[Paleopsych] Stephen J. Sniegoski: Next Stop, Iran
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Tue Oct 19 17:19:54 UTC 2004
I don't see why you think the market devalues labor. Employee compensation
runs about 80% of GDP. Profits run only about 4% of sales. I'd have to go
through the Economic Report of the President to be sure how this all
breaks out and to avoid double counting and omitting things. I used to use
ERP fairly regularly, but no for quite a while.
On 2004-10-18, Steve Hovland opined [message unchanged below]:
> I have done some work with artificial intelligence programming.
>
> It suffers from something called combinatorial explosion.
>
> When you try to build a rule based system that does a real
> task, as opposed to a narrow-concept demonstration or an
> artificial problem, the difficulty of doing it increased very
> quickly to the point of being almost impossible.
>
> Similarly, industrial robots have been around for many years,
> and do some things very well. But nothing is so flexible or
> easily trained as a human, so they haven't taken over jobs
> in nearly the numbers that some predicted.
>
> I think we live in an insane economy that devalues labor.
>
> The Buddhists talk about Right Livelihood, and perhaps we
> should listen to them.
>
> Steve Hovland
> www.stevehovland.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Premise Checker [SMTP:checker at panix.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 6:26 PM
> To: The new improved paleopsych list
> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Stephen J. Sniegoski: Next Stop, Iran
>
> Well, maybe you can come up with a better suggestion about what to do with
> the useless eaters. They will be increasing in the population as
> artificial intelligence, robots, and so on replaces more and more jobs.
> Just wait till machines at last can pick strawberries, one of the few
> fruits that have eluded machines so far. No doubt, these migrant farm
> worker immigrants can do something else, but each time a job is automated,
> workers have to take lower paid jobs (presuming, more or less accurately,
> that workers tend to seek out the most renumerative job).
>
> So they can either be put on the "high tech equivalent of the Indian
> reservation," in Charles Murray's famous phrase, be given affirmative
> action jobs and do nothing, or be given fake jobs and do nothing useful.
>
> On 2004-10-18, Steve Hovland opined [message unchanged below]:
>
>> I'm glad we have a shared vision of our wonderful future :-)
>>
>> Steve Hovland
>> www.stevehovland.net
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Premise Checker [SMTP:checker at panix.com]
>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 3:02 PM
>> To: The new improved paleopsych list
>> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Stephen J. Sniegoski: Next Stop, Iran
>>
>> It would not reduce the population of useless eaters very much, since not
>> many of them would get killed, fewer than if they stayed at home and
>> engaged in hot rodding. But it would give them jobs and a sense of
>> accomplishment.
>>
>> Or we could create U.S. Department of Reorganization, where half the
>> employees would be reorganizing the other half. THe usual competition over
>> perks and office space would continue, though nothing would be produced.
>> This is very much like the U.S. Department of Education, where I work,
>> except that cash does get dispersed, to the tune of $63 billion a year,
>> most of it going to educrats outside of E.D. but none of it benefiting
>> students. In fact it harms them.
>>
>> On 2004-10-18, Steve Hovland opined [message unchanged below]:
>>
>>> Concentrating the draft on the lower classes
>>> would be a good way to reduce the population
>>> of "useless eaters."
>>>
>>> Steve Hovland
>>> www.stevehovland.net
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Premise Checker [SMTP:checker at panix.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 2:37 PM
>>> To: The new improved paleopsych list
>>> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Stephen J. Sniegoski: Next Stop, Iran
>>>
>>> You again are not paying attention. The student deferments will by and
>>> large go to those who can compete with the Chinese and Japanese. Those
>>> that can should not only get derements but should not be drafted at all.
>>> Only those that are in what the Marxoids called the reserve army of the
>>> unemployed should be drafted.
>>>
>>> On 2004-10-18, Steve Hovland opined [message unchanged below]:
>>>
>>>> If they do a draft, I hope that there won't be any
>>>> student deferments :-)
>>>>
>>>> Steve Hovland
>>>> www.stevehovland.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Premise Checker [SMTP:checker at panix.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 2:08 PM
>>>> To: The new improved paleopsych list
>>>> Subject: RE: [Paleopsych] Stephen J. Sniegoski: Next Stop, Iran
>>>>
>>>> There wouldn't be much political fallout if those who can complete with
>>>> the Chinese and Indians don't get drafted. Those who can't will be glad to
>>>> have jobs.
