Why Bush Can Get Away with Attacking Iran
September 4, 2007
This is a very important article from Jean Bricmont.
Many people in the antiwar movement try to reassure themselves: Bush cannot possibly attack Iran. He does not have the means to do so, or, perhaps, even he is not foolish enough to engage in such an enterprise. Various particular reasons are put forward, such as: If he attacks, the Shiites in Iraq will cut the US supply lines. If he attacks, the Iranians will block the Straits of Ormuz or will unleash dormant terrorist networks worldwide. Russia won’t allow such an attack. China won’t allow it — they will dump the dollar. The Arab world will explode.
All this is doubtful. The Shiites in Iraq are not simply obedient to Iran. If they don’t rise against the United States when their own country is occupied (or if don’t rise very systematically), they are not likely to rise against the US if a neighboring country is attacked. As for blocking the Straits or unleashing terrorism, this will just be another justification for more bombing of Iran. After all, a main casus belli against Iran is, incredibly, that it supposedly helps the resistance against U.S. troops in Iraq, as if those troops were at home there. If that can work as an argument for bombing Iran, then any counter-measure that Iran might take will simply “justify” more bombing, possibly nuclear. Iran is strong in the sense that it cannot be invaded, but there is little it can do against long range bombing, accompanied by nuclear threats.
Russia will escalate its military buildup (which now lags far behind the U.S. one), but it can’t do anything else, and Washington will be only too glad to use the Russian reaction as an argument for boosting its own military
forces. China is solely concerned with its own development and won’t drop the dollar for non-economic reasons. Most Arab governments, if not their populations, will look favorably on seeing the Iranian shiite leadership humiliated. Those governments have sufficient police forces to control any popular opposition– after all, that is what they managed to do after the attack on Iraq.
With the replacement of Chirac by Sarkozy, and the near-complete elimination of what was left of the Gaullists (basically through lawsuits on rather trivial matters), France has been changed from the most independent European country to the most poodlish (this was in fact the main issue in the recent presidential election, but it was never even mentioned during the campaign). In France, moreover, the secular “left” is, in the main, gung-ho against Iran for the usual reasons (women, religion). There will be no large-scale demonstrations in France either before or after the bombing. And, without French support, Germany–where the war is probably very unpopular — can always be silenced with memories of the Holocaust, so that no significant opposition to the war will come from Europe (except possibly from its Muslim population, which will be one more argument to prove that they are “backward”, “extremist”, and enemies of our “democratic civilization”).
All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American “left”. The issue of course is not whether Iran is nice or not according to our views — but whether there is any legal reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant ideology of human rights has legitimized, specially in the left, the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time, and that ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor issue of international law.
Israel and its fanatical American supporters want Iran attacked for its political crimes–supporting the rights of the Palestinians, or questioning the Holocaust. Both U.S. political parties are equally under the control of the Israel lobby, and so are the media. The antiwar movement is far too preoccupied with the security of Israel to seriously defend Iran and it won’t attack the real architects of this coming war–the Zionists– for fear of “provoking antisemitism”. Blaming Big Oil for the Iraq war was quite debatable, but, in the case of Iran, since the country is about to be bombed but not invaded, there is no reason whatsoever to think that Big Oil wants the war, as opposed to the Zionists. In fact, Big Oil is probably very much opposed to the war, but it is as unable to stop it as the rest of us.
As far as Israel is concerned, the United States is a de facto totalitarian society–no articulate opposition is acceptable. The U.S. Congress passes one pro-Israel or anti-Iran resolution after another with “Stalinist” majorities. The population does not seem to care. But if they did, but what could they do? Vote? The electoral system is extremely biased against the emergence of a third party and the two big parties are equally under Zionist influence.
The only thing that might stop the war would be for Americans themselves to threaten their own government with massive civil disobedience. But that is not going to happen. A large part of the academic left long ago gave up informing the general public about the real world in order to debate whether Capital is a Signifier or a Signified, or worry about their Bodies and their Selves, while preachers tell their flocks to rejoice at each new sign that the end of the world is nigh. Children in Iran won’t sleep at night, but the liberal American intelligentsia will lecture the ROW (rest of the world) about Human Rights. In fact, the prevalence of the “reassuring arguments” cited above proves that the antiwar movement is clinically dead. If it weren’t, it would rely on its own forces to stop war, not speculate on how others might do the job.
