Maravi

(HERALD, WHAT'S LEFT) Guide to why US seeks to make Iran a global pariah

Guide to why US seeks to make Iran a global pariah
Saturday, 19 November 2011 00:00
Stephen Gowans

Flipping idly through my morning newspaper, my eyes fell upon a headline, which, given its significance, should have appeared on the front page, but instead was tucked away at the back, on page A9. "Israel won't rule out attack on Iran".

Now, it's true that Israel's threatening to attack Iran is hardly news. Here was Ehud Barak, Israeli defence minister, over two years ago, talking about measures to dissuade Iran from continuing to process uranium: "We clearly believe that no option should be removed from the table. This is our policy. We mean it." And here was Barak just the other day: "We strongly believe that . . . no option should be removed from the table." Same defence minister. Same words. Same threat.

Yet while the threat may be old, its significance remains undiminished. One country is threatening to commit the supreme international crime: to attack another even though it, itself, has not been attacked by the country it rattles its sabre at. Were Iran to threaten Israel, the headline "Iran won't rule out attack on the Jewish state" wouldn't be tucked away inconspicuously in the back pages of my newspaper. Instead, it would be shouted in bold letters across the front page. "My God!", NATO state officials and editorialists would cry. "Iran is threatening to attack the Jewish state. Something must be done!"

But in this case it is Israel - which the Western media and governments have long embraced and set forth as the land of the good guys - that is issuing the threat against a country which has, since its escape from US domination in 1979, been limned as dark and menacing, and so while no one wants war, surely it's all perfectly understandable that the plucky Israelis should be declaring their determination to stand against the Judeophobic menace of the Islamic Republic. After all, isn't Iran building nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map? Well, if you listen to the Israelis and their US protector, the answer is yes.

The Strangelovian Israeli historian Benny Morris declares that Israel is "threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran's leaders." To eclipse this threat, Iran must be wiped off the map before Iran does any wiping of its own. "Israel has no option," Morris chillingly says, "but to use its nuclear arsenal to destroy Iran, unless the US uses its formidable military to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities first."

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu warns: "Iran is even arming itself with nuclear weapons to realise that goal (the obliteration of the Jewish state), and until now the world has not stopped it. The threat to our existence, is not theoretical. It cannot be swept under the carpet; it cannot be reduced. It faces us and all humanity, and it must be thwarted."

Ominous. But the idea that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons to obliterate Israel is pure flummery, as real as the threat King Kong poses to Manhattan; a work of fiction, intended to create a frisson of fear.

So, why do I say this? First, we don't know whether Iran intends to acquire nuclear
weapons, or only the capability of producing them, or even that. An International Atomic Energy Agency report, released yesterday, tables evidence that Iran is secretly working on a nuclear bomb. So let's assume for the moment that Iran's leaders do indeed intend to build nuclear weapons.

It's widely agreed that it's highly unlikely that Iran would be able to build nuclear weapons while its nuclear energy program is still under the scrutiny of UN inspectors.

A more likely scenario is that Tehran would develop the capability to produce a bomb from within the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and once it had reached the point of being able to do so, would turn its capability into reality by withdrawing from the treaty, ejecting inspectors, and making a mad dash to develop a rudimentary arsenal. That's what North Korea did, when, following the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States decided to re-target some its nuclear missiles from its old nemesis to the DPRK.

But would Iran ever get as far as being able to make a mad dash to status as the world's newest nuclear-weapons state? The United States and Israel have made plenty of noise about bombing Iran's nuclear facilities before Iran's nuclear scientists ever reach the point of having the capability of producing nuclear weapons.
Indeed, one of the reasons why the threat to attack Iran's nuclear facilities has been trotted out anew is because the steps the United States and Israel have taken to sabotage Iran's nuclear program - from the Stuxnet computer virus to the assassination of Iran's nuclear scientists to punitive sanctions - haven't stopped the program's development - although they have certainly slowed it. But let's make another assumption. Let's assume that despite US and Israeli efforts to cripple Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons, that Iran, despite these impediments, brings this capability to fruition, and furthermore, manages against the concerted opposition of the United States and Israel to develop a few nuclear warheads. Does the possession of warheads mean that Iran will use them - either to wipe Israel off the map or attack the United States?

