Why Bush Can Get Away with Attacking Iran
Jean Bricmotnt | 05.09.2007 07:26 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Terror War | World
Many people in the antiwar movement try to reassure themselves: Bush cannot possibly attack Iran. He does not have the means to do so, or, perhaps, even he is not foolish enough to engage in such an enterprise. Various particular reasons are put forward, such as: If he attacks, the Shiites in Iraq will cut the US supply lines. If he attacks, the Iranians will block the Straits of Ormuz or will unleash dormant terrorist networks worldwide. Russia won't allow such an attack. China won't allow it -- they will dump the dollar. The Arab world will explode.
All this is doubtful. The Shiites in Iraq are not simply obedient to Iran. If they don't rise against the United States when their own country is occupied (or if don't rise very systematically), they are not likely to rise against the US if a neighboring country is attacked. As for blocking the Straits or unleashing terrorism, this will just be another justification for more bombing of Iran. After all, a main casus belli against Iran is, incredibly, that it supposedly helps the resistance against U.S. troops in Iraq, as if those troops were at home there. If that can work as an argument for bombing Iran, then any counter-measure that Iran might take will simply "justify" more bombing, possibly nuclear. Iran is strong in the sense that it cannot be invaded, but there is little it can do against long range bombing, accompanied by nuclear threats.
Russia will escalate its military buildup (which now lags far behind the U.S. one), but it can't do anything else, and Washington will be only too glad to use the Russian reaction as an argument for boosting its own military forces. China is solely concerned with its own development and won't drop the dollar for non-economic reasons. Most Arab governments, if not their populations, will look favorably on seeing the Iranian shiite leadership humiliated. Those governments have sufficient police forces to control any popular opposition-- after all, that is what they managed to do after the attack on Iraq.
With the replacement of Chirac by Sarkozy, and the near-complete elimination of what was left of the Gaullists (basically through lawsuits on rather trivial matters), France has been changed from the most independent European country to the most poodlish (this was in fact the main issue in the recent presidential election, but it was never even mentioned during the campaign). In France, moreover, the secular "left" is, in the main, gung-ho against Iran for the usual reasons (women, religion). There will be no large-scale demonstrations in France either before or after the bombing. And, without French support, Germany--where the war is probably very unpopular -- can always be silenced with memories of the Holocaust, so that no significant opposition to the war will come from Europe (except possibly from its Muslim population, which will be one more argument to prove that they are "backward", "extremist", and enemies of our "democratic civilization").
All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American "left". The issue of course is not whether Iran is nice or not according to our views -- but whether there is any legal reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant ideology of human rights has legitimized, specially in the left, the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time, and that ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor issue of international law.
Israel and its fanatical American supporters want Iran attacked for its political crimes--supporting the rights of the Palestinians, or questioning the Holocaust. Both U.S. political parties are equally under the control of the Israel lobby, and so are the media. The antiwar movement is far too preoccupied with the security of Israel to seriously defend Iran and it won't attack the real architects of this coming war--the Zionists-- for fear of "provoking antisemitism". Blaming Big Oil for the Iraq war was quite debatable, but, in the case of Iran, since the country is about to be bombed but not invaded, there is no reason whatsoever to think that Big Oil wants the war, as opposed to the Zionists. In fact, Big Oil is probably very much opposed to the war, but it is as unable to stop it as the rest of us.
As far as Israel is concerned, the United States is a de facto totalitarian society--no articulate opposition is acceptable. The U.S. Congress passes one pro-Israel or anti-Iran resolution after another with "Stalinist" majorities. The population does not seem to care. But if they did, but what could they do? Vote? The electoral system is extremely biased against the emergence of a third party and the two big parties are equally under Zionist influence.
The only thing that might stop the war would be for Americans themselves to threaten their own government with massive civil disobedience. But that is not going to happen. A large part of the academic left long ago gave up informing the general public about the real world in order to debate whether Capital is a Signifier or a Signified, or worry about their Bodies and their Selves, while preachers tell their flocks to rejoice at each new sign that the end of the world is nigh. Children in Iran won't sleep at night, but the liberal American intelligentsia will lecture the ROW (rest of the world) about Human Rights. In fact, the prevalence of the "reassuring arguments" cited above proves that the antiwar movement is clinically dead. If it weren't, it would rely on its own forces to stop war, not speculate on how others might do the job.
