Noam Chomsky: What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?

[babylonsister]

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/04/06/what_if_iran_had_invaded_mexico.php

What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?
Noam Chomsky
April 06, 2007


Noam Chomsky is the author of Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (Metropolitan Books), just published in paperback, among many other works.


Unsurprisingly, George W. Bush's announcement of a "surge" in Iraq came despite the firm opposition to any such move of Americans and the even stronger opposition of the (thoroughly irrelevant) Iraqis. It was accompanied by ominous official leaks and statements—from Washington and Baghdad—about how Iranian intervention in Iraq was aimed at disrupting our mission to gain victory, an aim which is (by definition) noble. What then followed was a solemn debate about whether serial numbers on advanced roadside bombs (IEDs) were really traceable to Iran; and, if so, to that country's Revolutionary Guards or to some even higher authority.

This "debate" is a typical illustration of a primary principle of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed—or else. What you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief; the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe.

The debate over Iranian interference in Iraq proceeds without ridicule on the assumption that the United States owns the world. We did not, for example, engage in a similar debate in the 1980s about whether the U.S. was interfering in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, and I doubt that Pravda, probably recognizing the absurdity of the situation, sank to outrage about that fact (which American officials and our media, in any case, made no effort to conceal). Perhaps the official Nazi press also featured solemn debates about whether the Allies were interfering in sovereign Vichy France, though if so, sane people would then have collapsed in ridicule.

In this case, however, even ridicule—notably absent—would not suffice, because the charges against Iran are part of a drumbeat of pronouncements meant to mobilize support for escalation in Iraq and for an attack on Iran, the "source of the problem." The world is aghast at the possibility. Even in neighboring Sunni states, no friends of Iran, majorities, when asked, favor a nuclear-armed Iran over any military action against that country. From what limited information we have, it appears that significant parts of the U.S. military and intelligence communities are opposed to such an attack, along with almost the entire world, even more so than when the Bush administration and Tony Blair's Britain invaded Iraq, defying enormous popular opposition worldwide.

more...

[hobbit709]

1. Then by using the shrub brand of logic

we would have retaliated by bombing Pitcairn Island or maybe the South Shetlands-it would be the penguins' fault don't you know?

[laststeamtrain]

2. K&R. Tomgram: Noam Chomsky on "the Iran Effect"

Tomgram: Noam Chomsky on "the Iran Effect"

On Tuesday, meeting with the press in the White House Rose Garden, the President responded to a question about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria this way: "Photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror." There should, he added to the assembled reporters, be no meetings with state sponsors of terror.

That night, Brian Ross of ABC News reported that, since 2005, the U.S. has "encouraged and advised" Jundullah, a Pakistani tribal "militant group," led by a former Taliban fighter and "drug smuggler," which has been launching guerrilla raids into Baluchi areas of Iran. These incursions involve kidnappings and terror bombings, as well as the murder (recorded on video) of Iranian prisoners. According to Ross, "U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or 'finding' as well as congressional oversight." Given past history, it would be surprising if the group doing the encouraging and advising wasn't the Central Intelligence Agency, which has a long, sordid record in the region. (New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has been reporting since 2005 on a Bush administration campaign to destabilize the Iranian regime, heighten separatist sentiments in that country, and prepare for a possible full-scale air attack on Iranian nuclear and other facilities.)

The President also spoke of the Iranian capture of British sailors in disputed waters two weeks ago. He claimed that their "seizure… is indefensible by the Iranians." Oddly enough, perhaps as part of secret negotiations over the British sailors, who were dramatically freed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday, an Iranian diplomat in Iraq was also mysteriously freed. Eight weeks ago, he had been kidnapped off the streets of Baghdad by uniformed men of unknown provenance. Reporting on his sudden release, Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times offered this little explanation of the kidnapping: "Although Zebari was uncertain who kidnapped the man, others familiar with the case said they believe those responsible work for the Iraqi Intelligence Service, which is affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency." The CIA, of course, has a sordid history in Baghdad as well, including running car-bombing operations in the Iraqi capital back in Saddam Hussein's day.

And don't forget the botched Bush administration attempt to capture two high Iranian security officials and the actual kidnapping of five Iranian diplomats-cum-Revolutionary-Guards in Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan over two months ago -- they disappeared into the black hole of an American prison system in Iraq that now holds perhaps 17,000 Iraqis (as well as those Iranians) and is still growing. As Juan Cole has pointed out, most such acts, and the rhetoric that goes with them, represent so many favors to "an unpopular and isolated Iranian government attempting to rally support and strengthen itself."

In addition, just this week, the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and other ships in its battle group left San Diego for the Persian Gulf. Two carrier battle groups are already there, promising an almost unprecedented show of strength. As the ship left port, U.S. military officials explained the mission of the carriers in the Gulf this way: They are intended to demonstrate U.S. "resolve to build regional security and bring long-term stability to the region."

And stability in the region, it seems, means promoting instability in Iran by any means possible. So, the President's Global War on Terror also turns out to be the Global War of Terror. No one has dealt with the way "state sponsorship of terror" works, when it comes to our own country, more strikingly than Noam Chomsky, who considers the larger Iranian crisis below. His latest book, Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy, is just out in paperback and couldn't be more to the point at the present moment. Right now, if the U.S. isn't already a failing state, it's certainly a flailing one. Tom

http://www.tomdispatch.com/

[IndyOp]

3. Love me some Chomsky! K&R (n/t)

[sinkingfeeling]

4. You see, articles like this are far too intelligently written to interest the American public.

[Peace Patriot]

9. I don't agree. 84% of the American people oppose any U.S. participation in a

widened Mideast war (poll posted here at DU last summer). 75% oppose the Iraq War and want it ended. And way back in Feb. '03--before the invasion--56% of the American people opposed the Iraq War and had figured out that it wasn't necessary (even before Colin Powell's 100% pack of lies at UN was fully exposed). That would be a landslide in a presidential election--56%--and probably was.

I don't think the American people are unintelligent. I think they have been disempowered, and, above all, disenfranchised.

And you don't have to look far to see how: During the 2002 to 2004 period, our election system was taken over by rightwing Bushite corporations, which are "counting" all our votes on machines run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls. This coup occurred so fast--and with such complicity of the Democratic Party leadership--that the American people were caught unawares, and it's taking them some time to catch up with it. But they ARE catching up with it, despite a complete "Iron Curtain" over this subject by the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, and the continued silence of our party leadership on the essentially "Stalinist" nature of this non-transparent vote counting system.

If you're going to perpetrate an unjust, heinous war, in a democracy--especially one with the Vietnam War in living memory--you have to fix the elections. That's what they did. The Republicons in collusion with the War Democrats. It's staring us in the face. And Chomsky doesn't do us much of a favor by calling for "more democracy" in the U.S., without identifying the chief means by which our democracy was undermined. His call for "more democracy" is too vague. How do you GET democracy? Practical priority no. 1: TRANSPARENT vote counting.

[Briar]

5. I've just heard Sir Max

Hastings, armchair general extraordinaire, declare that we are at war with Iran in Iraq and that bombs used there are supplied by and may even be planted by Iranians. This sort of jingoistic idiocy creates the very conflicts they imagine - the old nationalistic narrative craving new actors and new deaths. A recommendation for an all too rare sane voice.

[Peace Patriot]

6. I love the example of Iran (or, say, China) invading Mexico. Would the U.S. sit

idly by? How can we expect Iran to sit idly by, with its neighbor Iraq in ruins, and the U.S. military occupying its neighbor country, and also the U.S. fleet assembling in the Persian Gulf? Iran would be insane not to be interested, and not to be making its own efforts to stabilize Iraq. It also has a legitimate interest in NOT having the U.S. army and naval fleet dominating the region. Would the U.S. be sending operatives into Mexico, to spy, and to connect with the Mexican resistance, if Iran or China had invaded and occupied Mexico? You're damned right they would. And who could fault them? But that is exactly what the Bush Junta is faulting Iran for--on very flimsy evidence, as a matter of fact. Iran seems mostly to be interested in CLOSING its border, so that the chaos in Iraq does not spill over, and more than likely fears Al Qaeda as much as any sensible Muslim nation. Iran is Shia--and is a rather moderate religious state with far more public involvement in politics than is permitted in, say, Saudi Arabia or the UAE. Al Qaeda is fanatical Sunni. (They hated Saddam because he was SECULAR Sunni.) (Bush/Cheney have fucked all this up beyond belief. As with their polices at home, they seem bent on destructiveness, and not on anything even remotely resembling constructive resolution of problems.)

In any case, this reverse picture--Iran invading Mexico--is very instructive, as to the total hypocrisy of the U.S./Bush Junta policy on Iraq and Iran. Chomsky goes on to say, and what would we do if Iran, after invading Mexico, demanded that we give up our nuclear weapons? Right. We're going to disarm ourselves, under immediate threat of a similar invasion! (Iran does not have nukes, but is seeking them in response to this U.S. threat--then the Bush Junta blames them for that as well.)

I also like this, in the Chomsky article, regarding Bushite propaganda on Iran interfering in the sovereign state of Iraq: It's as if the "...official Nazi press also featured solemn debates about whether the Allies were interfering in sovereign Vichy France."

The main thrust of Chomsky's article--and his main proffered SOLUTION--is more democracy in the U.S. He points out (as I often do myself) the overwhelming numbers in stats on the opinions of the American people--who don't want a war on Iran, who want the Iraq war ended, who want diplomacy and a constructive foreign policy, fairness and peace (--and have all along, if you study the stats). But how to achieve it? He does not say.

Here's my solution: transparent vote counting.

It's a wonder to me how many intelligent people ignore what was done to our vote counting system between 2002 and 2004--its takeover by RIGHTWING BUSHITE electronic voting corporations, who are "counting" all our votes with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls. A further mind-boggling twist is the complete silence of the Democratic Party leadership as this was done (and now).

It seems like a no-brainer. What do you expect from secretly coded vote tabulation by Bushite corporations? One of them, Diebold had a CEO who was a Bush/Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser (a Bush "Pioneer" right up there with Ken Lay). The other, ES&S, got its initial funding from far rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson (and the things he's into would curl your hair--for instance, the death penalty for homosexuals). I mean, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?!

75% of the American people wanting the Iraq war ended. A 50/50 Congress that can't seem to get it done. That's what you should expect when the people have to outvote the machines, just to get this subject "on the table."

[Jcrowley]

7. Kick and Rec n/t

[Recursion]

8. Canada too: don't forget we have them surrounded

We have a quarter million troops in the countries to their east and their west. Imagine if a quarter million Iranian soldiers were in Canada and Mexico.