It appears that the Bush Administration hates the name Ira. They have already maliciously invaded Ira Q. (Iraq)—it was proven malicious when the premises for the assault were found false. And now the word on the street is that the Bush Administration wants to attack Ira N. (Iran).
The predictions that the U.S. will attack Iran have been coming from the left and the right. For example, in the summer of 2006, many of us heard both Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern predict that we would attack Iran by that October. Similar forecasts could be heard when watching Pastor John Hagee preach on television.
And though the prophecies were found false, the prophets are still prophesying. Most people on the left remain scared. Polls say that the majority of Americans would support such an attack. The justifications for that support include: Iran’s threatening rhetoric against Israel, the perception that Iraq is working toward obtaining nuclear weapons, and Iran’s alleged involvement in killing our troops in Iraq. Are there any other views out there?
Besides government denials that an attack is not written in stone, “Hi-Yo Silver” there is a Lone Ranger who thinks differently. Noam Chomsky thinks it is not likely that the U.S. would attack Iran. He states that the results would be “catastrophic.” He feels that only if the Administration was “desperate” could such an action occur.1
Certainly an attack would be a disaster. Not only would Iran retaliate and probably do so in unconventional ways, it appears that such an action would overstrain our already breaking military and would result with the resignation of some of its top leaders. In addition, with growing ties between Iran and Russia, it is possible that Russia could be drawn into the fray. Of course this does not include a projected significant increase in terrorism.
But there might be another reason why we will most likely not attack Iran. The reason is that the mere speculation that we would strike might be providing enough rewards for our leaders. What are those rewards?
The first reward of the fear of upcoming attacks is that the expectations alone increase the price of oil. Middle East instability, whether real or perceived, give those who would most benefit from higher prices an acceptable reason to increase prices. We should remember that there are significant ties between the Bush Administration and the oil industry and that the communication between the two is treated as top-secret. Also, we know from watching TV that there is at least one oil executive who no longer counts customers as stakeholders. Along with Turkey’s mounting aggression against the Kurds in Iraq, it seems that the mission of creating the perception of even greater instability in the region has been accomplished.
The second reward of anticipating a military strike is that, like our venture in Iraq, it serves as a distraction from domestic problems. Though this expectation, in comparison to an invasion, serves only as a diversion-lite, it still takes our attention off our mounting domestic problems. The gist of our problems here is that we have become a paternalistic society. Our government places more priority on providing for the needs of business than the needs of the individual. It is then business’s responsibility to provide for the people. Unfortunately, business’s goal of making a profit does not always coincide with meeting people’s needs. We see the downside of this paternalistic relationship as reduced federal tax rates have been accompanied by increased corporate profit taxes.
The final reward of anticipating military action against Iran is the angst that results from the need to consider fighting. Our worry acts as an unconscious but powerful guide in choosing leaders. Chomsky notes the relationship between fear and the people’s preference for a “strong,”2 or in other words authoritarian, leader. And when we survey the leading candidates for president, we see varying degrees of significant authoritarianism. While the authoritarianism in the Republican candidates is explicit, the authoritarianism in who will be the Democratic nominee is camouflaged. People who complain about criticism are attempting to avoid accountability. And leaders who attempt to avoid accountability are advancing authoritarianism.
Certainly the Bush Administration knows that all of the arguments being used to consider attacking Iran are sham. But they pretend otherwise because of the direction they want public opinion to take. Bush & Co. want us to think that keeping all options on the table is necessary because of the bang for the buck they get. The bang consists of the rewards mentioned above. But this bang is smaller than the one received from the invasion of Iraq because the Bush Administration is working with a smaller buck. Our current menace is not Iran; it is the direction our government is taking. This course is not just being traveled by Bush & Friends; it is the preferred path of those campaigning to replace him.
1. http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20070216.htm
2. Imperial Ambitions by Noam Chomsky, pg 25
