Your call to mobilise voices of sanity is very timely and most welcome. What you advise needs to be done to make sure that the catastrophe you rightly envisage does not occur.
I very much doubt, though, if such a scenario of overt colonisation is likely to emerge.
I suspect that all the posturing in the US is ultimately grandstanding, accelerated by the need to look good in an election season. I would be very surprised if they were to invade Iran. The negative fallout for the US is more likely to be seen by national planners as not worth it.
This possible negative fall out is likely to rule out the possible gains, including hopes of entering the White House for those who advocate the invasion and for Obama, who, if the war drags on, might see his gains steadily being eroded. I doubt if he would be wiling to risk what he has now for what might turn out to be a mirage, a mirage hyped up by people with little political capital to match his, the Republicans. Where they could not get Osama bin Laden, Obama got him. Where Bush claimed to pursue Middle Eastern democracy through the War on Terror, the Arab Spring has proven to be the true liberator.
It seems all Obama needs to do is just hang in there, continue working from day to day, developing, revising and executing his policy initiatives, celebrate his military and other achievements, his winding down involvement in Iraq, bringing home so many service people, plus domestic achievements, taking no chances with election strategy, avoiding overconfidence in planning and execution of that strategy, and, barring an unanticipated catastrophe, he has a good chance of retaining the address on Pennsylvania Avenue.
As for Iran, he only needs to give the impression of being tough, but not cross the line into open warfare.
Washington might be more likely to realise that such a move, particularly an invasion, will not go down well in the emerging politics of the Middle East, where internally generated self determination is now the rallying cry as demonstrated by the ongoing Arab Spring.
As you rightly point out, a central factor of Iranian vs US belligerence is the interests of Israel, an interest that is likely to be central to the downfall of Saddam Hussein on account of his increasing weapons capabilities[ not including what you rightly describe as the hoax about WMD which he has been shown as never having as was claimed by Washington and its allies as an excuse for invading his country and deposing him] and refusal to be bullied into submission, at least before Bush Jr assembled the international momentum to scare him.
The hard line isolationist stance that has been central to Israeli foreign policy in the Middle East, reinforced by both overt and covert US support, is steadily beginning to look more and more outdated in the light of the unprecedented transformation of Middle Eastern politics, in which, in one fell swoop, Al-Qaeda and violent, radical Islam have been rendered irrelevant , the emptiness of the idea that they speak for the Muslim mind destroyed by the Arab Spring. The Muslim Brotherhood, in spite of their recent ascendancy in Egypt, cannot afford to toe the radical line or the weapon that ousted Mubarak and made their ascent possible will remove them. That weapon has tasted blood and for a long time, perhaps never, it will never forget the power that came with that taste.
The question then-who is Israel's real enemy-is it Israel itself or the increasingly isolated pockets of opinion who oppose the fact of Israeli founding on land without the consent of those living on that land for centuries or those more pragmatic voices arguing for a withdrawal of Israel to land granted it by that unilateral UN move, and relinquishing of land gained in warfare after 1948 and after? Or a vision arguing for the amalgamation of the Semitic peoples, the Abrahamic descendants represented by Israel and the Palestinians within borders that will accommodate the Palestinians exiled by Israeli incursion, accommodate new Jews, even though the idea of a Jewish state, a state defined by race, will cease to exist in the name of sharing power between races?
This last idea is likely to be bitterly resisted by those who fear racial contamination through intermarriage with other races, particularly Jews who now have the upper hand, and Palestinians and Arabs who deify the combination of religion and race. But if the Middle East as a whole moves towards greater social and political homogeneity, with the passing away of the generation who saw the bloody founding of Israel, the desperate resistance to its founding, and the first generation of the descendants of those people, such fears are likely to dissolve within 50 to 100 years.
Hezbollah is described as becoming of the heroes of the Middle East after their successful outing against Israel in the last Israeli-Lebanon war, of 2006, an effort on Hezbollah's part that overturned some expectations by Israel, the US and others about the nature of warfare and its relationship to diplomacy, perhaps contributing to the later assassination of tactical mastermind senior Hezbollah figure operative Imad Mughniyeh under the noses of his Syrian hosts and the 2008 arrest, after decades of being on Western radar, of intrepid arms dealer Victor Bout, described as likely to have sold arms to Hezbollah before the war, to avoid a repeat of resistance of the kind mounted by Hezbollah.
