FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Bush is Cooking Up Two New Wars

 

Mired in interminable conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration is moving toward initiating two more wars, one with Iran and one with North Korea. With no US troops available, the Bush administration is revamping US war doctrine to allow for “preventative nuclear attack.” In short, the Bush administration is planning to make the US the first country in history to initiate war with nuclear weapons. The Pentagon document, “Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations,” calls for the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversaries in order “to ensure success of US and multinational operations.”

In the case of Iran and North Korea, the Bush administration is using diplomacy not for diplomatic purposes of reaching agreements, but in order to set the two countries up for nuclear attack. In the case of Iran, the Bush administration’s plan is now obvious. The Bush administration is leveling false charges against Iran, just as it did against Iraq, of conspiring to make nuclear weapons. These charges are known to be false by the Bush administration and by the entire world.

For the past two years the International Atomic Energy Agency has had unfettered access to inspect Iran for any sign of a nuclear weapons program. The head of the IAEA has announced that there is no sign of a weapons program. The Bush administration nevertheless insists that Iran is making weapons, but can produce no evidence. As in the case of Iraq, the Bush administration substitutes allegations for facts.

Gordon Prather, an expert on the subject, has reported the straight facts in fine detail. Readers can become familiar with them by consulting his archive at Antiwar.com.

By bullying the 35 members of the IAEA, the Bush administration last week managed to get 22 votes that could lead to the referral of Iran to the UN Security Council. The Bush administration will now lobby for the referral. Once it has the referral, even if the Security Council does not act on it, the Bush administration can use it as an excuse to attack Iran. The Bush administration knows that few Americans have any knowledge of international law and procedures and will simply believe whatever President Bush says. The highly concentrated US media is a proven walkover for the war-mongering Bush administration.

As Dr. Prather has shown, Iran has gone beyond compliance to propose that new additional safeguards be established to monitor its nuclear energy program. The bad intentions are on the part of the Bush administration.

The Bush administration’s plan is to create Iranian intransigence in place of cooperation by forcing the Iranian government to stand up to the bullying by reducing its cooperation. The goal of the Bush administration is to attack Iran, not to create cooperative relationships.

Needless to say, Iranians are angry at the Bush administration’s manipulation of the IAEA members. Last Wednesday protesters in Tehran attacked the British embassy, which serves as a proxy for the non-existent US embassy, and legislation was introduced that, if it passes, will scale back Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA. Iran has also threatened to cut off oil deliveries to some of the countries that caved in to US pressure, thereby permitting the US to increase tensions and escalate the conflict.

The Bush administration is betting that it can demonize Iran the way it did Iraq. As both Congress and the American public have failed to hold Bush accountable for deceiving them about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the administration assumes that its tactics will work a second time.

However, a nuclear attack on Iran would leave the Bush administration isolated. The US would instantly become a pariah nation, loathed and hated everywhere else.

Moreover, it would leave our battered troops in Iraq in a perilous situation. The only reason our army in Iraq has not been destroyed is that the Shi’ites, who comprise the vast majority of the population, have not taken up arms against us, expecting the US to turn over Iraq to them. As the Iraqi Shi’ites are allied with the Iranians, who also are Shi’ite, the US cannot attack Iran without destroying its position in Iraq.

The Bush administration, filled with hubris and delusion, is too stupid to know this.

The American people need to ask themselves why of all the countries in the world, only the US and Israel believe that it is imperative to attack Iran. If Iran is such a threat to the world, why isn’t Russia, for example, concerned and ready to invade?

Americans need to ask themselves the same question about North Korea. Why is the US, half a world away, so concerned about North Korea? If North Korea is such a threat, would not China, sitting on its border, know it? Wouldn’t Japan know it? South Korea? Wouldn’t some other country besides the US see the problem and take action? According to the Voice of America (August 11, 2005), “Senior South Korean officials on Thursday defended what they say is North Korea’s ‘natural right’ to pursue civilian nuclear power. The move may cause friction with the United States, which has expressed firm opposition to the North having any nuclear facilities whatsoever.”

If the US doesn’t want other countries to develop nuclear weapons, the US must stop bombing, invading and threatening invasions and nuclear attacks. How does President Bush serve the cause of peace by making countries paranoid by declaring them to be our enemies.

For there to be peace, the US must drop its belligerent role. The proper function of diplomacy is to build trust by drawing countries into economic and cultural relationships, not to isolate them for attack. It is past time for the US to give up its quarter century feud with Iran. US interference in Iranian internal affairs was the source of the feud. We need to acknowledge it and get over it.

The Korean war ended a half century ago. Isn’t it time the US acknowledged the war’s end and signed a treaty with North Korea? The Korean war was essentially a war between the US and China. It was Chinese troops that prevented American victory. Yet we are getting on with China, a much greater potential threat to the US than North Korea or Iran could ever be.

By creating instability in the Middle East, the US undermines Israel’s security. As a few thousand Iraqi insurgents have proven, American armies are not going to be able to sit over the oil in the Middle East. If we can’t produce enough valuable goods or maintain a strong currency, we won’t have access to the oil. There is no possibility whatsoever of the US pushing around powers like China, India, or Russia.

Bush’s hubris makes him unrealistic. He greatly overestimates America’s power. Congress and the American people must find a way to supply the judgment that is missing in the executive branch.

There would be no terrorism if the US would stop interfering in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries and if Israel stopped stealing the West Bank from the Palestinians. The Bush administration knows this, and that is why the administration spreads the propagandistic lie that “they” (Muslims) hate us and our way of life. This lie is the excuse for American aggression.

PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS has held a number of academic appointments and has contributed to numerous scholarly publications. He served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. His graduate economics education was at the University of Virginia, the University of California at Berkeley, and Oxford University. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CLARIFICATION

ALEXANDER COCKBURN, JEFFREY ST CLAIR, BECKY GRANT AND THE INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF JOURNALISTIC CLARITY, COUNTERPUNCH

We published an article entitled “A Saudiless Arabia” by Wayne Madsen dated October 22, 2002 (the “Article”), on the website of the Institute for the Advancement of Journalistic Clarity, CounterPunch, www.counterpunch.org (the “Website”).

Although it was not our intention, counsel for Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi has advised us the Article suggests, or could be read as suggesting, that Mr Al Amoudi has funded, supported, or is in some way associated with, the terrorist activities of Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorist network.

We do not have any evidence connecting Mr Al Amoudi with terrorism.

As a result of an exchange of communications with Mr Al Amoudi’s lawyers, we have removed the Article from the Website.

We are pleased to clarify the position.

August 17, 2005

 

More articles by:

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
February 21, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Election Con 2020: Exposing Trump’s Deception on the Opioid Epidemic
Joshua Frank
Bloomberg is a Climate Change Con Man
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Billion Dollar Babies
Paul Street
More Real-Time Reflections from Your Friendly South Loop Marxist
Jonathan Latham
Extensive Chemical Safety Fraud Uncovered at German Testing Laboratory
Ramzy Baroud
‘The Donald Trump I know’: Abbas’ UN Speech and the Breakdown of Palestinian Politics
Martha Rosenberg
A Trump Sentence Commutation Attorneys Generals Liked
Ted Rall
Bernie Should Own the Socialist Label
Louis Proyect
Encountering Malcolm X
Kathleen Wallace
The Debate Question That Really Mattered
Jonathan Cook
UN List of Firms Aiding Israel’s Settlements was Dead on Arrival
George Wuerthner
‘Extremists,’ Not Collaborators, Have Kept Wilderness Whole
Colin Todhunter
Apocalypse Now! Insects, Pesticide and a Public Health Crisis  
Stephen Reyna
A Paradoxical Colonel: He Doesn’t Know What He is Talking About, Because He Knows What He is Talking About.
Evaggelos Vallianatos
A New Solar Power Deal From California
Richard Moser
One Winning Way to Build the Peace Movement and One Losing Way
Laiken Jordahl
Trump’s Wall is Destroying the Environment We Worked to Protect
Walden Bello
Duterte Does the Right Thing for a Change
Jefferson Morley
On JFK, Tulsi Gabbard Keeps Very Respectable Company
Vijay Prashad
Standing Up for Left Literature: In India, It Can Cost You Your Life
Gary Leupp
Bloomberg Versus Bernie: The Upcoming Battle?
Richard Klin
Loss Leaders
Gaither Stewart
Roma: How Romans Differ From Europeans
Kerron Ó Luain
The Soviet Century
Mike Garrity
We Can Fireproof Homes But Not Forests
Fred Baumgarten
Gaslighting Bernie and His Supporters
Joseph Essertier
Our First Amendment or Our Empire, But Not Both
Peter Linebaugh
A Story for the Anthropocene
Danny Sjursen
Where Have You Gone Smedley Butler?
Dave Lindorff
What’s a Social Democratic Political Program Really Mean?
Jill Richardson
A Broken Promise to Teachers and Nonprofit Workers
Binoy Kampmark
“Leave Our Bloke Alone”: A Little Mission for Julian Assange
Wade Sikorski
Oil or Food? Notes From a Farmer Who Doesn’t Think Pipelines are Worth It
Christopher Brauchli
The Politics of Vengeance
Hilary Moore – James Tracy
No Fascist USA! Lessons From a History of Anti-Klan Organizing
Linn Washington Jr.
Ridiculing MLK’s Historic Garden State ‘Firsts’
L. Michael Hager
Evaluating the Democratic Candidates: the Importance of Integrity
Jim Goodman
Bloomberg Won’t, as They Say, Play Well in Peoria, But Then Neither Should Trump
Olivia Alperstein
We Need to Treat Nuclear War Like the Emergency It Is
Eleanor Eagan
As the Primary Race Heats Up, Candidates Forget Principled Campaign Finance Stands
Jesse Jackson
Kerner Report Set Standard for What a Serious Presidential Candidate Should Champion
ADRIAN KUZMINSKI
Home Sweet Home: District Campaign Financing
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
The Latest BLM Hoodwinkery: “Fuel Breaks” in the Great Basin
Wendell Griffen
Grace and Gullibility
Cesar Chelala
Brazil’s Bolsonaro Says No to Democracy
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail