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
By Noam Chomsky
03/09/07 "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 PolicyClick here
to comment on this and other articles
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 ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
