them and contributed to the animosity directed
toward us.
For whatever reasons the Neo-conservatives might give, they are
bound and determined to confront the Iranian government and
demand changes in its leadership. This policy will further
spread our military presence and undermine our security. The sad
truth is that the supposed dangers posed by Iran are no more
real than those claimed about Iraq. The charges made against
Iran are unsubstantiated, and amazingly sound very similar to
the false charges made against Iraq. One would think promoters
of the war against Iraq would be a little bit more reluctant to
use the same arguments to stir up hatred toward Iran. The
American people and Congress should be more cautious in
accepting these charges at face value. Yet it seems the
propaganda is working, since few in Washington object as
Congress passes resolutions condemning Iran and asking for UN
sanctions against her.
There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to
plan and initiate a confrontation with her. There are many
reasons not to do so, however.
Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence that
she is working on one--only conjecture.
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, why would this be different from
Pakistan, India, and North Korea having one? Why does Iran have
less right to a defensive weapon than these other countries?
If Iran had a nuclear weapon, the odds of her initiating an
attack against anybody-- which would guarantee her own
annihilation-- are zero. And the same goes for the possibility
she would place weapons in the hands of a non-state terrorist
group.
Pakistan has spread nuclear technology throughout the world, and
in particular to the North Koreans. They flaunt international
restrictions on nuclear weapons. But we reward them just as we
reward India.
We needlessly and foolishly threaten Iran even though they have
no nuclear weapons. But listen to what a leading Israeli
historian, Martin Van Creveld, had to say about this:
“Obviously, we don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and I
don’t know if they’re developing them, but if they’re not
developing them, they’re crazy.”
There’s been a lot of misinformation regarding Iran’s nuclear
program. This distortion of the truth has been used to pump up
emotions in Congress to pass resolutions condemning her and
promoting UN sanctions.
IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradi has never reported any
evidence of “undeclared” sources or special nuclear material in
Iran, or any diversion of nuclear material.
We demand that Iran prove it is not in violation of nuclear
agreements, which is asking them impossibly to prove a negative.
El Baradi states Iran is in compliance with the nuclear NPT
required IAEA safeguard agreement.
We forget that the weapons we feared Saddam Hussein had were
supplied to him by the U.S., and we refused to believe UN
inspectors and the CIA that he no longer had them.
Likewise, Iran received her first nuclear reactor from us. Now
we’re hysterically wondering if someday she might decide to
build a bomb in self interest.
Anti-Iran voices, beating the drums of confrontation, distort
the agreement made in Paris and the desire of Iran to restart
the enrichment process. Their suspension of the enrichment
process was voluntary, and not a legal obligation. Iran has an
absolute right under the NPT to develop and use nuclear power
for peaceful purposes, and this is now said to be an egregious
violation of the NPT. It’s the U.S. and her allies that are
distorting and violating the NPT. Likewise our provision of
nuclear materials to India is a clear violation of the NPT.
The demand for UN sanctions is now being strongly encouraged by
Congress. The “Iran Freedom Support Act,” HR 282, passed in the
International Relations Committee; and recently the House passed
H Con Res 341, which inaccurately condemned Iran for violating
its international nuclear non-proliferation obligations. At
present, the likelihood of reason prevailing in Congress is
minimal. Let there be no doubt: The Neo-conservative warriors
are still in charge, and are conditioning Congress, the media,
and the American people for a pre-emptive attack on Iran. Never
mind that Afghanistan has unraveled and Iraq is in civil war:
serious plans are being laid for the next distraction which will
further spread this war in the Middle East. The unintended
consequences of this effort surely will be worse than any of the
complications experienced in the three-year occupation of Iraq.
Our offer of political and financial assistance to foreign and
domestic individuals who support the overthrow of the current
Iranian government is fraught with danger and saturated with
arrogance. Imagine how American citizens would respond if China
supported similar efforts here in the United States to bring
about regime change! How many of us would remain complacent if
someone like Timothy McVeigh had been financed by a foreign
power? Is it any wonder the Iranian people resent us and the
attitude of our leaders? Even though El Baradi and his IAEA
investigations have found no violations of the NPT-required IAEA
safeguards agreement, the Iran Freedom Support Act still demands
that Iran prove they have no nuclear weapons-- refusing to
acknowledge that proving a negative is impossible.
Let there be no doubt, though the words “regime change” are not
found in the bill-- that’s precisely what they are talking
about. Neo-conservative Michael Ledeen, one of the architects of
the Iraq fiasco, testifying before the International Relations
Committee in favor of the IFSA, stated it plainly: “I know some
Members would prefer to dance around the explicit declaration of
regime change as the policy of this country, but anyone looking
closely at the language and context of the IFSA and its close
relative in the Senate, can clearly see that this is in fact the
essence of the matter. You can’t have freedom in Iran without
bringing down the Mullahs.”
