As most of the political focus is on a series of indictments and charges over leaks and treason as well as nominations for the highest court in the land, we must never let our attention stray from the machinations of those in power. And quite frankly, I am becoming worried about those who wish to further beat the drums of war.
It seems like an eon ago but in 1997 a movie named Wag the Dog got the nation's attention with its theme that concocting a war is one of the most effective methods of distracting public attention from the deficiencies of the president, as well as unifying public support. While the movie is often connected to the Clinton administration and the Lewinsky scandal, it was actually based on a book that specifically made parallels to the George H.W. Bush administration.
With poll numbers plummeting for both the president as well as his "war" in Iraq, you might think that starting another war right now would be both foolhardy in a political as well as financial sense. But desperate times call for desperate measures. Just how close are we to a war with Iran?
I've written several articles about Iran in the past but yesterday my interest was further piqued by this
excellent column by Jeff Huber on the E. Pluribus Media website. In short, the United States will spend roughly $500 billion dollars on its military next year, which is an amount equal to the sum spent on every single other country on the face of the planet, combined.
Frankly it's a little hard to justify that amount. The purpose of the American military is to defend the United States. That's it. In fact the Constitution refers to it as the government having the power to "provide for the common Defence". The sole addendum of course is a "declaration of War". These are two well-known concepts but they merit some analysis.
To begin with, the United States hasn't declared war on anyone since June 5, 1942 when the Congress voted unanimously to fight against certain Axis powers (in this case Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania). That's it. Every single "war" since then, from Viet Nam, Cambodia, Panama, Iraq (1991 and the current one), Granada, Libya, Korea, Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia (Yugoslavia), Lebanon, Afghanistan, Sudan, Bolivia, Dominican Republic and Haiti (among others) were not technically wars. That is to say, they were not a Constitutional declaration of hostilities by the Congress against a sovereign nation.
All of the above were technically referred to as either "police actions" or "armed interventions". Essentially they were instigated and directed by the President, with funding and/or "authorization" given by the Congress. It's worth noting that not every one of these actions were ever formally authorized by the Congress, even in a less substantative way than a declaration of War, and that includes the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.
Even if we exclude the 2001 invasion and continuing occupation of Afghanistan, none of the above "police actions" or "armed interventions" were in any way directly connected to the defense of the United States. That's a very significant distinction. All of the above interventions were done because the administration (and at least partially supported by the Congress) felt that they indirectly served to protect the interests of the United States.
Not one single soldier, paramilitary member, militia member or government agent of Viet Nam, Cambodia, Panama, Iraq, Granada, Libya, Korea, Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia (Yugoslavia), Lebanon, Sudan, Bolivia, Afghanistan, Dominican Republic or Haiti has ever attacked the United States. You might argue that those respective governments threatened the interests of the United States, but it wasn't through any kind of military attack.
I am making this distinction to show that the American military (since 1942) has not been used either to defend the United States from attack nor is it in a Constitutionally-defined war with a sovereign nation. It is instead quite simply used to further the political whims of the government.
Knowing that, why would the United States need a military equal in strength (or at least money spent) to that of the entire rest of the planet combined? That's a scary thought. That immense sum isn't being spent to defend against an attack on the United States, nor is it involved in waging war against a sovereign nation. Of course some of that money does go to bases in the United States designed and used to defend the American homeland. But by and large it is being spent on military interventions at the behest of those currently in power.
The problem with such an immense military budget is two-fold. The first of course is corruption driven by greed. Very little of the military's budget goes to paying soldiers or other "in-house" expenditures. The vast majority goes to non-government agencies, from those who build weapon systems, tanks and rockets to those who provide "auxiliary" services such as housing and feeding troops, to those who are paid to "reconstruct" and rebuild the countries the military's weapons destroy. To that list we can also add the non-government firms which provide "mercenaries" (or your synonym of choice), which amounts to duplicating the basic element of any military - the soldier him/herself.
A majority of the money the military gives to these companies is concentrated on a relatively small group of companies. These companies, with billions of dollars in government contracts, legally and openly donate money to the political party in power, thus buying influence in gaining further lucrative contracts. And as Mr. Huber astutely points out, former generals routinely go to work for major non-government military contractors and former executives of major non-government military contractors go to work for the government. It is a vicious and incestuous cycle in which those who produce weapons and provide services to the military profit from a government which gets itself involved in military interventions.
Greed and an incestuous relationship with military contractors is the first half of the problem with such an immense military budget. The second part of the problem is that having such an overwhelmingly powerful military is an overwhelming temptation to use by those who can - the administration. So long as the public tolerates the enormous expense, using the military will always be extremely tempting to further the administration's goals.
The current administration has fallen into this temptation due to the public's acquiescence to the enormous cost, in both dollars as well as lives. And while we are all familiar with the current occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, it is the danger of a wider war being brought to Iran that concerns me today.
But why would the administration want to attack Iran? There are many complex answers but they can be boiled down to two simple responses: Iran has a tremendous amount of oil and natural gas and it does not kowtow or obey the demands of the United States government. There's a lot of chaff in the air to confuse the issue, such as Iran has a "fanatical" government, it sponsors terrorism, it has or is building nuclear weapons, etc. Don't be fooled by these arguments - of course they contain elements of truth, but they are being used to disguise a more basic truth.
Of the approximately 200 countries on the planet, there are just 6 who are defiant and/or immune to the political and/or economic domination of the United States: Cuba, North Korea, Belarus, Iran, Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Let's look at the other 5:
Belarus - The country is extremely poor, has an antiquated and non-threatening military, is landlocked and is politically and economically dependent on Russia. It has almost no natural resources of any significance and its main export is heavy machinery and equipment. Is no military threat to its neighbors or the region.
