Coming
Soon!
From Common Courage Press
Recent
Stories
May
29, 2003
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Jason
Leopold
Despite Thin Intelligence Reports,
US Plans Overthrow of Iran Regime
Ron
Jacobs
Popular Uprising, Inc.
Michelle
Ciaccorra
Bush's Nuclear Policy: Do As I Say, Not As I Do
Yves Engler
The Economics of Health Care in
America: Pay More to Die Sooner
Kimberly
Blaker
Vouchers for Jesus
Harry
Browne
Stakeknife: Britain's Army Spy at
the Top of the IRA
Stew
Albert
Cops of the World
Steve Perry
Greens 04: In or Out?
May
28, 2003
David
Vest
DubyaCo.: It's Not So Funny Any More
Dave
Lindorff
My Grandfather's Medal
John
Stanton
America's Dying: Arts and Philosophy Hold the Key
Bernard
Weiner
A PNAC Primer
Robert
Jensen
Texas Dems Set a Standard for the Rest of the Party
Ahmad Faruqui
The Oil Business of Regime Change:
the CIA and Iran
Hammond
Guthrie
Disarming Conundrums
Steve Perry
What If There's No Such Thing as Al-Qaeda?
May
27, 2003
Kurt
Nimmo
Condoleezza Rice: Huckstress for Israeli
Myths
Anthony
Gancarski
Hillary: a Dem the NeoCons Could Love?
Patrick
Cockburn
Terror, Bush and Joseph Conrad
John Chuckman
an Interpretation of Bush's Character
Kathleen
Christison
What Sharon Wants, Sharon Gets
Jeffrey
Blankfort
AIPAC Hijacks the Roadmap
Steve
Perry
Trouble in the Hinterlands
Hot Stories
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Elaine
Cassel
Civil Liberties
Watch
Michel
Guerrin
Embedded Photographer Says: "I
Saw Marines Kill Civilians"
Uzma
Aslam Khan
The Unbearably Grim Aftermath of War:
What America Says Does Not Go
Paul de Rooij
Arrogant
Propaganda
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click Here
for More Stories.
|
May
31, 2003
Who Is Next?
Return to the
Peacock Throne
By SASAN FAYAZMANESH
The events of September 11, 2001, gave the so-called
neo-cons a perfect opportunity to realize an old dream: the US
subjugation of Iraq. Before this subjugation, however, the neo-cons
prepared the grounds by engaging in an incessant and massive
campaign about the alleged threats emanating from Iraq's support
for terrorism and its weapons of mass destructions. In retrospect,
the neo-cons' campaign turned out to be nothing more than a series
of fabrications and even outright lies. Now, with the US invasion
and occupation of Iraq complete, the neo-cons are busy making
the case for their next target, Iran. A day does not go by without
the neo-cons declaring the discovery of existence of al-Qaeda
operatives or nuclear and biological weapon-making facilities
in various parts of Iran. Is there any more truth to these discoveries
than those in Iraq? Some historical back-tracking is helpful
in answering the question.
Following the overthrow of the US's strongman,
the shah of Iran, in 1979, the US adopted what later came to
be known as "the dual containment policy." This policy
consisted of trying to "contain" both Iran and Iraq
in favor of the US's client states in the region, mainly Saudi
Arabia and Israel. The "containment" included: 1)
encouraging and helping Saddam to start a war with Iran; 2) acting
as a double agent by giving information and weapons to both sides,
such as giving chemical agents to Saddam and using Israel to
funnel arms to Iran in the infamous Iran-gate scandal; 3) establishing
full diplomatic relations with the government of Saddam in 1984,
after it became known that he was using chemical weapons against
the Iranian forces; 4) putting Iran, in the same year, on the
list of terrorist nations, so that it would not receive arms
from any country; 5) passing numerous sanctions against Iran,
particularly between 1984-87, to prevent it from winning the
war; and 6) directly engaging Iran in 1986 by re-flagging Kuwaiti
ships, sinking Iranian boats and oil platforms, and "accidentally"
shooting down an Iranian civilian plane, killing 290 on board.
The eight-year Iraq-Iran war ultimately resulted in over a million
casualties and devastated both countries economically, but it
did not exactly "contain" them. The containment of
Iraq came when the US attacked Iraq in 1991, after Ambassador
April Glaspie told Saddam that "we have no opinion on .
. . your border disagreement with Kuwait" and Saddam invaded
Kuwait. But the neo-cons and their close associates, Israel's
Likud party and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), were not satisfied with this Iraqi "containment."
