In a clear effort
to debunk all the 'peace' chatter from President Barrack Obama and others, the
U-S military industrial complex is ramping up disinformation and outright
fictional scenarios to promote the lucrative business of conflict. Yes, war
(who would have guessed) is hugely profitable for the business community. Iran
has been conveniently chosen to play the part of evildoer that is a threat to
world peace and the survival of freedom and liberty everywhere.
For about four
years now we have been inundated with warnings that Iran's theocracy is on a
suicide mission; that it will gladly martyr perhaps hundreds of millions of
people, just to prove to the world that the Zionists who run Israel should be
destroyed.
This is
laughable. It's as if Hollywood cartoons are the template for U-S foreign
policy.
Yet serious and otherwise intelligent people offer the argument that it
would be the worst thing ever for Iran to have nuclear weaponry. Israeli Prime
Minister Benyamin Netanyahu's feverish rhetoric, during the home stretch of the
U-S presidential campaign, that the world (read U-S-A) must draw a 'red line'
in the sand is only inflaming an already burning region of the world and
feeding the ravenous military-industrial monster.
This brings us to
a little bit of recent history and the arguments that real western statesmen
have made - that 'containment' is better than war; that 'containment' or
'deterrence' helps prevent war; that rational governments avoid war.
The Soviet Union
held off western attempts to inflict democracy on its empire by developing a
massive, sophisticated nuclear arsenal. One atomic bomb can kill tens of
thousands of people and raze a large area in a flash. The USSR built 4,000 to
6,000 nuclear bombs and placed them in strategic regions of its sprawling
sphere of influence and domination. The Soviet's rush to militarism might have seemed
insane and dangerous at the time, but it was perfectly rational. It was a clear
defense mechanism that did it's job. No nation ever launched a nuclear attack
on the USSR and it, being mostly rational, never did either.
Still, the
pro-war lobby is drowning out those pragmatic historians who know that if two
nations have the capability to destroy one another, chances are there will be a
productive, non-military relationship, if not actual peace.
From all I've
read (much of it between the lines) Iran just wants to be left alone. It has
not started a war, despite some threatening rhetoric from one or two of its
politicians. It has been invaded, by neighbouring Iraq and its U-S-armed leader
Saddam Hussein. More than a million Iranians were killed in the 8-year
conflict.
So there's
absolutely no evidence that Iran has imperialist ambitions to swallow up its
neighbours. Influence? Certainly. It is large and a key nation in a volatile
region, but it also a student of history and, thus, realizes that expansionist,
military aggression is bound to fail (see Hitler and the Third Reich.). Thus,
there's really nothing to 'contain', as in the U-S hawks' clarion call that
'Iran must be contained'.
Containment was
the watch-word of western allies in dealing with the Soviet Union and
communism. It was a much better option than launching a military, or even
nuclear, strike. Eventually the weight of its own ineffectiveness crushed the
Soviet system.
Deterrence is a
different story, even though I would argue that it's also the wrong term to use
regarding Iran. And deterrence works both ways.
Who's to say that
Iran could be developing a nuclear arsenal to 'deter' Israel and others with
nuclear weaponry from attacking it? In fact, if Teheran is building atomic
weapons (the Ayatollahs say they are not, that it is anti-Islamic) it would
make potential warmongering invaders think twice.
As Bill Keller
asked in a recent New York Times article, "If the U.S. arsenal deterred the Soviet Union for decades of
cold war and now keeps North Korea’s nukes in their silos, if India and
Pakistan have kept each other in a nuclear stalemate, why would Iran not be
similarly deterred by the certainty that using nuclear weapons would bring a
hellish reprisal?"
My point,
precisely. The west might wish that Iran's government was a western-style
democracy, not a theocracy, but they the Ayatollahs are rational. Those robed
and bearded Mullahs may rail against Zionism, but not Jews. In fact, Iranian
Jews are represented in the multi-party system that comprises Iran's
parliament.
Even one of the
U-S's least rational Republicans, Senator Lindsey Graham, defeated his own
pro-war mentality when he let slip that, "They (Iran's leaders) have two
goals: one, regime survival. The best way for the regime surviving, in their
mind, is having a nuclear weapon, because when you have a nuclear weapon,
nobody attacks you."
Same can be said
the Israel's Zionists. They went nuclear, just in case. Senator Graham added
Iran's theocracy would also like to influence neighbours and trading partners.
He is quoted as saying "people listen to you" when you have a nuclear
weapon. Good point.
Point taken, in
fact, by no less than the U-S, Russia, China, France, the U-K, India, Pakistan,
North Korea and Israel.
A nuclear-armed
Iran could actually stabilize the region and allow its many nations to sit down
and work out there differences, similarities and common needs. It would
certainly make potential invaders reconsider. Yes, the rich Saudi theocratic
dictators might use such an Iranian acquisition as an excuse to do the same.
But guess who would benefit? The west's military industrial complex. An
excellent business opportunity.
If Israel's
nuclear stockpiled protects it from hostilities, why is Iran any different?
Also, ask
yourself this (amid the torrent of sabre-rattling by U-S and Israeli hawks) -
would Iran's leaders gladly murder millions of Palestinians in a nuclear
holocaust, assure its own destruction and most certainly propel the world into
war?
I don't think so.
The ultimate
irony here is that the U-S sabre-rattlers are mostly members of the National
Rifle Association, which argues that the more guns, the merrier. That if you are armed, you are safer. If your household contains armaments and you have the inalienable right to kill
burglars, the bad guys would probably leave your house alone. Apparently that
premise is faulty on a world scale.
One other quick thought
(which will likely be the subject of a future blog) - how warm and cozy would
the United States feel if, say, Iran invaded a neighbouring country (Mexico)
and occupied it for a decade? A little threatened, perhaps?
