|
What Will We Do Then?
The Day After We Strike Iran
By Gary Leupp
06/15/07 "Counterpunch" -- -- Let us suppose that the
Bush-Cheney administration answers the neocons’ prayer and does
indeed bomb Iran sometime soon. The plan apparently involves
more than the destruction of nuclear facilities, replicating
Israel’s attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981. (That attack,
by the way was condemned by the whole world, including a furious
President Ronald Reagan). It includes an all-out assault on the
Iranian political and religious leadership. Government buildings
and officials’ residences will be targeted, guaranteeing
collateral damage.
Since Iran is a highly complex society, and its government
widely unpopular, there may well be some local support for a
“shock and awe” campaign. We know that the administration has
cultivated ties with the Mujahadeen Khalq (even though they
remain on the State Department’s terrorist list) and the
Pakistan-based Balochi separatist group Jundallah (the Party of
God). These among other organizations will get their marching
orders amid the “creative chaos” produced by the attack. There
can be no large deployment of U.S. troops in Iran, unless they
evacuate from Afghanistan and Iraq which is unlikely.
I doubt that administration plans for the construction of a
post-attack Iranian polity are any more sophisticated than their
plans for post-Taliban Afghanistan or occupied Iraq. Some have
suggested that the neocons’ goal is actually to plunge the
Muslim Middle East into prolonged pandemonium, insuring that all
foes of Israel are off-balance and terrorized by the might of
Israel’s protector for generations to come. “Neocons,” writes
Paul Craig Roberts, “have convinced themselves that nuking Iran
will show the Muslim world that Muslims have no alternative to
submitting to the will of the US government.”
They are “total Islamophobes” who believe that “Islam must be
deracinated and the religion destroyed. . .” Others note that
Cheney is obsessed with the imagined threat of a rising China
and the need to establish permanent U.S. bases in Central and
Southwest Asia to “contain” the world’s most populous nation.
The desire to control the flow of oil, the urge to check China,
the passionate drive to destroy Israel’s enemies (alongside this
neocon Islamophobia) are all reflected in U.S. foreign policy
since 9-11.
Surely a lot of Iranians know this. And they can look over their
northern border into Afghanistan and their western border into
Iraq and see what disaster U.S. imperialism has wrought in these
neighboring countries. Bush calls them “democracies” and boasts
of having gifted them with the universally applicable model
pioneered by America’s founding fathers. But I’d imagine
Iranians paying attention see in Afghanistan a regime dominated
by warlords more reactionary than their own mullahs, resisted by
an equally reactionary resurgent Taliban. In Iraq they find an
emerging regime under the strong influence of conservative
Shiite Muslim clerics in an unusual alliance with U.S.
occupation forces. Many young Iranians chafing under Islamic law
might consider this a step backwards for Iraq, which under the
despised Saddam had at least been a secular society. The Iraqi
puppet government is of course far weaker than the one in
Tehran, and humiliatingly dependent upon the invaders who cannot
provide a modicum of security while they demand oil concessions.
So I would think that the Iranian survivors of this planned
criminal assault would not appreciate it. Rather they will
resent it deeply, especially if it produces numerous civilian
casualties. As Roberts suggests, the neocons believe that the
Iranian people and Muslims around the world will be so terrified
that they will capitulate to all U.S. demands and the U.S. will
be better able to attain its geopolitical objectives without the
use of unacceptable numbers of ground troops. I have to wonder
about this.
Perhaps the neocons suppose that there will be no resistance
from a shocked and awed Iranian population as America’s Iranian
allies---a mix of quasi-left guerrillas, terrorist separatists,
monarchists and exiles---create a provisional government. They
may underestimate the social base of the present Iranian
government, the sincerity of popular opposition to U.S. policy
in the world, the depth of Iranian nationalism and national
pride at the accomplishments of the nuclear power program. They
probably underestimate the outrage an attack will cause, in Iran
and everywhere.
Perhaps they overestimate the power of their weapons. The
neocons know that nuclear weapons (even dire predictions about
nuclear attack) produce fear---and that frightened people may
voluntarily give up much of their freedom. They saw that happen
here in the USA between 9-11 and the attack on Iraq. All that
talk by Bush, Cheney and Rice about mushroom clouds over New
York City got the masses scared, got them to support a war. The
neocons may assume that this frightening thing they hold in
their hand---that they can deliver (intoning with John McCain,
“Bomb bomb bomb Iran”) as soon as Bush (after prayerful
deliberation) gives his okay---can fix the Middle East. They may
figure that a country once nuked will submit to any aftermath.