However, new perceptions of central figures like the Hezbollah leader who is described as supporting Assad's dissolving Syrian regime, reassessments of Hamas in relation to discredited authoritarian Islam, in spite of their genuine credentials as freedom fighters, could contribute to rethinking of methods of Arab and Persian self determination in the 21st century.
Within such a scenario, Washington is likely to ask- what really is to be gained from invading Iran?
Preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capability? Is it worth the risk of increasing the perception of the US as a bully who wants to impose itself on the region through force or alliances with autocratic figures who suppress their own people while enjoying the support of the self proclaimed leader of the free world, even as the sheer hypocrisy of Bush Jrs claims of bringing democracy to the Middle East are increasingly shown to be what they really were,in the harsh light cast by the self sacrifice of thousands, if not more, of Arabs and Persians who are giving their lives for democracy in the Middle East, many without any mechanical weapons to fight with ?
What will be the implications for free movement of US nationals and business in that region? In the face of a protracted war, since Iran is not likely to capitulate as easily as Iraq eventually did, how will that affect security of US business and other interests in the region?
What is the attitude of China and Russia to such an invasion from the US? Can they be persuaded to lend overt diplomatic support or silence to such a move? Most likely, they will not participate beceause they are less likely to perceive Iranian interests as affecting theirs negatively. The most helpful support the US is likely to get from them is silence or muted protest. They are not likely to be happy, however, at the US increasing its authority in that region through an invasion.
What are the chances of weakening the Iranian regime through psychological warfare, economic sanctions and international mobilisation, as was done with Iraq under Saddam Hussein? If the current Iranian regime is changed, can fissures within Iranian society be exploited to replace the current regime with another one friendly to US interests, as was done in Iraq? Is the memory of the last Iranian revolution, described as significantly perceived in Iran as a declaration of self determination against US imperialism in the person of the collaborative Shah of Iran, sufficiently modified to make an invasion and colonisation of Iran a workable option?
What is known or projected about Iranian military capability- scope of weaponry and logistical skill? Can sale of weapons to Iran be sufficiently curtailed or stopped in order to weaken Iranian military capability?
If a targeted strike, rather than outright invasion, can get out the Iranian leadership, can the outcome be managed to US interests, the light of what seems to be the strong ideological homogeneity of the Iranian regime in which its leaders look more like incarnations of Islamic and anti-imperialist values than individuals, and the penetration of this ideology into Iranian society, meaning that removing the head is likely to lead to the emergence and strengthening of other heads?
Probable, perhaps, even likely answers to these questions suggest to me that an invasion will fail to
1. Secure a military victory
2. Even in the unlikely event of a military victory, will fail to secure significant control of Iran
Washington might see it that way too.
Will Iran's neighbours be helpful, perhaps motivated by fear of growing Iranian power? Perhaps, although unlikely in the face a of recognition of the strength and tenacity the of Iranian mind.
It might be more likely, though, that Iran will continue into gaining nuclear weapons capability without any significant international problems. Iran simply needs to be both cunning and bold, trying not to arouse fears of aggressive intent towards its neighbours or others while asserting its sovereignty.
The best bet might be to undermine Iranian society from within but that would be a job of making the regime lose confidence in the eyes of its people through particularly stiff oppression, reckless reactions to external provocation and internal unrest. That is a more carefully calibrated strategy ,however, than invasion, and the will to sustain it through through decades might not be sustainable.
-- All in all, the key driver to the US- Iran relationship might be Israel. I expect Israel will always feel threatened by a powerful neighbour in the Middle East, whether or not that neighbour is as vocally belligerent as Iran's Ahmenijadad. . I expect, though, that in the next 10 years, the ethnic rationale of the composition of Israel is likely to be revisited, possibly revised, so that the siege mentality that could be described as foundational to Israeli foreign policy fades away when it becomes increasingly perceived as another autocratic regime, pointedly opposed to democratic dealing on equal terms with those neighbours whose land it occupies and those who do not share its winner takes all policy
In the light of such developments, the "Iranian menace" is likely to look less significant.
thanks
Toyin
On 30 December 2011 04:38, Emeagwali, Gloria (History) <emeagwali@mail.ccsu.edu> wrote:
I agree with Adujie. World War 3 may be unfolding in slow motion. The Bush-Cheney dynasty is alive and well.