Sanctions, along with financial and political support to persons
and groups dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government,
are acts of war. Once again we’re unilaterally declaring a
pre-emptive war against a country and a people that have not
harmed us and do not have the capacity to do so. And don’t
expect Congress to seriously debate a declaration of war
resolution. For the past 56 years Congress has transferred to
the executive branch the power to go to war as it pleases,
regardless of the tragic results and costs.
Secretary of State Rice recently signaled a sharp shift towards
confrontation in Iran policy as she insisted on $75 million to
finance propaganda, through TV and radio broadcasts into Iran.
She expressed this need because of the so-called “aggressive”
policies of the Iranian government. We’re seven thousand miles
from home, telling the Iraqis and the Iranians what kind of
government they will have, backed up by the use of our military
force, and we call them the aggressors. We fail to realize the
Iranian people, for whatever faults they may have, have not in
modern times aggressed against any neighbor. This provocation is
so unnecessary, costly, and dangerous.
Just as the invasion of Iraq inadvertently served the interests
of the Iranians, military confrontation with Iran will have
unintended consequences. The successful alliance engendered
between the Iranians and the Iraqi majority Shia will prove a
formidable opponent for us in Iraq as that civil war spreads.
Shipping in the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz may
well be disrupted by the Iranians in retaliation for any
military confrontation. Since Iran would be incapable of
defending herself by conventional means, it seems logical that
some might resort to a terrorist attack on us. They will not
passively lie down, nor can they be destroyed easily.
One of the reasons given for going into Iraq was to secure “our”
oil supply. This backfired badly: Production in Iraq is down
50%, and world oil prices have more than doubled to $60 per
barrel. Meddling with Iran could easily have a similar result.
We could see oil over $120 a barrel and, and $6 gas at the pump.
The obsession the Neo-cons have with remaking the Middle East is
hard to understand. One thing that is easy to understand is none
of those who planned these wars expect to fight in them, nor do
they expect their children to die in some IED explosion.
Exactly when an attack will occur is not known, but we have been
forewarned more than once that all options remain on the table.
The sequence of events now occurring with regards to Iran are
eerily reminiscent of the hype prior to our pre-emptive strike
against Iraq. We should remember the saying: “Fool me once shame
on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” It looks to me like the
Congress and the country is open to being fooled once again.
Interestingly, many early supporters of the Iraq war are now
highly critical of the President, having been misled as to
reasons for the invasion and occupation. But these same people
are only too eager to accept the same flawed arguments for our
need to undermine the Iranian government.
The President’s 2006 National Security Strategy, just released,
is every bit as frightening as the one released in 2002
endorsing pre-emptive war. In it he claims: “We face no greater
challenge from a single country than from Iran.” He claims the
Iranians have for 20 years hidden key nuclear activities--
though the IAEA makes no such assumptions nor has the Security
Council in these 20 years ever sanctioned Iran. The clincher in
the National Security Strategy document is if diplomatic efforts
fail, confrontation will follow. The problem is the diplomatic
effort-- if one wants to use that term-- is designed to fail by
demanding the Iranians prove an unproveable negative. The West--
led by the U.S.-- is in greater violation by demanding Iran not
pursue any nuclear technology, even peaceful, that the NPT
guarantees is their right.
The President states: Iran’s “desire to have a nuclear weapon is
unacceptable.” A “desire” is purely subjective, and cannot be
substantiated nor disproved. Therefore all that is necessary to
justify an attack is if Iran fails to prove it doesn’t have a
“desire” to be like the United States, China, Russia, Britain,
France, Pakistan, India, and Israel—whose nuclear missiles
surround Iran. Logic like this to justify a new war, without the
least consideration for a congressional declaration of war, is
indeed frightening.
Common sense tells us Congress, especially given the civil war
in Iraq and the mess in Afghanistan, should move with great
caution in condoning a military confrontation with Iran.
Cause for Concern
Most Americans are uninterested in foreign affairs until we get
mired down in a war that costs too much, last too long, and
kills too many U.S. troops. Getting out of a lengthy war is
difficult, as I remember all too well with Vietnam while serving
in the U.S. Air Force from 1963 to 1968. Getting into war is
much easier. Unfortunately the Legislative branch of our
government too often defers to the Executive branch, and offers
little resistance to war plans even with no significant threat
to our security. The need to go to war is always couched in
patriotic terms and falsehoods regarding an imaginary eminent
danger. Not supporting the effort is painted as unpatriotic and
wimpish against some evil that’s about to engulf us. The real
reason for our militarism is rarely revealed and hidden from the
public. Even Congress is deceived into supporting adventurism
they would not accept if fully informed.