Recall how they predicted in 2002 that Iraqis would respond to
occupation the same way the Japanese did from 1945 to 1952. How
wrong they were. Maybe the attack-planners think that the
Iranians will, after this new, planned Hiroshima,
unconditionally surrender to the United States. I doubt that.
Just as they appear to have overestimated the power of U.S.
troops on the battlefield in Iraq, Cheney and his neocons may
miscalculate the power of their most vicious weapons to obtain
their goals. Mao often referred to nuclear weapons (first those
of the U.S. imperialists, then the Soviet ones as well) as “a
paper tiger.” The imperialists might find that they’ve sent a
paper tiger to arouse an Iranian griffin. (That’s a lion with an
eagle’s head and wings, something not supposed to happen.)
Meanwhile, reaction in Iraq to reports of a U.S. strike on Iran
will hardly be positive. Iraqi Shiites (60% of the population)
will naturally identify with victimized Shiite Iran and hate the
occupiers more, without necessarily fearing them more. If you
really want to do something that will fuel the Shiites’
historical sense of victimization, and unite Shiites from
Lebanon to Oman and beyond, the best thing you could do is bomb
Iran---not sparing the holy sites. But Iraq’s Sunnis won’t be
happy either. Whatever their feelings about Iran, they’ll feel
no joy in the expansion of U.S. operations in the Muslim world.
The entire world will respond with revulsion. From Europe to
Japan there will be much discussion about how to best distance
oneself and protect oneself from a USA gone nuts.
But what will happen here in the U.S. after the Iran attack? How
will we react? If it happens, it won’t be announced the way the
invasion of Iraq was. There will be more and more unattributed
reports of Iranian arms deliveries to unlikely recipients like
the Taliban or Sunni “insurgents” in Iraq. More alarmist reports
on Iran’s nuclear progress. More propaganda about Iran’s
intention to nuke Israel and produce a second Holocaust. More
indignant statements about Iran’s defiance of UNSC resolutions.
But the timing might come as a surprise.
As the attack gets underway some Democratic leaders in Congress
will indicate support for the move, based on the doctored
intelligence reports they’ve read, or have had on their desk and
possibly perused. Some will withhold comment or maybe even
object to the action. I have the feeling both timidity and
stupidity will initially prevail. There is little precedent for
U.S. politicians condemning a U.S. attack on a country just
after it’s occurred.
I would expect those on the contact-lists of the various antiwar
coalitions would be out on the streets in force immediately
after the (first) attack, shouting “SHAME” and making it clear
to the world that Bush doesn’t represent the American people.
I’d expect that large numbers of people would gather to demand
that the Congress move immediately to impeach Bush and Cheney.
I’d hope that the Democrats in Congress would find it in their
interest to do so, but if Nancy Pelosi becomes president, will
there be any great change? On Iran, Pelosi has deferred to AIPAC.
The antiwar movement has become disillusioned with the
Democrats, and even with a mercilessly self-perpetuating system
that uses its two parties to convey the illusion that the
political status quo is the product of competition. Still, it
sees no alternative to a mix of letter-writing, lobbying,
voting, rallying, marching, exercising constitutional rights,
operating within the paradigm. But Cindy Sheehan officially
dropped out of the movement concluding that the “paradigm. . .
is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly
mendacious marble.”
She is right. The neocons want us to “think outside the box.”
Maybe we should one-up them and think outside the system. The
“way our system works,” writes Andrew J. Bacevich, “negates
democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of
recording dissent.” In it, “Money maintains the
Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics.” What can
the honest dissenter do when informed that the U.S. (“your”)
government has committed a spectacular war crime? When can you
do when you learn that, once again--- without your
permission---the U.S. has attacked a sovereign country posing no
real threat to you? Generating enormous hatred for America
throughout the world? What do we do the day after? I would just
like to pose the question for discussion as we approach that
moment.
Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University. He
can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu
Click
on "comments" below to
read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story. We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
– those including personal
attacks and profanity – are
not permitted.
See our complete Comment
Policy and use
this link to notify us if you
have concerns about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
postings.
Send Page To a Friend
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.)
|
