Can You See That Train A-Comin'?

The Iran war will happen. Having learned from the mistakes in the Iraqi war buildup, mostly the matter of soothing ruffled feathers among the doubters, this time President Bush will go out of his way to claim he has gone that extra mile in pursuing diplomatic solutions. But this is merely a ploy. The decision to change the regime in Iran was made years ago; the Iraqi invasion was only step one. If one reviews Bush's statements in the past few days, and parses the language, future developments are clear.

Bush has stated very clearly that Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, that they are trying to do so; thus, they must stop all enrichment activities, Iran cannot even be allowed to attain the knowledge of nuclear weapons-grade enrichment. The logic is impeccable, and the conclusion is inescapable: they must and will be stopped. Boom! With more sophistication this time but still using a worn-out script, the administration is setting up the scenario that if we accept his premises then war will be the only choice.

We are once again being played for suckers. Evidence exists that we were deliberately misled into war and that Bush is arrogating unconstitutional, dictatorial powers to himself, but there's about zero probability that he will be impeached. And the reasons are simple. Few in the mainstream (the ruling junta, its apologists and all too loyal oppostion) disagree with basic policy; they simply lack the brashness, recklessness, and visionary sweep of the neo-cons and their leader. Most elected officials are more worried about keeping their positions than about our citizenry and our future. If we don't like the way things are going we must make a mighty ruckus about it and hold our officials' feet to the fire, and if they won't work to create the kind of world we want we will have to sweep them away. It would be nice to have increased depth and breadth in our political debates. To do this we need to better our understanding of just what is going on and why.

Since the breakup of the USSR a view has become ascendant: that as the lone superpower there is a unique opportunity for the US to shape the world's future. This view is prominent at the Project for a New American Century where VP Cheney was a leader. With the revulsion and fear created by 9/11 these 21st century imperialists rushed their own program of world redesign through the door opened by Al Qaeda. Not only most Americans but also most in Congress would be squeamish about military interventions presented through ideology but all too willing if needed for self-defense. When Bush speaks of spending his political capital he means the gift Osama gave him of carte blance control of politics and policy. A generational war against terror, a war against Islamic fundamentalism, a war against the Axis of Evil, and soon a war against the "greatest threat America faces" a nuclear-armed Iran. If it weren't so serious it would be silly and the arguments wouldn't survive a high school debate.

The very premise that we are fighting for freedom and democracy implies that we won't and can't, morally or logically, impose our will on other nations. The nuclear genie escaped the bottle 60 years ago. All nations as sovereign entities have the right to develop nuclear energy, including Iran, and the Iranians are not in violation of the NPT. Might they go on to weapons? Possibly, though Ahmadinejad doesn't control the military and the ayatollahs have ruled that nukes violate Islam. Iran, at least modern Iran, has no history of invading other countries. The Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988) was begun with Saddam's invasion and he was pushed into it by the US and Jimmy Carter. Remember the Tehran Embassy hostages? When it comes to military power the US is the elephant and Iran is the gnat. The US has more firepower, including thermonuclear, than the rest of the world combined.

If we really want to stop the spread of nuclear weapons then the thumbs up Bush gave to India was the wrong way to go. To stop proliferation the US needs to take the lead towards disarmament under international treaties and inspections that will apply to all countries including our own. Threatening others with bombs and invasions constitutes terroristic behavior. Peaceful talk and peaceful behavior, like charity, begins at home. Bush isn't really worried about Iran and the bomb; he's worried that Iran will act as a free, independent entity outside the control of America and its economic rule. Independence is what Bush and the neo-cons will not tolerate. Nukes and fiery rhetoric from Ahmadinejad are convenient excuses.

Bush and the neo-cons want the deciding vote in development and control of the world's economy and its energy resources and they'll use any propagandistic tools they can find to convince us to follow their lead. Bush and the neo-cons want dominance over the whole planet. There's nothing democratic or peace-loving in any of this. If we don't want another war then we need to accept nothing on faith and I don't mean just the facts but the beliefs as well. Here's their syllogism:

1. We cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.
2. Iran is trying to develop, soon, nuclear weapons.
3. Iran must be stopped.

In fact we can tolerate a nuclear Iran. Yes, proliferation is dangerous but threatening those we dislike while winking at others we like (Israel, Pakistan, India) will increase proliferation. There's little to no evidence that Iran is trying to get "the bomb" and even if they did they are no more likely to use it against us than North Korea will launch a missile towards Seattle. There are a lot of crazies in this world. Some of them are in our leadership.

I expect that nothing short of an unexpected stroke from the blue will stave off the bombing of Iran. The best we can probably do locally is argue with our elected officials and "opinion makers" to not buy Bush's syllogism. Unlike Iraq, I think the regime will work hard to bring along the doubters this time and that's because of the chaos that will occur. Iran has nearly three times the population of Iraq and the disruption in oil supplies would push prices above $100/barrel. It's likely that worldwide recession would ensue, maybe serious enough to rival that old one known as the Great Depression. I think among the neo-cons some are bright enough to have thought this through and think that not only is the risk worth it but so would be the reality. Review the GD and track what happened to capital and its increased concentration. The world will survive, the American economy will survive, the rule of capital will survive and increase its control. My guess is their scenarios include these thoughts. Why do you think KBR has a contract to design detention camps?

My guess is that the neo-cons want this enough that they want to put constraints on future administrations, get us so deeply involved in world rule that future leaders won't feel able to reverse course. And they might use nukes on Iran for just that reason: everyone will sit up, take notice and none will dare challenge US power again. I believe Bush and those who do his thinking for him have grandiose visions and want to seize their opportunity now. Yup, they're insane. What else is new? Already, news commentators seem to be buying the Bush syllogism. I doubt we can stop this locomotive but we must try.