If we accepted the traditional American and constitutional
foreign policy of non-intervention across the board, there would
be no temptation to go along with these unnecessary military
operations. A foreign policy of intervention invites all kinds
of excuses for spreading ourselves around the world. The debate
shifts from non-intervention versus interventionism, to where
and for what particular reason should we involve ourselves. Most
of the time it’s for less than honorable reasons. Even when
cloaked in honorable slogans-- like making the world safe for
democracy-- the unintended consequences and the ultimate costs
cancel out the good intentions.
One of the greatest losses suffered these past 60 years from
interventionism becoming an acceptable policy of both major
parties is respect for the Constitution. Congress flatly has
reneged on its huge responsibility to declare war. Going to war
was never meant to be an Executive decision, used
indiscriminately with no resistance from Congress. The strongest
attempt by Congress in the past 60 years to properly exert
itself over foreign policy was the passage of the Foley
Amendment, demanding no assistance be given to the Nicaraguan
contras. Even this explicit prohibition was flaunted by an
earlier administration.
Arguing over the relative merits of each intervention is not a
true debate, because it assumes that intervention per se is both
moral and constitutional. Arguing for a Granada-type
intervention because of its “success,” and against the Iraq war
because of its failure and cost, is not enough. We must once
again understand the wisdom of rejecting entangling alliances
and rejecting nation building. We must stop trying to police the
world and instead embrace non-interventionism as the proper,
moral, and constitutional foreign policy.
The best reason to oppose interventionism is that people die,
needlessly, on both sides. We have suffered over 20,000 American
casualties in Iraq already, and Iraq civilian deaths probably
number over 100,000 by all reasonable accounts. The next best
reason is that the rule of law is undermined, especially when
military interventions are carried out without a declaration of
war. Whenever a war is ongoing, civil liberties are under attack
at home. The current war in Iraq and the misnamed war on terror
have created an environment here at home that affords little
constitutional protection of our citizen’s rights. Extreme
nationalism is common during wars. Signs of this are now
apparent.
Prolonged wars, as this one has become, have profound
consequences. No matter how much positive spin is put on it, war
never makes a society wealthier. World War II was not a solution
to the Depression as many claim. If a billion dollars is spent
on weapons of war, the GDP records positive growth in that
amount. But the expenditure is consumed by destruction of the
weapons or bombs it bought, and the real economy is denied $1
billion to produce products that would have raised someone’s
standard of living.
Excessive spending to finance the war causes deficits to
explode. There are never enough tax dollars available to pay the
bills, and since there are not enough willing lenders and
dollars available, the Federal Reserve must create enough new
money and credit for buying Treasury Bills to prevent interest
rates from rising too rapidly. Rising rates would tip off
everyone that there are not enough savings or taxes to finance
the war. This willingness to print whatever amount of money the
government needs to pursue the war is literally inflation.
Without a fiat monetary system wars would be very difficult to
finance, since the people would never tolerate the taxes
required to pay for it. Inflation of the money supply delays and
hides the real cost of war. The result of the excessive creation
of new money leads to the higher cost of living everyone decries
and the Fed denies. Since taxes are not levied, the increase in
prices that results from printing too much money is technically
the tax required to pay for the war.
The tragedy is that the inflation tax is borne more by the poor
and the middle class than the rich. Meanwhile, the
well-connected rich, the politicians, the bureaucrats, the
bankers, the military industrialists, and the international
corporations reap the benefits of war profits.
A sound economic process is disrupted with a war economy and
monetary inflation. Strong voices emerge blaming the wrong
policies for our problems, prompting an outcry for protectionist
legislation. It’s always easier to blame foreign producers and
savers for our inflation, lack of savings, excess debt, and loss
of industrial jobs. Protectionist measures only make economic
conditions worse. Inevitably these conditions, if not corrected,
lead to a lower standard of living for most of our citizens.
Careless military intervention is also bad for the civil
disturbance that results. The chaos in the streets of America in
the 1960s while the Vietnam War raged, aggravated by the draft,
was an example of domestic strife caused by an ill-advised
unconstitutional war that could not be won. The early signs of
civil discord are now present. Hopefully we can extricate
ourselves from Iraq and avoid a conflict in Iran before our
streets explode as they did in the 60s.
In a way it’s amazing there’s not a lot more outrage expressed
by the American people. There’s plenty of complaining but no
outrage over policies that are not part of our American
tradition. War based on false pretenses, 20,000 American
casualties, torture policies, thousands jailed without due
process, illegal surveillance of citizens, warrantless searches,
and yet no outrage. When the issues come before Congress,
Executive authority is maintained or even strengthened while
real oversight is ignored.
Though many Americans are starting to feel the economic pain of
paying for this war through inflation, the real pain has not yet
arrived. We generally remain fat and happy, with a system of
money and borrowing that postpones the day of reckoning.