Ron Paul could well be the best anti-war President we may ever have. His anti -war and anti-imperial
sentiments are soothing and encouraging- but it turns out that the man is also
a card-carrying racist....... What a pity. We are stuck between a killer drone and a hangman's noose.
GE
..........................................................................
Ron Paul, the Soldier's Choice
By Timothy Egan, The New York Times
23 December 11
So this is Christmas, season of peace, time to reflect on the people coming home from a war that most Americans say was not worth it,
and those still fighting in another war that raises new doubts by the day.
Many of the service members returning from Iraq - where nearly 4,500 American lives were lost, 100,000 Iraqi civilians were killed
and about 600,000 Christians were forced to flee the country with other refugees - are paying close attention to the campaign to decide who will be commander in chief.
What would they think of a candidate who says:
"Far from defeating the enemy, our current polices provide incentive for more people to take up arms against us."
And, "We have an empire. We can't afford it."
And, "Acting as the world's policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm's way, and
sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis."
The men and women in uniform probably wouldn't support this proponent of limited engagement. So goes the conventional
wisdom, which holds that those in the military support a leader itching for a fight.
But in fact, Representative Ron Paul, the congressman who favors the most minimalist American combat role of any major
presidential candidate and who said all of the above quotes, has more financial support from active duty members of the
service than any other politician.
As of the last reporting date, at the end of September, Paul leads all candidates by far in donations from service members.
This trend has been in place since 2008, when Paul ran for president with a similar stance: calling nonsense at hawk squawk from both parties.
Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesIn 2005, Ron Paul attended a news conference with Representatives Walter Jones and Dennis Kucinich
calling on President George W. Bush to phase out U.S. troops in Iraq.
This year, Paul has 10 times the individual donations - totaling $113,739 - from the military as does Mitt Romney. And he has a
hundred times more than Newt Gingrich, who sat out the Vietnam War with college deferments and now promises he would strike
foes at the slightest provocation.
What seems, at first blush, counterintuitive makes more sense upon further review. There's a long tradition of military people being
attracted to politicians with Paul's strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Not even a full 1 percent of Americans are active-duty military. The troops have become props for politicians who shower them with
fulsome praise, while dreaming up schemes to send them into harm's way.
Yet, these soldiers, sailors, air men and women, and assorted boots on the ground know the cost - in trauma, in lives ruined, in friends
lost, in good intentions gone bad - of going to war far more than the 99 percent not currently serving. Where they put their money in
a campaign, paltry though it may be in comparison to the corporate lords who control a majority of our politicians, says a great deal.
And if the overwhelming service support for Ron Paul is any indication, the grunts of American foreign policy are gun-shy about
further engagement in "useless wars," to use Dr. Paul's term.
"It's not a good sign when the people doing the fighting are saying, 'Why are we here?'" said Glen Massie, a Marine Corps veteran
who lives in Des Moines, Iowa, and is supporting Paul for president. "They realize they're being utilized for other purposes - nation
building and being world's policeman - and it's not what they signed up for."
With his mumbled, avuncular asides and aversion to snappy sound bites, the 76-year-old congressman from Texas is now the unlikely
frontrunner in some polls in Iowa. He will not be the nominee; powerful Republicans have pledged to destroy him should he gain
strength beyond the cornfields of Sioux City. His libertarian positions - on marriage, drug laws and monetary policy - are poison for
too many GOP stalwarts.
He has other problems, as well. His position on health care for the elderly and working poor - basically, to let people fend for themselves,
at the mercy of charity and the free enterprise system - is chilling and unrealistic. And in recent days, he's had trouble explaining some
deplorable racist statements that went out under the name of his newsletter 20 years ago. (He has disavowed them.)
But, strictly considered, as the iconoclast among the toy warriors seeking to be the next president, Paul has performed an admirable service.
His jabbing at Gingrich, now trying to get traction with an unconstitutional plan to arrest judges whose rulings he disagrees with, has been
particularly productive. In Gingrich, we have the perfect combination of a blowhard who wants to play with real weapons, a chicken hawk
and a politician who wears a rental sign to cover the empty space where principles should be.
Gingrich and other Republicans sound eager to rush into combat with Iran, should that theocratic nightmare of a country develop a nuclear
weapon. Paul shrugs at the thought. And he's consistently called the Iraq war an unnecessary disaster.
