[Peace-discuss] Chomsky, "The Election, Economy, War, and Peace" (selections)

[C. G. Estabrook]

...A good question is why the margin of victory for the opposition party was so 
small, given the circumstances. One possibility is that neither party reflected 
public opinion at a time when 80% think the country is going in the wrong 
direction and that the government is run by "a few big interests looking out for 
themselves," not for the people, and a stunning 94% object that government does 
not attend to public opinion. As many studies show, both parties are well to the 
right of the population on many major issues, domestic and international...

Obama's message of "hope" and "change" offered a blank slate on which supporters 
could write their wishes...

The Obama campaign greatly impressed the public relations industry, which named 
Obama "Advertising Age's marketer of the year for 2008," easily beating out 
Apple. The industry's prime task is to ensure that uninformed consumers make 
irrational choices, thus undermining market theories.  And it recognizes the 
benefits of undermining democracy the same way.  The Center for Responsive 
Politics reports that once again elections were bought ... Obama's campaign 
contributions, by industry, were concentrated among law firms (including 
lobbyists) and financial institutions. The investment theory of politics 
suggests some conclusions about the guiding policies of the new administration.

The power of financial institutions reflects the increasing shift of the economy 
from production to finance since the liberalization of finance in the 1970s, a 
root cause of the current economic malaise: the financial crisis, recession in 
the real economy, and the miserable performance of the economy for the large 
majority, whose real wages stagnated for 30 years, while benefits declined...

It is instructive to compare this picture to the workings of a functioning 
democracy such as Bolivia. The popular movements of the third world do not 
conform to the favored Western doctrine that the "function" of the "ignorant and 
meddlesome outsiders" - the population -- is to be "spectators of action" but 
not "participants" (Walter Lippmann, articulating a standard progressive view).

Perhaps there might even be some substance to fashionable slogans about "clash 
of civilizations."

In earlier periods of American history, the public refused to keep to its 
assigned "function." Popular activism has repeatedly been the force that led to 
substantial gains for freedom and justice...

To punish Bolivians for showing "the world an extraordinary example of democracy 
at work," the Bush administration cancelled trade preferences, threatening tens 
of thousands of jobs, on the pretext that Bolivia was not cooperating with US 
counter-narcotic efforts. In the real world, the UN estimates that Bolivia's 
coca crop increased 5 percent in 2007, as compared with a 26 percent increase in 
Colombia, the terror state that is Washington's closest regional ally and the 
recipient of enormous military aid...

"Drug wars" have regularly been used as a pretext for repression, violence, and 
state crimes, at home as well...

Turning to the future, what can we realistically expect of an Obama 
administration? We have two sources of information: actions and rhetoric.  The 
most important actions to date are selection of staff. The first selection was 
for vice-President: Joe Biden, one of the strongest supporters of the Iraq 
invasion among Senate Democrats, a long-time Washington insider, who 
consistently votes with his fellow Democrats but not always, as when he 
supported a measure to make it harder for individuals to erase debt by declaring 
bankruptcy.

The first post-election appointment was for the crucial position of chief of 
staff: Rahm Emanuel, one of the strongest supporters of the Iraq invasion among 
House Democrats and like Biden, a long-term Washington insider.  Emanuel is also 
one of the biggest recipients of Wall Street campaign contributions, the Center 
for Responsive Politics reports.  He "was the top House recipient in the 2008 
election cycle of contributions from hedge funds, private equity firms and the 
larger securities/investment industry." Since being elected to Congress in 2002, 
he "has received more money from individuals and PACs in the securities and 
investment business than any other industry"; these are also among Obama's top 
donors. His task is to oversee Obama's approach to the worst financial crisis 
since the 1930s, for which his and Obama's funders share ample responsibility.

In an interview with an editor of the Wall Street Journal, Emanuel was asked 
what the Obama administration would do about "the Democratic congressional 
leadership, which is brimming with left-wing barons who have their own agenda," 
such as slashing defense spending (in accord with the will of the majority of 
the population) and "angling for steep energy taxes to combat global warming," 
not to speak of the outright lunatics in Congress who toy with slavery 
reparations and even sympathize with Europeans who want to indict Bush 
administration war criminals for war crimes. "Barack Obama can stand up to 
them," Emanuel assured the editor. The administration will be "pragmatic," 
fending off left extremists.

Obama's transition team is headed by John Podesta, Clinton's chief of staff. The 
leading figures in his economic team are Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, both 
enthusiasts for the deregulation that was a major factor in the current 
financial crisis. As Treasury Secretary, Rubin worked hard to abolish the 
Glass-Steagall act, which had separated commercial banks from financial 
institutions that incur high risks. Economist Tim Canova comments that Rubin had 
"a personal interest in the demise of Glass-Steagall." Soon after leaving his 
position as Treasury Secretary, he became "chair of Citigroup, a 
financial-services conglomerate that was facing the possibility of having to 
sell off its insurance underwriting subsidiary ... the Clinton administration 
never brought charges against him for his obvious violations of the Ethics in 
Government Act."

  Rubin was replaced as Treasury Secretary by Summers, who presided over 
legislation barring federal regulation of derivatives, the "weapons of mass 
destruction" (Warren Buffett) that helped plunge financial markets to disaster. 
He ranks as "one of the main villains in the current economic crisis," according 
to Dean Baker, one of the few economists to have warned accurately of the 
impending crisis. Placing financial policy in the hands of Rubin and Summers is 
"a bit like turning to Osama Bin Laden for aid in the war on terrorism," Baker adds.

  The business press reviewed the records of Obama's Transition Economic 
Advisory Board, which met on November 7 to determine how to deal with the 
financial crisis. In Bloomberg News, Jonathan Weil concluded that "Many of them 
should be getting subpoenas as material witnesses right about now, not places in 
Obama's inner circle." About half "have held fiduciary positions at companies 
that, to one degree or another, either fried their financial statements, helped 
send the world into an economic tailspin, or both." Is it really plausible that 
"they won't mistake the nation's needs for their own corporate interests?" He 
also pointed out that chief of staff Emanuel "was a director at Freddie Mac in 
2000 and 2001 while it was committing accounting fraud."

  Those are the actions, at the time of writing.  The rhetoric is "change" and 
"hope."

The primary concern for the administration will be to arrest the financial 
crisis and the simultaneous recession in the real economy. But there is also a 
monster in the closet: the notoriously inefficient privatized health care 
system, which threatens to overwhelm the federal budget if current tendencies 
persist. A majority of the public has long favored a national health care 
system, which should be far less expensive and more effective, comparative 
evidence indicates (along with many studies). As recently as 2004, any 
government intervention in the health care system was described in the press as 
"politically impossible" and "lacking political support" - meaning: opposed by 
the insurance industry, pharmaceutical corporations, and others who count. In 
2008, however, first Edwards, then Obama and Clinton, advanced proposals that 
approach what the public has long preferred. These ideas now have "political 
support." What has changed? Not public opinion, which remains much as before. 
But by 2008, major sectors of power, primarily manufacturing industry, had come 
to recognize that they are being severely damaged by the privatized health care 
system. Hence the public will is coming to have "political support." There is a 
long way to go, but the shift tells us something about dysfunctional democracy.

International Relations

Internationally, there is not much of substance on the largely blank slate. What 
there is gives little reason to expect much a change from Bush's second term, 
which stepped back from the radical ultranationalism and aggressive posture of 
the first term, also discarding some of the extreme hawks and opponents of 
democracy (in action, that is, not soothing words), like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

Israel-Palestine

The immediate issues have to do mostly with the Middle East. On 
Israel-Palestine, rumors are circulating that Obama might depart from the US 
rejectionism that has blocked a political settlement for over 30 years, with 
rare exceptions, notably for a few days in January 2001 before promising 
negotiations were called off prematurely by Israel. The record, however, 
provides no basis for taking the rumors seriously. I have reviewed Obama's 
formal positions elsewhere (Perilous Power), and will put the matter aside here 
... it leaves us with nothing except [Obama's] fervent professions of love for 
Israel and dismissal of Palestinian concerns.

Iraq

On Iraq, Obama has frequently been praised for his "principled opposition" to 
the war. In reality, as he has made clear, his opposition has been entirely 
unprincipled throughout. The war, he said, is a "strategic blunder." When 
Kremlin critics of the invasion of Afghanistan called it a strategic blunder, we 
did not say that they were taking a principled stand...

