FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Target: Iran

by LEE SUSTAR

A U.S. military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would be used to repackage the occupation of Iraq as part of Washington’s “long war” on “radical Islam,” give Israel a blank check to crush the Palestinians and justify further U.S. imperial aggression in the Middle East.

That’s the logic of the growing U.S. efforts to force Iran to abandon its plan to enrich uranium–a process that is allowed under international treaties, but portrayed by the U.S. and its European sidekicks as a pretext for a nuclear weapons program.

The pressure is rising as Iran vows to begin enriching nuclear fuel and the United Nations Security Council prepares to discuss sanctions and other action against Iran.

The U.S. mainstream media–having swallowed the White House’s fabricated evidence of weapons of mass destruction to invade Iraq–is playing along once more. But one major difference this time is that the U.S. has all three main European Union (EU) governments–France, Britain and Germany–on board in a multilateral process.

Like the U.S., the EU doesn’t want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, which would alter the balance of power in the Middle East and provide a deterrent to outside (i.e., imperialist) intervention. Thus, the main West European powers and Russia backed U.S. efforts to have the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions.

The Europeans, taking stock of Iran’s factionalized ruling government, are banking that the pressure will force Iran to make a deal and safeguard considerable European investments there–mainly in the oil and gas industry, but including auto assembly plants and more.

For his part, Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is trying to use the showdown to enforce unity in Iran’s divided ruling class. Elected last year after a populist campaign that promised to assist the poor left behind by the free-market policies of his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, Ahmadinejad has lost the political initiative.

His election promises have given way to repression against a bus drivers’ strike in Tehran. State-imposed religious law has antagonized middle-class liberals and students. And the business establishment, determined to hold on to Khatami’s free-market reforms, maneuvered in parliament to block Ahmadinejad’s nominee to head the all-important oil ministry.

By defending Iran’s nuclear program–which has broad support across Iranian society on a nationalist basis–Ahmadinejad hopes to regain support domestically.

Yet even if Iran is out to develop nuclear weapons, the government is years away from achieving such a goal.

* * *

WASHINGTON’S near-term aim isn’t to pre-empt Iranian nukes, but something far more immediate: downgrade the occupation of Iraq to a low-intensity conflict by using troops from the Iraqi puppet regime, while at the same time preserving the core of the occupation force to consolidate U.S. control over Persian Gulf oil.

The White House would retool the occupation of Iraq (and, for that matter, Afghanistan) by providing a new justification for the presence of U.S. troops–preventing Ahmadinejad from acquiring nuclear weapons and curbing Iran’s influence on the Shiite Muslim parties that rule Iraq.

A full-scale invasion of Iran isn’t on the agenda for the overstretched U.S. military, and key players in Washington would rather have the Iranian government capitulate without having to use force. Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has downplayed the possibility of a military strike, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is pushing $75 million to fund Iranian opposition groups to try to achieve “regime change” from within.

Nevertheless, Dick Cheney himself last year ordered a study of a plan for an attack on Iran–and leading politicians are beating the war drums, including Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.).

Alternatively, the job could also be subcontracted to Israel, where an election campaign has seen politicians promising to take a hard line with both the new Hamas administration of the Palestinian Authority and Ahmadinejad, who has said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.”

The U.S. is already preparing to back Israel in a program of economic sanctions against Hamas, and Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric–including denial of the Holocaust–is being used by the Bush administration as a pretext for a tougher line. If Hamas makes good on its plan to get financial aid from Iran to bypass U.S.-Israeli sanctions, the two crises could quickly fuse.

What’s driving this confrontation isn’t Hamas or the Iranian government, however, but the U.S. occupation of Iraq and Israel’s attempts to strengthen its hold on Palestine. Both efforts are increasingly portrayed as a struggle against “radical Islam”–and the crisis over the anti-Muslim Danish cartoon has been used to further this agenda.

Confronting Islam, in fact, is precisely the perspective put forward in the new the Quadrennial Defense Review–the Pentagon’s strategic document that comes out for a “long war” against terrorism.

“The enemies in this war are not traditional conventional military forces, but rather dispersed, global terrorist networks that exploit Islam to advance radical political aims,” the document declares. “These enemies have the avowed aim of acquiring and using nuclear and biological weapons to murder hundreds of thousands of Americans and others around the world…Currently, Iraq and Afghanistan are crucial battlegrounds, but the struggle extends far beyond their borders. With its allies and partners, the United States must be prepared to wage this war in many locations simultaneously, and for some years to come.”

* * *

SOME YEARS to come. That phrase should dispel any illusion that the U.S. occupation of Iraq will come to an end without much more pressure from the antiwar movement in the U.S., as well as the Iraqi resistance.

The drawdown of U.S. troops and plans for the “Iraqification” of the occupation is aimed at keeping Iraq under Washington’s control–at a more acceptable military, political and economic cost.

That’s the argument of Edward Luttwak, a veteran player in the U.S. foreign policy establishment and a cheerleader for the U.S.-NATO war over Kosovo in 1999. Luttwak caused a stir among his peers with his article last autumn in Foreign Affairs, entitled, “Iraq: The Logic of Disengagement”–a play on Howard Zinn’s famous book Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal.

“U.S. military operations in Iraq could…be reduced without adverse consequence,” Luttwak wrote. “The most prudent option would be an orderly disengagement of U.S. troops carefully coordinated with all forces, both official and militia. Some U.S. forces might remain indefinitely, as long as both the United States and the Iraqi government desired, to stabilize the country and dissuade foreign intrusions.”

