|
|
June 18, 2013
|
|
|
|
 The Imperial Way: American Decline in Perspective, Part 2Posted on Feb 16, 2012
By Noam Chomsky, TomDispatch (Page 3) These forces have become particularly significant since the Reagan years, as the Republicans have abandoned the pretense of being a political party in the traditional sense, while devoting themselves in virtual lockstep uniformity to servicing a tiny percentage of the super-rich and the corporate sector. However, the small constituency that is primarily served by the reconstructed party cannot provide votes, so they have to turn elsewhere. The only choice is to mobilize tendencies that have always been present, though rarely as an organized political force: primarily nativists trembling in fear and hatred, and religious elements that are extremists by international standards but not in the U.S. One outcome is reverence for alleged Biblical prophecies, hence not only support for Israel and its conquests and expansion, but passionate love for Israel, another core part of the catechism that must be intoned by Republican candidates—with Democrats, again, not too far behind. These factors aside, it should not be forgotten that the “Anglosphere”—Britain and its offshoots—consists of settler-colonial societies, which rose on the ashes of indigenous populations, suppressed or virtually exterminated. Past practices must have been basically correct, in the U.S. case even ordained by Divine Providence. Accordingly there is often an intuitive sympathy for the children of Israel when they follow a similar course. But primarily, geostrategic and economic interests prevail, and policy is not graven in stone. The Iranian “Threat” and the Nuclear Issue Advertisement In the United States, before the massive propaganda campaigns of the past few years, a majority of the population agreed with most of the world that, as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has a right to carry out uranium enrichment. And even today, a large majority favors peaceful means for dealing with Iran. There is even strong opposition to military engagement if Iran and Israel are at war. Only a quarter regard Iran as an important concern for the U.S. altogether. But it is not unusual for there to be a gap, often a chasm, dividing public opinion and policy. Why exactly is Iran regarded as such a colossal threat? The question is rarely discussed, but it is not hard to find a serious answer—though not, as usual, in the fevered pronouncements. The most authoritative answer is provided by the Pentagon and the intelligence services in their regular reports to Congress on global security. They report that Iran does not pose a military threat. Its military spending is very low even by the standards of the region, minuscule of course in comparison with the U.S. Iran has little capacity to deploy force. Its strategic doctrines are defensive, designed to deter invasion long enough for diplomacy to set it. If Iran is developing nuclear weapons capability, they report, that would be part of its deterrence strategy. No serious analyst believes that the ruling clerics are eager to see their country and possessions vaporized, the immediate consequence of their coming even close to initiating a nuclear war. And it is hardly necessary to spell out the reasons why any Iranian leadership would be concerned with deterrence, under existing circumstances. The regime is doubtless a serious threat to much of its own population—and regrettably, is hardly unique on that score. But the primary threat to the U.S. and Israel is that Iran might deter their free exercise of violence. A further threat is that the Iranians clearly seek to extend their influence to neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, and beyond as well. Those “illegitimate” acts are called “destabilizing” (or worse). In contrast, forceful imposition of U.S. influence halfway around the world contributes to “stability” and order, in accord with traditional doctrine about who owns the world.
1
2
3
4
NEXT PAGE >>>
TAGS:
|
Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Ex-Employees Say
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Sombrio, February 18, 2012 at 10:10 am Link to this comment
Here’s something to consider. What if Iran really doesn’t want to build a bomb? What if they realize like anybody with half a brain that Nuclear weapons though really scarey are quite useless in the field of conflict which is why they have only been used once in anger. Why would you waste all that effort on something that dumb especially if you’re in Iran’s situation. If your Iran maybe a nuclear power station is more to the point. And look how stupid eveybody’s going look if their nuclear program’s just turning out electricity.
Report thisPerhaps then there will be an international call to put some of these ‘World leaders’ on some kind of new medication.
By vector56, February 18, 2012 at 6:21 am Link to this comment
I agree with prisnersdilema; at this point it is all about “Controlling the Narrative”.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/27/1030526/-Controlling-The-Narrative?via=blog_744899
Context:
In the 50’s the CIA over threw the Democratically elected Mossadeq government in Iran at the request of a British company that now calls itself BP.
We installed a brutal Dictator (the Shah)who ruled with an iron for years until the his over throw by the Iranian people.
In the basement of the US/Iran embassy, the CIA plotted again to reinstate the Shah, and he ruled over the people for 10 more years until the Revolution of the Ayatollah Khomeini finally over threw this monster.
Americans were taken hostage by a group of Iranians and held for months to protest our interference in their country. None of the hostages were harmed.
We decided to turn our lap dog Sadam (at the time) loose on Iran. With our help (arms and intelligence) Sadam kill over a million Iranians.
During the Iran, Iraq War a US war ship shot down an Iranian “passenger” Air liner killing 200 plus of their citizens.
Add to this the covert actions going on in their country today by US Special forces, CIA and Mossad; the killing of their scientist is there any doubt of who the “bad guys” are?
Lybia, Syria and Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran what we are living through is the “Re-Colonization” of the Middle East.
Report thisBy prisnersdilema, February 17, 2012 at 10:09 pm Link to this comment
In the weeks and months ahead, as the plutocracy prepares for the slaughter in Iran.
You will be witness, to a constant rain of hysteria by their corporate owned media
outlets.
In addition you willl see a concerted effort to inhibit free speach, and intimidate or shut
down internet sites, that offer alternative views of the plutocracys efforts to rain down
helll on Iran.
This has already begun.
If these efforts succeed this country will enter a dark time unlike any in our history, filled
with paranoia, lies and suspicion.
These acts are desperate ones, for they know their days are ending.
Report thisBy MeHere, February 17, 2012 at 5:49 pm Link to this comment
Great article by N. Chomsky.
The paragraph at the top of the 4th page is confusing though. He states that it makes good sense to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. He goes on to suggest that a peaceful alternative towards achieving that goal may be to promote the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East and beyond. Does this mean that all other countries with nuclear weapons would be allowed to keep their arsenals? Who will buy this? I don’t get it. Only a full international ban has any value.
Report thisBy balkas, February 17, 2012 at 7:24 am Link to this comment
of course, every people and each land actually should expand its
Report thisinfluence in all other lands.
some of the expanding iranian influences/strivings i indeed welcome;
others, i do not. i also strongly reject its cult and its godologists.
however, i respect the universal right of a people to posses arms that its
neighboring or far-away countries posses.
this is an universal right and not just an UK, french, russian, chinese,
indian et al’s right.
By David J. Cyr, February 17, 2012 at 7:06 am Link to this comment
QUOTE, Noam Chomsky:
“the primary threat to the U.S. and Israel is that Iran might deter their free exercise of violence.”
____________________
Yes, a nuclear armed Iran is “dangerous” because it threatens to end the resource wars of aggression that the corporate party’s Republicans and Democrats keep voting together for.
Jill Stein for President:
http://www.jillstein.org
Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:
http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=498&Itemid=1
Report thisBy balkas, February 17, 2012 at 7:03 am Link to this comment
NC is correct in noting that to europeans a settler is a settler; settling
Report thiseither an ‘empty land’ or inhabited by ‘uncivilized’, ‘unproductive’,
‘uncultured’ people or just plain “savages”.
however, praise for that discovery not be just to chomsky; many people
have over centuries noted that also! however, he, nevertheless, has my
thanks for putting that on paper. thanks
By balkas, February 17, 2012 at 6:47 am Link to this comment
NC: “christian zionism in UK and US long preceded jewish zionism”.
Report thisas far as zionism in US goes, it is not older than four centuries. ashkenazic, and thus
nonjewish, zionism, probably began in e. europe in tenth century.
and indentifying british zionism with jewish [or is it actually sephardic, ashkenazic] zionism,
appears also a misevaluation.
NC also omits to mention and evaluate communist zionism [land theft and what it had done
against palestinians or even real jews.
but even the label “zionism” is a huge ruse. the label suggest that it is a kind of an ideology
and a valid or even holy one; while in fact ashkenazim [and thousand yrs later joined by real
shemites] wanted to oust palestinians and rob them of their ancestral habitat in which they
may have lived continuously for at least 10 millennia. thanks, bozhidar balkas, planet moon
[the hell with earth!!]
By balkas, February 17, 2012 at 6:16 am Link to this comment
about NC’s “israeli-palestine conflict”? this label misrepresents reality.
Report thisfacts prove that until, say, ‘22 there was no conflict between palestine and israel.
israel ceased to exist ca 825bc and since israel was not reestablished and recognized until ‘48 we cannot then
label the relationship palestine-israel conflict.
the fact that all communist and nearly all fascists lands recognized israel and thus rewarded war criminals with a
state of their own, shows NC’s label as a vast illusion.
yes, there were clashes between indigenes and european invaders even before UK got the mandate to rule
palestinians, but the conflict itself was actually between christo-talmudo-world jewry world and the arab world.
even today, the label christojudean-arab conflict appears by far more accurate/adequate than calling the
relationship “israeli-palestine” conflict.
NC, of course, thinks, as a smart zionist ought to think. it involves much halftruthing, inadequacy, and inaccuracy
in reporting the actualities.
‘religion’ was always a big factor in setting up israel by violent means, but i do no recall NC ever mentioning this
factor!
and if you leave out just that one factor and actual actors of the crimes perped against palestinians, then you’d be
misrepresenting harsh reality in palestine.
By Bobi6, February 16, 2012 at 7:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Excellent, excellent. Chomsky does it again. His clear thinking and
Report thiswriting would be a revelation to conservatives who never read him
because he was vilified by the right. What a shame. The other problem
for modern, internet users is that it is probably too long for their internet
soaked brains. (Mine too.) These two articles explain so much and reveal
what our foreign policy is really about. The more I learn the more I am
convinced that the United States is the most corrupt country in history.
We are a tragic nation. I wonder if we will survive especially with the
enormous political donations being collected now. When people give
millions they expect the president and congress to strictly follow their
instructions. One instruction from a Wyoming guy who gave $10M to the
current GOP frontrunner is that we should allow Israel to bomb Iran. Who
could believe that but it’s true. Perhaps we are very close to the
reckoning - whatever that means.
By Sombrio, February 16, 2012 at 6:04 pm Link to this comment
Thank you Mr Chomsky for putting things into perspective, once again. Though you don’t go into directly about the religous guys, is their need to fulfill their prophocies. I might suggest that it is such seductive quest that it might be the prime motivator behind centuries of Imperialist policies.
Report thisTo think that a conscious effort has been made to create the conditions to be saved by the Messiah or the return of the Messiah or the victory of the Madhi or whatever is so incomprehensible that one must dismiss it as the thoughts of the insane.
However could it be possible?
Certainly the brave and beautiful work of Noam Chomsky makes you wonder, though the revealing knowledge in these perspectives is that it’s really all for the money, two for the show and assisted suicide on a global scale.
By gerard, February 16, 2012 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment
Almost nobody with a brain believes the Muashar Doctrine that nothing is wrong and everything is under control these days. The problems standing in the way of action are what is at issue:
Report thisWhat to do? How best to do it?
Occupy has made two wise indications toward solution:
Move away from radical capitalism and toward a more conservative liberalism (to mix everybody up and move all of us toward a more democratic open space).
Conservative? Yes, in the sense that capitalism has become so violent, so out of control that it should now be thought of as a radical economic system. Its root ideas such as “more is bettter” better” “the sky’s the limit” “money is power” and ‘He who dies with the most toys, wins” have to be modified, humanized, taken down from their place of dominance as accepted principles of operation.
And replaced with a key idea more conservative of human and environmental life, such as “enough is enough”, “less is more”, “money is incapable of justice”, “fairness is worth more than wealth”,
“democracy depends on conserving resources of all kinds for public benefit” etc. etc.
In other words, moving away from a wildly radical system called “unrestrained capitalismm” or “too big to fail” to something more practical like “too kind to kill”, “economics with a human face” etc. Someone someplace will find a better catch phrase, but you get the idea because you already know what I mean.