Within the political class and the media it is reflexively assumed that 
Washington has the right to demand terms for the SOFA. No such right was 
accorded to Russian invaders of Afghanistan, or indeed to anyone except the US 
and its clients. For others, we rightly adopt the principle that invaders have 
no rights, only responsibilities, including the responsibility to attend to the 
will of the victims, and to pay massive reparations for their crimes. In this 
case, the crimes include strong support for Saddam Hussein through his worst 
atrocities on Reagan's watch, then on to Saddam's massacre of Shiites under the 
eyes of the US military after the first Gulf War; the Clinton sanctions that 
were termed "genocidal" by the distinguished international diplomats who 
administered them and resigned in protest, and that also helped Saddam escape 
the fate of other gangsters whom the US and Britain supported to the very end of 
their bloody rule; and the war and its hideous aftermath. No such thoughts can 
be voiced in polite society...

Afghanistan, Pakistan...

Obama's announced "vision" was to shift forces from Iraq to Afghanistan. That 
stand evoked a lesson from the editors of the Washington Post: "While the United 
States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the 
country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the 
geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest 
oil reserves." Increasingly, as Washington has been compelled to accede to Iraqi 
demands, tales about "democracy promotion" and other self-congratulatory fables 
have been shelved in favor of recognition of what had been obvious throughout to 
all but the most doctrinaire ideologists: that the US would not have invaded if 
Iraq's exports were asparagus and tomatoes and the world's major energy 
resources were in the South Pacific.

The NATO command is also coming to recognize reality publicly. In June 2007, 
NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer informed a meeting of NATO members 
that "NATO troops have to guard pipelines that transport oil and gas that is 
directed for the West," and more generally to protect sea routes used by tankers 
and other "crucial infrastructure" of the energy system. That is the true 
meaning of the fabled "responsibility to protect." Presumably the task includes 
the projected $7.6-billion TAPI pipeline that would deliver natural gas from 
Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India, running through Afghan's Kandahar province, 
where Canadian troops are deployed. The goal is "to block a competing pipeline 
that would bring gas to Pakistan and India from Iran" and to "diminish Russia's 
dominance of Central Asian energy exports," the Toronto Globe and Mail reported, 
plausibly outlining some of the contours of the new "Great Game."

Obama strongly endorsed the then-secret Bush administration policy of attacking 
suspected al-Qaeda leaders in countries that Washington has not (yet) invaded, 
disclosed by the New York Times shortly after the election. The doctrine was 
illustrated again on October 26, when US forces based in Iraq raided Syria, 
killing 8 civilians, allegedly to capture an al-Qaeda leader. Washington did not 
notify Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki or President Talabani, both of whom have 
relatively amicable relations with Syria, which has accepted 1.5 million Iraqi 
refugees and is bitterly opposed to al-Qaeda. Syria protested, claiming, 
credibly, that if notified they would have eagerly apprehended this enemy. 
According to Asia Times, Iraqi leaders were furious, and hardened their stance 
in the SOFA negotiations, insisting on provisions to bar the use of Iraqi 
territory to attack neighbors.

The Syria raid elicited a harsh reaction in the Arab world. In pro-government 
newspapers, the Bush administration was denounced for lengthening its "loathsome 
legacy" (Lebanon), while Syria was urged to "march forward in your 
reconciliatory path" and America to "keep going backwards with your language of 
hatred, arrogance and the murder of innocents" (Kuwait). For the region 
generally, it was another illustration of what the government-controlled Saudi 
press condemned as "not diplomacy in search of peace, but madness in search of war."

Obama was silent. So were other Democrats. Political scientist Stephen Zunes 
contacted the offices of every Democrat on the House and Senate Foreign 
Relations Committees, but was unable to find any critical word on the US raid on 
Syria from occupied Iraq.

Presumably, Obama also accepts the more expansive Bush doctrine that the US not 
only has the right to invade countries as it chooses (unless it is a "blunder," 
too costly to us), but also to attack others that Washington claims are 
supporting resistance to its aggression. In particular, Obama has, it seems, not 
criticized the raids by Predator drones that have killed many civilians in Pakistan.