Meanwhile, an enormous amount of hatred will have been spewed upon the world. But in the short term, it may look like a big Western “victory”, just like the creation of Israel in 1948; just like the overthrow of Mossadegh by the CIA in 1953; just like the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine seemed to be a big German victory after the French defeat at Sedan in 1870. The Bush administration will long be gone when the disastrous consequences of that war will be felt.
PS: This text is not meant to be a prophecy, but a call to (urgent) action. I’ll be more than happy if facts prove me wrong.
Jean Bricmont teaches physics in Belgium and is a member of the Brussels Tribunal. His new book, Humanitarian Imperialism, is published by Monthly Review Press. He can be reached at bricmont@fyma.ucl.ac.be.
“Those governments have sufficient police forces to control any popular opposition”.
That is past tense. Thanks to the several declarations made by Iraqi nationalists and the consensus of different resistance factions broadcasted on Al-jazeera and several other websites, that Iran is the main enemy at the present, Arab srtreet has turned against the bloody Iranian terroristic occupation of Iraq.
I think the Shia resistance in Iraq is misunderstood.
Only today the UK have come as close as they ever will to declare defeat and flee from Basra ( the resistance in the 20s took 4 years to expell the British).
Najaf was a defeat for the US 4th Army.
As for the rest of Iraq it would be the oddest resistance that takes up the military option when there is scope for extracting concessions from the occupiers by non-military means.
At the beginning of the occupation the leaders of the Shias in Iraq said they will first establish an alternative government , AND then resist to put this alternative government in Power.That is true full frontal assymetric resistance.
The Sunnis are 27 years behind the Iranians in that they need to get rid of their pro-St
state department Mubaraks and Monarchs rather than becoming cheerleaders for zionist and US foreign policy.
rumple_stiltskin24
I don’t understand why are you using this Sunni-Shiite thing. This is a discourse highlighted by the retarded revolution of Khomeini, and even the Shah’s Iran to enter into the Arab world. Sadam’s regime tried to modernise and secularise the south. Alas, Iranian revolution resisted the attempts.
And I wonder why you opted to overlook the simple fact that shiites constituted the majority of the elite republican army and top baathists and it was the shite Arab soldiers that defeated Iran put an end to Khomeini.
The problem is about the Irani settlers in the south and the Iranian presence that is being entrenched down there. Those are occupiers as well that have to be kicked out.
And if you want to be fair, remember that Iranian safavid shiisim is only viable way to rule the multi ethnic Iran where the Arabs in Ahwaz are fighting for independence as well as the Pakistani Belluchis. There is also some unrest among the Azeri Turks. On the other hand, Iraq is predominately Arab except for Kurds and the Iranian occupiers. Therefore a secular Arab nationalist framework is essential to get over sectarian polarisation. And it is because of this specific point Iranians and Arabs are enemies
The Shiite Arab clans of El-Basrah burned down the Irani consulate while they were chanting Arabs we are all Arabs Persians get out. Shortly afterwards non irani elements in the south were subjected to the full terror of the revolutionary guards Quds legion.
Just a simple proof on the nationalistic nature of the Irani fanatic regime. Iran supplied the Christian Armenians with weapons during the shiite Azeribejanian Armenian war, so as not to empower the Azeri Turks in the north of Iran who make up 25% of Irani population and are resisting vehemently, the persianisation policies of the mullahs in Qom who are concealing their real orientation behind a religious cloak
Last but not least and just to correct your information, Iran is light years back to Iraq in eighties or even the contemporary Egypt which is at its worst but still better than Iran in terms of women rights, civil society, freedom of press, technological embedment, management of resources, military efficiency………..etc. I would like to tell you the 3 ministers in Egyptian cabinet are Christians army genertrals.etc. women in Egypt have more rights than Iranian women they are free to dress as they want and have the right to get divorce. Moubarak is the president of Egypt is criticised harshly in independent newspapers, something no one dares to do in Iran with ali Khameini. By the way Moubarak fought Israel in 1973 and his air force defeated that of Israel. Ali Khmaeini an Najad kill Palestinians in Iraq. And spent 8 years killing Arab in Iraq and trying destroy the most progressive Arab country. And that doesn’t mean that I agree with his regime
This is a very nice article and I totally agree with the immediate call to “action”.
I think if that is missing, they WILL attack Iran and China and Russia will only be too happy if that happens. Two birds will be killed for them with one stone:
1) America will be weakened.
2) Iran will be forced to submit to their demands at cheap rates.
Iran, however is not counting on the support from outside. It has fought wars alone before, and the Arab world is the most unreliable ally one can wish for. If they could “uprise and explode” they would have exploded during Iraq invasion. But all the Arab world has produced after Iraq is fanatics like Amre above, running around huffing and puffing nonsense
There is no cure for Iran except Sadam Hussien. I just feel sorry for this highly respectful and educational blog to be downgraded by fanatic, vulgar rants of depressed traumatised individualls like the descent lady above.
Downgraded by a descent lady? Yes,please!
Certainly there is considerable opposition within Iraq to what are perceived as Persian threats to the Iraqi Arab national identity.
Simultaneously the traumatisation as a consequence of US intervention has seen a realignment of nationalist forces.These nationalist forces are,whether they are Sunni or Shia or Kurdish or whatever,now virulently anti-occupation.
If the US left is as easily neutralized as Bricot argues then it must have been of little moment in the first place.
Lest it be forgotten the biggest,most crass advocate of humanitarian intervention has been forced from office.Yes,Blair’s supine support for the US/Israeli attack on Lebanon signaled the beginning of endgame for the fraud.
The argument for humanitarian intervention was emphatically lost by the war-mongers contra what Bricot would have us believe.Not only is US intervention anywhere under such auspices utterly now unconscionable but the entire structure of the UN is now under scrutiny as never before.
I think Bricot makes a salutary case for a wake-up call in this piece but at the same time he plays into the hands of the war-mongers who will look on any sign of loss of momentum or lack of confidence in the anti-war front as a victory.
Bush’s reflex contortions against Iran mirror the mad dog antics of beleaguered Nixon when told by military advisers that he had to get out of Vietnam.
Don’t be fooled,the STW Movement is alive and well and our resistance allies in Afghanistan and Iraq are able to win through sheer force of will anyway.
Our battle is a domestic one both in US and UK to remove the corporate fascist states we have allowed to grow like a cancer among us and make gratuitous,illegal war in our name.
[...] to bomb Iran has already been taken. And if you think war with Iran is too improbable, then this article from Jean Bricmont should disabuse you of such false complacence. Posted by m.idrees Filed in EU/Europe, France, [...]
Dear Amr Abyad
A. About your statements on Iran political situation, even as an opposition to the politics of Iranian arabized regime I have to mention that most of information you are providing is fake ( I am one of those 25% Azeri you mentioned). There is minimum conflict between ethnicities especially in borders of Iran like Kurds, Azeri, Turkmen, Arab, Balouch compare to neighboring countries in Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, strangely the level of development in quite higher in Iran side in all those area compare to outside, they have might have conflict with regime but never is a consensus for independence form Iran, for your notes on Arabs in Khuzestan please just search in wikipedia!!!
B. One of most unique characteristics of Iran ( Persia) is that too many races and cultures with different languages are living in this land for thousands of years in peace and integrity, very surprisingly maybe the only thing that had united them is the term of being “Iranian” and Persian as a pride , this is very well documented in the history that in any invasion all of them were fighting for the country shoulder by shoulder, this is exactly opposite the Arabs which despite of having common language, religion, culture etc still they are not one united nation to back each other in time of dangers and difficulties. For your information most of Iranians are speaking easily 2-3 local languages, this is one of the important tool they apply to preserve their integrity with respecting each others culture enthusiastically.
C. Except for this recent 3 decades in our history Iran was always much more tolerant than other nations in neighborhood or far west about religion. Refer to BBC documentary on Jews in Iran, before revolution of 1979 Iran had biggest population of Jews in Middle East, this is related to historical turning point in 600 BC when Cyrus king of Persia accommodate Jews refugees as the first ever state in the history and put it as rule in his humanitarian charter, that all people have full right and freedom in their religion they are perusing.
D. What is happening in Middle East rather than for its oil rich attraction and political strategically location is “religion”, which as you insisted all the time is the product of your so called Arab nation to the world, while your so called barbers (when you refer to Romans and Persians) were busy with producing and preserving science for human civilization. Now you are accusing Iranians to have retarded religious belief, while they are suffering themselves from their arabized dictators.
E. Have you forgotten all this Jihadi terrorist group originated in that so called Arab nation integrated in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq? How many of attackers of 11 Sept was Arab let say Egyptian? Was there any Afghani or Iranian among them? Why US didn’t target Egypt or Saudi Arabia although the major part of that team was from these 2 countries?
F. In one point you were discussing hatred between Iranians and Persians, let me remind you biggest reason is that Iranians strongly believe that progress of their civilization was haltered in 1400 years ago when Arabs invaded Iran, and brutally destroyed all signs of civilization ( who is barber?) universities, libraries, theatres, since they were coming from such an underdeveloped societies that hadn’t capacity to understand development’s signs ( don’t forget Islam as a ruling system mainly came to stop them form raping their sisters and burying alive their daughters and looting their brothers properties)
G. You possess all achievements of Iranian in civilization for the benefit of Arabs quite frequently a simple search for “Iranian scholars” and matching it with your list will reveal the fact, your master piece is your inventing very funny terms like “Arabized Kurd: Salahedin Ayub” …..if you dare tell it to Kurds, they strongly believed that they are the most pure Arians.
H. Your main evidence that all nations from Morroco to Iraq are one originally one nation is that they all speak Arabic,, a simple response from any average IQ to you would be that Egyptians are as much Arab as Algerian are French. Further they all speak Arabic because of Islam not anything else, there is too many accredited information available on net on studies of genetic origin of each of these countries, perhaps if you get chance in future to travel to all these countries you will meet too many tribes living with different languages and physical attributes.
I. You are ignoring totally Palestinians as part of this nation and never mention any interest to support them as part of your unity, you use them just when you need some victim to accuse some assumed enemy but never there is any expression of willing to improve their situation, no need to mentioned that recently Egypt closed the food supply channel over the Palestinians in Gaza shoulder by shoulder of Israelis.
I will apply your tactic and will use this opportunity to mention some points on my finding about your notes in web:
Searching your name “Amr Abyadon” in web has amazing result ( I suggest to other audience to try it personally if interested ) ;
1-Its seems that you are actively looking for any opportunity to show your hatred toward Persian/ Iranian by distorting history and making a fake history and try to sell it to those that might have spent less time on studying history.
2-You are pushing too hard to change the identity of people of North Africa and Middle East to Arab by force.
Studying responses of many of your audience amazingly shows that many of them especially Egyptians believe that they are Egyptians and Arab speaker but not Arab by genetic as you insist to induce in them.
3. You are providing most of the time not well supported theories as fact (do you what is the difference between theory and proven fact in Arabic Farz and Asl?)
4. You are obviously advocating war, giving legitimacy to mass killing, usage of chemical weapon against civilians and supporting terror symbols, advocating racism very close to Nazism
The quick analysis on all your comments and notes on internet will give this impression;
These all shows presence serious psychological problem developed into antisocial personality, in other words it is considered a danger for humanity, having potential to become which needs close observation and control, you have potential to become a terrorist or mass murderer as a person who his hero is Saddam with incredible evidence of committing crimes ( I think you rarely have talked to Iraqis).
From other point your strong hatred towards Persians/Iranian and your eye-catching struggle to downgrade this nation possessing their achievement and pride for benefit of Arab nation have a subtle very naughty notion that you have some complex with Persians which has resulted in ill behavior and need professional interventions to guarantee your health.
An Iranian Azeri