Meanwhile, an enormous amount of hatred will have been spewed upon the world. But in the short term, it may look like a big Western "victory", just like the creation of Israel in 1948; just like the overthrow of Mossadegh by the CIA in 1953; just like the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine seemed to be a big German victory after the French defeat at Sedan in 1870. The Bush administration will long be gone when the disastrous consequences of that war will be felt.
PS: This text is not meant to be a prophecy, but a call to (urgent) action. I'll be more than happy if facts prove me wrong.
------------------------
Jean Bricmont teaches physics in Belgium and is a member of the Brussels Tribunal. His new book, Humanitarian Imperialism, is published by Monthly Review Press.
Russia will escalate its military buildup (which now lags far behind the U.S. one), but it can't do anything else, and Washington will be only too glad to use the Russian reaction as an argument for boosting its own military forces. China is solely concerned with its own development and won't drop the dollar for non-economic reasons. Most Arab governments, if not their populations, will look favorably on seeing the Iranian shiite leadership humiliated. Those governments have sufficient police forces to control any popular opposition-- after all, that is what they managed to do after the attack on Iraq.
With the replacement of Chirac by Sarkozy, and the near-complete elimination of what was left of the Gaullists (basically through lawsuits on rather trivial matters), France has been changed from the most independent European country to the most poodlish (this was in fact the main issue in the recent presidential election, but it was never even mentioned during the campaign). In France, moreover, the secular "left" is, in the main, gung-ho against Iran for the usual reasons (women, religion). There will be no large-scale demonstrations in France either before or after the bombing. And, without French support, Germany--where the war is probably very unpopular -- can always be silenced with memories of the Holocaust, so that no significant opposition to the war will come from Europe (except possibly from its Muslim population, which will be one more argument to prove that they are "backward", "extremist", and enemies of our "democratic civilization").
All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American "left". The issue of course is not whether Iran is nice or not according to our views -- but whether there is any legal reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant ideology of human rights has legitimized, specially in the left, the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time, and that ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor issue of international law.
Israel and its fanatical American supporters want Iran attacked for its political crimes--supporting the rights of the Palestinians, or questioning the Holocaust. Both U.S. political parties are equally under the control of the Israel lobby, and so are the media. The antiwar movement is far too preoccupied with the security of Israel to seriously defend Iran and it won't attack the real architects of this coming war--the Zionists-- for fear of "provoking antisemitism". Blaming Big Oil for the Iraq war was quite debatable, but, in the case of Iran, since the country is about to be bombed but not invaded, there is no reason whatsoever to think that Big Oil wants the war, as opposed to the Zionists. In fact, Big Oil is probably very much opposed to the war, but it is as unable to stop it as the rest of us.
As far as Israel is concerned, the United States is a de facto totalitarian society--no articulate opposition is acceptable. The U.S. Congress passes one pro-Israel or anti-Iran resolution after another with "Stalinist" majorities. The population does not seem to care. But if they did, but what could they do? Vote? The electoral system is extremely biased against the emergence of a third party and the two big parties are equally under Zionist influence.
The only thing that might stop the war would be for Americans themselves to threaten their own government with massive civil disobedience. But that is not going to happen. A large part of the academic left long ago gave up informing the general public about the real world in order to debate whether Capital is a Signifier or a Signified, or worry about their Bodies and their Selves, while preachers tell their flocks to rejoice at each new sign that the end of the world is nigh. Children in Iran won't sleep at night, but the liberal American intelligentsia will lecture the ROW (rest of the world) about Human Rights. In fact, the prevalence of the "reassuring arguments" cited above proves that the antiwar movement is clinically dead. If it weren't, it would rely on its own forces to stop war, not speculate on how others might do the job.
Meanwhile, an enormous amount of hatred will have been spewed upon the world. But in the short term, it may look like a big Western "victory", just like the creation of Israel in 1948; just like the overthrow of Mossadegh by the CIA in 1953; just like the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine seemed to be a big German victory after the French defeat at Sedan in 1870. The Bush administration will long be gone when the disastrous consequences of that war will be felt.
PS: This text is not meant to be a prophecy, but a call to (urgent) action. I'll be more than happy if facts prove me wrong.
------------------------
Jean Bricmont teaches physics in Belgium and is a member of the Brussels Tribunal. His new book, Humanitarian Imperialism, is published by Monthly Review Press.
