Some Western observers have recently speculated that recent NIE notwithstanding, a US attack on Iran was still possible. The Deputy Head of Iran’s Armed Forces General Headquarters, Gholam-Ali Rashid, has even reportedly stated that such an attack before the end of 2008 was “probable”. So how likely is such an attack?
There can be no doubt that the publication of the NIE has resulted in a dramatic loss of momentum towards war and the, unlike what happened before the war with Iraq, the Neocons will not be able to “sell” the war to the American public, at least not without some helpful “Persian Gulf of Tonkin” pretext. Furthermore, the Administrations efforts at the Annapolis Conference and during Bush’s trip to the Middle-East have totally failed to produce any type of regional support for the war, quite to the countrary: Bush was told in no uncertain terms that nobody in the Middle-East (besides Israel, of course) wanted a war with Iran. Even the laughable incident of the Iranian patrol boats “threatening” USN destroyers failed to elicit anything but amused giggles from the public, and denials for the Pentagon. In many ways the possibility of an aggression against Iran appears very remote. But it is really?
All these arguments assume that the US public opinion would be an important factor in the Administration’s decision-making process on Iran, but that is not at all how Neocons think. Listen to this excellent interview of Jim Lobe by Scott Horton: Neocons never cared about the public – their entire modus operandi relies on the influence they can have on the US elites. Is there any reason at all to suspect that the Neocons have suffered a loss of influence on the latter?
Sure, some high-visibility figures have been removed, the Pentagon is now run by Gates rather than Rumsfeld, and the old ‘Anglo’ guard has scored some significant points against the ‘Jewish’ Neocons. But that is hardly enough to tip the balance.
Every single presidential candidate of some real weight is still firmly under Neocon control. I would argue that for all their empty words about ending the war in Iraq, Hillary and Obama are trying to “out McCain” McCain’s rabid militarism and warmongering. As I have already predicted a while ago, no matter what happens in between now and the presidential election, a true American Fascist will occupy the White House next year. Anyone doubting this just needs to take a closer look at the list of advisors to the presidential candidates to realize that no “change” will happen anytime soon or, if it does, it will only be a change for the worse.
AIPAC, JINSA & Co. leaders and the rest of the Israel Lobby can sleep well at night – their control of the US Nomenklatura remains unchallenged and they need not worry about who will sit in the White House next year.
Like a bull trying to nab a red piece of cloth, rather than the matador holding it, the old Anglo guard has only battled against the puppets, the executioners but has been generally unable or unwilling to go after the behind-the-scenes puppeteers who have always been pulling the strings of the “visible” Neocons. This is a profoundly mistaken tactic, as it is not Perle, Wolfowitz or Feith who are pulling the strings of Hillary and Obama today, but the people who interests Perle, Wolfowitz and Feith have so faithfully been promoting during the past several decades.
The Turks have an expression to designate the real powers behind the Turkish government; they call it the “Deep Government”. The Neocons are also run by their own “deep government” as is, in fact, the rest of the US political establishment. That “deep government” has very little at stake in the upcoming presidential election.
In contrast, there are people who might not sleep that well and who are probably in some anguish over what the future will bring them: all those inside the government who actually are guilty of the numerous crimes committed under this Administration: obstruction of justice, perjury, civil rights violations, war crimes, crimes against humanity, Geneva Convention violations, violations of international law, torture, treason, espionage, etc. The list is long and well known, no need to fully repeat it here. These are the people who have no political future anyway and who are therefore expandable. Even better – they can be the puppets which will take the fall for the puppet masters: jail enough “visible” Neocons and the US “deep government” will never be challenged for its criminal activities.
It is likely that most Neocons understand that while an Obama or a Hillary Administration will never allow anything contrary to the interests of Israel to happen, they will not extend the same cover to retired Neocons, not when they have become useless to their puppeteers and not when they are out of power. While the most crafty ones (Perle) will probably quietly slip away, others will probably held accountable for their misdeeds (Feith). It is therefore in their interest to try to remain in power, safely tucked away in a McCain administration.
Whereas McCain is obviously a senile and generally pathetic candidate (“bomb, bomb bomb, bomb, bomb Iran“), both Obama and Hillary have plenty of charm and even more brains (not to mention loads of corporate money). Both of them appeal to large segments of the US population and it is hard to imagine McCain winning only because he would be running against a Black man or a woman (or both). To win, McCain would need to do the only thing he knows how to do better than Obama or Hillary: rally Americans around the flag. What better opportunity to do this could there be than a war with Iran?
