What
You're Missing in our subscriber-only CounterPunch newsletter
Did Oprah Pick Another Fibber?
Truth and Fiction in Elie Wiesel's Night
In his special
report Alexander Cockburn interviews former Wiesel colleague
and Holocaust survivor Eli Pfefferkorn. What Raul Hilberg, the
Holocaust's greatest historian, really thinks about Wiesel's
"Night". Also
in this special issue: Is Hugo Chavez Hitler or Father Christmas?
Larry Lack tells the full story of Venezuela's hand-outs to Uncle
Sam's Shivering Poor. Plus, Jeffrey St Clair profiles the Endangered
Visigoth and traces the rise and possible fall of Rick Pombo,
destroyer of nature.CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember,
we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch. Please
support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter,
which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or
by making a donation for the online edition. Remember contributions
are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
"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's years
away from 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 friendlycontenders 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."
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.