PUBLICUSS
By Robert
F. Seibert
TheyÕre BaaaaackÉ
The drums of war are sounding loud and insistent in
Washington these days. A call for war with Iran is rolling over the country.
And as unlikely as it might seem, with all of the problems and frustrations
over our ill-considered invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration and the
neoconservatives are once again trying to convince us that an expansion of this
war into Iran is in our national interest.
They are, I suspect, about half-way there. The Senate
passed an ill-advised nonbinding resolution recently calling for the branding
of IranÕs Republican Guards as a terrorist organization. Our closest ally,
Israel, bombed Syria recently with administration support and suffered very
little diplomatically for it. IsraelÕs enthusiasm for a similar raid against
Iran is public and loud. Some Israeli leaders are pushing for a unilateral
attack on Iran should the U.S., for one reason or another; fail to lead in a
preemptive attack.
The identical cast of characters that gave us Iraq as
an exercise in preemptive war, now argues publicly with no shame in favor of
doing the same to Iran. Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Norman Podhoretz, George
Bush, Joe Lieberman and their associates are hard at work around the world
pushing the case. They are, by and large, not challenged by our mainstream
media in their claims or their previous misrepresentations. They are using the
same arguments: Iran has or will have weapons of mass destruction; they are
terrorists, complicit in some way in 9/11; they are trying to kill us. This is
a virtual recycling of the selling of the Iraq war. If we buy it again, we are
fools. How did the president put it, Òfool me once, shame on me, fool me again,
good for meÉÓ Something like it, anyway.
There is an element of desperation in their efforts,
as the days of this administration inevitably wind down. So much to do, so
little time to do it. The unprecedented concentration of U.S. naval power in
the Persian Gulf (three carriers with more on call) cannot be maintained
indefinitely. Strike while the iron is hot, they argue. WeÕll talk about the
details later. ItÕs not too late for another American empire, another American
century.
In Seymour HershÕs latest work in the New Yorker,
(ÒShifting TargetsÉ,Ó the New Yorker, October 8.) he lays out the contours of
the administrationÕs organization of this effort. Not surprisingly, it is
structurally similar to the task force that gave us the Iraq imbroglio. And
again, patent and manifest ignorance of our adversary hangs over the decision
makers like a cloud of willful stupidity. As a long line of investigators
revealed of our decision-making over Iraq, ignorance of the facts on the ground
in Iran is a requirement for membership in this group of Òdeciders.Ó
They know little about Iran and they appear to be
proud of it. Ignorance is bliss, they say, and this is the happiest group of
plotters in Washington in the past five or six years.
Ironically, they are aided and abetted by the Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad circus, an act composed of equal parts serious almost scholarly
analysis paired with some of the most na•ve and ignorant statements and
positions of recent record. His denials of the Holocaust, for example, provide
a rich target for the aforementioned neoconservatives; his point that the
Palestinians werenÕt responsible for it and in no wise deserved to be punished
for it is as well-taken as the denial is ludicrous. Pres. AhmadinejadÕs prose
and analysis of world affairs contributes to IranÕs vulnerability, just as
Saddam HusseinÕs public displays of machismo and brutality made IraqÕs defense
immeasurably difficult.
Equally damaging is our own powerful ignorance of Iran
and its history. In the interests of an open and full discussion of Iran and
its role in contemporary international affairs, let me present you with a short
history of Iran and the U.S. since 1945.
Part II
Iran has a very low profile in American institutions
of higher learning. Very few colleges and universities regularly offer more
than a pittance of courses on Persia and its very substantial contributions to
the development of world civilization. This is also true, until recently, of
China, India, the Ottomans and pre-colonial Africa.
One result of this academic disinterest is that the
fruit of of academic enterprise, our students, are for the most part ignorant
of Iran, in either its historical or contemporary dimensions. This is
unfortunate for a variety of reasons, not the least that it provides an open
invitation for ignorance and bigotry.
Why do they hate us, you ask. Well, actually they
donÕt, but they (Iranians, Chinese, Indians, FilipinosÉetc.) have pretty good
reasons to be wary of us. For example in the case of Iran:
1945-1948
— as WWII came to
a close, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R become engaged in a struggle for power, the
infamous Cold War between east and west. Iran, for geopolitical reasons, was at
the early epicenter of that struggle, as were Greece and Turkey. For this
reason the U.S., as the surviving superpower of the world, was concerned about
the internal politics of Iran, fearing that it might succumb to the
blandishments or intrigues of the Russians.