Cuba - Always a thorn, it is mostly politically isolated (although that's changing). It is almost entirely poor and agricultural. No gas or oil reserves. Is no military threat to its neighbors or the region.
Myanmar - Ruled by a military junta for 60 years, it is extremely politically isolated with its main partner being Thailand, a strong U.S. ally. Is no military threat to its neighbors or the region. Is extremely poor and agricultural and its main export is clothing.
North Korea - Largely poor and agricultural, it does have a very large military with at least one functioning nuclear device not to mention missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads. It is however entirely under the political thumb of China. No major natural resources.
Zimbabwe - An extremely poor and agricultural country on the verge of total collapse. Is no military threat to its neighbors or the region. Is becoming politically isolated from even its traditional allies.
And then you've got Iran. Iran is OPEC's second largest oil producer (after Saudi Arabia) and has at least 10% of the world's proven reserves. Furthermore, it has the world's second largest natural gas reserves (after Russia). 500 years ago the world's most valuable commodities were spices and gold. In today's world, Iran hit the double jackpot - oil AND gas.
All those resources give a country a lot of heft - and Iran has extremely good relations with Russia, China, India and Pakistan. Iran therefore has an enormous influx of hard currency.
Secondly, Iran is the spiritual home of the Shi'a branch of Islam. While most people think of this as an "isolated" or relatively small section of the world's devotees, there are large communities in Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Bahrain and Azerbaijan. With the exception of Bahrain (a Gulf Arab island state), those countries are of significant geopolitical importance. The world's Shi'ites look to Iranian clerics for authoratative spiritual guidance.
Third, Iran has a stable government. It is a mixture of western-style democracy cemented and controlled by established theocratic principles. Unlike the dictatorships in Cuba, Myanmar, Belarus and North Korea and the confused chaos of Zimbabwe, the political climate in Iran is extremely stable and resistant to revolution or widespread dissent. As in any country, there are unhappy citizens, but the government of Iran is firmly in place and in very little danger of being overthrown.
Fourth, Iran has both an independent political will as well as a burning hatred for the United States and its allies (for well-known reasons). This might be the most significant reason why the current administration considers it such a threat.
So let's add this up:
- Control over huge deposits of the two most valuable resources on the planet: gas and oil
- The money to cement political alliances with major non-NATO countries as well as form durable economic relationships with its neighbors
- Iran is the spiritual home of a particularly fierce and non-yielding branch of Islam, with devotees in some of the most troubled and/or geopolitically sensitive areas of the world, including Iraq
- A stable and willful government with a burning hatred of the United States as well as its regional allies
Clearly Iran presents a very realistic threat to American hegemony over the globe.
With an immense military and the political desire to remove Iran as an independent (and contrarian) entity, there's certainly enough motivation to attack Iran and/or overthrow its government. But does that mean it is likely?
Many propaganda campaigns have been initiated to discredit Iran in an attempt to isolate it politically and economically. These have, by and large, all failed. The principle campaign most people are familiar with is the "threat" that Iran possesses or is in the process of developing nuclear weapons. These have been disproven by the IAEA, headed up by Mohammed ElBaradei, who is an individual who refuses to capitulate to American and western interests.
A second, weaker campaign has been the American administration's lobbying efforts to have Iran censured for developing civilian nuclear energy reactors. The legal problem is that Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which specifically guarantees the right to develop nuclear power in a non-military capacity. Such allies as Pakistan and Iran, who have nuclear weapons, are not signatories.
There have been numerous threats for either the U.S. or its ally Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, a repeat of what occurred in Iraq in 1981. The problem is that this would be deeply unpopular with the world community, including such key allies as Britain. Furthermore, its facilities are largely underground and in fortified bunkers and would be extremely difficult to destroy without a massive aerial campaign.
A search on Google News shows a continuation of propaganda statements, primarily from the United States, trying to whip up a fervor to discredit Iran. This seems to have largely failed, primarily due to extreme skepticism from an administration which issued bald-faced lies about Iraq in the last three years.
The majority of Iran's petroleum reserves are concentrated in the southwest Khuzestan Province and it appears there is an orchestrated campaign to disrupt the government's control over this area. Not only does this area lie on Iraq's border but it is also heavily populated by Arabs (most of Iran's citizens are non-Arabs). An educated guess says that covert actions are being undertaken by a hostile government to whip up political instability and/or insurrection.
If these combined campaigns of discreditation, smearing and covert actions to disrupt key regions fails (as attempts to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the recent president elections also failed), a desperate administration might result to the lowest trick of the low: an Operation Northwood type of operation. These are also known as "false flag" operations, wherein a terrorist event is manufactured and blamed on a scapegoat for political convenience.
Think about it: imagine if someone set off a bomb in the New York City subway system, injuring hundreds and killing dozens, similar to what happened in London. Imagine a few captured men, hidden away from reporters (and lawyers of course) and smeared in the press by the government, akin to how people like Jose Padilla have been treated. What percentage of Americans would rush to believe Iran was responsible?
Manufacturing such an event would be despicuous and motivated by the basest reasons, but a desperate administration backed into the corner by a series of scandals, falling popular opinion and the arrest of key members might feel desperate enough to engage in such behavior. It's certainly happened before, from the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" to the blowing up of the USS Maine in 1898. Both of those incidents escalated the nation into a full-fledged war after an orchestrated campaign to whip up public sentiment against the target nations.
I'm certainly not the first or last person to analyze this situation but it must be noted that a desperate administration may resort to desperate measures. Whenever an administration faces falling popularity, it may do anything to "wag the dog" of public opinion. And while engaging a bloated and overextended military in further operations may be foolhardy, that does not necessarily rule out that it might happen.
Peace