>>>>
>>>> On 2004-10-18, Steve Hovland opined [message unchanged below]:
>>>>
>>>>> Going to war against Iran would be a good way to
>>>>> employ all of those useless young Americans who
>>>>> can't compete with Chinese who make 37 cents
>>>>> per hour, not to mention Indian PhD's who think
>>>>> $6,000 a year is a lot of money.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we won't be able to continue the war in Iraq
>>>>> without using conscription, we will be able to get
>>>>> a two-fer-one by attacking Iran as well. What I
>>>>> mean is that the political consequences of starting
>>>>> a draft will be so high that any President who does
>>>>> it may as well knock out all of them at once, including
>>>>> Korea.
>>>>>
>>>>> And once Baby Boomers start dying from the
>>>>> fallout from the Korean bomb, the problem with
>>>>> Social Security will be solved as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Great days lie ahead!
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Hovland
>>>>> www.stevehovland.net
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Premise Checker [SMTP:checker at panix.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 1:30 PM
>>>>> To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>>>>> Subject: [Paleopsych] Stephen J. Sniegoski: Next Stop, Iran
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen J. Sniegoski: Next Stop, Iran
>>>>> http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future.htm
>>>>> 4.10.14
>>>>>
>>>>> [The author is quite biased against neocons and American empire policy,
>>>>> but read it anyhow. It warns of the impossible quagmire the United States
>>>>> is heading toward. But remember this may be a blessing in disguise if we
>>>>> can somehow rope 30 surplus MegaChinese males into it instead of attacking
>>>>> us.]
>>>>>
>>>>> Editor's note. Dr. Sniegoski presented an earlier version of this
>>>>> article as a paper at the 12th [2]Mut zur Ethik Conference held
>>>>> September 3-5, 2004, in Feldkirch/Vorarlberg, Austria. The
>>>>> conference theme was "Giving Inner Courage: democracy, values,
>>>>> education, and dialogue."
>>>>>
>>>>> That version is to be published by [3]Zeit-Fragen ([4]Current
>>>>> Concerns). Zeit-Fragen/Current Concerns is published in Zurich,
>>>>> Switzerland.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Nicholas Strakon
>>>>> ___________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The future of the global War on Terror:
>>>>> Next stop, Iran
>>>>> By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
>>>>>
>>>>> If you find this column of value, please send a donation of $4 to TLD.
>>>>> More information appears below.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What will be the next front in the war on terror? I don't claim to be
>>>>> Nostradamus and I don't have a crystal ball, but I can confidently say
>>>>> that the current situation points to a wider war in the Middle East.
>>>>> That result has been sought and planned for by the American
>>>>> neoconservatives; it is what they have referred to as World War IV. It
>>>>> is all in the published record; no conspiracy-theorizing is necessary
>>>>> to see it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also on the record, but receiving much less attention, is the fact
>>>>> that the drive toward World War IV reflects the long-held Israeli
>>>>> Likudnik goal of destabilizing and fragmenting Israel's Middle Eastern
>>>>> enemies in order to ultimately facilitate the elimination of the
>>>>> single greatest danger to the Jewish state -- its large and
>>>>> ever-growing Palestinian population. (I will not repeat here all of
>>>>> [5]what I have written elsewhere about the neocon/Likudnik background
>>>>> for the war in the Middle East -- how the neocons were the driving
>>>>> force for the war on Iraq and how the war plans were conceived in
>>>>> Israel.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Neoconservatives do not control American policy to the extent that
>>>>> they can lead the country directly into the wider war in the Middle
>>>>> East. Other U.S. elites, especially the financial elite, do not want
>>>>> such a wider war. Instead, it seems likely that the neocons will use
>>>>> the momentum of their invasion and occupation of Iraq to thrust the
>>>>> United States into the wider war, and it seems likely that it will
>>>>> begin with an attack on Iran.
>>>>>
>>>>> The neocons have been focusing on the danger of Iran for some time,
>>>>> and it now appears that much of what they have said about that country
>>>>> may actually be true. Numerous experts now report that the Islamic
>>>>> Republic of Iran possesses an extensive and intensive nuclear program
>>>>> that could develop weapons. Moreover, Iran has developed substantial
>>>>> ballistic-missile capabilities; it can probably hit targets throughout
>>>>> the Middle East, including Israel. An interesting point, however, is
>>>>> that Iran does not seem to be violating any international laws in
>>>>> importing materials for its suspected nuclear-weapons program. That
>>>>> program uses the same basic technology involved in a civilian
>>>>> nuclear-energy program, which Iran is permitted to have under the 1968
>>>>> Non-Proliferation Treaty. [6][1]
>>>>>
>>>>> [future_qt1.gif] If Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, that
>>>>> would fit with its declared strategy of "deterrent defense," as
>>>>> opposed to an offensive threat to Israel or, certainly, to the United
>>>>> States. Iran wants to be a regional power able to defend itself
>>>>> against Israel and the United States, which it apparently believes are
>>>>> more apt to attack weak countries unable to fight back. As Middle East
>>>>> news commentator Youssef Ibrahim writes: "I have little doubt Iran is
>>>>> pursuing nuclear weapon systems. Its officials privately assert it is
>>>>> so because they view Israel as a real menace to them and the region
>>>>> with its 200 nuclear warheads.... The United States completely ignores
>>>>> that double standard, which resonates widely among Arabs and Muslims.
