Kudos to Justin Raimondo for his article on V for Vendetta. I wanted to add my voice to the (hopefully large) number of people who HIGHLY RECOMMEND reading the actual graphic novel. Mr. Alan Moore is, as will be evident, a genius, and his book is ten times better than the film. Many of the ideas are explored in much more detail. It is a serious work and deserves more exposure. Keep up the good work. Antiwar.com remains essential reading.
… If the U.S. or Israel attack Iran, I have no doubt that this will be the beginning of the Third World War. What Bush does not realize is that Iranians are no camel jockeys. If Bush attacks the Iranian nuclear facilities without toppling the ruling oligarchy, he will inadvertently unite 99 percent of the country against the forces from without. In turn the mullahs, who believe in the return of the 12th Messiah, will use their purchased nuclear weapons against their perceived aggressors. They will have essentially detonated a nuclear suicide bomb, which will result in MAD.
Let us make a few rational assumptions and then predicated on these parameters let us surmise a conclusion. North Korea is poor and desperate for foreign capital; however, it possesses nuclear warheads and has the capability to make such warheads. Iran is rich in petrodollars and has a desire to protect itself from superpower hegemony.
Both these nations have a common enemy threatening war, so why would you not assume that Iran has already purchased a few nuclear warheads in case of an attack by the U.S.?
The mullahs, on the other hand, know that their reaction to any attack by the U.S. can only be limited. They do not possess ICBM’s hence their reaction will have to be more calculated. Their targets will more than likely be the Saudi oil fields, the Hormuz Straits, and Israel. An attack on the Saudi oil fields will, using the right radioactive isotope, render the oil unusable for hundreds if not thousands of years, depending on the half-life of the radioactive isotope.
On another note, Iran’s ties to central Asia. If Iran was to be attacked by the U.S., you can rest assured America’s position in Central Asia and the Middle East would be in complete peril.
Conclusion: the U.S. would be much better off supporting the opposition to the ruling oligarchy by facilitating Iran with its ambitions to nuclear technology and initiating a form of rapprochement with Iran. Without the so-called impending threat from the United States, the mullahs would have no ropes to hang from. The U.S. has become an expedient for the longevity of the mullahocracy.
Mr. Bush, please be a little more tactful if you wish your grand strategy to work.
Jorge Hirsch replies:
Thanks for commenting. I do not see any reason to believe that Iran would have any nuclear weapons purchased from North Korea. The only utility for Iran of having nuclear weapons would be to make it public in order to deter a U.S. attack. For Iran to have a secret cache of nukes would be totally useless.
Certainly there are plenty of ways for Iran to react to an attack that will have dire consequences.
I also don’t agree with “the U.S. would be much better off supporting the opposition to the ruling oligarchy.” The internal politics of Iran is their own business, not ours. See point one of the Algiers Accords that the U.S. signed, “Non-Intervention in Iranian Affairs.”
A very impressive piece of scholarship and research, although I remain a bit dubious about its conclusion.
Jorge Hirsch replies:
Not sure which conclusion you refer to. That the U.S. will nuke Iran? You don’t have to be 100 percent certain it will happen to do something about it. If Bush can “preempt,” so can the American people. Everything is in place so it CAN happen, and it appears very likely to happen. People have to act now to change the conditions so it cannot happen, at least not on the sole decision of Bush. Congress needs to limit the authority of the president to order the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.
If it happens, will the perpetrators be brought to justice? I concur in being somewhat dubious about that.
I think Mr. Raimondo is misjudging Chomsky’s analysis of the Israel lobby study. Here is what Chomsky says:
“[A]s noted, the U.S.-Israeli alliance was firmed up precisely when Israel performed a huge service to the U.S.-Saudis-energy corporations by smashing secular Arab nationalism, which threatened to divert resources to domestic needs.”
And:
“Also to be explained, again, is why U.S. ME policy is so similar to its policies elsewhere – to which, incidentally, Israel has made important contributions, e.g., in helping the executive branch to evade congressional barriers to carrying out massive terror in Central America, to evade embargoes against South Africa and Rhodesia, and much else. All of which again makes it even more difficult to separate (2) from (1) – the latter, pretty much uniform, in essentials, throughout the world.”
Chomsky is not approving of U.S. or Israeli policies in Central America or against Arab nationalism. He is simply saying that Israel has been very valuable to the U.S. in furthering those wrong-headed U.S. policies.
Clearly, Chomsky, who is no friend of those who would “carry out massive terror in Central America,” is not approving of either U.S. or Israeli activity. He is pointing out that while the authors of the report argue that close relations with Israel are of no benefit to the U.S., that this position is incorrect. And Chomsky is right. Both the U.S. and Israel have worked to undermine human rights all over the world.
The fact that Chomsky describes the authors as “courageous” supports my analysis. The problem with Chomsky is that he knows too much about Israel and the Mideast, and so when the authors of the study try to make the argument (which is quite naive) that Israel does things that don’t benefit the U.S., Chomsky is way ahead of this and raises examples of how the two work hand in glove (in Central America, South Africa, etc.) to accomplish certain despicable goals.
For Paul Craig Roberts:
Thank you for articulating and having the courage to publish your strong condemnations of George W. Bush and his policies, particularly the Iraq debacle.
What’s become of Americans? is a question that I have often asked as well, and I welcome your thoughts on the subject. But your discussion left out what I believe is an important point, which is that the congressional Republicans have totally abdicated their responsibility for checks and balances. Instead, they blindly support Bush while our treasury is depleted, our brave soldiers are killed and maimed needlessly, real national security becomes a pipe-dream, and civil liberties are trashed. While most of the responsibility for the debacle our nation is in belongs to Bush, that responsibility is shared by the Republican Party, which has become totally corrupted and supine. …
~ R. Martinez
