A
PREDATOR BECOMES MORE DANGEROUS WHEN WOUNDED
**Noam CHOMSKY
Washington's escalation of threats against Iran is driven by
a determination to secure control of the region's energy
resources.
In the
energy-rich Middle East, only two countries have failed to
subordinate themselves to Washington's basic demands: Iran
and Syria. Accordingly both are enemies, Iran by far the
more important. As was the norm during the cold war, resort
to violence is regularly justified as a reaction to the
malign influence of the main enemy, often on the flimsiest
of pretexts. Unsurprisingly, as Bush sends more troops to
Iraq, tales surface of Iranian interference in the internal
affairs of Iraq - a country otherwise free from any foreign
interference - on the tacit assumption that Washington rules
the world.
In the
cold war-like mentality in Washington, Tehran is portrayed
as the pinnacle in the so-called Shia crescent that
stretches from Iran to Hizbullah in Lebanon, through Shia
southern Iraq and Syria. And again unsurprisingly, the
"surge" in Iraq and escalation of threats and accusations
against Iran is accompanied by grudging willingness to
attend a conference of regional powers, with the agenda
limited to Iraq.
Presumably this minimal gesture toward diplomacy is intended
to allay the growing fears and anger elicited by
Washington's heightened aggressiveness. These concerns are
given new substance in a detailed study of "the Iraq effect"
by terrorism experts Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank,
revealing that the Iraq war "has increased terrorism
sevenfold worldwide". An "Iran effect" could be even more
severe.
For the
US, the primary issue in the Middle East has been, and
remains, effective control of its unparalleled energy
resources. Access is a secondary matter. Once the oil is on
the seas it goes anywhere. Control is understood to be an
instrument of global dominance. Iranian influence in the
"crescent" challenges US control. By an accident of
geography, the world's major oil resources are in largely
Shia areas of the Middle East: southern Iraq, adjacent
regions of Saudi Arabia and Iran, with some of the major
reserves of natural gas as well. Washington's worst
nightmare would be a loose Shia alliance controlling most of
the world's oil and independent of the US.
Such a
bloc, if it emerges, might even join the Asian Energy
Security Grid based in China. Iran could be a lynchpin. If
the Bush planners bring that about, they will have seriously
undermined the US position of power in the world
To
Washington, Tehran's principal offence has been its
defiance, going back to the overthrow of the Shah in 1979
and the hostage crisis at the US embassy. In retribution,
Washington turned to support Saddam Hussein's aggression
against Iran, which left hundreds of thousands dead. Then
came murderous sanctions and, under Bush, rejection of
Iranian diplomatic efforts.
Last
July, Israel invaded Lebanon, the fifth invasion since 1978.
As before, US support was a critical factor, the pretexts
quickly collapse on inspection, and the consequences for the
people of Lebanon are severe. Among the reasons for the
US-Israel invasion is that Hizbullah's rockets could be a
deterrent to a US-Israeli attack on Iran. Despite the
sabre-rattling it is, I suspect, unlikely that the Bush
administration will attack Iran. Public opinion in the US
and around the world is overwhelmingly opposed. It appears
that the US military and intelligence community is also
opposed. Iran cannot defend itself against US attack, but it
can respond in other ways, among them by inciting even more
havoc in Iraq. Some issue warnings that are far more grave,
among them the British military historian Corelli Barnett,
who writes that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch
world war three".
Then
again, a predator becomes even more dangerous, and less
predictable, when wounded. In desperation to salvage
something, the administration might risk even greater
disasters. The Bush administration has created an
unimaginable catastrophe in Iraq. It has been unable to
establish a reliable client state within, and cannot
withdraw without facing the possible loss of control of the
Middle East's energy resources.
Meanwhile Washington may be seeking to destabilise Iran from
within. The ethnic mix in Iran is complex; much of the
population isn't Persian. There are secessionist tendencies
and it is likely that Washington is trying to stir them up -
in Khuzestan on the Gulf, for example, where Iran's oil is
concentrated, a region that is largely Arab, not Persian.
Threat
escalation also serves to pressure others to join US efforts
to strangle Iran economically, with predictable success in
Europe. Another predictable consequence, presumably
intended, is to induce the Iranian leadership to be as
repressive as possible, fomenting disorder while undermining
reformers.
It is
also necessary to demonise the leadership. In the west, any
wild statement by President Ahmadinejad is circulated in
headlines, dubiously translated. But Ahmadinejad has no
control over foreign policy, which is in the hands of his
superior, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The US
media tend to ignore Khamenei's statements, especially if
they are conciliatory. It's widely reported when Ahmadinejad
says Israel shouldn't exist - but there is silence when
Khamenei says that Iran supports the Arab League position on
Israel-Palestine, calling for normalisation of relations
with Israel if it accepts the international consensus of a
two-state settlement.
The US
invasion of Iraq virtually instructed Iran to develop a
nuclear deterrent. The message was that the US attacks at
will, as long as the target is defenceless. Now Iran is
ringed by US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the
Persian Gulf, and close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and
Israel, the regional superpower, thanks to US support.
In
2003, Iran offered negotiations on all outstanding issues,
including nuclear policies and Israel-Palestine relations.
Washington's response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who
brought the offer. The following year, the EU and Iran
reached an agreement that Iran would suspend enriching
uranium; in return the EU would provide "firm guarantees on
security issues" - code for US-Israeli threats to bomb Iran.
Apparently under US pressure, Europe did not live up to the
bargain. Iran then resumed uranium enrichment. A genuine
interest in preventing the development of nuclear weapons in
Iran would lead Washington to implement the EU bargain,
agree to meaningful negotiations and join with others to
move toward integrating Iran into the international economic
system. (The Guardian UK- Friday 09 March 2007)
**Noam
Chomsky is co-author, with Gilbert Achcar, of Perilous
Power: The Middle East and US Foreign Policy.