Foreigners, in particular the Chinese and Japanese, gladly
participate in the charade. We print the money and they take it,
as do the OPEC nations, and provide us with consumer goods and
oil. Then they loan the money back to us at low interest rates,
which we use to finance the war and our housing bubble and
excessive consumption. This recycling and perpetual borrowing of
inflated dollars allows us to avoid the pain of high taxes to
pay for our war and welfare spending. It’s fine until the music
stops and the real costs are realized, with much higher interest
rates and significant price inflation. That’s when outrage will
be heard, and the people will realize we can’t afford the
“humanitarianism” of the Neo-conservatives.
The notion that our economic problems are principally due to the
Chinese is nonsense. If the protectionists were to have their
way, the problem of financing the war would become readily
apparent and have immediate ramifications-- none good. Today’s
economic problems, caused largely by our funny money system,
won’t be solved by altering exchange rates to favor us in the
short run, or by imposing high tariffs. Only sound money with
real value will solve the problems of competing currency
devaluations and protectionist measures.
Economic interests almost always are major reasons for wars
being fought. Noble and patriotic causes are easier to sell to a
public who must pay and provide cannon fodder to defend the
financial interests of a privileged class.
The fact that Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for oil in an
attempt to undermine the U.S. dollar is believed by many to be
one of the ulterior motives for our invasion and occupation of
Iraq. Similarly, the Iranian oil burse now about to open may be
seen as a threat to those who depend on maintaining the current
monetary system with the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
The theory and significance of “peak oil” is believed to be an
additional motivating factor for the U.S. and Great Britain
wanting to maintain firm control over the oil supplies in the
Middle East. The two nations have been protecting “our” oil
interests in the Middle East for nearly a hundred years. With
diminishing supplies and expanding demands, the incentive to
maintain a military presence in the Middle East is quite strong.
Fear of China and Russia moving into this region to assume more
control alarms those who don’t understand how a free market can
develop substitutes to replace diminishing resources. Supporters
of the military effort to maintain control over large regions of
the world to protect oil fail to count the real costs once the
DOD budget is factored in. Remember, invading Iraq was costly
and oil prices doubled. Confrontation in Iran may evolve
differently, but we can be sure it will be costly and oil prices
will rise.
There are long-term consequences or blowback from our militant
policy of intervention around the world. They are unpredictable
as to time and place. 9/11 was a consequence of our military
presence on Muslim holy lands; the Ayatollah Khomeini’s success
in taking over the Iranian government in 1979 was a consequence
of our CIA overthrowing Mossadech in 1953. These connections are
rarely recognized by the American people and never acknowledged
by our government. We never seem to learn how dangerous
interventionism is to us and to our security.
There are some who may not agree strongly with any of my
arguments, and instead believe the propaganda: Iran and her
President, Mahmoud Almadinjad, are thoroughly irresponsible and
have threatened to destroy Israel. So all measures must be taken
to prevent Iran from getting nukes-- thus the campaign to
intimidate and confront Iran.
First, Iran doesn’t have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting
one, according to the CIA. If they did have one, using it would
guarantee almost instantaneous annihilation by Israel and the
United States. Hysterical fear of Iran is way out of proportion
to reality. With a policy of containment, we stood down and won
the Cold War against the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear
weapons and missiles. If you’re looking for a real kook with a
bomb to worry about, North Korea would be high on the list. Yet
we negotiate with Kim Jong Il. Pakistan has nukes and was a
close ally of the Taliban up until 9/11. Pakistan was never
inspected by the IAEA as to their military capability. Yet we
not only talk to her, we provide economic assistance-- though
someday Musharraf may well be overthrown and a pro-al Qaeda
government put in place. We have been nearly obsessed with
talking about regime change in Iran, while ignoring Pakistan and
North Korea. It makes no sense and it’s a very costly and
dangerous policy.
The conclusion we should derive from this is simple: It’s in our
best interest to pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention. A
strict interpretation of the Constitution mandates it. The moral
imperative of not imposing our will on others, no matter how
well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our own
business. The principle of self-determination should be
respected. Strict non-intervention removes the incentives for
foreign powers and corporate interests to influence our policies
overseas. We can’t afford the cost that intervention requires,
whether through higher taxes or inflation. If the moral
arguments against intervention don’t suffice for some, the
practical arguments should.
Intervention just doesn’t work. It backfires and ultimately
hurts American citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading
ourselves too thin around the world actually diminishes our
national security through a weakened military. As the superpower
of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as
arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in
a positive manner.
Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of
today’s liberals have all at one time or another endorsed a less
interventionist foreign policy. There’s no reason a coalition of
these groups might not once again present the case for a
pro-American, non-militant, non-interventionist foreign policy
dealing with all nations. A policy of trade and peace, and a
willingness to use diplomacy, is far superior to the foreign
policy that has evolved over the past 60 years.
It’s time for a change.
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
