Wednesday, May 7, 2008

If Iran won't genuflect, bomb it!

Dear George,

Can there be any question that taking out Iran is our number one priority? The backbone of our foreign policy for the past hundred-plus years has been to bomb uppity natives into the next world.

For years we have been leaning on Iran to give up its quest for the nuclear weapon it’s not trying to develop. We’ve tried intimidation, diplomatic threats and sanctions. We’ve used that reliable nineteenth-century technique of cutting them off from the West, a technique that in the past has meant economic starvation for a problematic country.

So what happens? Does Iran bend to our will? Does it genuflect and pull its forelock? Hell, no! Iran has the temerity to pick itself up by the boot straps and shift to a “look East” foreign policy one commentator describes as “pan-regionalism.”

This same commentator goes on to explain that, “From the Persian Gulf to the Caspian region, the Caucasus, Central Asia, South Asia and beyond, thanks to its unique geographical location, Iran is in many ways an ideal connecting bridge that has not until now fully exploited its advantageous ‘equidistance’ from India and Europe.”

I mean, Jesus Christ George, check out a map of Iran (Look under “I” in the table of contents of your World Atlas—not to be confused with Iraq, through the two may be conflated for policy purposes.) Iran looks like a sleeping camel blocking our access to the Indian subcontinent. It abuts three bodies of water, the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea and the Arabian Sea.

Iran is on the verge of closing a deal for the construction of a 2,600 kilometer Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline that would transport Iranian natural gas to Pakistan and then on to India.

That’s our natural gas they’re fucking with!

Another commentator points out, “The Iranian counter-response to sanctions and to its demonization as a rogue or pariah state has been to develop a ‘Look East’ foreign policy that is, in itself, a challenge to American energy hegemony in the Gulf. The policy has been conducted with great skill by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who was educated in Bangalore, India. While focused on massive energy deals with China, India, and Pakistan, it looks as well to Africa and Latin America. To the horror of American neocons, an intercontinental ‘axis of evil’ air link already exists—a weekly commercial Tehran-Caracas flight via Iran Air.”

Tehran to Caracas! That’s the tossed gauntlet right there! Haven’t these fools ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine? Latin America is our baby and we don’t need no radical Muslims mucking up the works. The ayatollahs are even sucking up to Bolivia. What we’re dealing with, here, is a bunch of Muslim commies.

But it gets even worse. The first commentator goes on to explain that, “With respect to the Persian Gulf, the GCC [ Gulf Cooperative Council], which continues to shun Iran’s olive branch of cooperation, is under new pressure to rethink that attitude as the result of the Shi’ite-led government in Iraq, a potential Iran allay in the politics of the Persian Gulf. It is not far-fetched to think that one dayIran and Iraq will join the GCC states in a new regional cooperative frame work…perhaps better pitched as an Islamic common market.”

It’s simply too much! The European Common Market is already kicking the economic stuffing out of us. We don’t need another one, especially one that controls most of the world oil.

I really don’t know what you are waiting for. America has been on a war footing for sixty-plus years. If ever there was a “just war” taking out Iran is certainly it. We are who we are because we’re the world’s numero uno playground bully. As such, we simply cannot tolerate Iran’s ascendancy as an economic powerhouse.

I know I’ve packed a lot of information in this letter. Usually, I try to keep them nice and simple. However, I felt it was crucial that you be brought up to speed on developments in Iran, although I fully understand that neither intelligence nor facts play any role when you decide to attack a country.

If you find this letter confusing, I am sure the Big Dick would be glad to explain it to you the next time he takes a break from running the country.

Your admirer,
Belacqua Jones


William deB. Mills said...

We have been fighting wars of choice. i.e., wars of agression, without planning ahead for a generation now. The US attack on Iraq began in 1990, the US attack on Afghanistan in 2001, US began fighting in Somalia in 1993, and our so-called ally Israel (the country that wants us to get into yet another war) starting its campaign of aggression against Lebanon in 1975! Look at the record. We really need to start planning for the post-war period before our next act of aggression.

Many people have pointed out the costs of failure, but even total victory entails costs. Having won a total victory, you are the only one left to clean up the mess. In the modern world, simply sneering and going home is not an option. Nuclear fallout, depression resulting from oil price rise, global terrorist campaign by those sympathetic to the loser, destablizing refugee flows, and epidemics are among the key dangers on the list of messes the victor will have to deal with. Then, there's the unwanted influences on the victor itself.

Effects on the aggressor of aggression that works:

denial of one’s own immorality weakens ability to see and avoid future acts of immorality, pushing one further down that pathseeing the first act of aggression persuades others to defend themselves, acts that will be misinterpreted as new threats;
these new threats could, just like the perceived “threat” of a weak but independent Iran, be dealt with in any number of ways, but force will be all the more tempting, having once been used;
war becomes a habit;
populace salutes the flag and supports whatever charlatan happens to be in office, believing whatever lies are told, and ends up with a government prone to exploit fearmongering in order to maintain its hold on power;
those who see the truth tend to be steamrolled; moreover, those whose power in office is based on lies tend, logically, to feel insecure and therefore constantly to be looking under the bed for more enemies – the two conditions together rapidly undermine civil rights.

Victory in a war of choice can be a very dangerous thing. The way of life the aggressor claims to be defending by starting a war may be destroyed even by victory.

Case Wagenvoord said...


If you'd like to see how we got to where we are today, I'd highly recommend James Carroll's "House of War" as history of the Pentagon that is as informative as it is readable.

Thank you for your comments.