A Modest Proposal

This is an extended version of the article that wascarried by the New York Times syndicate on December 3, 2002, courtesy Znet

The dedicated efforts of the Bush administration to take control of Iraq -- by war, military coup, or someother means -- have elicited various analyses of the guiding motives. Offering one interpretation, AnatolLieven of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace observes that these plans conform to "theclassic modern strategy of an endangered right-wing oligarchy, which is to divert mass discontent intonationalism," inspired by fear of enemies about to destroy us. 

That strategy is of critical importance ifthe "radical nationalists" setting policy in Washington hope to advance their announced plan for"unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority," while conducting a majorassault against the interests of the large majority of the domestic population. Lieven doubtless speaks formany when he describes the US as "a menace to itself and to mankind," on its present course.

As history shows, it is all too easy for unscrupulous leaders to terrify the public. And that is thenatural method to divert attention from the fact that tax cuts for the rich and other devices are underminingprospects for a decent life for the middle class and the poor, and for future generations. Economist PaulKrugman reported that "literally before the dust had settled" over the World Trade Center ruins,influential Republicans signaled that they were "determined to use terrorism as an excuse to pursue aradical right-wing agenda." 

He and others have been documenting how they have pursued this agendarelentlessly since. The strategy has proven highly effective for the congressional elections. And when thepresidential campaign begins, Republican strategists surely do not want people to be asking questions abouttheir pensions, jobs, health care, and other such matters. Rather, they should be praising their heroic leaderfor rescuing them from imminent destruction by a foe of colossal power, and marching on to confront the nextpowerful force bent on our destruction.

These ideas are particularly natural for the recycled Reaganites who hold influential positions in thecurrent administration, and are replaying a familiar script: drive the country into deficit so as to be ableto undermine social programs, declare a "war on terror" (as they did in 1981) and conjure up one devilafter another to frighten the population into obedience: Libyan hit-men prowling in Washington to assassinatethe brave cowboy surrounded by tanks in the White House; Sandinistas only two-days march from Texas as theypursue their plans to conquer the hemisphere following the script of Mein Kampf; Arab terroristsseeking to kill Americans everywhere while Qaddafi plans to "expel America from the world," the cowboywailed; Hispanic narcotraffickers seeking to destroy the youth (but stopped just in time by Bush #1, kidnappedin "Operation Just Cause" and tried in Florida for crimes mostly committed on the CIA payroll); and on,and on.

More generally, the September 11 terrorist atrocities provided an opportunity and pretext to implementlong-standing plans to take control of Iraq's immense oil wealth, a central component of the Persian Gulfresources that the State Department, in 1945, described as "a stupendous source of strategic power, andone of the greatest material prizes in world history" (referring specifically to Saudi Arabia, but theintent is more general). US intelligence predicts that these will be of even greater significance in the yearsahead. 

The issue has never been access. The same intelligence analyses anticipate that the US will rely onmore secure Atlantic Basin supplies. The same was true after World War II. The US moved quickly to gaincontrol over Gulf resources, but not for its own use; North America was the major producer for decadesafterwards, and since then Venezuela has generally been the leading exporter to the US. What matters iscontrol over the "material prize," which funnels enormous wealth to the US in many ways, and the"stupendous source of strategic power," which translates into a lever of "unilateral worlddomination."

A different interpretation is that the administration believes exactly what it says: Iraq has suddenlybecome a threat to our very existence and to its neighbors. We must ensure that Iraq's weapons of massdestruction (WMD) and the means for producing them are utterly destroyed, and the monster himself eliminated.And quickly. A war in Iraq should optimally be waged during the winter, and winter 2003-4 will be too late. Bythen the mushroom cloud that National Security Adviser Rice predicts may have already consumed us.

Let us assume that this interpretation is correct. If the regional powers fear Washington more than Saddam,as they apparently do, that reveals their limited grasp of reality. It is only an accident that by next winterthe presidential campaign will be underway. And other doubts can somehow also be put aside. How then can weachieve these announced goals?

Many plans have been discussed, but one simple one seems to have been ignored -- perhaps because it isregarded as insane. The judgment is correct, but it is instructive to ask why.

The modest proposal is to encourage Iran to invade Iraq, providing them with the necessary logistic andmilitary support, from a safe distance (missiles, bombs, bases, etc.). The proposal has many advantages overthose now being considered.

First, Saddam will be overthrown, in fact torn to shreds along with anyone close to him. Any trace of WMDwill be eliminated, not only now but for successor regimes, along with means for producing them, a great boonfor disarmament generally. Iran has far stronger motivation to achieve this end than the Bush circles.

Second, there will be few if any American casualties. Or Israeli casualties. Scud attacks on Israel wouldnot deter the liberation of Iraq by Israel's prime enemy.

True, many Iraqis and Iranians will die. But that can hardly be a concern. The Bush circles – as noted,mostly recycled Reaganites -- strongly supported Saddam when he attacked Iran, quite oblivious to the enormoushuman cost, either then or under the subsequent sanctions regime. Saddam is likely to use chemical weapons,but that too can hardly be a concern. The current leadership firmly backed the "Beast of Baghdad"when he used chemical weapons against Iran in the Reagan years, and when he used gas against "his ownpeople": Kurds, who were his own people in the sense in which Cherokees were Andrew Jackson's people. 

Thecurrent Washington planners continued to support the Beast after he had committed by far his worst crimes,even providing him with means to develop WMD, nuclear and biological, right up to the invasion of Kuwait,fulfilling "our duty to support U.S. exporters," as they explained (John Kelly, Assistant Secretary ofState with responsibility for the Middle East, early 1990). England joined happily. Bush #1 and Cheney alsoeffectively authorized Saddam's slaughter of Shi'ites in March 1991, in the interests of"stability," as was soberly explained. They withdrew their support for his attack on the Kurds onlyunder great international and domestic pressure. So surely the human costs cannot be a concern.

The Cold War had no relevance; Russia joined the good guys in supporting Saddam. Nor was the Iran war thedeterminative factor, as demonstrated by their continued support for Saddam well after the war ended.

Third, the UN will be no problem. It will be unnecessary to explain to the world that the UN is relevantwhen it follows orders, otherwise not. In the words of a high administration official after Congressauthorized the use of military force, "we don't need the Security Council. So if the Security Councilwants to stay relevant, then it has to give us similar authority." If anyone objects to the liberation ofIraq, the US can always use the veto to allow it to proceed.

Fourth, Iran surely has far better credentials for the task than Washington. Unlike the Bushadministration, Iran has no record of support for the murderous Saddam and his programs of WMD. Rather, theywere the primary victims of the Iraqi attack backed by the US and Britain (among others). It can be objected,correctly, that we cannot trust the Iranian leadership, but surely that is even more true of those whocontinued to aid Saddam well after his worst crimes. 

Furthermore, we will be spared the embarrassment ofprofessing blind faith in our leaders in the manner that we justly ridicule in totalitarian states. There willbe no need for a tacit appeal to a miraculous religious conversion -- for which there is not a trace ofevidence, even the minimal decency of conceding past crimes. And we will not have to descend to advocating aninvasion because the leadership in Washington have a special "responsibility" to compensate fortheir past crimes, for which they show no regret, an argument that has quite intriguing consequences whengeneralized.

Fifth, the liberation will be greeted with enthusiasm by much of the population, far more so than ifAmericans invade. People will be cheering on the streets of Basra and Karbala, and we can join Iranianjournalists in hailing the nobility and just cause of the liberators.

Sixth, Iran can move towards instituting "democracy," again with credentials no worse than thoseof Washington, as a look at history will quickly reveal. Washington's contributions to democracy in the regionare well-known, and Iranian reformers will have some advantages in pursuing the task, if only because themajority of the population is Shi'ite, and Iran would have fewer problems than the US in granting them somesay in a successor government. As for the Kurds, if they seek any real autonomy that is likely to spark aTurkish invasion. In the light of Washington's decisive contribution to massive Turkish atrocities against theKurds in the 1990s, some of the worst of that grisly decade, the argument for a US role in this regard arerather weak, to put it mildly.

There will be no problem in gaining access to Iraqi oil, just as US companies could easily exploit Iranianenergy resources right now, if Washington would permit it.

Without proceeding, the proposal seems to offer many advantages over those that are actually discussed.What then is the fly in the ointment? There are several basic problems.

First, the US will not be able to use the "stupendous source of strategic power" as a lever ofworld domination, and will have to share the great "material prize" with others, beyond what theleadership would prefer. Second, the "classic modern strategy of an endangered right-wing oligarchy"would be foiled. The domestic problems of the Bush administration would remain unresolved: the populationwould be freed from fear and could pay attention to what is being done to them. And finally, the plans for"unilateral world domination" would suffer a serious blow.

As Lieven correctly notes, the "radical nationalists" in Washington have very close links withIsraeli ultra-nationalists. In the 1990s, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith were even writing position papersfor Benyamin Netanyahu, who outflanks Ariel Sharon on the extremist right. The usually reliable Israel presshas been reporting their connections and plans for some time. These include far-reaching plans forreconstructing the Middle East along lines resembling the former Ottoman empire, but now with the US and itsoffshore military base in Israel in charge, cooperating with Turkey: what the Egyptian press has described as"the axis of evil," US-Israel-Turkey. 

According to some reported plans, a Hashemite monarchy mightextend from Jordan to parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinians could then be"transferred" somewhere else, perhaps Jordan. The war against Iran may well already be underway. Agood part of the Israeli air force is based in Turkey, and is reported to be flying along the Iranian borderfrom US bases there. Plans for partition of Iran are being developed, perhaps pursued, according to USspecialist sources. Lieven and others suggest that the radical nationalists have similar plans extending asfar as China, and may go on for decades "until a mixture of terrorism and the unbearable social,political and environmental costs of US economic domination put paid to the present order of the world."

It is not only much of the world that regards them as a menace. The same is true of highly-regardedstrategic analysts and Middle East specialists here, like Anthony Cordesman, who is about as "hardline" asthey come within sane sectors. According to Israel’s leading diplomatic correspondent, Akiva Eldar,Cordesman has warned that Washington should "make it clear that its commitment to Israel does not involve acommitment to its sillier armchair strategists and more vocally irresponsible hardliners," referring notso obliquely to Perle and Feith, who are close to power centers in Washington.

On returning to Israel from meetings with high level Pentagon figures, the respected strategic analyst EhudSprintzak commented that "We are talking about a revolutionary group, with a totally different approachto the Arab world and the threats coming from it. One can summarize their approach in one sentence: they thinkthat the Arab world is a world of retards who only understand the language of force." That is anunderstatement, as the recent reaction to Germany's minor disobedience revealed.

The modest proposal of an Iranian liberation is indeed insane, but not without merit. It is far morereasonable than the plans actually being implemented, or to be more accurate, it would be more reasonable ifthe professed goals had any relation to the real ones. As for the actual motives, the alternative reviewed atthe outset has a great deal of plausibility.