No, it does not.

The idea that Iran is an "existential" threat to Israel comes from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's alleged promise to wipe Israel off the map. US and Israeli political leaders have been invoking this chestnut for years to justify the assassinations, economic warfare, covert destabilisation, and threats of military intervention used to undermine Iran's nuclear energy program. The problem is, the allegation is groundless.

The firestorm started when Nazila Fathi, then the Tehran correspondent of The New York Times, reported a story almost six years ago that was headlined: "Wipe Israel ‘off the map' Iranian says." The article attributed newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks to a report by the ISNA press agency.

Then, specialists such as Juan Cole of the University of Michigan and Arash Norouzi of the Mossadegh Project pointed out that the original statement in Persian did not say that Israel should be wiped from the map, but instead that it would collapse.

Khamenei stated, "Iran's position, which was first expressed by the Imam (Khomeini) and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region." He went on to say in the same speech that

"Palestinian refugees should return and Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves, excluding immigrant Jews."

Khamenei has been consistent, stating repeatedly that the goal is not the military destruction of the Jewish state but "the defeat of Zionist ideology and the dissolution of Israel through a ‘popular referendum.'"

To be sure, anyone who regards Israel as a "cancerous tumor" that "must be uprooted from the region" and replaced by a government freely chosen by the people who lived in Palestine prior to its conquest by Zionist settlers, is an existential threat to Zionism, as a living, breathing idea implanted in the soil of Palestine.

But while the designation of Iran as an existential threat to Israel is literally true (in the sense that Iran doesn't accept Zionism and therefore works against it by supporting such anti-Zionist groups as Hamas and Hezbollah), the phrase "existential threat" is twisted to mean something more than intended: military destruction rather than collapse through a referendum.

Political leaders are in the habit of turning non-threats into dire ones in order to manipulate public opinion to clear a path to get what they want. In other words, they manufacture consent for their policies by lying. A not particularly egregious example of this is provided by US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who, needing to defend the Pentagon's Brobdignagian budget against possible cuts, recently "cited North Korea and Iran as persistent threats, and said that the military had to maintain ‘the ability to deter and defeat them.'"

North Korea and Iran are not threats to the physical safety and welfare of a single US civilian, and anyone who says they are is using a trowel to liberally spread a thick film of bullshit upon the face of public discourse.

First, it should be noted that Iran's military is built for self-defence. It doesn't have aircraft carriers, a large fleet of warships, strategic bombers or foreign military bases. The United States, by contrast, bases its Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, within shouting distance of Iran, directly across the Persian Gulf. You won't find Iranian warships lingering menacingly in the Gulf of Mexico or patrolling the Atlantic and Pacific on the edges of US territorial waters, but the United States does the equivalent in Tehran's neighorhood.

Second, Iran's military spending, at US$20 billion per annum, pales in comparison to the budgets of the United States (US$700billion) and even that of the United States' regional allies (US$102 billion).

The US military budget is 35 times larger than Iran's, and the sum of that of the United States, its invariable military side-kick, the United Kingdom, and Washington's regional allies, is 43 times larger. The gulf in fighting ability supported by these expenditures is as yawning as the one between the New York City Police Department tactical squadron and a troop of Boy Scouts armed with BB guns.
As regards North Korea, the charge that it is a threat to the security of a single US civilian is even more absurd. Like Iran, North Korea's military is built for defence, and it too has no foreign military bases, no aircraft carriers, no nuclear armed submarines and no strategic bombers, and it has never - unlike its compatriot neighbour to the south - sent troops abroad to fight in other country's wars (South Korean troops fought in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan on behalf of its patron, the United States.)

North Korean military expenditures are even more modest than Iran's. Pyongyang spends an estimated US$10 billion on its military (and that's probably stretching it), many of whose members are engaged in agriculture and other civilian activities. By comparison, South Korea (on whose soil are resident close to 30 000 US troops), spends US$39 billion, while nearby Japan (home to 40 000 US troops) spends US$34 billion. Together, these two US allies outspend Pyongyang on their militaries by a factor of 7 to 1.

