Of all the calamities that have befallen the Middle East since 1948, the latest wave of mendacious war hysteria promises to place Iran at the top of the list. The script should surprise no one–it’s the exact same one used for the run-up to the Iraq war as well as the First Gulf War. (Recall that, after Kuwait, the Saudis were even reportedly shown doctored satellite photos of Saddam’s troops massed on their border to induce them to accept a large contingent of American troops who became like the proverbial camel in the tent! Later it was shown Saddam had no such intention and attacked–with what he thought was American approval–after Kuwait allegedly side drilled into Iraqi oilfields.)
This time, however, in addition to the threat Iran itself faces, the situation could ultimately lead to the expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the final conquest of energy resources worldwide (in addition to the control of Mid Eastern reserves by Eretz Israel). And this time the script does not require invasion–it can be just as deadly if it produces a desired "revolution" in Iran.
My hope is that before the regional states and other world powers lend their support to intemperate actions involving Iran, they will consider the following:
- 1. That the goals of Iran’s nuclear effort may be indeed the ones stated and that misunderstandings are a result of cultural/historical factors and a lack of understanding of future technological and economic realities;
- 2. It is impossible in any foreseeable time frame for Iran to develop a nuclear arsenal that could truly threaten ANY major world power, including Israel;
- 3. That some world powers are in the process of creating a "New World Order" based on energy access and a hammerlock on self-renewing energy…an effective energy monopoly that could lead to the re-colonization of the developing world. The offensive against Iran may be part of the development of that monopoly and, indirectly, an attempt to dissuade the Russian suppliers of the technology;
- 4. That a revolution in Iran could be counterproductive for most regional states, excepting Israel; and,
- 5. That Israel could link up with a pro-Western/Israeli revolutionary government in Iran to effectively control or blackmail other oil producers in the region.
The first three points can be considered together. Imagine a world some 20-25 years in the future. Oil supplies have dwindled and Iran has run out of oil reserves. What can it (and many other nations) do? (A) They can go out and conquer energy resources or (B) they can switch to nuclear power for electricity and to produce hydrogen to run vehicles and ships. Small problem is that yellow-cake uranium resources in the world should be depleted by then–with China recently locking up the rest of Australia’s output. So conventional reactors are out. That leaves fast breeder reactors and the enriched uranium cycle–which Iran is currently trying to develop.
Rather than indicating a desire for conquest, I contend, Iran’s pursuit of this technology may indicate a desire for peace. Recall that Iran suffered over 1-million casualties during the Iran-Iraq war and may sincerely wish to avoid a repeat of this bloodbath, which would become a necessity if it made no provisions for a post-oil economy. (An analogy might be Russian fears of Nazi movements in Europe, which appear more rational when one considers the profound psychological impact of 25-million casualties in World War II.) Because the Arabs suffered under Persian/Ottoman domination for a long period of time, and fought a bloody war against them, of course, they are predisposed to view a worst-case view of Iran. And this is exploited by the propagandists.
Even if Iran were to go all out for weapons–and not the kind made by CNN mistranslations–many analysts feel it would take Iran 7-10 years to produce as many warheads. The Neocons in the U.S. have, of late, been pushing a March 20th nuclear warhead test date for Iran. Even if they were right (and such a warhead was not planted and detonated by special ops teams from the U.S. and Israel) Iran would be no match for the U.S., France, Israel, the U.K., and a number of other countries.
So, beyond creating a future energy monopoly in which countries like France can become net energy suppliers, what other motivations might the war/boycott mongers have?
Iran has serious economic problems, and, because of the Iran-Iraq War, a very young and impressionable population. Undoubtedly, foreign powers have exploited the demographics to sow unrest and pave the way for a revolution of the type that has swept former Soviet republics. Even Israeli organized crime has gotten into the act and created a major social problem by flooding Iran with the mind-altering drug Extasy.
If the U.N. were to put sanctions on Iran or the U.S. and other powers were to launch an economic blocade of Iran (perhaps in response to Iran’s planned shift away from the U.S. Dollar in oil transactions) this could cause economic consequences of such a magnitude that a revolution would occur. Like the Russian and French Revolutions, this one would undoubtedly be carefully scripted to produce the desired result: a pro-Western/pro-Israeli one. An attack by France (Israel’s stealth ally) or the U.S. could trigger similar consequences.
Now, I ask you, how safe would other regional states be under this scenario? Remember that Eretz Israel includes most Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia, but not Iran. Imagine having to face a large Iranian army backed up by Israeli armor, planes and high-tech weapons? Just the thought of this would be enough to make most Sunni leaders extremely compliant! Additionally, while the ascendancy of the Shiites in Iraq appears to be a miscalculation, a shift in the Iranian government would make it far easier to bend the Shiites of the country to the will of Washington and Tel Aviv.
Since Hamas has now come out in solidarity with Iran–that country being all that probably prevents Israel from kicking out the Palestinians out once and for all–a revolution in that country or an attack on it could give Israeli hard liners the long awaited pretext for "ethnic cleansing" of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
If toppling the Iranian government or attacking or boycotting Iran is not in the best interests of the region or the world, just what would be a prudent course of action?
The Russians have suggested that Iran refrain from enrichment and purchase fuel from and do research in Russia. Others have suggested Iran would be more comfortable with such an arrangement with Pakistan, which already has a uranium-enrichment program.
It’s almost too much to hope that President Bush takes this option seriously, but he is scheduled to meet with the Pakistanis in March. (Hopefully, they are still flexible after having their village bombed by U.S. drones.) If Bush and the Iranians opt for sanity, perhaps we can avert a calamity in the Mid East and an economic meltdown of Western financial markets caused by oil shortages and withdrawal of funds from financial institutions by Iran.