Instead, they wanted to see the installment of a puppet government
in Baghdad and, hence, they started the relentless campaign against
Iraq, which led to its invasion and occupation.
With regard to Iran, following the Iraq-Iran
war, the US relied heavily on a policy of unilateral sanctions
to "contain" it. The sanction policy became more intense
in the 1990s under the leadership of Martin Indyk, former press
advisor to Issak Shamir, founder of the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy (an AIPAC offshoot), National Security Advisor
to Clinton for Middle East affairs and, ultimately, Ambassador
to Israel. Following the AIPAC lead, Indyk, who is often credited
for coining the "dual containment policy," formulated
three reasons for the continued US sanctions: Iran's support
for "international terrorism," meaning groups fighting
Israel; opposition to the Oslo peace process, which Likud opposed
as well; and pursuit of "weapons of mass destruction,"
which means any weapons that would prevent Israel from launching
an attack on Iran. The sanctions policies, however, failed to
destroy the Iranian economy and change the Iranian government's
"behavior."
Following the events of 9/11 and the
rapprochement between the Iranian reformers and the US State
Department, the Likud, AIPAC and the neo-cons went to work. According
to The Jerusalem Post of September 21, 2001, "Binyamin
Netanyahu, testifying before the House Government Reform Committee,
said that if the US includes terrorism-sponsoring regimes like
Syria, Iran, or the Palestinian Authority in a coalition against
worldwide terrorism, then the alliance 'will be defeated from
the beginning'". Shortly after, Ariel Sharon compared Powell's
"vision" of a Palestinian State and his attempt at
"coalition building" to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement
of the Nazis in the 1930s. He then warned President Bush of "existential
threats to Israel emanating from Iraq and Iran."
The war drums kept on beating well into
the following year. On January 4, 2002, Netanyahu wrote: "American
power topples the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and the al-Qaida
network there crumbles on its own. The United States must now
act similarly against the other terror regimesIran, Iraq,
Arafat's dictatorship, Syria, and a few others. Some of these
regimes will have to be toppled, some of them punished and deterred."
On February 5, 2002, Sharon said in an interview with The
London Times that "Iran is the center of 'world terror,'
and as soon as an Iraq conflict is concluded, he will push for
Iran to be at the top of the 'to do list'". The neo-cons
followed a similar line. However, whereas the Likud would have
liked to see Iran on the top of the hit-list, the neo-cons preferred
to hit Iraq first.
Now that Iraq is governed by the US,
the neo-cons and their cohorts are preparing the world for installing
a puppet government in Iran. In this, they are relying mostly
on the same dubious allegations that were used in the case of
Iraq, that is, support for al-Qaeda and the development of weapons
of mass destruction, particularly in Bushehr. But neither of
these excuses holds much water. With regard to the first, it
is hard to imagine that a country which nearly went to war against
the Taliban in 1998 would now support al-Qaeda. With regard to
the second, neither the US nor Israel ever raised any objections
to the Bushehr power plant when it was first constructed and
nearly completed by the shah in the mid 1970s.
Given the historical narrative outlined
above and the highly dubious charges that are being levied against
Iran, it is clear that the neo-cons are set on overthrowing the
Iranian government. What is less clear is exactly how this would
be done. It appears that a combination of a massive campaign
of deceit, economic and political destabilization, and ultimately
the use of force-including employing the services of the US's
"good terrorists," Mujahedin-e-Khalq-e-Iran, which
were preserved in Iraq for such contingencies-will do the job.
What is also not quite clear is who would rule Iran. It seems
that the Likud, AIPAC and neo-cons have decided that the lesser
shah, the son of the late dictator, should return to the Peacock
Throne to carry on his dad's policies, policies which led to
the Revolution of 1979 in the first place.
If the neo-cons and their cohorts are
successful, then history would indeed repeat itself, as Hegel
contended. But as Marx added, the first time is a tragedy and
the second time is a farce.
Sasan Fayazmanesh is Associate Professor of Economics Department
of Economics California State University, Fresno. Email: sasanf@csufresno.edu
Today's
Features
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Jason
Leopold
Despite Thin Intelligence Reports,
US Plans Overthrow of Iran Regime
Ron
Jacobs
Popular Uprising, Inc.
Michelle
Ciaccorra
Bush's Nuclear Policy: Do As I Say, Not As I Do
Yves Engler
The Economics of Health Care in
America: Pay More to Die Sooner
Kimberly
Blaker
Vouchers for Jesus
Harry
Browne
Stakeknife: Britain's Army Spy at
the Top of the IRA
Stew
Albert
Cops of the World
Steve Perry
Greens 04: In or Out?
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|