A war with Iran is a win-win situation for both the “visible” Neocons and the “deep government” ones. For the former, it is possibly the only way to remain in power (and, possibly, out of jail) while for the latter it is a last chance to use a group of people who will soon becomes useless anyway. If the war goes well, they will all be happy, and if it does not (which it won’t), the “visible Neocons” will take the fall for the “deep government”.
For all these reasons, it is very premature to dismiss the likelihood of an aggression against Iran, not before the Election, and not after. For all the recent tactical successes which the Anglos had against the Neocons, there is nothing to indicate that their power inside the US establishment has substantially weakened. If anything, the unwavering support of Speaker Pelosi for the Israel lobby shows that Congress will “know what to do” when required by the Lobby. As for the US corporate media it will, no doubt, do what it does best: make an outstanding job of packaging and delivering to its audience whatever propaganda the government (whether “deep” or not) wants it to feed the public.
The war is very much “on the table”, and it will remain there as long as the US “deep government” remains in power.
Great piece VS. The list of advisors to the candidates was just chilling. Rich,scheming career monsters.
Good analysis VS. I am inclined to agree with you that there is a “deep government” or an elite who hold the strings of the political class & their political appointees, although I am not sure who comprises this group or how power is wielded other than the customary explanations about political contributions.
On a side note, I was very disappointed with Norman Finkelstein’s analysis of the Walt & Mearsheimer thesis. His whole rebuttal seems to be that “Rumsfeld and Cheney” aren’t neocons, thus the power of the Lobby in shaping our larger Middle East policy is overstated. It seems as if Finkelstein conceives of our political class as sovereign rulers who implement whatever policies they believe best suits the nation, as if there is no “deep government” that holds the strings and constrains their policy choices. I tend to think that politicos like Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld find themselves ensconced in their roles because there is an elite, which, although not entirely monolithic, puts them there because it can count on them to fulfill their agenda.
Also if I can digress a bit further, I think Finkelstein is confusing Jim Petras’ thesis with Walt Mearsheimer’s. He claims that W&M argue that the neocons were foreign agents. I think W&M took care to phrase their thesis a bit more delicately. The gist of it may be correct though. The neocons may be serving the interests of a foreign power. Both Philip giraldi and Mike Scheuer have hinted as much and a number of other writers have insinuated the same thing. It’s interesting that Finkelstein doesn’t debunk this argument. His rebuttal is merely “if it’s so obvious that they are foreign agents, how did they fool Cheney and Rumsfeld?” Perhaps Cheney & Rumsfeld weren’t fooled. They are likely to be stooges of this “deep government” that owns all the horses in the race and that wins no matter who is elected to office.
I’d appreciate it if you could weigh in on this VS. I realize that I’m not directly commenting on the likelihood of a confrontation with Iran, but I do see the Lobby as a major constituent of the group driving this agenda & as part of the “deep government”. I hope you can see how what i am saying connects to the ideas you presented in this post, even if it appears to be a bit of a digression.
Thanks,
-AA
One other thing, have you seen all the stories of the internet cables that connect Iran to the web being severed? I think that in the past week four such undersea cables have been cut – each one allegedly an accident caused by ship anchors. I’m not sure how true this is, but there have been a number of reports that web traffic with Iran was completely shut down. If true, this would be a truly remarkable number of coincidences.
-AA
AA and VS,
Superb analysis and commentary. It does seem likely to me as well that there is a “deep government”. But who are these folks? What do they do? Do they actually occupy government positions? Are they the CEOs of the Wall Street firms? Are they even American? Are they the ones at the “think tanks”? If not the actual essayists at the think tanks, then their financial sponsors? Do they collaborate among themselves?
VS, on a lower level, the guys at Blackwater are also prime targets for scapegoating as well–very egregious and highly visible misconduct (ok, more like murder and mayhem)–and being white males…highly vulnerable.
VS, on a lower level, the guys at Blackwater are also prime targets for scapegoating as well–very egregious and highly visible misconduct (ok, more like murder and mayhem)–and being white males…highly vulnerable.
@AA and anonymous: you are asking the right questions and they are definitely very much on-topic. I have to begin by telling your here that I do not have all the answers, only some leads, a couple of things I logically concluded by of a process of elimination and some information I came across thanks to other people.
There are a couple of levels at which an analysis can be made of who is really behind all the processes we can observe in the USA and the world.
On a basic level, its “big money”. Not all big money, however. There is plenty of big money out there which has little or no agenda beyond making more money. So we would have to say that there is a subgroup within big money which is motivated by more than just greed. (Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are not the kind of people who would devise the Imperial policies of the USA).
On a deeper level we would have to postulate the existence of a “deeper big money”, a subsection of “big money” which acts out of some ideological motives which we do not need to define at this moment. Let’s just say that some big money will sacrifice financial interests for the service of “the cause”.
