|
CounterPunch
February
25, 2003
What Should Iranians Do?
Why War With
Iraq?
by REZA GHORASHI
The Bush administration offers two sets of justifications
for the war with Iraq. In international and formal circles, where
"regime change" is not passe, it is the threat of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and its refusal to comply with
the UN resolutions. The non-compliance with the UN resolutions
is very absurd. Many countries have ignored such resolutions
in numerous occasions and there have been no consequences. It
is ironic that the Bush administration officials complain about
Iraq's ignoring the UN. At the same breath they remind the UN
and the world that they are going to attack Iraq, with or without
UN's approval!
Iraq's WMD today are much less than what
they were at the time of the first Gulf war. A good portion of
them was destroyed in the war and in the following years by the
UN inspectors. There is no doubt that these weapons, which were
produced with knowledge and tacit approval of the "Western"
powers and help from their multinational corporations, should
be destroyed. The current process, if not the most effective,
is much less costly in human, environmental, and financial terms.
The US government would be wiser to concentrate on improving
effectiveness of this process if destruction of these weapons
were the primary goal. Besides, after invading Iraq and overthrowing
Saddam's regime these WMD, assuming they exist, are not going
to walk to American forces. They still have to be searched for.
Whatever means the US is going to use to find these weapons then
could be implemented now. The US would have a better case for
use of force if Iraq refuses demand to reinforce the search process.
To Americans, and in less formal settings
"regime change" has been suggested as the main reason
for the war. Accordingly, the brutal and autocratic regime in
Iraq not only is a menace to its neighbors (it has invaded two
of them) and region, it has brutally suppressed its own people,
killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, used chemical weapons
against Iranians and its own civilian Kurdish population,. The
list is very long and accurate. No doubt that Saddam's regime
is a menace and the world would be better of without it. How
credible is this "defense of human rights" claim? To
accept that the Anglo-American war plans are due to their concern
for human rights of Saddam's victims particularly Iraqi people,
raises some troubling questions. To begin with, Saddam has been
violating these rights for decades. When now secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld was proudly shaking Saddam's hand in Baghdad in 1984
everybody with some knowledge of Iraq knew that Saddam "takes
no prisoners" because he kills them all. When then majority
leader Senator Dole headed a congressional delegation to Baghdad
to give Saddam his "Man of Peace" award in spring of
1990, the latter's use of chemical weapons against Iranians and
Kurds in Halabje was known to the world. At the moment the International
Court of Justice in Hague is considering Iran's demand for retributions
from the US. During Iran-Iraq war Kuwait, which was actively
supporting Iraq, used its ships and ports to import weapon and
other needed materials for Saddam's war machine. When Iran sank
some of these ships, Kuwaitis asked for US help. US attacked
Iranian navy and oil exporting facilities, for which Iran is
demanding retribution. In this way US actively supported Saddam
in his war with Iran, well aware of his records. Secondly, As
bad as Iraqi regime's human right records are, it does not stand
alone. Iraq's two invaded neighbors, Iran and Kuwait are not
exactly exemplary democracies either. Nor are Syria and Saudi
Arabia, two other neighbors. Indeed one does not need to go far
to see more examples of regimes with terrible human rights records:
Pakistan, Egypt,. This list too is long! Shouldn't a genuine
concern for human rights extent to Palestinian people in the
Occupied Lands? Aren't there better ways to promote democracy
in Iraq and the region? (Although lately talk of replacing Saddam's
regime with a "model' democracy is downplayed. Instead it
is an American military governor that is supposed to run the
country for the "near" future.) Wouldn't promotion
of democracy be more effective if the quest for a forceful "regime
change" was replaced with one for free elections in, let's
say six months with all kinds of international guarantees for
free and fair elections? This demand could be beefed up by setting
up an international fund with ten billion dollars (a fraction
of cost of removing Saddam) in the region. Only genuinely democratic
regimes with acceptable human rights records would be eligible
to apply for these grants. A military campaign would have had
some legitimacy had the US done this and Iraq, or other governments
in the region, had refused the offer.
If neither WMD nor concern for human
rights and democracy are the prime motive for this war, then
what is? Is it, as some opponents of the war believe, for oil?
Although oil plays a role, it is not the reason. The direct financial
cost of this war is estimated to be between one to two hundred
billion dollars. Its indirect costs are much more. Every dollar
increase in price of a barrel of crude oil costs US economy roughly
seven billion dollars. The US currency has depreciated ten percent
against Euro. This alone means loss of hundreds of billions in
dollar denominated wealth. Also stock markets losses, in hundreds
of billions, have been attributed to the uncertainty about the
war. While many states facing large deficit and are in dire need
for aid from the federal government, the war has become a major
burden on the federal budget. In short, no oil, for that matter
any other economic gains, would justify the financial costs of
this war.
Regional geopolitics is another rationale
for the war. US's military presence in Iraq will tip the balance
even further in its favor. The extent of the change in political
map is not clear. It could range from a minimal removal of Saddam
(preferred by Arab allies of the US: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt)
to a maximal combining of Iraq and Jordan into one country. If
the Bush administration has any plans for the future of Iraq,
is not revealing them. Although important, this too, does not
explain the push for this unpopular war. The US could have attracted
more domestic and global support if it was more forthright about
its plans.
We believe this war is about a New World
Order (NOW). The old order belonged to the cold war era. This
was a bi-polar system. The US needed allies. Imagine the trouble
for US if countries like France and Germany would align themselves
with the Soviet Union. Western Europeans were treated as partners.
They were consulted on major issues and decision making was collective.
No more! Unilateralists in Washington argue. There is no reason
to continue the old order. Since the collapse of bi-polar system
there is one super power and it could do whatever appeases her.
The others, mainly European ex-allies, have no choice but to
follow. The war with Iraq is a message to them. It is not Iraq,
Iran, or North Korea that could mound a serious challenge to
this NOW. It is those with actual (France, Russia, China) or
potential (Germany Japan) military power that worry Washington's
unilateralist. Iraq was chosen as a test case because of the
ease, both militarily and politically, of the operation. It is
easy to vilify Saddam further and get a favorable public opinion
in the US and most of the world for such a war. Iraqi's military
has been decimated since 1991 and can not do much damage to the
occupying forces. As early as 1998 Donald Rumsfeld, a member
of think tank "Project for a New American Century"
(the name is revealing) was among signatories of a letter to
the then president Clinton urging him to attack Iraq. If the
Bush administration can get away with minimal human, financial,
and political damages, the NOW has taken a giant leap forward.
Opposition of France and Germany, two
staunch allies of the US, to the push for the war is not out
of their concern for rule of law or plight of Iraqi people. Nor
is it for love of Saddam, or commercial benefits (the cost of
opposing US is much higher). It is opposition to this NOW that,
if implemented, will marginalize them. The large, worldwide demonstrations
against the war in Feb. 15th were a clear message that the people
are not willing to accept this unilateralist world order that
the Bush administration is craving for.
For Iran the consequences of the war
with Iraq are enormous. Aside the direct and immediate effects
such as flood of refuges and so on, there is this huge change
in the political map of the region. Here, however, we confine
ourselves to one major aspect: The future of Islamic Republic
regime (IRR). Many Iranians opposed to the IRR, particularly
those in the US believe that after Saddam and Iraq it is Iran
and IRR's turn. To them a "regime change" is in order.
This is a viable possibility, but not the only one. It is also
possible that the hard-liners in the IRR get US's support. It
should be reminded that the primary goal of US's foreign policy
is its "national interests," not promotion of democracy,
as its propaganda mouthpieces claim. Democratic regimes can bargain
harder because of their reliance on the people. It is more difficult
to make a democracy do something unpopular like "follow
the leader." For these reasons the current US administration
prefers autocratic regimes. Lacking popular, support they can't
bargain hard. In absence of formal political institutions (a
real parliament,.) it is easier to send an emissary to deal with
their 'strongman" behind closed doors. An Iran similar to
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan is preferred to one resembling
France, Germany or Japan. Out of four alternatives hard-liners
and "reformers" in the government; Religious-Nationalist
(Melli- Mazhabi), the "loyal opposition; and the secular
forces (Various shades of Monarchists, social democrats) the
first fit the above description the best. They are already in
control of state apparatus, so no costly "regime change"
is required. Absence of any popular support for them is glaringly
clear. And they are willing to deal behind closed doors, as their
almost quarter of century records of such deals indicate. Comments
of the Bush administration officials in the past few months about
giving up on Khatami and "reformers" could signal a
shift. Numerous sources (including Washington Post) have pointed
to the recent "secret" negotiations between hard-liners
and the Bush administration. This is not to suggest that such
an alliance is faitacompli. The outcome of events in Iraq and
Iran depends, on one hand, on how costly the venture to Iraq
ends up to be. The more resistance to this unilateral war, the
better. No war is the best because it means defeat of this unilateralism
and increased need for reliable allies; that is genuine democracies.
