by Noam Chomsky
The dedicated
efforts of the Bush administration to take control of Iraq – by war, military
coup or some other means – have elicited various analyses of the guiding motives.
Offering one
interpretation, Anatol Lieven, senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace in Washington DC, observes that the Bush administration's
efforts conform to "the classic modern strategy of an endangered
right-wing oligarchy, which is to divert mass discontent into nationalism"
through fear of external enemies.
The
administration's goal, Lieven says, is "unilateral world domination
through absolute military superiority", which is why much of the world is
so frightened.
But the
administration has overlooked a simple alternative to invading Iraq. Let Iran
do it. Before elaborating on this modest proposal, it's worthwhile to examine
the antecedents of Washington's bellicosity.
Ever since the
September 11 attacks, Republicans have used the terrorist threat as a pretext
to push a right-wing political agenda. For the congressional elections, the
strategy has diverted attention from the economy to war. When the presidential
campaign begins, Republicans surely do not want people to be asking questions
about their pensions, jobs, healthcare and other matters.
Rather, they
should be praising their heroic leader for rescuing them from imminent
destruction by a foe of colossal power, and marching on to confront the next
powerful force bent on our destruction.
September 11
provided an opportunity and pretext to implement long-standing plans to take
control of Iraq's immense oil wealth, a central component of the Persian Gulf
resources that the State Department in 1945 described as a "stupendous
source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world
history".
Control of
energy sources fuels US economic and military might, and "strategic
power" translates to a lever of world control. A different interpretation
is that the administration believes exactly what it says: Iraq has suddenly
become a threat to our very existence and to its neighbors.
So we must
ensure that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the means for producing them
are destroyed, and Saddam Hussein, the monster himself, eliminated. And
quickly. The war must be waged this (northern) winter. Next winter will be too
late. By then the mushroom cloud that National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice predicts may have already consumed us.
Let us assume that
this interpretation is correct. If the powers in the Middle East fear
Washington more than Saddam, as they apparently do, that just reveals their
limited grasp of reality.
It is only an
accident that by next winter the US presidential campaign will be under way.
How then can we achieve the announced goals? One simple plan seems to have been
ignored, perhaps because it would be regarded as insane, and rightly so. But it
is instructive to ask why.
The modest
proposal is for the US to encourage Iran to invade Iraq, providing the Iranians
with the necessary logistical and military support, from a safe distance
(missiles, bombs, bases, etc). As a proxy, one pole of "the axis of
evil" would take on another.
The proposal has
many advantages over the alternatives. First, Saddam will be overthrown – in
fact, torn to shreds along with anyone close to him. His weapons of mass
destruction will also be destroyed, along with the means to produce them.
Second, there
will be no American casualties. True, many Iraqis and Iranians will die. But
that can hardly be a concern. Those in US President George W. Bush's circle –
many of them recycled Reaganites – strongly supported Saddam after he attacked
Iran in 1980, quite oblivious to the enormous human cost, either then or under
the subsequent sanctions regime.
Saddam is likely
to use chemical weapons. But the current leadership firmly backed the
"Beast of Baghdad" when he used chemical weapons against Iran in the
Reagan years, and when he used gas against "his own people", the
Iraqi Kurds.
The current
Washington planners continued to support the Beast after he had committed by
far his worst crimes, even providing him with means to develop weapons of mass
destruction, nuclear and biological, right up to the Kuwait invasion.
Third, the UN
will be no problem. It will be unnecessary to explain to the world that the UN
is relevant when it follows US orders, but irrelevant when it doesn't.
Fourth, Iran
surely has far better credentials for war-making, and for running a post-Saddam
Iraq, than Washington. Unlike the Bush administration, Iran has no record of
support for the murderous Saddam and his program of weapons of mass
destruction.
Fifth, the
liberation will be greeted with enthusiasm by much of the population, far more
so than if Americans invade. People will cheer on the streets of Basra and
Karbala, and we can join Iranian journalists in hailing the nobility and just
cause of the liberators.
Sixth, Iran can
move towards instituting "democracy". The majority of the population
is Shi'ite, and Iran would have fewer problems than the US in granting them
some say in a successor government. There will be no problem in gaining access
to Iraqi oil.
Granted, the
modest proposal that Iran liberate Iraq is insane. Its only merit is that it is
far more reasonable than the plans now being implemented – or it would be, if
the administration's professed goals had any relation to the real ones.
Noam Chomsky is an internationally renowned Professor of
Linguistics at MIT, and is America's leading dissident intellectual. He is the
author of many books, including most recently 9-11 (Seven Stories Press,
2001), A New Generation Draws the Line (Verso, 2000), The New
Military Humanism (Common Courage, 1999), and The Fateful Triangle: The
United States, Israel & the Palestinians (South End Press, new edition
1999).