These raids of course have consequences: people have the odd characteristic of 
objecting to slaughter of family members and friends. Right now there is a 
vicious mini-war being waged in the tribal area of Bajaur in Pakistan, adjacent 
to Afghanistan. BBC describes widespread destruction from intense combat, 
reporting further that "Many in Bajaur trace the roots of the uprising to a 
suspected US missile strike on an Islamic seminary, or madrassa, in November 
2006, which killed around 80 people." The attack on the school, killing 80-85 
people, was reported in the mainstream Pakistani press by the highly respected 
dissident physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy, but ignored in the US as insignificant. 
Events often look different at the other end of the club.

Hoodbhoy observed that the usual outcome of such attacks "has been flattened 
houses, dead and maimed children, and a growing local population that seeks 
revenge against Pakistan and the US." Bajaur today may be an illustration of the 
familiar pattern.

On November 3, General Petraeus, the newly appointed head of the US Central 
Command that covers the Middle East region, had his first meeting with Pakistani 
President Asif Ali Zardari, army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and other 
high officials. Their primary concern was US missile attacks on Pakistani 
territory, which had increased sharply in previous weeks. "Continuing drone 
attacks on our territory, which result in loss of precious lives and property, 
are counterproductive and difficult to explain by a democratically elected 
government," Zardari informed Petraeus. His government, he said, is "under 
pressure to react more aggressively" to the strikes. These could lead to "a 
backlash against the US," which is already deeply unpopular in Pakistan.

Petraeus said that he had heard the message, and "we would have to take 
[Pakistani opinions] on board" when attacking the country. A practical 
necessity, no doubt, when over 80% of the supplies for the US-NATO war in 
Afghanistan pass through Pakistan.

  Pakistan developed nuclear weapons, outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty 
(NPT), thanks in no small measure to Ronald Reagan, who pretended not to see 
what his ally was doing. This was one element of Reagan's "unstinting support" 
for the "ruthless and vindictive" dictator Zia ul-Haq, whose rule had "the most 
long-lasting and damaging effect on Pakistani society, one still prevalent 
today," the highly respected analyst Ahmed Rashid observes. With Reagan's firm 
backing, Zia moved to impose "an ideological Islamic state upon the population." 
These are the immediate roots of many of "today's problems - the militancy of 
the religious parties, the mushrooming of madrassas and extremist groups, the 
spread of drug and Kalashnikov culture, and the increase in sectarian violence."

  The Reaganites also "built up the [Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, 
ISI] into a formidable intelligence agency that ran the political process inside 
Pakistan while promoting Islamic insurgencies in Kashmir and Central Asia," 
Rashid continues. "This global jihad launched by Zia and Reagan was to sow the 
seeds of al Qaeda and turn Pakistan into the world center of jihadism for the 
next two decades." Meanwhile Reagan's immediate successors left Afghanistan in 
the hands of the most vicious jihadis, later abandoning it to warlord rule under 
Rumsfeld's direction. The fearsome ISI continues to play both sides of the 
street, supporting the resurgent Taliban and simultaneously acceding to some US 
demands.

  The US and Pakistan are reported to have reached "tacit agreement in September 
[2008] on a don't-ask-don't-tell policy that allows unmanned Predator aircraft 
to attack suspected terrorist targets" in Pakistan, according to unidentified 
senior officials in both countries. "The officials described the deal as one in 
which the U.S. government refuses to publicly acknowledge the attacks while 
Pakistan's government continues to complain noisily about the politically 
sensitive strikes."

  Once again problems are caused by the "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders" who 
dislike being bombed by an increasingly hated enemy from the other side of the 
world.

  The day before this report on the "tacit agreement" appeared, a suicide 
bombing in the conflicted tribal areas killed eight Pakistani soldiers, 
retaliation for an attack by a US Predator drone that killed 20 people, 
including two Taliban leaders. The Pakistani parliament called for dialogue with 
the Taliban. Echoing the resolution, Pakistani foreign Minister Shah Mehmood 
Qureshi said "There is an increasing realization that the use of force alone 
cannot yield the desired results."

  Afghan President Hamid Karzai's first message to president-elect Obama was 
much like that delivered to General Petraeus by Pakistani leaders: "end US 
airstrikes that risk civilian casualties." His message was sent shortly after 
coalition troops bombed a wedding party in Kandahar province, reportedly killing 
40 people. There is no indication that his opinion was "taken on board."