After a short period of turbulence, Iran managed to
organize a democratic form of government. Elections brought an Iranian
nationalist to power, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh had the gall
to attempt to nationalize IranÕs oil industry, a policy that struck at the
heart of British economic interests there.
In 1953, a covert operation managed by the U.S. and
Great Britain organized a coup dÕetat against the democratic government,
deposing Mossadegh and placing the young heir of the previous shah on the
throne, reestablishing the Pahlevi monarchy. The young shah, Muhammad Reza
Palaver, developed into the autocratic absolute ruler of Iran, who stayed in
power until the revolution in 1979. This regimes brutality was evident, as was
its successful attempt to build one of the worldÕs largest, most modern
standing armies. The U.S. was pleased to sell the arms to Iran necessary for
this venture, and to cooperate with the Iranian secret police, SAVAK. None of
this is secret, I might add, or even controversial. The conspirators in the
coup have written their memoirs; and in the aftermath of the Iranian
revolution, many corroborating documents were discovered and published.
Thus it is that the U.S. is widely understood as the
international power that destroyed its early democracy and placed a tyrant on
the Peacock Throne. But thatÕs not all of the story.
1979 — In 1979, the shah succumbed to the
revolutionaries in Iran and fled the country. Eventually, he was given
sanctuary in the U.S. by President Carter. Shortly thereafter, U.S. officials,
including former CIA bureaucrats, visited
Iran for the apparent purpose of identifying the next military candidate
for US support. This effort indirectly led to the U.S. hostage crisis in Iran,
as Iranian revolutionaries
attempted to forestall the U.S. intervention in their country. As least this is
how the events are understood widely there. US historians tend to disagree with
this interpretation, I concede.
1980 — Frustrated by IranÕs stubborn
independence, the U.S. during the Reagan Administration, began a proxy war
against Iran, using the resources of its Iraqi ally, Saddam Hussein. (ThatÕs
right not a misprint: the US ally,
Saddam Hussein.) The war ran for eight long years until an exhausted Iran
agreed to a deal with an exhausted Iraq. During the hearings on the illegal
Iraq-Iran weapons sales, part of the Iran Contra Affair in which the proceeds
of the sales were diverted to U.S. interventions in Latin America, it was
ultimately shown that the U.S. shared support and intelligence with both sides
in the conflict.
1990 — In the aftermath of the first Gulf War,
the U.S. encouraged a ShiÕa rebellion in the south of Iraq and then abandoned
them to the tender mercies of Saddam Hussein. The Iranians, sensitive to the
plight of their ShiÕa brethren in Iraq, felt betrayed by the cynical U.S.
response.
2001 — Iran cooperates with the U .S. in the
suppression of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iran exercises restraint, resists
the opportunities to interfere in Iraq, supporting the suppression of Saddam
Hussein. For its efforts it earns the enmity of the Bush administration.
Iranians see in the pattern of US actions after WWII a
consistent attempt to control and exploit Iran. In this perception, they are
conceded respect and admiration in the region for their efforts to stand up to
this predatory superpower. Iran is wildly popular in many of the most important
countries in the region.
This also provides Iran with a convenient rationale
for their nuclear project. They have been threatened for years by the U.S.
nuclear arsenal; and they are also threatened annually by the Israeli
government, who insists that it will consider the nuclear option if they
Òmust.Ó Iran, like the rest of the Middle East, knows that Israel has loaded
its nukes on more than one occasion. They understand themselves to be in
political conflict with two states: one, the only nuclear power to ever have
used nuclear weapons in anger; the other a nuclear power that insists it is
willing to do so if its national interest so dictates. It is simply rational to
seek a deterrent.
It is ironic, given this history of engagement with
the U.S., that Iranians are still somewhat open to dealing with the U.S. Iranians
still have a favorable impression of American technology, culture and political
institutions. They have a very unfavorable impression of our government.
I had a chance encounter with a number of Iranian
tourists in Syria a decade ago. We were visiting an historical site near
Damascus, fifteen or so of us, when three huge Iranian tour buses pulled up and
their passengers disgorged. After confirming our identity, they expressed a
desire to talk with us. The substance of their message, was that ÒIranians like
America and its Americans. But we dislike your government.Ó
I think this sentiment is still viable in Iran and in
other areas around the world where we have used our power brutally and
ignorantly. But time is running out. The world is changing, technology is
diffusing, nuclear arms are becoming cheaper and more available. Our victims
are becoming impatientÉ
Publicuss.
10/4/07