Saturday, May 13, 2006
In my
recent radio appearance on Frank Whalen's show on the
Republic Broadcasting Network, the topic predictably revolved around the impending war with Iran.
One thing has been absolutely verified by the judgment of history:
when it comes to making a decision to go to war, the Law of Unintended Consequences manifests itself with relentless persistence. This has been especially true in the history of Empires once at the apex of world power, as in the days of ancient Babylon and Rome, where declension in fortunes was precipitated by an arrogance which bred a comprehensive political myopia in national leadership, making an assessment of the correlation of forces impossible.
Such is the case with the American Empire as it stands at the crossroad of its existence in time. Its preeminence in the post-World War II era continues to wane, as the corrosive effects of arrogance, decadence, overexpansion of military commitment, and debt continue to erode a foundation increasingly built on sand.
The results are palpable: the residence within American borders of 12-20 million illegal aliens, whose Balkanization of the United States is aided and abetted by
The Corporation in its thirst for cheap labor; the outsourcing of another 3 million manufacturing jobs during the tenure of the present Administration; a national debt zeroing in on $10 billion dollars and accompanied by the largest trade and budget deficits in American history; a 25% increase in the scope of the Federal government since the election of Bush Current in 2000, the largest such expansion since Johnson's Great Society; and the prosecution of an unwinnable war of counter-insurgency in Iraq whose cost may soon reach $400 billion dollars, an eight-fold increase from the $50 billion predicted by the main advocates of war leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003.
Yet this same Empire now seeks to prosecute a preemptive military conflict with the Islamic Republic in Iran (IRI).
Mike Whitney and Dr. Krassimir Petrov insist that the real reason for armed intervention is
rooted in Ahmadinejad's pursuit of the development of an Iranian Oil Bourse on Kish Island, which would utilize the Euro as the currency of choice in petroleum transactions, even as the Bourse threatens the past monopoly of London and New York-based petroleum exchanges. The Bush Administration, meanwhile, makes the case for such a conflict only in terms of the Mullahs' acquisition of a nuclear-fuel cycle.
Yet the status of Iran as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT) and the present lack of proof that weapons-grade brand of uranium enrichment has been produced, or is being sought, is problematic; as is American acquiescence in the nuclear programs of India, Pakistan, and especially Israel, a glaring contrast to Neo-Conservative policy on Iran. Few voices speak of the real dangers of massive Iranian civilian casualties from the rumored aerial assault, or the virtual guarantee of a massive explosion in anti-American sentiment in the Moslem world from Sumatra to Indonesia. Will the remaining American-friendly regimes in the region perish in such a conflagration? Mubarak's Egypt, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan's General Musharraf must certainly be sweating tonight.
Yet another angle to be considered is the division among expatriate Persians in the United States on the subject of war with their native land, and what would follow such a development. Neil MacFarquhar's piece for the
New York Times this week, entitled, "
Exiles in 'Tehrangles' Are Split on How U. S. Should Sway Iran," is instructive. Will there be a worldwide backlash of Persian expatriates against an American-Israeli military initiative against their nation? Will indigenous Iranian opposition to the IRI regime, presently evidenced in political disturbances reported against the Mullahs in such places as Tehran University, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, and Khuzestan Province, evaporate in the wake of a nationalistic backlash against a Western attack on the Iranian homeland?
Do the Mullahs actually need such a war to survive what would otherwise be the eventual overthrow of their repressive theocracy by 35 million Iranians under the age of 30, fed up with a bad economy and the usual repressiveness of a certifiable police state?
Washington must also consider the divisions among Iranians regarding what should follow any displacement of the IRI regime.
Fariba Amini's interview with Stephen Kinzer in The Iranian places American Neo-Conservative policy on Iran firmly within a linear line of American-inspired Regime Change ideology stretching from the Philippines and Hawaii to Cuba, Haiti, and Guademala, among others. The
1953 coup d'etat against Mohammad Mossadegh, aided and abetted by the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the British MI6, is seen by Ms. Amini and author Kinzer as the illegimate interference in Iranian affairs at the behest of Western oil conglomerates and political elites.
Monarchist Shirin Neshat of Sarbazan, on the other hand, would insist that the Pahlavi Dynasty was essential to the development of Iran's infrastructure; a continuation of Persian Monarchial culture going back to Cyrus the Great and the Achaemenid Persian Kings of 2,500 years ago; and well-justified in ridding Iran of a
Mossadegh with connections to the British-manipulated Qajar Dynasty of Iran, and the Russian-linked Tudeh Communist Party of Iran.
Ms. Neshat, in her recent piece for Sarafrazan "On BBC Propaganda and Ibrahim Yazdi" even makes the case that it was
British Petroleum and the Trilateral Commission, among others, who secretly destroyed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi's reign in favor of the Mullahs.
Quo vadis?
Several things are clear in the midst of darkening complexity and obfuscation: a waning American Empire has replaced the Republic of America's Founding Fathers, whose doctrine of non-interventionism abroad mirrored their suspicion of a powerful centralized Chief Executive in Washington. And the present Chief Executive of The Empire seeks war with Iran in an ambience ominously reminiscent of
Babylon and Belshazzar's collapse at the hands of pre-Islamic Ancient Persia.
And the Law of Unintended Consequences is as inviolable as the Laws of Physics.