>>>>> Added to that is the suspicion the Bush administration is still bent
>>>>> on, or addicted to, more American-induced regime changes." [7][2]
>>>>>
>>>>> Commentator Edward S. Herman aptly observes: "Iran is the next U.S.
>>>>> and Israeli target, so the mainstream U.S. media are once again
>>>>> serving the state agenda by focusing on Iran's alleged menace and
>>>>> refusing to provide context that would show the menace to be pure
>>>>> Orwell -- that is, while Iran is seriously threatened by the U.S. and
>>>>> its aggressively ethnic-cleansing client, Iran only threatens the
>>>>> possibility of self-defense." [8][3]
>>>>>
>>>>> Iran's very effort to develop strategic weapons prompts Israel and the
>>>>> United States to press for a pre-emptive attack. It might be also
>>>>> argued that while the rulers of Iran certainly want to avoid a
>>>>> destructive American or Israeli attack, at the same time they can use
>>>>> a war atmosphere to unify their country, now divided between religious
>>>>> militants and moderates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Israel is especially concerned -- it is obsessed, even -- about Iran's
>>>>> developing nuclear weapons because it regards its regional nuclear
>>>>> monopoly as a fundamental pillar of its security. We might recall that
>>>>> Israel bombed Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981 when it feared
>>>>> that Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons there. Iran is, of
>>>>> course, an active enemy of Israel, providing support to Hezbollah in
>>>>> Lebanon and to a number of Palestinian resistance groups. In the past
>>>>> couple of years numerous Israeli officials have sounded grave warnings
>>>>> about the potential Iranian nuclear threat. For example, in November
>>>>> 2003 testimony before the Israeli parliament's Foreign Affairs and
>>>>> Defense Committee, Mossad chief Meir Dagan warned that Iran's nuclear
>>>>> program posed "the biggest threat to Israel's existence since its
>>>>> creation" in 1948. [9][4]
>>>>> And addressing a conference on national security in December 2003, Avi
>>>>> Dichter, the head of Shin Bet, Israel's internal-security agency, said
>>>>> that Iran was sponsoring terrorism and developing non-conventional
>>>>> weapons, which posed "a strategic threat to Israel." Dichter declared
>>>>> that "Iran is the No. 1 terror nation in the world." [10][5]
>>>>>
>>>>> Israeli leaders emphasized concern about Iran before the U.S. attack
>>>>> on Iraq. In January 2002, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, a leading
>>>>> member of the Labor Party and a former prime minister, claimed that
>>>>> Iran posed a grave missile threat to Israel: "The ayatollah leadership
>>>>> in Iran is also threatening to destroy Israel ... inflicting genocide
>>>>> through the use of missiles." [11][6]
>>>>> And in an interview with the New York Post in November 2002, Prime
>>>>> Minister Ariel Sharon said that as soon as Iraq had been dealt with,
>>>>> he would "push for Iran to be at the top of the 'to do' list." Sharon
>>>>> called Iran the "center of world terror" and declared that "Iran makes
>>>>> every effort to possess weapons of mass destruction ... and ballistic
>>>>> missiles.... That is a danger to the Middle East, and a danger to
>>>>> Europe." [12][7]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As usual, neoconservatives acted in tandem with Israel. The point man
>>>>> here would seem to be veteran neoconservative Michael A. Ledeen. On
>>>>> April 30, 2003, in an address titled "Time to Focus on Iran -- the
>>>>> Mother of Modern Terrorism" at a policy forum of the Jewish
>>>>> Institutite for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Ledeen declared:
>>>>> "The time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free
>>>>> Syria and free Lebanon." [13][8]
>>>>> Elsewhere Ledeen would write: "We are now engaged in a regional
>>>>> struggle in the Middle East, and the Iranian tyrants are the keystone
>>>>> of the terror network. Far more than the overthrow of Saddam Hussein,
>>>>> the defeat of the mullahcracy and the triumph of freedom in Tehran
>>>>> would be a truly historic event and an enormous blow to the
>>>>> terrorists." [14][9] Ledeen actually argued that the United States
>>>>> should first attack Iran, which he portrayed as the "keystone of the
>>>>> terror network," even while the Bush administration was preparing its
>>>>> attack on Iraq. "I have long argued that it would be better to
>>>>> liberate Iran before Iraq," he wrote in November 2002, "and events may
>>>>> soon give us that opportunity." [15][10]
>>>>>
>>>>> In early 2002 Ledeen set up the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI),
>>>>> an action group focusing on producing regime change in Iran. His
>>>>> principal collaborator is Morris Amitay, vice chairman of JINSA and a
>>>>> former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs
>>>>> Committee (AIPAC), Israel's ultra-powerful lobby in the United States.
>>>>> CDI also includes members of key neoconservative policy institutes and
>>>>> think tanks, including Raymond Tanter of the Washington Institute for
>>>>> Near East Affairs (WINEA) -- an off-shoot of AIPAC -- Frank Gaffney,
>>>>> president of the Center for Security Policy, American Enterprise
>>>>> Institute (AEI) scholars Joshua Muravchik and Danielle Pletka, and
>>>>> former CIA director James Woolsey. The organization proclaims that
>>>>> diplomatic engagement with Iran has proved to be an utter failure, and
>>>>> that the only way to end the reign of Iran's "terror masters" is to
>>>>> actively support opponents of the regime in their efforts to topple
>>>>> the reigning mullahs. [16][11]
>>>>>
>>>>> [future_qt2.gif] The move on Iran enlisted broad support among
>>>>> neocons. On May 6, 2003, AEI hosted an all-day conference titled "The
>>>>> Future of Iran: Mullahcracy, Democracy, and the War on Terror," whose
>>>>> speakers included Ledeen, Amitay, and Uri Lubrani from the Israeli
>>>>> Defense Ministry. The convenor, Hudson Institute Middle East
>>>>> specialist Meyrav Wurmser (whose husband David worked as her AEI
>>>>> counterpart until joining the Bush administration), set the tone. "Our
>>>>> fight against Iraq was only one battle in a long war," she said. "It
>>>>> would be ill-conceived to think that we can deal with Iraq alone....
>>>>> We must move on, and faster." [17][12]
>>>>> As Marc Perelman pointed out in the Jewish newspaper Forward in May
>>>>> 2003, "A budding coalition of conservative hawks, Jewish
>>>>> organizations, and Iranian monarchists is pressing the White House to
>>>>> step up American efforts to bring about regime change in Iran."
>>>>> [18][13]
>>>>>
>>>>> It is worth noting that despite their reputation as advocates of
>>>>> global democracy, the neoconservatives have proposed restoring the
>>>>> monarchy in Iran, in the person of Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the
>>>>> former shah. Perelman wrote: "The emerging coalition is reminiscent of
>>>>> the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, with Pahlavi possibly assuming
>>>>> the role of Iraqi exile opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi, a favorite of
>>>>> neoconservatives. Like Chalabi, Pahlavi has good relations with
>>>>> several Jewish groups. He has addressed the board of the hawkish
>>>>> Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and gave a public
>>>>> speech at the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Museum of Tolerance in Los
>>>>> Angeles, and met with Jewish communal leaders." [19][14]
>>>>>
>>>>> A strong Israeli connection was apparent here. According to Perelman,
>>>>> Pahlavi has had direct contacts with the Israeli leadership: "During
>>>>> the last two years ... [Pahlavi] has met privately with Prime Minister
>>>>> Sharon and former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as
>>>>> Israel's Iranian-born president, Moshe Katsav." [20][15]
>>>>>
>>>>> Another writer, Iraj Pakravan, maintained that the neocon and overall
>>>>> Zionist support for Pahlavi was to be reciprocated by his support for
>>>>> Israel, should he ever take power. Pahlavi and his supporters must
>>>>> "give guarantees that they will conduct a policy that supports
>>>>> Israel's position against the Palestinians and abide by the U.S.'s
>>>>> energy needs. Furthermore, and most importantly, the opposition group
>>>>> must accept that Israel will be the leading state in the hierarchy of
>>>>> the regional system, a position that many states in the Middle East
>>>>> covet." [21][16]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Indicating the seriousness of the American move to destabilize Iran
>>>>> was the fact that preparations were being made by the Defense
>>>>> Department's Office of Special Plans (OSP), which played such a key
>>>>> role in the U.S. attack on Iraq. Perelman wrote in May 2003: "Iran
>>>>> expert Michael Rubin is now working for the Pentagon's 'special plans'
>>>>> office, a small unit set up to gather intelligence on Iraq, but
>>>>> apparently also working on Iran. Previously a researcher at the
>>>>> Washington Institute for Near East policy, Rubin has vocally advocated
>>>>> regime change in Tehran." [22][17]
>>>>>
>>>>> As a result of a leaked FBI probe in the late summer of 2004, it has
>>>>> come out that Israel might have had direct contacts with members of
>>>>> the OSP on the Iran issue. The implication is not simply that
>>>>> individuals involved were pro-Israel but that some of them might be
>>>>> conspirators in a clandestine operation launched by Sharon's Likud
>>>>> Party. Robert Dreyfuss, writing in the Nation, has called them "agents
>>>>> of influence" for a foreign government.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dreyfuss reports that "the point of the FBI probe, sources believe, is
>>>>> not to examine the push to war but rather to ascertain whether Sharon
>>>>> recruited or helped place in office people who knowingly, and
>>>>> secretly, worked with him to affect the direction of U.S. policy in
>>>>> the Middle East." Tom Barry of In These Times writes that, unbeknownst
>>>>> to the CIA or the State Department, the office of Douglas Feith
>>>>> (assistant secretary of defense for policy) engaged in "back-channel
>>>>> operations" and over the past three years participated in clandestine
>>>>> meetings in Washington, Rome, and Paris "to discuss regime change in
>>>>> Iraq, Iran, and Syria." Attending the meetings, Barry writes, were
>>>>> "Office of Policy officials and consultants ... [Lawrence] Franklin,
>>>>> Harold Rhode, and Michael Ledeen..., an expatriate Iranian arms dealer
>>>>> (Manichur Ghorbanifar), AIPAC lobbyists, Ahmed Chalabi, and Italian
>>>>> and Israeli intelligence officers, among others." The direct link to
>>>>> Sharon's government was most obvious in the plan for regime change in
>>>>> Iran, which Barry says would most likely involve "a combination of
>>>>> preemptive military strikes (either by the United States or Israel)
>>>>> and support for a coalition of Iranian dissidents." [23][18]
>>>>>
>>>>> [future_qt3.gif] It was not just the neoconservatives in the Bush
>>>>> administration who were moving to attack Iran: President George W.
>>>>> Bush himself identified Iran as a member of the "Axis of Evil" in his
>>>>> first State of the Union Address in January 2002. And National
>>>>> Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made this aspect of U.S. policy
>>>>> clear in her August 8, 2004, appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press": "We
>>>>> cannot allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon." [24][19]
>>>>> The next day, while campaigning for re-election, Bush asserted that
>>>>> Iran "must abandon her nuclear ambitions," and he vowed to stand with
>>>>> U.S. allies to pressure Tehran to do so. [25][20]
>>>>>
>>>>> Ominously, on May 6, 2004, a U.S. House of Representatives resolution
>>>>> authorized "all appropriate means" to put an end to Iranian
>>>>> nuclear-weapons development; the administration could use that
>>>>> resolution as legal justification to launch an attack. [26][21]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are strong rumors floating that Israel plans to attack Iran's
>>>>> nuclear installations, as it attacked Iraq's reactor in 1981. "For
>>>>> Israel it's quite clear, that we're not going to wait for a threat to
>>>>> be realized," says Ephraim Inbar, head of the Jaffee Center for
>>>>> Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. "For self-defense we have to
>>>>> act in a preemptive mode." [27][22]
>>>>> But some Israeli authorities believe that destroying Iran's nuclear
>>>>> capabilities would be a far more difficult mission than the 1981
>>>>> attack. "I don't think there's an option for a pre-emptive act because
>>>>> we're talking about a different sort of a nuclear program," maintained
>>>>> Shmuel Bar, a fellow at the Institute for Policy and Strategy at the
>>>>> Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel. "A hit-and-run
>>>>> preemptive attack can't guarantee much success." [28][23]
>>>>>
>>>>> In late September 2004, however, Israel announced that it would
>>>>> purchase 500 "bunker-busting" bombs from the United States (paid for
>>>>> by U.S. military aid) -- weapons that could destroy Iran's underground
>>>>> nuclear stores and laboratories. [29][24]
>>>>>
>>>>> [future_qt4.gif] In the event of any Israeli strike on its nuclear
>>>>> installations, Iran has threatened to unleash its forces in an all-out
>>>>> retaliation, including long-range missile attacks and terror attacks
>>>>> from Lebanon. Iran's claim to be able to wreak great damage on Israel
>>>>> may just be bluster to ward off an attack, but defense experts do
>>>>> report that the latest version of Iran's Shahab-3 medium-range
>>>>> ballistic missile can reach Israel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Threats of an Israeli attack, which could ignite an all-out Middle
>>>>> East war, might induce the United States to move on Iran. Moreover,
>>>>> American attacks on Iranian missile sites would probably be more
>>>>> effective than anything Israel could carry out and would make it less
>>>>> likely that Israel would suffer from Iranian retaliation. Thus, the
>>>>> safety of Israel would likely motivate those influential Americans who
>>>>> identify with Israel to push for an American attack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ironically, by eliminating the hostile regimes bordering Iran --
>>>>> Afghanistan and Iraq -- the United States provided Tehran with
>>>>> opportunities to greatly expand its power in the region. At the same
>>>>> time, however, the presence of American forces in those bordering
>>>>> countries puts considerable geopolitical pressure on Iran. The
>>>>> stabilization of those neighbors under American domination would
>>>>> seriously endanger Iran, especially since the United States already
>>>>> controls the Persian Gulf. Historian Juan Cole describes the situation
>>>>> this way: "The Iranians are very afraid that the United States will
>>>>> find a way to maneuver an anti-Iranian government into power" in Iraq.
>>>>> [30][25]
>>>>> The current Iraqi government of Iyad Allawi definitely seems
>>>>> anti-Iranian; thus it is in Iran's interest to work against stability
>>>>> for the existing Iraqi government.
>>>>>
>>>>> With American occupation forces in neighboring Iraq, the situation
>>>>> with Iran is a veritable powder keg. American officials and Prime
>>>>> Minister Allawi have claimed that Iran is aiding the violent Shi'ite
>>>>> resistance in Iraq led by the radical cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr. [31][26]
>>>>>
>>>>> The situation is ripe for incidents leading to conflict. Iranian
>>>>> Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV on August 18, 2004,
>>>>> that Iran might even launch a preemptive strike against U.S. forces in
>>>>> the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities. "We will
>>>>> not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some
>>>>> military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations
>>>>> which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly." Shamkhani
>>>>> continued: "The U.S. military presence (in Iraq) will not become an
>>>>> element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is
>>>>> true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in the event of
>>>>> an attack. [32][27]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In light of the American public's disenchantment with the bloody
>>>>> quagmire in Iraq, it is highly unlikely that the Bush administration
>>>>> would dare to attack Iran before the November election. But what could
>>>>> the United States do after the election? Although the Iranian military
>>>>> is not in any way comparable to that of the United States, it is
>>>>> larger and better equipped than the Iraqi forces that the United
>>>>> States faced in 2003. The Iranians also have the benefit of having
>>>>> learned from U.S. military operations in Iraq. And Iran's military
>>>>> power has not been sapped by a decade of bombing, as Iraq's had been.
>>>>>
>>>>> The occupation of Iraq has stretched the U.S. Army so thin that a
>>>>> large-scale ground invasion of Iran, followed by a comparable military
>>>>> occupation, seems to be out of the question. But bombing of Iran's
>>>>> nuclear sites and military infrastructure is highly likely. After all,
>>>>> neither the Air Force nor the Navy, with its cruise missiles, is mired
>>>>> in Iraq. However, since many Iranian facilities are located in urban
>>>>> areas, even "precision" bombing would cause extensive civilian
>>>>> casualties. Furthermore, precision bombing alone might not knock out
>>>>> Iran's nuclear installations, many of which are said to be built
>>>>> underground. [33][28]
>>>>>
>>>>> [future_qt5.gif] Neocons would undoubtedly press for the severest
>>>>> attack possible, not just to set back Iran's nuclear program but also
>>>>> to weaken its military and economic potential. That would dramatically
>>>>> set the stage for regime change in Iran. Hence, a limited ground
>>>>> invasion of Iran with air support would not be out of the question;
>>>>> the aim would be not to occupy Iran but rather to destroy Iranian
>>>>> forces. A ground invasion could oblige Iran to position its military
>>>>> forces in defensive positions that American airpower could then
>>>>> destroy.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would be the impact of such an American attack on Iran? A war
>>>>> against Iran is liable to set off a tidal wave of terror in the rest
>>>>> of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, already shaken by terror, could fall
>>>>> into chaos. The concomitant danger to the Saudi oil supply would
>>>>> threaten the economy of the world. A call would arise in the United
>>>>> States to militarily occupy the Saudi oil-producing regions; that is a
>>>>> move for which Washington is reported to have had contingency plans
>>>>> for a long time, and it has been publicly advocated by the neocons.
>>>>> Since anti-Saudi feeling is high in the United States, such a move
>>>>> might enjoy considerable support here even among those who identify
>>>>> with the anti-war American Left (i.e., the moderate Left). It is worth
>>>>> noting that Michael Moore's popular anti-war movie "Fahrenheit 9/11"
>>>>> blames the Saudi government for the 9/11 attacks and the war on Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>> While the U.S. military could manage to occupy Saudi Arabia's Eastern
>>>>> Province, maintaining the oil supply would not necessarily be easy.
>>>>> The pipelines would also have to be secured, including, presumably,
>>>>> the vitally important pipeline that stretches across the country to
>>>>> the Red Sea. Such an undertaking would further stretch the depleted
>>>>> military and financial resources of the United States.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any aggression directed against Saudi Arabia, the center of the
>>>>> Islamic religion, would undoubtedly have a galvanizing effect on the
>>>>> peoples of the entire Muslim world. Thousands of fanatical Muslim
>>>>> fighters would not only pour into Saudi Arabia but would also attack
>>>>> American and Western interests throughout the world. The pro-American
>>>>> regimes in Jordan and Egypt would face destabilization.
>>>>>
>>>>> [future_qt6.gif] The turmoil would cause oil prices to skyrocket,
>>>>> which would have dire economic consequences around the world,
>>>>> provoking social and political upheavals far beyond the Middle East.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, important American economic interests -- Big Oil,
>>>>> international finance -- as well as the foreign-policy elite would not
>>>>> want that nightmare scenario to develop. But those groups have
>>>>> generally opposed the American war in the Middle East all along, with
>>>>> little success. They are currently pushing for negotiation with Iran;
>>>>> Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, headed a recent study for the
>>>>> Council on Foreign Relations that recommended the diplomatic approach.
>>>>> But the war skeptics among the elites -- defenders of the imperialist
>>>>> status quo -- have been overtaken by events. Things have slipped
>>>>> beyond their control. As the American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson
>>>>> exclaimed during the American Civil War: "Events are in the saddle and
>>>>> ride mankind."
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as the United States stays in Iraq, the widening of the war is
>>>>> very likely. Earlier I referred to the U.S. occupation of Iraq as a
>>>>> powder keg; it is now ready to explode. And a couple of crucial actors
>>>>> threaten to light the fuse. The Islamic regime in Iran believes its
>>>>> survival depends on keeping Iraq unstable and on developing a powerful
>>>>> military deterrent, probably including nuclear weapons. Militant
>>>>> Islamic terrorists -- al Qaeda -- see an all-out war between the
>>>>> United States and Islam as a chance to overthrow the existing Arab
>>>>> regimes and gain power. Sharon and the American neocons realize that
>>>>> destabilizing the Middle East can save the Jewish state by
>>>>> facilitating a final solution to the Palestinian demographic threat,
>>>>> which if ignored will soon overwhelm the Jewish population in the
>>>>> areas controlled by Israel. Consequently, Israel and its influential
>>>>> American supporters push for a U.S. hard line -- to bring about the
>>>>> neoconservatives' World War IV.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is probably beyond the power of the Bush administration to pull out
>>>>> of Iraq, given the influence of the neocons and the fact that its
>>>>> prestige is on the line. In fact, its justification for attacking Iraq
>>>>> is even more applicable to attacking Iran, as many have pointed out.
>>>>> The Bush administration is just not willing to throw in the sponge and
>>>>> walk away from Iraq; to do so would be to admit that its whole policy
>>>>> had been a failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Although John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for president, has the
>>>>> support of most of the substantial anti-war vote, he is likely to
>>>>> pursue a policy in the Middle East similar to Bush's. [34][29]
>>>>> Kerry, in fact, doesn't even promise much change; some of his critics
>>>>> have styled the Kerry program on the Middle East "an echo, not a
>>>>> choice." [35][30] Kerry has said he would retain American troops in
>>>>> the Middle East. Only recently, finding himself behind in the polls,
>>>>> has he begun to actually admit that the invasion of Iraq was a
>>>>> mistake. As late as August 2004, Kerry was saying that he would have
>>>>> voted in the Senate to give the president the power to wage war on
>>>>> Iraq even if he had known that the WMD danger was non-existent. In
>>>>> regard to his plan for Iraq, Kerry differs with Bush only in respect
>>>>> to the former's much-touted internationalism, though it is doubtful
>>>>> that Kerry could attract much international support to occupy Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>> [future_qt7.gif] It should be added that Kerry's major organizational
>>>>> backers -- the Democratic Leadership Council and the Progressive
>>>>> Policy Institute -- are peopled by liberals who supported the war on
>>>>> Iraq. Moreover, like the neocons, they identify closely with Israel.
