The People of the World Unite!!!

I’ve always found it interesting that polls from around the world that measure sentiment towards Americans and our government always seem to conclude that the majority of the American people are good, just, fair and civilized while at the same time, these citizens of the world conclude that our government is bad, corrupt, unjust and a threat to world peace. The irony is that the citizens of the U.S. view Iran in much the same way, government “bad,” people “good.”

I find this so compelling because the U.S. is supposed to be a democracy and yet we conceive of the people and government of Iran in much the same way that other countries think of us.

If we are in fact a democracy, then why don’t the citizens of the world fault us, the people, for the failings of our democratically elected government?

And why would we, the people of the U.S., go to war with the people of Iran if we believe that they are fundamentally good?

Someone has to either be misgauging the quality of each of our characters’ or else someone other than the people are the ones truly pulling the strings of the mechanism of war. And while that raises extremely interesting questions about the true power structures of a capitalistic democracy it doesn’t, at least in my mind, eliminate the question:

If we believe that the people of Iran are in fact good people, why then would the people of America ever consider going to war with them?

(Photo by Jayel Aheram used under a Creative Commons license.)

The Israeli Backdoor

In 1981 Israel destroyed an electricity generating nuclear reactor that was in the process of being built just south of Baghdad. The Israelis feared that Saddam Hussein was creating weapons of mass destruction for use against them. Today, the circumstances in Iran are eerily similar except if Israel foolishly decides to attack Iran, this time the outcome is going to be very, very different. It could even lead to a world war.

Since 1949 it has cost U.S. taxpayers over $134 billion dollars in financial “support” for Israel and with the disproportionate power of the Israeli lobbying arm, AIPAC or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, politicians from both parties fear that cutting of the “aid” will have political ramifications, in part because most of that money is granted with the understanding that Israel will use it to buy American manufactured weapons, yet another group of campaign contributors that politicians don’t want to disturb. That huge sum of money also represents the lion’s share of total foreign aid dollars to all nations so it should come as no surprise that the modern, industrialized Israeli nation, which doesn’t require U.S. financial support, is certainly better equipped at fighting a conventional war than Iran.

The problem for the U.S., should Israel decide to attack Iran, is more than just financial but putting our tin-foil hats aside, an attack could be just what the military-industrial complex backed Bush administration desires. An Israeli attack, especially if the Iranians retaliate against the U.S., could potentially be the backdoor to U.S. military aggression against Iran and would be seen by people living in the region as an imperialist plan to solidify a nearly total dominance of Middle Eastern oil reserves. That multi-trillion dollar motivation could by itself, be justification for such a plan.

George Bush and his neo-conservative military and oil benefactors understand that they don’t have the political capital to even suggest an attack on Iran but an attack could be the opening to greater U.S. involvement. However, the reality would be that it would drive the U.S. into an even deeper intractable presence in the region. Neighboring states would be horrified and threatened and the extent of their reactions would be uncertain at best. The so-called “pre-emptive” attack would surely garner an intense counter-attack. The Iranians would declare war and justifiably unleash ferocious conventional and non-conventional attacks against Israel. The widespread distrust and contempt of the Israelis in the region would intensify the tensions by the many who see Israel as the occupiers of Palestinian territory and who also view the U.S. involvement as accessories to the Israeli occupation while ignoring the suffering of the Palestinians. Additionally, many in the region would be instantly radicalized, creating an environment where thousands and potentially millions would converge into a substantial threat that would make Al-Qaeda look like a knitting circle.

The good news is that it doesn’t have to be this way. Without George Bush the U.S. could work as an honest broker of peace to help to negotiate an equitable agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Domestically, the U.S. could institute public funding of elections to remove the power motivations that disrupt peace and fund the military-industrial complex by disproportionately aiding Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. The U.S. could also establish an international treaty which disregards who is using violence and describes when and where the use of force is acceptable i.e. in the most extreme of circumstances, when attacked or when there is a clear and present danger. We could also help to delineate what the repercussions are for its misuse. The U.S. could also use its still immense sway to push nations towards accepting conditions as well as a set of non-military and non-violent tangible steps to take for disarming tyrants (democratic or otherwise), oppressors of freedom and disturbers of the peace. Most importantly, the U.S. and Israel could stop inflaming worldwide tensions by recognizing how their behavior provokes nations into arming themselves with the world’s most destructive weapons. At the same time all the nations of the world could work towards an international set of fair and equal behavioral standards for conducting relations with one another without consideration for what weapons each other does or doesn’t possess.

Next Page »