  The British command has warned that there is no military solution to the 
conflict in Afghanistan and that there will have to be negotiations with the 
Taliban, risking a rift with the US, the Financial Times reports.  Correspondent 
Jason Burke, who has long experience in the region, reports that "the Taliban 
have been engaged in secret talks about ending the conflict in Afghanistan in a 
wide-ranging 'peace process' sponsored by Saudi Arabia and supported by Britain."

  Some Afghan peace activists have reservations about this approach, preferring 
a solution without foreign interference. A growing network of activists is 
calling for negotiations and reconciliation with the Taliban in a National Peace 
Jirga, a grand assembly of Afghans, formed in May 2008.  At a meeting in support 
of the Jirga, 3,000 Afghan political and intellectuals, mainly Pashtuns, the 
largest ethnic group, criticized "the international military campaign against 
Islamic militants in Afghanistan and called for dialogue to end the fighting," 
AFP reported.

  The interim chairman of the National Peace Jirga, Bakhtar Aminzai, "told the 
opening gathering that the current conflict could not be resolved by military 
means and that only talks could bring a solution. He called on the government to 
step up its negotiations with the Taliban and Hizb-i-Islami groups." The latter 
is the party of the extremist radical Islamist warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a 
Reagan favorite responsible for many terrible atrocities, now reported to 
provide core parliamentary support for the Karzai government and to be pressing 
it towards a form of re-Talibanization.

Aminzai said further that "We need to pressure the Afghan government and the 
international community to find a solution without using guns." A spokeswoman 
added that "We are against Western policy in Afghanistan. They should bury their 
guns in a grave and focus on diplomacy and economic development." A leader of 
Awakened Youth of Afghanistan, a prominent antiwar group, says that we must end 
"Afghanicide -- the killing of Afghanistan." In a joint declaration with German 
peace organizations, the National Peace Jirga claimed to represent "a wide 
majority of Afghan people who are tired of war," calling for an end to 
escalation and initiation of a peace process.

The deputy director of the umbrella organization of NGOs in the country says 
that of roughly 1,400 registered NGOs, nearly 1,100 are purely Afghan 
operations: women's groups, youth groups and others, many of them advocates of 
the Peace Jirga.

  Though polling in war-torn Afghanistan is a difficult process, there are some 
suggestive results. A Canadian-run poll found that Afghans favor the presence of 
Canadian and other foreign troops, the result that made the headlines in Canada. 
Other findings suggest some qualifications. Only 20% "think the Taliban will 
prevail once foreign troops leave." Three-fourths support negotiations between 
the Karzai government and the Taliban, and more than half favor a coalition 
government. The great majority therefore strongly disagree with the US-NATO 
focus on further militarization of the conflict, and appear to believe that 
peace is possible with a turn towards peaceful means. Though the question was 
not asked, it is reasonable to surmise that the foreign presence is favored for 
aid and reconstruction.

A study of Taliban foot soldiers carried out by the Toronto Globe & Mail, though 
not a scientific survey as they point out, nevertheless yields considerable 
insight. All were Afghan Pashtuns, from the Kandahar area. They described 
themselves as Mujahadeen, following the ancient tradition of driving out foreign 
invaders. Almost a third reported that at least one family member had died in 
aerial bombings in recent years. Many said that they were fighting to defend 
Afghan villagers from air strikes by foreign troops. Few claimed to be fighting 
a global Jihad, or had allegiance to Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Most saw 
themselves as fighting for principles - an Islamic government -- not a leader. 
Again, the results suggest possibilities for a negotiated peaceful settlement, 
without foreign interference.

A valuable perspective on such prospects is provided by Sir Rodric Braithwaite, 
a specialist on Afghanistan who was UK ambassador to Moscow during the crucial 
1988-92 period when the Russians withdrew (and the USSR collapsed), then 
becoming chair of the British Joint Intelligence Committee. On a recent visit, 
Braithwaite spoke to Afghan journalists, former Mujahideen, professionals, 
people working for the US-based "coalition" - in general, to "natural supporters 
for its claims to bring peace and reconstruction." In the Financial Times, he 
reports that they were "contemptuous of President Hamid Karzai," regarding him 
as another one of the puppets installed by foreign force. Their favorite was 
"Mohammad Najibullah, the last communist president, who attempted to reconcile 
the nation within an Islamic state, and was butchered by the Taliban in 1996: 
DVDs of his speeches are being sold on the streets. Things were, they said, 
better under the Soviets. Kabul was secure, women were employed, the Soviets 
built factories, roads, schools and hospitals, Russian children played safely in 
the streets. The Russian soldiers fought bravely on the ground like real 
warriors, instead of killing women and children from the air. Even the Taliban 
were not so bad: they were good Muslims, kept order, and respected women in 
their own way. These myths may not reflect historical reality, but they do 
measure a deep disillusionment with the `coalition' and its policies."