Jean Bricmotnt
Homepage:
http://www.counterpunch.org/bricmont09042007.html
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
Reviews of "Humanitarian Imperialism"
05.09.2007 08:17
Imperialism in the Guise of Humanitarianism
Steven Sherman
Using "Humanitarian Intervention" to Justify Imperial Wars
Daniel Luban
“Humanitarian Wars” and Associated Delusions
Paul de Rooij
Scanner
Don't believe this
05.09.2007 08:29
This is a piece designed to instill more of the apathy that pervades the world regarding US imperialism and war crimes. Some of that multi-million dollar pentagon propaganda budget seems to have found a happy recipient.
It may be penned in the style of someone who is concerned, but the real message is "Iran will be bombed but nothing will happen". This is very dangerous indeed. Every commentator on the Middle East should be doing everything possible to prevent any further conflict in the M.E., not providing covert support by suggesting that there will be no immediate consequences.
This is more anti-Iranian, pro-war propaganda dressed up as critical comment. Disgraceful.
There will be immediate consequences from Iran, of that there should be no doubt whatsoever. The only people that think and say otherwise are the Neocons and Zionists.
piece of crap
fishy fishy
05.09.2007 09:01
This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Firstly what 'urgent' action would Mr Bricmont (who mis-spells his name in the sign-off btw) suggest? Secondly, he'll be happy if the facts prove him wrong. which facts? That there will be no bombs dropped, or that there will be massive retaliation?
This article stinks. He should stick to physics.
Winston Smith
Bricmonts article is ChomskyLite
05.09.2007 10:18
"It may be penned in the style of someone who is concerned, but the real message is "Iran will be bombed but nothing will happen". This is very dangerous indeed. Every commentator on the Middle East should be doing everything possible to prevent any further conflict in the M.E., not providing covert support by suggesting that there will be no immediate consequences."
I feel you have misinterpreted the article, although I would agree he seriously underestimates the likely consequences of an attack even if we allow it to happen. Iran is far from powerless in the Persian Gulf and any attack there would not be supported worldwide. I feel the article is vindicated by the last sentence "This text is not meant to be a prophecy, but a call to (urgent) action." I hope you would agree we in the UK do have to act now to prevent another well-signalled, unjustifiable slaughter.
Which brings me to "Firstly what 'urgent' action would Mr Bricmont ... suggest? "
He shouldn't have to suggest actions, not here at least. The first act incumbent on us is to oppose pro-war propaganda in any form. Their arguments are false and we have the wit to expose them as false. Secondly, direct action of any variety to sabotage the war-machine before it destroys another million lives for oil - we have the skills to do this, if we sometimes lack the courage and the focus.
It doesn't take courage to derail World War Three, cowardice is also a motivating factor. It doesn't take wit to sift pro-war PR from anti-war calls to action. I can easily see 'piece of crap' is merely too purist to be effectual in a just cause, while 'winston smith' is pure state PR.
Danny
there will be no attack on Iran.
05.09.2007 10:53
stonecastle
There will be no attack on Iran?
05.09.2007 13:55
This cuts no ice, what did the US do when it was bogged down in Vietnam? They started carpet bombing Laos and Cambodia.
"Second it has no more domestic support from either the Ameirca people or other American politicians especially the Democrats."
The lack of support isn't a big deal for them, they didn't have it for Iraq and they can spin any number of real or fabricated incidents to increase support for war, this is how it is done, it's the MO of Empire.
The democratic leadership are fully behind the attack on Iran, this has been mentioned on this site many times.
"some Democratic members of Congress may be more hawkish than Republicans in regard to Iran"
"Influential Democrats, such as the new leader of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, and would-be presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have disported themselves before the Israeli lobby. Edwards is regarded in his party as a “liberal”. He was one of a high-level American contingent at a recent Israeli conference in Herzilya, where he spoke about “an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel (sic). At the top of these threats is Iran . . . All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon.” Hillary Clinton has said, “US policy must be unequivocal . . . We have to keep all options on the table.”"
"The Democratic Party is one with the Republicans in the mission to subjugate Tehran."
"Third there have already been negotiations between American leaders and the Iranian regime so the diplomatic route seems to be the most favoured."
Ha ha, this fooled you?
The next nuclear war is coming, how many days after the bombing before the DU reaches the UK? It took 9 days last time, did you see this?
Radiation Experts: The Next War will Endanger the Planet
Steve Beckow
Also on the prospect of war with Iran:
Do We Have the Courage to Stop War With Iran?
Ray McGovern
Where is the anti-war movement? Remember the protests before the onslaught against Iraq? That wasn't enough to stop it and now we need even more protests but we have almost none.
I Wish