Add to this US defence expenditures and those of Britain - a country that can be counted on to docilely follow the United States into any war, no matter whether the Conservatives or Labour are in power - and North Korea, surrounded by US troops and warships and whose air borders are incessantly menaced by the US Air Force, is outspent over 80 to 1. A threat? The claim is laughable.

And that understates the imbalance. What military budgets don't reveal is the vastly superior destructive power of US military hardware (and that of many of its allies) compared to Iran's and North Korea's. The kill capacity of US strike aircraft, cruise missiles, and battleships is far in excess of the heavy artillery that figures so prominently in the North Korean armamentarium, for example.

And then there's nuclear weapons. North Korea may (or may not) have an arsenal of a few warheads, and Iran may (or may not) be seeking one, but these rudimentary collections pale in comparison with the US, British, and Israeli arsenals arrayed against them. Would Iran attack Israel, or North Korea attack South Korea, with one or two nuclear missiles, knowing that to do so would invite a retaliatory tsunami of missiles from the target (in the case of an attack on Israel) or its hyper-armed patron, the United States, or both? The outcome of so foolhardy an attack would be game-over for either country.

"During the Democratic primaries, then candidate Hilary Clinton (now US Secretary of State) warned that if Iran attacked Israel, the United States would ‘totally obliterate' Iran."

Three years ago, Israeli "Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer went on record saying, ‘We must tell them: ‘If you so much as dream of attacking Israel, before you even finish dreaming there won't be an Iran anymore.'" It's doubtful that the Iranians and North Koreans failed to get the message.

And then there's the matter of Washington's 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). If read superficially, the NPR would lead you to believe that US policy makers have finally figured out that the cardinal rule of nonproliferation is to abjure military aggression against non-nuclear states.

Countries that aren't threatened by nuclear powers have no need to develop nuclear weapons for self-defence. However, a closer reading of the review shows that nothing has changed. US president Barack Obama has stayed true to form, obscuring his pursuit of his predecessors' policies beneath honeyed phrases that create the impression of change, where no change of substance exists.

The NPR declares "that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states", even if they attack the United States, its vital interests or allies and partners with chemical or biological weapons.
This differs, but only on the surface, from the policy of preceding administrations which refused to renounce the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. There are a number of reasons why the difference is apparent only.

While nuclear weapons are widely regarded as being unparalleled in their destructive power (and they are), the United States is able to deliver overwhelming destructive force through its conventional military capabilities.

A promise not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states is not the same as an assurance not to use or threaten to use devastating military force. Six decades ago it was possible to obliterate a city through conventional means, as the Western Allies demonstrated in the firebombing of Dresden.

If a city could be destroyed by conventional means more than half a century ago, imagine what the Pentagon could do today through conventional forces alone. Indeed, the NPR makes clear that the United States is prepared to shrink its nuclear arsenal partly because "the growth of unrivalled US conventional military capabilities" allows Washington to fulfill its geostrategic goals "with significantly lower nuclear force levels and with reduced reliance on nuclear weapons."

The NPR also provides a number of escape hatches that allow Washington to continue to dangle a nuclear sword of Damocles over the heads of Iran and North Korea. One is that nuclear weapons can be used, or their used threatened, against a country that is not "party to the NPT" even if the country doesn't yet have nuclear weapons, or it is unclear whether it does.

This is the North Korea escape clause. It allows Washington to continue to threaten North Korea with nuclear obliteration, just as it has done since the early 1990s when the US Strategic Command announced it was re-targeting some of its strategic nuclear missiles on the DPRK (the reason why North Korea withdrew from the NPT.)

Another escape clause allows Washington to reach for the nuclear trigger whenever it deems a country to have fallen short of "compliance with [its] nuclear non-proliferation obligations," even if the country doesn't have nuclear weapons and is a party to the NPT. This is the Iran escape hatch, intended to allow Washington to maintain the threat of nuclear annihilation vis-à-vis Iran or any other country Washington unilaterally declares to be noncompliant with the treaty's obligations.