>>>>> Kerry himself has said that the "cause of Israel must be the cause of
>>>>> America" -- at a time when the actual "cause" of the Sharon government
>>>>> is to destabilize the Middle East in the interests of Israel. [36][31]
>>>>> It also should be noted, however, that Kerry, under the guise of
>>>>> progressive internationalism, could more effectively intensify and
>>>>> widen the war in the Middle East than could the Bush administration,
>>>>> whose credibility is much tarnished by lies, torture, and corruption.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact is that even if the neoconservatives themselves should lose
>>>>> their grip on the reins of government power, the war policy that they
>>>>> initiated in the Middle East has taken on a life of its own. And that
>>>>> holds true despite the influence of the Establishment figures who,
>>>>> unlike Kerry, opposed the American attack on Iraq. In large measure,
>>>>> the neoconservatives have placed their Establishment adversaries in a
>>>>> position where they cannot undo what the neocons have done. That is
>>>>> because the American foreign-policy elite believes that withdrawing
>>>>> from Iraq would destroy America's image as a world superpower. As
>>>>> columnist Paul Krugman writes: "Even among harsh critics of the
>>>>> administration's Iraq policy, the usual view is that we have to finish
>>>>> the job. You've heard the arguments: We broke it; we bought it. We
>>>>> can't cut and run. We have to stay the course." [37][32]
>>>>> According to this line of thinking, if the United States looked like a
>>>>> paper tiger in Iraq, it would not have the credibility to exercise its
>>>>> necessary role of world leadership.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the United States to pull out would put it on the defensive in the
>>>>> rest of the world. That demonstration of weakness would invite attacks
>>>>> on other parts of the American empire. Elite opinion on this issue is
>>>>> supported by much of the general populace, who see American honor at
>>>>> stake in staying the course and not giving in.
>>>>>
>>>>> In stipulating that the United States must not retreat, the
>>>>> foreign-policy elite inadvertently reveals the genius of
>>>>> neoconservative foreign policy on Iraq. The neocons have driven
>>>>> American policy into a position that their foreign-policy adversaries
>>>>> -- insofar as they support the American global empire -- must accept.
>>>>> Essentially, the neocons tied the interests of the American empire to
>>>>> those of Israel, which the non-neoconservative foreign-policy elite
>>>>> believes it cannot now abandon without undermining its own globalist
>>>>> agenda.
>>>>>
>>>>> But why can't the United States jettison its empire? Some say American
>>>>> wealth depends on its military empire -- an economic view I reject.
>>>>> Arnaud de Borchgrave, a critic of the attack on Iraq, presents the
>>>>> non-economic rationale for global militarism: "Not to see this mission
>>>>> [the Iraq business] through to a successful conclusion would relegate
>>>>> the United States to the role of Sweden or Switzerland in a world
>>>>> increasingly populated by pariah states. A new world disorder would be
>>>>> well-nigh inevitable." [38][33]
>>>>>
>>>>> But Sweden and Switzerland do quite well without a military empire.
>>>>> And it seems unlikely that the United States could be the country
>>>>> indispensable for maintaining prosperity for the rest of the world.
>>>>> All producers have a vital self-interest in trade, as opposed to
>>>>> self-sacrificing embargoes. If there arose [39][comment.gif] some
>>>>> terrible threat to cut off vital resources to the industrial world,
>>>>> other countries would undoubtedly intervene in some manner -- even by
>>>>> bribing dictators, as the dastardly French are supposed to do on
>>>>> occasion.
>>>>>
>>>>> The standard of living in the United States does not depend on the
>>>>> regime's global military empire. Unfortunately, the necessity of such
>>>>> an empire is ingrained in the thinking of the foreign-policy elite and
>>>>> of most educated Americans. Therefore it is hardly likely that the
>>>>> United States will pull out of Iraq. And that means there is a global
>>>>> debacle in the making.
>>>>>
>>>>> References
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/reprint.htm
>>>>> 2. http://www.mut-zur-ethik.ch/index_en.html
>>>>> 3. http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/
>>>>> 4. http://currentconcerns.ch/
>>>>> 5. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/conc_toc.htm
>>>>> 6. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note1
>>>>> 7. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note2
>>>>> 8. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note3
>>>>> 9. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note4
>>>>> 10. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note5
>>>>> 11. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note6
>>>>> 12. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note7
>>>>> 13. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note8
>>>>> 14. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note9
>>>>> 15. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note10
>>>>> 16. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note11
>>>>> 17. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note12
>>>>> 18. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note13
>>>>> 19. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note14
>>>>> 20. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note15
>>>>> 21. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note16
>>>>> 22. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note17
>>>>> 23. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note18
>>>>> 24. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note19
>>>>> 25. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note20
>>>>> 26. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note21
>>>>> 27. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note22
>>>>> 28. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note23
>>>>> 29. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note24
>>>>> 30. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note25
>>>>> 31. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note26
>>>>> 32. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note27
>>>>> 33. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note28
>>>>> 34. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note29
>>>>> 35. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note30
>>>>> 36. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note31
>>>>> 37. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note32
>>>>> 38. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future_notes.htm#note33
>>>>> 39. mailto:ditch at thornwalker.com?subject=StephenJ.Sniegoski--NEXTSTOP,IRAN
>>>>> 40. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/donor_update_info.htm
>>>>> 41. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/subscribe_tld.htm
>>>>> 42. http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/index.html
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list