  Specialists on the region urge that US strategy should shift from more troops 
and attacks in Pakistan to a "diplomatic grand bargain -- forging compromise 
with insurgents while addressing an array of regional rivalries and 
insecurities" (Barnett Rubin and Ahmed Rashid in Foreign Affairs, Nov.-Dec. 
2008). They warn that the current military focus "and the attendant terrorism" 
might lead to the collapse of nuclear-armed Pakistan, with grim consequences. 
They urge the incoming US administration "to put an end to the increasingly 
destructive dynamics of the Great Game in the region" through negotiations that 
recognize the interests of the concerned parties within Afghanistan as well as 
Pakistan and Iran, but also India, China and Russia, who "have reservations 
about a NATO base within their spheres of influence" and concerns about the 
threats "posed by the United States and NATO" as well as by al-Qaeda and the 
Taliban. The immediate goal should be "Lowering the level of violence in the 
region and moving the global community toward genuine agreement on the long-term 
goals," thus allowing Afghans to confront their internal problems peacefully. 
The incoming US president must put an end to "Washington's keenness for 
`victory' as the solution to all problems, and the United States' reluctance to 
involve competitors, opponents, or enemies in diplomacy."

It appears that there are feasible alternatives to escalation of the cycle of 
violence, but there is little hint of it in the electoral campaign or political 
commentary. Afghanistan and Pakistan do not appear among foreign policy issues 
on the Obama campaign's website.

Iran

Iran, in contrast, figures prominently -- though not of course as compared with 
effusive support for Israel; Palestinians remain unmentioned, apart from a vague 
reference to a two-state settlement of some unspecified kind. For Iran, Obama 
supports tough direct diplomacy "without preconditions" in order "to pressure 
Iran directly to change their troubling behavior," namely pursuing a nuclear 
program and supporting terrorism (presumably referring to support for Hamas and 
Hezbollah). If Iran abandons its troubling behavior, the US might move towards 
normal diplomatic and economic relations. "If Iran continues its troubling 
behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation." And as 
Obama informed the Israeli Lobby (AIPAC), "I will do everything in my power to 
prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon" - up to nuclear war, if he meant 
what he said.

Furthermore Obama will strengthen the NPT "so that countries like North Korea 
and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international 
sanctions." There is no mention of the conclusion of US intelligence with "high 
confidence" that Iran has not had a weapons program for 5 years, unlike US 
allies Israel, Pakistan, India, which maintain extensive nuclear weapons 
programs in violation of the NPT with direct US support, all unmentioned here as 
well.

The final mention of Iran is in the context of Obama's strong support for 
Israel's "Right to Self Defense" and its "right to protect its citizens." This 
commitment is demonstrated by Obama's co-sponsorship of "a Senate resolution 
against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel 
should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of 
Hezbollah missiles." The reference is to Israel's US-backed invasion of Lebanon 
in 2006, with pretexts that are hardly credible in light of Israel's regular 
practices. This invasion, Israel's fifth, killed over 1000 Lebanese and once 
again destroyed much of southern Lebanon as well as parts of Beirut.

This is the sole mention of Lebanon among foreign policy issues on Obama's 
website. Evidently, Lebanon has no right of self defense. In fact who could 
possibly have a right of self defense against the US or its clients?

Nor does Iran have such rights. Among specialists, even rational hawks, it is 
well understood that if Iran is pursuing a weapons program, it is for 
deterrence. In the conservative National Interest, former CIA weapons inspector 
David Kay speculates that Iran might be moving towards "nuclear weapons 
capability," with the "strategic goal" of countering a US threat that "is real 
in Teheran's eyes," for good reasons that he reviews. He notes further that 
"Perhaps the biggest agitator of all in this is the United States, with its 
abbreviated historical memory and diplomatic ADD." Wayne White, formerly deputy 
director for the Near East and South Asia in State Department intelligence, 
dismisses the possibility that Supreme Leader Khamenei and the clerical elite, 
who hold power in Iran, would throw away the "vast amounts of money" and "huge 
economic empires" they have created for themselves "in some quixotic attack 
against Israel with a nuclear weapon," if they had one. The probability of that 
is virtually undetectable, he points out.