This, of course, begs the question of what cause that might be which would seem worthy of such efforts and, at times, sacrifices. So there is a third, even deeper level of analysis where, I believe, all this takes on a purely spiritual dimension.
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow.
Ecclesiastes 1:9-11
Only at the superficial level is evil a means to an end. There is a level at which evil becomes an end into itself, where the purpose is not power, money or glory, but where these are the means towards the real goal: evil in all its forms and expressions.
Call me crazy or naive, but I will say that I have not come to this conclusion by being ignorant of the usually scrutinized levels – I have come to this conclusion because that is where the analysis of the other levels of analysis brought me.
From the dawn of mankind there has been a segment of humanity which served evil as a supreme goal. All of history is, I believe, the history of this struggle between good and evil and even though the idea of a “dark side” is now taken seriously only in Star Wars movies, I believe that it is still very much here, it is as old as the world, and it will remain with us as long as the world exists.
Anyone who seriously thinks that the horrors of the world are only the result of greed, vice and immorality needs to look again: most of the horrors out there make absolutely no sense, serve no purpose, and benefit nobody. Yet there are men out there who dedicate their entire lives towards the execution of as many horrors as possible, even at the cost of a personal sacrifice.
I know that this might all sound like utter nonsense to most of you, and that is fine. I can only give you my honest answer and each of you can make of it what he/she wants (including a diagnosis of insanity for me).
This is why conspiracy theorists are mostly misguided. Conspiracies do exist, of course, but mostly at the superficial levels, and many of them get uncovered anyway.
On the second level, there are less conspiracies than collusions involving some key interests. Collusion is hard to see, and even harder to prove.
But on the deepest level there is much more than collusion at work, there is a common service to a goal which, while pursued, is rarely really understood or defined. At that level this is much more a matter of nature, or of instinct, than of rational calculation.
And like the scorpion killed the frog upon which it was crossing the river, the servants of evil always end up destroying the societies they live in, and destroying themselves. When that happens, they simply eventually coalesce around a new center of power and repeat it all from step one, each time with the same result, having achieved nothing but the destruction of a nation.
Ok. I said my thing – you can laugh to your heart’s content at my bizarre conclusions. They are the best I have to offer.
VS
In what may either be a coincidence or a related matter it seems that a internet cable connecting Iran to the worldwide web has been severed.
That’s a lot of damage done for ship anchors to have done in the space of only a week.
-AA
VS,
I don’t think you are crazy, but certainly the ideologues who have the money and power to make global as well as political and social changes do not see themselves as evil. Do they? Might they not see the rest of humanity as benighted and needing to be forced into new ways of thinking and acting? Basically, don’t you think that they see themselves as forces for good?
It is hard to say what this type of person thinks or feels, but my guess is that mostly they feel a mix of hatred and self-righteousness.
Engineering a provocation by some Iranian hotheads is so damn easy. The ISI has all the contacts needed to feed some support in the required direction. There are always some mopes that are not too hip on strategic thought . Strike at the great Satan! WOW cool. Maybe the Turkish intel people can arrange it too. The US CIA seems unwilling for the most part in this sort of false flag
operation, but both Israel and binLadin would like to pull the trigger on Regional war. The US style is to prefer a pearl harbor running start so the public can be ginned up and anti war forces stifled.
I would be surprised if we don’t see action by spring. This forward deployment of US troops and Naval brinksmanship is all that is required on our part, and we have that in place.
Tell me, why am I wrong? If Israel was sneaky enough to pull a gambit like the Lavon affair, can anybody tell me there are any scruples in engineering such provocation to accomplish their foreign policy ends- I.E. a regional war with Iran and Syria where they imagine the US would wade in with no restrictions and crush their emerging strategic threats. On the other side, the ISI has lots
of binLadin supporters, and can easily find a few that will do the job. We need Shiite hotheads, true and both of the suggested provocateurs are Sunni, but maybe, in the spirit of détente we are
fostering in Iraq, these scamps can get together on this.
There is no need for the US to do the provocation. All we need to do is stand over there as an occupation army with a chip on its shoulder and that will be completely sufficient. Clinton or Obama would actually probably do just fine too. They are in no mood for real disengagement over there. And when only the giant green zone embassy is protected with Marine guards, we can really
face the real possibility it will be over-run by agreement from all Iraq factions, Sicilian vespers style. We need to really leave. Really leave. Green zone, Kuwait, and all. Keep Marines on duty in the middle of the Mediterranean, out of littoral waters, to evacuate US citizens like then did from Lebanon.