As for the United States' commitment to refrain from reaching for its nuclear arsenal in response to a chemical or biological attack on itself, its vital interests (a term that defies geography and democracy, for how is it that the United States' vital interests extend to other people's countries?) its allies and its partners, this too is verbal legerdemain. As a careful reading of the NPR makes clear, the truth of the matter is that the United States will attack any country with nuclear weapons if such an attack is deemed necessary by Washington to protect its interests, which is to say, the interests of the corporations, banks and investors whose senior officials and representatives dominate policy formulation in Washington and provide the major funding, and post-political jobs, to the country's politicians. According to the NPR, "the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in [its commitment] that may be warranted..." Translation: We won't attack non-nuclear weapons states with nuclear weapons unless we decide it's in our interests to do so.

Finally, we need to ask whether either Iran or North Korea have a motive to attack the United States, and whether Iran has a motive to attack Israel. Iran's leaders may abhor the Zionist conquest of what they see as territory important to Islam, but that doesn't mean they're willing to take on a suicide mission to deal a one- or two-nuclear missile blow to Israel-one which, by the way, probably wouldn't completely destroy Israel, but would incinerate Iran in the hail of retaliatory blows that followed. As for tangling with the United States, neither country wants that. What they want is peaceful coexistence-to be left alone to develop in their own way.

The trouble is, the United States hasn't the barest interest in peaceful coexistence, and the reason why is the key, not only to understanding US foreign policy, but to understanding why a US-led NATO spent months bombing Libya to drive the former regime from power.

But first, a digression. As a matter for inquiry, the approaches critics of US foreign policy take to explain their subject-if they explain it at all-is as interesting as US foreign policy itself. The usual tack is to expose US hypocrisy.

For example, critics might point out that the United States defends Israel, which has nuclear weapons and doesn't belong to the NPT, while threatening to attack Iran, which belongs to the NPT, and doesn't have nuclear weapons. Or that NATO bombed Libya to prevent the government there from using its military to put down an uprising but allowed Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to use their militaries to put down an uprising in Bahrain. Some critics stop there, reasoning that if they're going to muster opposition to US foreign policy, it's enough to show that it's built on hypocrisy. Or they denounce US behavior as immoral, undemocratic or against international law, because it is, and they figure that showing this will rouse the indignation of people of good conscience. Other US foreign policy critics cogently show why US foreign policy couldn't possibly be guided by the objectives US leaders say it is guided by. But they stop there, leaving their audiences to scratch their heads, wondering, if not for the reasons stated, then why?

Liberals insist that US foreign policy makes no sense and the reason why is because US leaders are confused, myopic, poorly motivated, or just plain dumb. An example of this point of view is offered by former US president Jimmy Carter, who contends that the conflict with North Korea can be resolved in half a day. Apparently US leaders have neither the political will nor smarts to do so.

The truth of the matter is that there is nothing to be gained for the corporations, investors and banks that dominate US foreign policy-the one percent who really matter in the United States-from peaceful coexistence with North Korea. For one thing, peaceful coexistence implies that each side poses a threat to the other, but North Korea, despite the rhetorical nonsense of political leaders seeking to justify Pentagon budgets, poses no threat to the United States. A $10B defense budget against a $700B one; aging aircraft whose pilots are grounded most of the time due to shortages of fuel; a puny arsenal of nuclear weapons; an army whose training time is partly displaced by engagement in farming; the most sanctioned country on earth, whose economy has been crippled by six decades of US economic warfare; a country of 24 million hemmed in to the south and east by the troops of a country of 300 million; no, North Korea is not a threat.

So how is it that peaceful coexistence would deliver anything in the way of improved security for Americans, which they already have in abundance anyway? It wouldn't. The demand for peaceful coexistence is little more than a Quixotic plea from Pyongyang to be left alone to develop in a self-directed manner in exchange for giving up a few nuclear weapons that at best, are, to use an Edward Herman term, a "threat of self-defense." The benefits of peaceful coexistence are all on the North Korean side.

After all, what does the United States get for promising to leave North Korea to develop in its own way? An open door for exports and investments? Hardly. North Korea's integration into a US-dominated system of global capitalism? No. US troops on North Korean soil? Absolutely not. North Korea's incorporation into a US-led military alliance against China? No possibility. What it gets is North Korea giving up a deterrent to attack in exchange for the United States promising not to attack. This is a one-sided deal. No wonder North Korea wants it, and Washington keeps turning it down. David Straub, director of the US State Department's Korea desk from 2002 to 2004 sums up nicely why peaceful coexistence isn't on Washington's Korea agenda.

"North Korea's closed economic and social system means the country has virtually nothing of value to offer the United States." (12) What the United States wants from North Korea (an open door to investment, exports, ownership and political influence) is the opposite of what North Korea offers (a closed door and a prickly sense of independence-both political and economic). Washington abandoned the policy of peaceful coexistence with the USSR, which was militarily strong enough to make the US a miserable place in which to live if the Pentagon ever decided to start a US-Soviet war. So why would it accept peaceful coexistence with a hated closed system that poses a minor threat at best?

Other critics of US foreign policy explain their subject in terms of power. US leaders want to preserve or expand US power (or primacy or hegemony) against such "peer competitors" as China or Russia or such regional powers as Iran. Of course, it's never said what US leaders (or Chinese or Russian leaders) want power for. To believe these critics, power is what everyone wants, and the quest for it, as an end in itself, is what makes the world go around. But the trick here is to inquire into why power is sought. Washington doesn't seek to enlarge its power so that it can strong-arm governments around the world into furnishing their citizens with public healthcare, guaranteed employment and free education. On the contrary, it seeks power to do the very opposite. Power serves some end, and in the case of US state power, it serves the end of protecting and enlarging the big business interests of the big business people who run the state of a big business country; it protects profits and establishes the conditions that allow them to grow-both at home and overseas.

It's curious that the power-is-the-alpha-and-omega-of-world-politics view should hold such a strong sway among some critics of US foreign policy, when in the internal affairs of capitalist countries the organizing principle is private business, and the alpha and omega of private business, is profits. Sure, it's understood that business leaders want power, but not so they can lord it over others, and take pleasure in its trappings, but so they can enlarge their capital. Power is a means to an end.

So why should foreign policy be any different? The moment Gaddafi was toppled by NATO bombs, a stream of NATO foreign ministers traipsed to Benghazi, their countries' corporate CEOs in tow, to line up new business deals. It was clear the National Transitional Council (NTC), whose key members-one, an exile who had been teaching economics in the United States for years; another, who earned his PhD in 1985 from the University of Pittsburgh under the late Richard Cottam, a former US intelligence official in Iran; and a third, who had been living within hailing distance of CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, before being spirited back to Libya- would be a good deal more accommodating of US business interests than Gaddafi had ever been. For all his turning over a new leaf to befriend the West, Gaddafi had irked the US State Department by practicing "resource nationalism" and trying to "Libyanize" the economy, which is to say, turn foreign investment to the advantage of Libyans. His threat in 2009 to re-nationalize Libya's oil fields, stirred up old fears. Now, the NTC-with its US-friendly principals-was promising juicy plums to the countries whose bombs had ousted Gaddafi.

The US ambassador to Libya, Gene A. Cretz, channeling the ghost of uber-imperialist, Cecil Rhodes, acknowledged that Libyan oil was "the jewel in the crown" but that there would be broader profit-making opportunities to lay hold of, now that Gaddafi had been bombed from power. Even "in Qaddafi's time," he observed, the Libyans "were starting from A to Z in terms of building infrastructure and other things. If we can get American companies here on a fairly big scale, which we will try to do everything we can to do that, then this will redound to improve the situation in the United States with respect to our own jobs." US Senator John McCain, for his part, noted that "American investors were watching Libya with keen interest and wanted to do business" in Libya as soon the country was pacified.

The New York Times' Scott Shane summed up the excitement.

Western security, construction and infrastructure companies that see profit-making opportunities receding in Iraq and Afghanistan have turned their sights on Libya, now free of four decades of dictatorship. Entrepreneurs are abuzz about the business potential of a country with huge needs and the oil to pay for them, plus the competitive advantage of Libyan gratitude toward the United States and its NATO partners.

A week before Colonel Qaddafi's death on Oct. 20, a delegation from 80 French companies arrived in Tripoli to meet officials of the Transitional National Council, the interim government. Last week, the new British defense minister, Philip Hammond, urged British companies to "pack their suitcases" and head to Tripoli.

Shane's summing up provides a pretty good account of what the NATO bombing campaign had been all about, with one exception. Western security, construction and infrastructure companies aren't turning their sights on Libya, because it is now free of four decades of dictatorship, but because it is now free of four decades of economic nationalism-an economic nationalism that once privileged Libyans over Western banks, investors and corporations. The country is now open for business...on the West's terms.

The view that US foreign policy is shaped by considerations related to preserving and enlarging profit-making opportunities for investors, banks and corporations headquartered in the United States is based on two realities.

• The formulation of US foreign policy is dominated by the CEO's, corporate lawyers and major investors who circulate between Wall Street and Washington.
• The countries that the United States has singled out for regime change, without exception, pursue self-directed economic policies aimed at fostering self-development and therefore deny or limit US investment and export opportunities.

Every rich country, with the exception of Britain, became rich through active state intervention in their economies to create industries, subsidize them and protect them from competition while they grew. The United States, as much as Germany, Japan, and other now rich industrialized countries, followed this path. At one point, the United States had the world's highest tariff barriers, which it used to shelter its nascent manufacturing industries against competition from established British firms. As protected industries matured under the guiding hand of a dirigiste state, they naturally sought to expand beyond their borders, as the possibilities offered by national markets were exhausted. Now, the policies that served their development so ably in the past, became fetters. Rather than protected markets at home, they needed open markets abroad. Poor countries couldn't be allowed to emulate the policies that made the rich countries rich, because state-ownership, subsidies and trade barriers would eclipse the further development of the once protected industries of the rich countries. Poor countries would have to open themselves up as fields for exploitation by the banks, investors and corporations of the rich countries that had grown fat on the dirigiste policies some poor countries were now seeking to emulate.

A glance through the US Library of Congress's country study on Iran reveals a truth that US officials never mention and that US foreign policy critics seem unaware of. Iran is not the kind of place an enterprising US business can hope to make money in. "The public sector dominates the economic scene, and the subordination of the private sector is observed in all industries and commerce." Worse, "Public-sector investments in transportation...utilities, telecommunications, and other infrastructure have grown over time." "The government plays a significant role in Iran's economy, either directly through participation in the production and distribution of goods and services, or indirectly through policy intervention." Indeed, Iran's constitution defines the public sector as primary, and "the private sector as the means of furnishing the government's needs rather than responding to market requirements."

Democratic socialists will be shocked to discover that this is the very same economic model that such New Left socialists as Ralph Miliband defined as emblematic of what a democratic socialism ought to be (which isn't to say that Iran is a democratic socialist state, only that economically it is very close to what many socialist thinkers have envisaged for Western socialism.) In any event, it will be conceded that any economy that bears even a passing resemblance to that favored by radical democratic socialists is not likely to get a ringing endorsement from the kinds of people who formulate US foreign policy.

Other reasons why Iran's economic policies are likely to have provoked the animosity of the US State Department: Despite its leaders making noises about going on a privatizing binge, Iran's public sector has soberly grown rather than shrunk. What's more, large sectors of Iran's economy remain off-limits to private ownership. "Since the Revolution, the government has retained monopoly rights to the extraction, processing, and sales of minerals from large and strategic mines." Iran's "agricultural policy is intended to support farmers and encourage production of strategically important crops", not to open doors to US agribusiness. "After the Revolution, many transportation companies, banks, and insurance companies were nationalized" while price controls and subsidies have been used to make important consumer goods affordable (though many subsidies have been lifted recently.)

Wall Street and the US State Department dislike state-owned enterprises that serve the self-directed development goals of independent foreign countries, because they displace private investment by US capital. They abhor the practice of foreign governments subsidizing and protecting local business enterprises because it makes the task of US firms competing in overseas markets more difficult, and thereby limits the overseas profits of US firms. They revile regulations that protect local populations from pollution, desperation wages and deplorable working conditions, because they cut into profits. Some or all of these practices form significant parts of the economic policies of every country in the cross-hairs of US foreign policy, including Libya under Gaddafi and Iran today.

Washington doesn't want to bring about a change of regime in Tehran to install a pliant government that will help expand US power. It wants to bring about a change of regime in Tehran that will cancel economic policies aimed at Iran's self-development and replace them with policies that will open up the country's resources, markets, labor and land to US banks, corporations and investors. It wants the holy trinity

Labels: IRAN, ISRAEL, MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, STEPHEN GOWANS

posted by MrK @ 4:29 PM