Romney claimed, in November, that President Obama's decision to bring home all American troops from Iraq was premature and represented
"an astonishing failure." True to his trademark elasticity, Romney has now changed his mind and is fine with bringing the troops home.
Perhaps he's been reading the polls that show that nearly two-thirds of all Americans think the Iraq war was not worth the loss of lives
and treasury.
The young people who actually fought in Iraq know better. They can tell a phony warrior from a real one. And in Ron Paul, the veteran
who served as a flight surgeon for the Air Force, the man some call crazy, they hear a voice of sanity - at least in the realm of war and peace.
________________________________
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul I. Adujie [lawcareer@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 12:53 PM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Iran Regime Change, Invasion, Occupation & Re-colonization Is Imminent
Iran Regime Change, Invasion, Occupation & Re-colonization Is Imminent
Written by Paul I. Adujie
War drums are beating louder and louder in America against Iran. The din and decibel are rising and getting louder.
Preparatory steps are being taken irreversibly as the onset of invasion and occupation of Iran is becoming more and more apparent and its imminence glaringly clear. It is rather unmistakable.
Public pronouncements by political and military leaders in the United States have been elevated to a-no-going-back sorts of, no retreat, no surrender. A blockade in the name of continuing sanctions against Iran, is about to occur, and Iranian political and military leaders are declaring any such contemplated action, as an act of war, and, such a blockade by America against Iran, Is Act of War, under International Law
The current high tempo and stridency on all sides, is just like history repeating itself, if past is prologue, I beseech everyone to harken back to the days of yore, with particular reference to the back and forth verbal altercations between America and Saddam Hussein in the lead-up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
It will be recalled that in the lead up and before the onset of the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, the sorts of words and body language, which we are witnessing today, were similarly employed and it escalated to a crescendo or point of no-return... the shock and awe invasion and occupation of Iraq, based on sexed-up, embellished and flowered tall tales about Saddam and Weapons of Mass Destruction which Saddam Hussein supposedly possessed with which he would create mushroom clouds.
There were airs of immediacy, portentous ominous nuclear catastrophes, holocaust and Armageddon, but, the world has since learned that the only WMD weapon, was Weapons for Mass Deceptions by those who wanted to effect Regime-Change in Iraq, and the Weapons for Mass Deception was possessed by the invaders and occupation force of the United States and few North Atlantic Treaty Organization members who participated in Regime-Change and usurpation of political power in Iraq.
In recent times, the frequency and spate of public spat between America, Britain on the one hand, and Iran on the other have been increasing in their occurrences and intransigence. There has been recalcitrance. There have been bitingly pointed offensive pronouncements and bullying arrogance in high resolution displays.
Here is a sample of the current public pronouncements. First, America proposes more sanctions, including a naval blockade to enforce the increased global sanctions against Iran
Secondly and in response, Iran declares that any such action by America its allies or by western nations, would be considered a declaration of war or hostilities against Iran
Thirdly, and importantly, all these are coming up, during America's high octane political season. It is the case that 2012 is America's general election and a contest for the American presidency. In contention, is the occupation of the White House post general elections in November, 2012.
The Republican Party have vowed, and they are singularly dedicated to dislodging the Democrats and President Obama from the presidency in the 2012 presidential and general elections. And currently, it is elimination series in the Republican Party Presidential Primaries. Republican posturers for the presidency have been jostling for superior position, as the hustle for suzerainty and pride of place above the Republican presidential hopeful, all of whom are bustling boisterously to clinch the nomination, and the chance to facedown President Obama, in contest for the American presidency.
It is against this background of cut-throat competition for Republican Presidential Primary or Nominating process, which has thrown the Iran issue front and center, as a key foreign policy issue.
Republican Party candidates across the board, but for Ron Paul, are unanimous on how they would militarily invade and occupy Iran, as a demonstration of Republican Party zero tolerance for nuclear capable Iran.
Some presidential contenders or hopeful in the Republican Party, are even full of more outrageous and quite outlandish blusters and rhetoric of escalations ... It is as if there are deliberate attempts to distract the American populace for the dire economic circumstance at home in America, by engaging in yet, another foreign war, this time, against Iran. And this, naturally, bring the film or movie, "Wag-The-Dog" to mind. All these, wrapped in "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" song by Republican Senator John McCain during the last election season. An intended coy reference by Senator McCain to a-would-be Republican Party policy war policy against Iran, albeit, a gaffe, no doubt, for which Senator McCain became subsequently contrite.
There seems to be pandering to Jewish voters and supporters of Israel, who in fact propelling presidential contenders to be effusive in their demonstration of support for Israel, a core American foreign policy position in the Middle East.
The dictates of local American political situation, the Jewish factor, and the desire by Republicans versus Democrats to be seen as be more pro-Israel than Jewish in competing for the Jewish votes and support in 2012, has become a major driver and motivation for senseless stampedes in support for the invasion and occupation of Iran, in the name of supporting, protecting and preserving the nation of Israel.
The Republicans as the "national security hawks" and Democrats not willing to be seen as wimps... President Obama recently, angrily rejected being tagged with the "Appeasement" appellation
There are actually some commentators who are of the view that the war against Iran has already begun in earnest. One such commentator, simply known as Obugi stated as much in his comments which follows; "The war is already on. Iranian scientists assassinated, computer viruses [Stuxnet Weapon] inserted into their nuclear plants, isolating the Iranian Central Bank, cutting of refined fuel imports, cutting off many essential public goods, multiple cases of groups of US citizens accidentally crossing into Iran, US drones violating Iranian airspace, the US funding for Jundullah terrorists inside Iran....."
He further argues, rather adamantly, that "Obama has already started his phase of the war for Iranian oil that was launched in 1953 with the CIA and MI6 overthrow of Iranian democracy. Obama's promise of change didn't apply to foreign policy; he's no different from G W Bush." Obugi concluded.
Two other commentators reached similar conclusions, one known simply as Superego, wrote that "An … attack Iran and divert attention as is always done. They have no other method to quell dissent and unrest in Europe and the US other than engaging us in a serious war and conscription of the jobless youth. The youth jobless, mad with loans and no jobs" In plain English, the invasion and occupation of Iran would be used by American political leaders as a diversion and distractions from local debacles.
Yet another commentator, DeepThought, concluded that American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East in Persia and Arabia, are constant and never shifting or changing when he wrote that "What changes are the faces and the names of the individuals; The policy remains the same. The system remains the same. The goals and objectives remain the same."
Added to all this, may also add the loss of American predator drones or unmanned spy plane to Iran recently. Even though the Americans have assiduously denied any spying activities or reconnaissance flights over Iran's airspace and territorial wars, Iran now have a physical proof of Iran's dated spying charges against her by the United States.
There rapid escalation of war of words and beating of war drums is have not been helped by the oft-repeated, but unconfirmed plans by Israel to bomb to smithereens, Iran's Nuclear facilities through military intervention as Israel had flagrantly done against Iraq and Syria respectively as a matter of recent history. If Israel was to engage in these sorts of outrageously dangerous behavior, the Americans will have to be directly involved or indirectly implicated, either as an actor, or rescuer or buffer for Israel, before or after the fact of any Israeli military action against Iran. America may provide the coordinates or protection in the aftermath of such an Israeli repeat bravado for the third time in my lifetime.
Third World War is starting in slow-motion? I do think that a direct invasion and occupation of Iran will lead to a large conflagration and the inferno will spread beyond the Strait of Hormuz and beyond Persia and Arabia. Many unintended consequences and unforeseen events will ensue
Too many citizens seem to think wars are video-games! And video games war is not. Wars are devastating undertakings, which causes depravity, deprivation, deaths and dislocations.
The time is now for citizens of the world to oppose and speak out against the impending Regime-Change in Iran. The time is now to rally against the imminent invasion and occupation of Iran. I am not so sure about, nor do trust the collective memory or even the attention span of too many citizens, who seems to be more adept at detailing the minutiae of Kim Kardashian's 72 days marriage to Chris Humphreys than the clear and present danger of a Third World War. There is short attention span and voluntarily amnesia
Just when you thought that some lessons in loss, were learnt in Iraq, the over trillion dollars in squandered money, the thousands of lives lost, maimed and displaced, including continuing trauma and post-traumatic stress syndrome etc, a stressed and overextended American military, a million Iraq deaths.
Americans and Iranians are ratcheting up their war language in countervailing public pronouncements in Washington and Teheran respectively.
This is looking as if events are rapidly spinning and spiraling out of control ...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment