Navigation
- Home
- Philosophy
- Europe
- Peace efforts
- Poets
- Artists beyond Images
- Culture
- Conferences
- Newsletter
- Links
- Imprint
Yet another war - regime change in Iran (2006)
Watching closely the ‘cold warriors’ who are gathered around President Bush in recent days and weeks, they give notice of a change in focus. Iran has become the key target.
State Secretary C. Rice speaks about a regime that suppresses its own people. Dick Cheney utters something about ‘possible consequences’, if Iran would go ahead with its nuclear enrichment program. And Rumsfeld shifts away from the quagmire of Iraq and lets the world know, if that country enters a civil war, it will be its own doing. At the same time, he assures the American public that the new Iraqis forces can deal with the situation.
What all of these hints suggests, is that a freeing of American forces from the permanent, indeed negative preoccupation with Iraq is on the agenda. It goes hand in hand with Iran now being referred to the Security Council of the United Nations. This comes after countless diplomatic efforts made especially by the Russians. They wanted to strike a deal about the uranium enrichment program and proposed that it could remain on their soil while Iran can benefit from a build up of new energy resources based on nuclear energy. However, a final blow was dealt to this proposal when Iran’s radical President lay claim, Iran would not wish to be curtailed in its freedom to enrich uranium at home.
While analysts have pointed out numerous factors, they all seem to miss one obvious point. The American military needs an easy target to strike at, in order to exercise once again all its power. The American military is eager to do what it has been trained and equipped for, in order to do the best. This can include an all out missile war with precision bombing as part of a mighty strategy. Will it work and, therefore, deter Iran for going down that uranium enrichment program, who knows?
Anyone with knowledge about armies has to admit certain decisions have to be taken. For once an army gets bogged down, it becomes an enemy onto itself. It is assumed that Rumsfeld sees that danger. Hence he wants to reinvigorate the so-called fighting spirit within the army, so as to keep up its defensive capacity i.e. offensive striking ability.
A highly sophisticated machine like the American Forces need from time to time such ‘exercises’. Like a strong young man who wants to flex his muscles and enter a good fight, so the military wants from time to time leave behind the other, less exciting business like patrolling day by day in the streets of Baghdad, and get involved again in the serious business of winning a war. This relief to finally get going rather than merely lying around and waiting till the marching order comes, that every commander of a ship knows. As a matter of fact, it is one of the largest challenges, namely how to keep any army active during peace times or for that matter longer lulls in a war.
Consequently Iran proves to be at this moment a decisive positive distraction from what is happening not only in Washington but around the world. Things seem to be going only from bad to worse. This includes the approval ratings of President Bush which is down by now to 34%, and still falling as many more Americans begin to realize what person they have put into the position of Commander-of-Chief.
Bush is incapable of any coherent policy and cannot articulate in any intelligent way novel ideas about society, politics and history. His latest problem with the ports of America being subject to take-overs by foreign ownership contrasts greatly with his proud attestment during the last election that he would never put American decision making capacity into foreign hands.
However, the problem of Bush is created more by the people around Bush. When elected first, he brought to power people who could never deal with the end of the Cold War. They were all like Rumsfeld ‘Cold War warriors’ and they can think only ‘rational’, if at war. The doctrine of the ‘permanent war’ that Rumsfeld designed after 9/11 meant he along with Dick Cheney and others can only conceive the world in terms of war rationality, nothing else. The frightening aspect in all of this is that they believe in their ‘insanity’ to be rational i.e. logical.
Indeed, the American Forces need a distraction from Iraq, therefore a strike against Iran is inevitable, as it follows the logical need of a military machine wishing to prove to itself that it is still at the top of its own technological warfare game. In that sense the frightening aspect is again regardless what is being said, the furry of the believers in their mission like Rumsfeld will begin to unfold once again, and sooner than to be expected.
However, it is not at all in the world’s interest but to no avail and to some extent world opinion does count. Interestingly enough, 'the cold warriors' bring forth almost identical arguments as they did against Saddam Hussein, in order to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. They have still to realise that Iran is not Iraq.
Hatto Fischer
16.03.06
This article was first published in heritageradio
http://web60.6892-2.whserv.de/heritageradio/cms2/reflections-single-view/article/the-making-of-yet-another-war-a-regime-change-in-iran/
« Sectrarian Violence in Iraq: who assumes responsibility? | Does Patriotism really hold in a global world? The case of the United States »