|
When Wishful Thinking Replaces Resistance
Why Bush Can
Get Away with Attacking Iran
By Jean Bricmotnt
09/04/07 "Counterpunch" -- -- Many people in the antiwar
movement try to reassure themselves: Bush cannot possibly
attack Iran. He does not have the means to do so, or,
perhaps, even he is not foolish enough to engage in such an
enterprise. Various particular reasons are put forward, such
as: If he attacks, the Shiites in Iraq will cut the US
supply lines. If he attacks, the Iranians will block the
Straits of Ormuz or will unleash dormant terrorist networks
worldwide. Russia won't allow such an attack. China won't
allow it -- they will dump the dollar. The Arab world will
explode.
All this is doubtful. The Shiites in Iraq are not simply
obedient to Iran. If they don't rise against the United
States when their own country is occupied (or if don't rise
very systematically), they are not likely to rise against
the US if a neighboring country is attacked. As for blocking
the Straits or unleashing terrorism, this will just be
another justification for more bombing of Iran. After all, a
main casus belli against Iran is, incredibly, that it
supposedly helps the resistance against U.S. troops in Iraq,
as if those troops were at home there. If that can work as
an argument for bombing Iran, then any counter-measure that
Iran might take will simply "justify" more bombing, possibly
nuclear. Iran is strong in the sense that it cannot be
invaded, but there is little it can do against long range
bombing, accompanied by nuclear threats.
Russia will escalate its military buildup (which now lags
far behind the U.S. one), but it can't do anything else, and
Washington will be only too glad to use the Russian reaction
as an argument for boosting its own military forces. China
is solely concerned with its own development and won't drop
the dollar for non-economic reasons. Most Arab governments,
if not their populations, will look favorably on seeing the
Iranian shiite leadership humiliated. Those governments have
sufficient police forces to control any popular opposition--
after all, that is what they managed to do after the attack
on Iraq.
With the replacement of Chirac by Sarkozy, and the
near-complete elimination of what was left of the Gaullists
(basically through lawsuits on rather trivial matters),
France has been changed from the most independent European
country to the most poodlish (this was in fact the main
issue in the recent presidential election, but it was never
even mentioned during the campaign). In France, moreover,
the secular "left" is, in the main, gung-ho against Iran for
the usual reasons (women, religion). There will be no
large-scale demonstrations in France either before or after
the bombing. And, without French support, Germany--where the
war is probably very unpopular -- can always be silenced
with memories of the Holocaust, so that no significant
opposition to the war will come from Europe (except possibly
from its Muslim population, which will be one more argument
to prove that they are "backward", "extremist", and enemies
of our "democratic civilization").
All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in
place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it
is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is
enough to neutralize a large part of the American "left".
The issue of course is not whether Iran is nice or not
according to our views -- but whether there is any legal
reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant
ideology of human rights has legitimized, specially in the
left, the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds
anywhere, at any time, and that ideology has succeeded in
totally sidetracking the minor issue of international law.
Israel and its fanatical American supporters want Iran
attacked for its political crimes--supporting the rights of
the Palestinians, or questioning the Holocaust. Both U.S.
political parties are equally under the control of the
Israel lobby, and so are the media. The antiwar movement is
far too preoccupied with the security of Israel to seriously
defend Iran and it won't attack the real architects of this
coming war--the Zionists-- for fear of "provoking
antisemitism". Blaming Big Oil for the Iraq war was quite
debatable, but, in the case of Iran, since the country is
about to be bombed but not invaded, there is no reason
whatsoever to think that Big Oil wants the war, as opposed
to the Zionists. In fact, Big Oil is probably very much
opposed to the war, but it is as unable to stop it as the
rest of us.
As far as Israel is concerned, the United States is a de
facto totalitarian society--no articulate opposition is
acceptable. The U.S. Congress passes one pro-Israel or
anti-Iran resolution after another with "Stalinist"
majorities. The population does not seem to care. But if
they did, but what could they do? Vote? The electoral system
is extremely biased against the emergence of a third party
and the two big parties are equally under Zionist influence.
The only thing that might stop the war would be for
Americans themselves to threaten their own government with
massive civil disobedience. But that is not going to happen.
A large part of the academic left long ago gave up informing
the general public about the real world in order to debate
whether Capital is a Signifier or a Signified, or worry
about their Bodies and their Selves, while preachers tell
their flocks to rejoice at each new sign that the end of the
world is nigh. Children in Iran won't sleep at night, but
the liberal American intelligentsia will lecture the ROW
(rest of the world) about Human Rights. In fact, the
prevalence of the "reassuring arguments" cited above proves
that the antiwar movement is clinically dead. If it weren't,
it would rely on its own forces to stop war, not speculate
on how others might do the job.
Meanwhile, an enormous amount of hatred will have been
spewed upon the world. But in the short term, it may look
like a big Western "victory", just like the creation of
Israel in 1948; just like the overthrow of Mossadegh by the
CIA in 1953; just like the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine
seemed to be a big German victory after the French defeat at
Sedan in 1870. The Bush administration will long be gone
when the disastrous consequences of that war will be felt.
PS: This text is not meant to be a prophecy, but a call to
(urgent) action. I'll be more than happy if facts prove me
wrong.
Jean Bricmont teaches physics in Belgium and is a member of
the Brussels Tribunal. His new book, Humanitarian
Imperialism, is published by Monthly Review Press. He can be
reached at bricmont@fyma.ucl.ac.be .
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.)
|
