Monday, November 19, 2012

Israel and Iran War Motives

What do you call an unstable, aggressive, terrorist aiding Muslim nation with a nuclear program that the US fears could slip nuke material to terror organizations? Pakistan. Do US foreign policy discussions on television focus on the odd relationship the US has with Pakistan? No. Those shows don't even draw attention to the problems inside Pakistan or the gigantic impact to our entire Afghan theater when a powerful institution within Pakistan (the ISI) created the Taliban and has nurtured it. How long did the pundits discuss OBL living within a walk of ISI and Paki military compounds? Maybe a week. Instead of anaylsis on Pakistan, we get the Iran scaremongering treatment. What are the motivations behind the Iran garbage? Should we really be afraid of Iran? If so, how are they different than Pakistan, which we are kind of partnered with? The entire face-off with Iran boils down to the desire for regime change in Tehran and Israeli security.

In the way back time machine, Americans can read the 2000 election debate transcripts to read just how tough on Iraq Mr. Al Gore was. He and Bush engaged in a bit of one upping with just how tough and aggressive they would be to keep America safe and deal with rogue states. A couple years later, Bush rolled out the axis of evil concept. As Iraq war preparations began, some Dems climbed on board and others screamed "Why not go after Iran instead of Iraq?" This is a constant refrain from Dems where they shout about a different threat that the US should be focusing on, while not supporting the current threat. Iran is a perfect example as they screamed for Iran rather than Iraq, but once Iraq was wrapped up after the successful surge, they screamed NO when an airstrike on Iran was discussed near the end of Bush's presidency. Recently, Dems did this with Afghanistan where Bush didn't pay proper attention to it, but then once Obama was in office and paying attention to it, the Dems still didn't warm up to the idea of going full force in Afghanistan to "finish the job". Regime change in Iran is in the mind of the elites. We are all Romans now. Regardless the party, we want regime change as if it's our right, as Americans, to say who should be in power around the globe.

Toppling these small dictatorships in far away places does smell like regime change to switch a non-aligned or antagonistic regime for a client state. That theory does make sense, and I believe that idea for motivations of our elites (I don't support it). There's something more at work, and part of the motivations might be to draw these nations into the world system run by the US (core theory). The thought process being to connect these periphery nations moreso to the core to reduce tensions through trade and cultural exposure. Another factor is that when 9-11 happened, a significant number of pundits said that these terrorists were expressing themselves in this manner because they lived in oppressive dictatorships; with democracy, they'd have an outlet. Wow, how stupid does that sound. Oil hovers over any Middle East situation. Not just getting to the oil, but by changing regimes, it opens up far more land for development and allows major producers to use their expertise with formerly closed off and nationalzied units. Venezuela, for example, has seen their oil production drop by 1mil bpd due to Chavez firing workers who did not swear oaths to him as well as shenanigans with foreign oil companies. Already, there are some differences between Iran and Pakistan, but there is one more.

Iran has odd dealings with random countries around the world. US intelligence analysts think of these far flung relationships as ways to spread influence and place assets closer to the USA. No one ever hears of Pakistan doing this, which might be partly due to Pakistan's warring factions that permeate their ISI. When the ISI has warring factions, the fear for Pakistani external action is lower than Iran's theocratic group with its revolutionary guard that shows little wavering. This takes into account their nukes. The nukes might keep us at bay or at least add an element of caution. The exporting of terrorism and nuke situation are differences, but is it worth a regional conflict with global impact and US casualties? This is why I prefer Israel to go it alone with their strike, and for the US to position large naval assets outside of Iranian missile range.

The elites want a new regime in charge of Iran. They want someone friendlier, not warm and fuzzy, just friendlier and dependent in charge to re-establish the old "Twin Pillars" regional security set up of pre-revolution Iran and the KSA. They want the oil to increase in output. They want a more reliable influence in the Middle East. The elites see the demographic and economic problems in Iran, but by the time those problems get big enough to change Iran's power structure on their own, Iran may have nukes, which would lead to "where are the nukes?" concerns in an internally driven overthrow. Those nukes matter for security reasons with the USA, but much more realistically for Israel. That is a legit concern. The problem is Iran doesn't have nukes now, and the US public needs some propaganda to get behind a war with Iran over potential weapons of mass destruction. This might be because that is what the elites used to sell the US on a war with Iraq. The weapons turned out to be smaller in amounts that thought, and the media buried that as supporting the war wasn't the media's vibe anymore.

Israel has a right to fear a nuclear Iran. Even if they outnumber Iran 400 warheads to one, the fear is one set off in Israel by a terror network that Israel could only claim was provided the material by Iran. Look at world opinion today. Anyone think the world would believe Israel? I would, but many others wouldn't. With a nuclear Pakistan, isn't it plausible that Iran could deny they handed the matrial to Hamas, Hezbollah etc. and say Pakistan did it? Even material for a dirty bomb could make one of their highly dense cities inhabitable, and Israel has limited real estate. This gets closer to the gut issue. Israel has legitimate fears because it might not make sense for Iran to nuke Israel if Israel nuked them back, but Iranians might be fine with nuking Israel into non-existence even if they all died just because Israel would be gone. It would be a super sized suicide bomber mission. Sounds ridiculous but after a decade of watching suicide bombers and the cult of death woven throughout the male, Muslim world, I give it credibility. Israel's odd relationship with America is the key.

Israel's true concerns offers the US elites cover for selling the war to the US. Israel has a very vocal constituency in America + Congress. Just read through the names of the Forbes 400 richest Americans. Check out Hollywood production executives, media property owners, Wall St. bankers, and commerical as well as residential real estate investment firms. Politically, Jews and pro-Israel groups donate up to 60% of Democrat money in elections. The GOP has turned much more in favor of Israel than the old Arabist-Israeli balance of old. This is not all on the neocons. Neocons as well as evangelicals have this warm spot in their heart for Israel. Recall Sarah Palin wearing an Israeli flag pin during a speech. Neocons view Israel as the bastion of democracy in the Middle East, and purchaser of American military hardware. Evangelicals have this odd glorification of the Israeli Jews and consider them protectors of the holy land, as Christianity's holy cities are located in Israel. Polling Report has plenty of polls that show a majority of Americans consider Israel an ally or friendly nation, and that they have a favorable opinion of Israel or Israelis. Consider how long Americans have been hearing about a vague terrorist or rogue regime threat from Iran. This is reminiscent of the constant German scaring in the British press before WW1. The media now can trumpet war concerns about Iran with an argument that it is not just imperial antics by the USA, but the basis for attack or invasion is rooted in joint Israeli-US concerns about regional stability and terrorism.

The US elites want regime change to move an antagonistic country into the client state column. The Israelis want to eliminate a nuclear threat. The Israelis have plenty of sympathetic promoters within the US media structure. There are many powerful donors on either side of the American political system that will want a pro-Israel response to any Israel-Iran fight. I view this conflict as a matter of time rather than an 'if'. Whenever asked about timing, I look at new moon cycles as darker nights will give Israeli jets even more cover. The US has wargamed an Iranian attack situation. An attack is coming, just give it time. Get with the program! Democracy must spread, regimes must change, and Israel must be safe!

No comments: