|
“The
problem of the Iranian regime has become entrenched over the course of an
entire generation,” Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas
Burns told the House International Relations Committee March 8. “It may
require a generational struggle to address it, but we have no choice but
to do so.” As the International Atomic Energy Agency -- heavily pressured
by the U.S. to condemn Iran -- was meeting to finalize a report to the UN
Security Council about the country’s nuclear program, Burns (the number
three man in the State Department) left little doubt as to Washington’s
ultimate intentions. “We must defeat Iran in its pursuit of nuclear
weapons and its sponsorship of terrorism and its subjugation of the people
of Iran.”
He might as well have just said, “We must defeat Iran” and left it at
that. The nuclear weapons, terrorism and repression issues are all
pretexts for regime change, just as they were with Iraq. If Burns were
more candid, less Straussian, he might say something like the following:
“The Iranian regime, which emerged after a popular uprising toppled our
puppet the Shah in 1979, has been able to survive these many years. That’s
a damned shame, because from 1953 to 1979 the U.S. called the shots in
that populous, petroleum-rich, strategically located country which we’d
placed on a par with NATO allies by the 1970s. It was an incalculable loss
-- we’re still not reconciled to it -- made all the worse because we
couldn’t just dismiss it as an anti-American plot by anyone in particular.
The uprising was so huge and inclusive, involving the revolutionary left,
progressive democrats, various Islamists and pretty much everybody. The
fact is, it happened because our Shah had subjugated the people of Iran,
just as we accuse the present government of doing, and the people rebelled
as subjugated people tend to do.
“What we could do was use the ‘hostage crisis’ (that occurred after
we refused to hand over the Shah for trial) to encourage anti-Iranian
feeling and aggressive nationalism here in the U.S. back in the Carter and
Reagan years. In a country burned by the Vietnam War and beset by the
pacifistic ‘Vietnam Syndrome,’ the outpouring of bloodlust was a
comforting sign that Americans might once again unite behind a ‘good war’
against dehumanized others. But the regime became entrenched, despite the
Iraqi war of aggression against it in the 1980s -- which we supported, of
course -- and our tireless efforts to undermine it.
“But since 9-11 we’ve found that we can manipulate public opinion against
any Muslim target, by raising fears of terrorist attacks and mushroom
clouds over New York. Fortunately, Iran supports Palestinian and Lebanese
organizations that we, for our own and Israel’s reasons, list as
‘terrorist.’ Fortunately, many Americans are willing to believe that all
the Muslim ‘terrorist’ groups are somehow linked to those who attacked the
U.S. four and a half years ago. They’re altogether willing to believe
they’re all linked -- if only through the presence of Evil in the cosmos
-- to al-Qaeda. So we can tell them that Iran is trying to build nukes,
and repeat that again and again. Inclined to believe the worst about
Muslims, they’ll buy our claims. Of course we don’t really know
what Iran’s up to, and the scientists tell us that Iran is years away from
having the ability to produce nukes. We just assume, anyway, that any
government leading a big self-respecting country like Iran -- which is
surrounded by nuclear China, India, Pakistan, Russia and Israel and
targeted for overthrow by our nuclear selves -- probably does want
to have nuclear weapons someday. So what we need to say is, they’re
definitely working on nukes, right now, and even though of course an
Iran with nukes would no more threaten the U.S. than (say) Pakistan, we
can throw down the gauntlet on this issue.
“So when we say ‘we have no choice’ but to ‘address’ the ‘Iranian problem’
and ‘defeat it,’ we don’t really mean we feel any actual
necessity to smash Iran to defend the U.S. (We don’t even think we need to
do it to defend Israel, although of course Iran’s a much bigger threat to
Israel than to us, and we need to emphasize that issue -- as the president
has -- before some audiences more than others. It gets a bit tricky,
because on the one hand you want to gather support from AIPAC and other
groups who’ve been calling the Iranian government an “existential threat”
to Israel and desperately promoting a U.S. attack on Iran as the preferred
alternative to an Israeli one. On the other, you don’t want people saying,
‘Bush wants to attack Iran just to help Israel.’ You want to kind of
downplay that aspect, and if people start playing it up in the wrong way,
you need to accuse them of anti-Semitism and make them shut up.)
“The real necessity we feel here, ladies and gentlemen, is the need to
compete with other imperialist countries for geopolitical position in this
post-Cold War era, especially in this region overflowing with oil. Used to
be that if we wanted to attack one of these countries we’d have to deal
with the Soviet Union! But here nowadays we have this huge chunk of real
estate stretching from Central Asia to the Mediterranean, this slough of
nasty Muslim states that’s up for grabs. If we control it, through puppet
regimes, dot it with military bases, capitalize its development, control
the flow of petroleum products from it -- well, then, we’ll be
well-positioned to take on any emerging rivals. We’ll have Europe and
Japan and China over a barrel. We have no choice but to seize the
opportunity to build empire -- or risk decline vis-à-vis our friendly
and less friendly contenders in what we intend to make the ‘New
American Century.’
“Now, we can’t put it in those terms for public consumption, because
normal Americans don’t think empire-building’s worth the lives of their
kids. But just between you and me, Congressmen and Congresswomen, if we’re
going to pull this off we have to use ‘noble lies’ to scare the masses and
make them think we must defeat Iran. Any attack on Iran in the near future
will be entirely a war of choice. But we must say in public the exact
opposite to obtain our goals. We really have no choice but to say we have
no choice in order to take advantage of the opportunities.”
Gary
Leupp
is a Professor
of History, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion, at Tufts
University and author of numerous works on Japanese history. He can be
reached at:
gleupp@granite.tufts.edu.
Other Articles by Gary
Leupp
* Exposing
Incitements: Those Danish Muhammad Cartoons
* 2005: A Year
of Maoist Resurgence
* Neocons
Considered Planting WMD Evidence in Iraq?
* What a
Difference a Year Can Make: Will 2006 be 1966?
* Reorganizing
Rumsfeld’s Inner Circle
* Iran and
Syria Still in the Crosshairs
* Celebrating
the True Meaning of December 25 -- Happy Birthday Mithras!
* A Syrian
Chalabi? An Ominous Neocon Gathering
* “Why Are You
Reading the Little Red Book?”
* “It’s Just a
Goddamned Piece of Paper!”: Throwing US Constitution in the Prez’s Face
* Bush the
Dupe?
* The Niger
Uranium Forgery of December 2003
* Connected at
the Roots? Judith Miller, “Scooter” Libby, and the June Notes
* The IAEA
Vote Against Iran
* The
Prachanda Path Towards Urban Insurrection
* New Orleans
and the System that Destroyed It
*
Rethinking the
War in Afghanistan
*
The Fascist
View of Public Intellectuals
* Bolton’s
Proudest Moment: Breaking the UN’s Anti-Zionist Resolution
*
Maoist and
Muslim Insurgencies in the Philippines
*
Jefferson,
Mao, and the Revolution in Nepal
HOME
|
|