  White agrees that Iran might seek weapons capability (which is not the same as 
weapons) for deterrence. He goes on to suggest Iran might also recall that 
Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons program when Israel bombed its Osiraq 
reactor in 1981, and that the attack led him to initiate a program using nuclear 
materials it had on hand as a result of the bombing. At the time, White was Iraq 
analyst for State Department intelligence, with access to a rich body of 
evidence. His testimony adds internal US intelligence confirmation to the very 
credible evidence available at once, later strengthened by reports of Iraqi 
defectors, that the Israeli bombing did not terminate, but rather initiated, 
Saddam's pursuit of nuclear weapons. US or Israeli bombing of Iranian 
facilities, White and other specialists observe, might have the same effect. 
Violence consistently elicits more violence in response.

  These matters are well understood by informed hardliners. The leading 
neoconservative expert on Iran, Reuel Marc Gerecht, formerly in the CIA Middle 
East division, wrote in 2000 that:

	Tehran certainly wants nuclear weapons; and its reasoning is not illogical. 
Iran was gassed into surrender in the first Persian Gulf War; Pakistan, Iran's 
ever more radicalized Sunni neighbor to the southeast, has nuclear weapons; 
Saddam Hussein, with his Scuds and his weapons-of-mass-destruction ambitions, is 
next door; Saudi Arabia, Iran's most ardent and reviled religious rival, has 
long-range missiles; Russia, historically one of Iran's most feared neighbors, 
is once again trying to reassert its dominion in the neighboring Caucasus; and 
Israel could, of course blow the Islamic Republic to bits. Having been 
vanquished by a technologically superior Iraq at a cost of at least a 
half-million men, Iran knows very well the consequences of having insufficient 
deterrence. And the Iranians possess the essential factor to make deterrence 
work: sanity. Tehran or Isfahan in ashes would destroy the Persian soul, about 
which even the most hard-line cleric cares deeply. As long as the Iranians 
believe that either the U.S. or Israel or somebody else in the region might 
retaliate with nuclear weapons, they won't do something stupid.

  Gerecht also understands very well the real "security problem" posed by 
Iranian nuclear weapons, should it acquire them:

	A nuclear-armed Islamic Republic would of course check, if not checkmate, the 
United States' maneuvering room in the Persian Gulf.  We would no doubt think 
several times about responding to Iranian terrorism or military action if Tehran 
had the bomb and a missile to deliver it. During the lead-up to the second Gulf 
War, ruling clerical circles in Tehran and Qom were abuzz with the debate about 
nuclear weapons. The mullahs...agreed: if Saddam Hussein had had nuclear 
weapons, the Americans would not have challenged him. For the "left" and the 
"right," this weaponry is the ultimate guarantee of Iran's defense, its 
revolution, and its independence as a regional great power.

  With appropriate translations for the doctrinal term "Iranian terrorism," 
Gerecht's concerns capture realistically the threat posed by an Iran with a 
deterrent capacity (Iranian military action is quite a remote contingency).

While as usual ignored as irrelevant to policy formation, American public 
opinion is close to that of serious analysts and also to world opinion. Large 
majorities oppose threats against Iran, thus rejecting the Bush-Obama position 
that the US must be an outlaw state, violating the UN Charter, which bars the 
threat of force. The public also joins the majority of the world's states in 
endorsing Iran's right, as a signer of the NPT, to enrich uranium for nuclear 
energy (the position endorsed also by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kissinger and 
others when Iran was ruled by the tyrant imposed by US-UK subversion). Most 
important, the public favors establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the 
Middle East, which would mitigate and perhaps eliminate this highly threatening 
issue.

Popular Influence

These observations suggest an interesting thought experiment. What would be the 
content of the "Obama brand" if the public were to become "participants" rather 
than mere "spectators in action"? It is an experiment well worth undertaking, 
and there is good reason to suppose that the results might point the way to a 
saner and more decent world.

URL: 	http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/19749