On the other hand, it depends on how smart the above mentioned
Iranian factions will play their cards. It is crucial that they
put the national interests of Iran above their factional interests
and quest for power. Otherwise they all lose.
Reza Ghorashi
is professor of political economy at Stockton College. He can
be reached at: Ghorashi@stockton.edu
Yesterday's
Features
Jeffrey St. Clair
In
a Land Where Justice is a Game: Killing Amos King
Anne Gwynne
Raid
on Nablus: a Hero in the Midst of Horror
Nelson P. Valdés
Why Americans Can't Travel to Cuba
Jason Leopold
Martin Peretz to Bush: Bomb Iraq
Alan Maass
"A Revolutionary Spirit in a Hostile World":
The Real Martin Luther King, Jr
Jack McCarthy
Hitchens and Booze
Sonia Ebron
Why
Black Americans Should Oppose Bush's War
Russell Mokiber and Robert
Weissman
12
Reasons to Oppose Bush's War on Iraq
Abu Spinoza
Chomsky's Power and Terror
Website of the Day
Bush
AWOL
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
February 22
/ 23, 2003
Laura Flanders
Security Threat?
Bernadette Devlin McAliskey Barred Entry to US
Alexander Cockburn
The Trouble with E-Bombs
Kathy Kelly
Letter from Baghdad
Tight Squeeze
Subcomandate
Marcos
A Universal
No to the War of Fear
William Cook
Armageddon Anxiety
Jo Freeman
Conservative Women
Michael Colby
Howard Dean is No Green
Ben Tripp
Fact-Checking the Constitution
Joanne Mariner
Pets Unite!
Richard Falk and David Krieger
Iraq and the Failures of Democracy
Uri Avnery
War Crimes and Sharon
Ian Williams
John Bolton in Jerusalem
Michael Wolff
How Sanctions Destroyed Iraqi Education
William Hughes
The Zev and Ari Show
Susanna Sonnenberg
Boxing Missoula
Michael Ortiz Hill
Peace and Humility
Anis Shivani
When Kafka Aligns with Orwell
John Mihelich
The Hidden History of Butte's
Working Class
Rich Procter
Bush and His Fabled Gut
Adam Engel
Voice of the Nation
Becky Johnson
The Hopscotch Rebellion
Krieger, Tripp, Ashley
Poets' Basement
Website of
the Weekend
The
Pedro Martinez of Palestine
February 15
/ 16, 2003
Alexander
Cockburn
Colin
Powell and the Great "Intelligence Fraud"
Rep. Dennis
Kucinich
The Whole World is Watching
Edward Said
A Monumental Hypocrisy
Wouter Hijink
Report from Amsterdam
"War: Do Not Feed!"
Linda Heard
At Last! Proud to be British
Lawrence Ferlinghetti
Taking a Stand on Iraq
Robert Fisk
The Case Against War
Lev Grinberg
Lessons from Israel
A War Without Legitimacy
Chris Floyd
Cold Fronts:
Bush War Profits
Ahmad Faruqui
Stepping Back from the Brink of War
Norman Madarasz
French Kisses from the Citizens of France
Adam Lebowitz
Scott Ritter in Tokyo
Kurt Nimmo
Bring Us the Head of Osama bin Laden
Forrest Hylton
The Revolt in Bolivia
Col. Dan Smith
Irrelevance and Credibility:
Bush, NATO and the UN
Wayne Madsen
The Lies of Tom Lantos
Ranjit Hoskote
The Invisible Modernities of the Islamic World
Emily Zitter-Smith
Who's Safe Now?
An American in Cairo
Rich Procter
Anybody Remember the Powell Doctrine?
Poets Basement:
Eliot
Katz, Scott Handleman, and Bruce Tomczak
Website of the Weekend
Anti-War
Posters
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|