To Luttwak, reducing troop levels in Iraq doesn’t mean a U.S. retreat from the Middle East, but a consolidation of Washington’s domination of the region as a whole. That’s why he argued in a recent opinion piece that in the event of a U.S. attack on Iran, ethnic minorities in that country “might welcome the humiliation of their oppressors” in the Persian ruling class.

This is a replay of the prediction that U.S. troops would be greeted as “liberators” in Iraq, updated for Iran–and is just as nonsensical.

If the same lies used to justify the Iraq war are being recycled to prepare for military strikes on Iran, it’s because the entire aim of U.S. imperialism since the September 11, 2001 attacks has been to lock in Washington’s dominance of the Middle East, Central Asia and the oil resources to be found there.

The U.S. simply can’t admit defeat and pull out of Iraq. If it is losing its grip, it must try to get a better hold–and widening the war under the banner of stopping “radical Islam” is as good excuse as any.

There is a precedent for the U.S. widening a losing war: the “secret” U.S. invasion and bombings of Cambodia and Laos in 1970 to try to turn the tide in Vietnam.

As Noam Chomsky wrote then, “[T]he American policy of ‘anti-Communism’–to be more precise, the effort to prevent the development of indigenous movements that might extricate their societies from the integrated world system dominated by American capital–draws the American government, step by fateful step, into an endless war against the people of Asia, and, as an inevitable concomitant, toward harsh repression and defiance of law at home.”

Substitute “radical Islam” for “communism” and “Middle East” for “Asia,” and the analysis applies just as well today.

Washington’s war drums over Iran aren’t merely an election-year distraction or diplomatic maneuver. They’re an urgent warning that the antiwar movement in the U.S. needs to broaden its perspective to include opposition to the entire U.S. imperialist project in the Middle East.

LEE SUSTAR is a regular contributor to CounterPunch and the Socialist Worker. He can be reached at: lsustar@ameritech.net

 

 

 

LEE SUSTAR is the labor editor of Socialist Worker

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 29, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Michael Hudson
Obama Said Hillary will Continue His Legacy and Indeed She Will!
Jeffrey St. Clair
She Stoops to Conquer: Notes From the Democratic Convention
Rob Urie
Long Live the Queen of Chaos
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
Evolution of Capitalism, Escalation of Imperialism
Margot Kidder
My Fellow Americans: We Are Fools
Ralph Nader
Hillary’s Convention Con
Lewis Evans
Executing Children Won’t Save the Tiger or the Rhino
Vijay Prashad
The Iraq War: a Story of Deceit
Chris Odinet
It Wasn’t Just the Baton Rouge Police Who Killed Alton Sterling
Brian Cloughley
Could Trump be Good for Peace?
Patrick Timmons
Racism, Freedom of Expression and the Prohibition of Guns at Universities in Texas
Gary Leupp
The Coming Crisis in U.S.-Turkey Relations
Pepe Escobar
Is War Inevitable in the South China Sea?
Norman Pollack
Clinton Incorruptible: An Ideological Contrivance
Robert Fantina
The Time for Third Parties is Now!
Andre Vltchek
Like Trump, Hitler Also Liked His “Small People”
Serge Halimi
Provoking Russia
David Rovics
The Republicans and Democrats Have Now Switched Places
Andrew Stewart
Countering The Nader Baiter Mythology
Rev. William Alberts
“Law and Order:” Code words for White Lives Matter Most
Ron Jacobs
Something Besides Politics for Summer’s End
David Swanson
It’s Not the Economy, Stupid
Erwan Castel
A Faith that Lifts Barricades: The Ukraine Government Bows and the Ultra-Nationalists are Furious
Steve Horn
Did Industry Ties Lead Democratic Party Platform Committee to Nix Fracking Ban?
Robert Fisk
How to Understand the Beheading of a French Priest
Colin Todhunter
Sugar-Coated Lies: How The Food Lobby Destroys Health In The EU
Franklin Lamb
“Don’t Cry For Us Syria … The Truth is We Shall Never Leave You!”
Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin
The Artistic Representation of War and Peace, Politics and the Global Crisis
Frederick B. Hudson
Well Fed, Bill?
Harvey Wasserman
NY Times Pushes Nukes While Claiming Renewables Fail to Fight Climate Change
Elliot Sperber
Pseudo-Democracy, Reparations, and Actual Democracy
Uri Avnery
The Orange Man: Trump and the Middle East
Marjorie Cohn
The Content of Trump’s Character
Missy Comley Beattie
Pick Your Poison
Kathleen Wallace
Feel the About Turn
Joseph Grosso
Serving The Grid: Urban Planning in New York
John Repp
Real Cooperation with Nations Is the Best Survival Tactic
Binoy Kampmark
The Scourge of Youth Detention: The Northern Territory, Torture, and Australia’s Detention Disease
Kim Nicolini
Rain the Color Blue with a Little Red In It
Phillip Kim et al.
Open Letter to Bernie Sanders from Former Campaign Staffers
Cesar Chelala
Gang Violence Rages Across Central America
Tom H. Hastings
Africa/America
Robert Koehler
Slavery, War and Presidential Politics
Charles R. Larson
Review: B. George’s “The Death of Rex Ndongo”
July 28, 2016
Paul Street
Politician Speak at the DNC
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail