By Kam Zarrabi, Intellectual Discourse

As a public speaker on subjects dealing with foreign policy, especially US/Iran relations, I frequently encounter genuinely curious individuals who confront me with tantalizing questions. “Why does Iran want to wipe Israel off the face of the map?” Or, “Why is Iran so determined to develop nuclear bombs?” Or even, “Why does Iran support international terrorism; what’s in it for Iran?”

Questions like these are raised, not just by people of very little knowledge of foreign affairs or academic background, but some supposedly well-informed and high caliber academics, businessmen and even by some with diplomatic backgrounds.

Experience shows that any blunt challenge to or refutation of the questioners’ basic assumptions regarding Iran is a sure way for me to be labeled as an Iran or Islam apologist and a supporter of the Islamic Republic’s policies. That, by extension, leads to other incorrect conclusions, that whatever the Iranian government does is ok with me.

If the attempt is to correct misperceptions and bring about a constructive dialog with hopefully fruitful results, overreaction, anger, ridicule or even gentle condescending responses should be avoided.  It is very tempting to respond to a loaded question such as, Why does Iran want to develop nuclear weapons? by, Because the United States and Israel intend to wipe Iran off the face of the map!, and let it go at that. Shrewd and cunning reactions to such questions further alienate the honest enthusiast who might have the potential to accept a reasoned response.

When confronted by the question, Why is the Islamic world becoming increasingly more militant, intolerant and barbaric?, I once answered; Perhaps Moslems are learning more about the Christian world and Western values and history, from colonization and exploitation of the world to catastrophic world wars and genocides. Afterwards, I was sorry I said that; I had brought myself down to the level of the ignoramuses who ask questions like that.

Today, when I am asked the question why Iran would want to destroy Israel or support international terrorism; I respond by pointing out that the more pertinent question would be why so many people actually ask such questions! The conversation is thus expanded into a much more interesting and productive domain, which brings me to the main topic of this writing.

On April 25, PBS carried a 90 minute program by Bill Moyers, titled Buying the War, aimed at exposing and expounding on the lies and deceptions that led this nation to invade Iraq. Of course, there was nothing, at least not much, that foreign affairs enthusiasts did not already know about the drummed up charges, hype and propaganda against the Iraqi regime, as well as the Administration’s exploitation of the 9-11 tragedy that prompted the meaningless phrase, War on Terror.

I was frankly surprised that the Public Broadcasting actually aired such a program, especially by Bill Moyers, who has lost his tenure among the ranks of “favored” journalists because of his countercurrent or rogue reporting.

Possibly, Mr. Moyers might consider doing a sequel titled, Buying Another War, This Time Against Iran. In a two-seconds-long flash at the end of the program the word Iran could be seen, as perhaps that new target.

As much as I have always admired Bill Moyers for his honesty, integrity, and his bold reporting, I have to respectfully offer my disappointment at the incompleteness of his otherwise monumental presentation.

The main emphasis of his presentation was detailing the extent to which the American administration went to make a case for war against Iraq by creating pretexts based on faulty or doctored-up intelligence and outright fabrications and lies. Needless to say, the implications were quite clear in Mr. Moyers’ program that the same kind of charade might be going on these days to drag the nation into another tragic affair by extending the war into the neighboring Iran and Syria.

Here is where Mr. Moyers and I part company; I would like to take off from where he has decided to end his journey. Yes, Mr. Moyers, the invasion of Iraq was based on false pretexts, just as the potential attack on Iran will prove to be. But, why don’t we stop to ponder why that is so?

In numerous articles written since the war drums began to roll against Iraq, I, as many others, tried to point out that allegations against Iraq’s WMD programs and Al-Gha’eda connections, etc., were false, leading to the conclusion that the rationale for an invasion of Iraq, as well as the tightening of the noose around Iran, had nothing to do with terrorism or the danger that Iraq or Iran posed against the security or the legitimate interests of the United States.

Question could have been asked even then as to why Iraq would be planning to develop atomic bombs and other weapons of mass murder if not to cause harm to the United States, forcing this country to take immediate preventive action against such eventuality. Now, after the fact, it is clear that a more pertinent question would have cast heavy doubts on the primary assumption that Iraq was, in fact, engaged in such affairs as alleged.

My position was from the very beginning, and remains to this day, that the Administration knew fully well that Iraq was not in the possession of any WMDs and posed no military threat against the United States, otherwise, the invasion or the proposed cakewalk would not have commenced. What was clear to me and many, many others was that the CIA, Britain’s MI6 and the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, were not under some misperception and unaware of the realities on the ground in Iraq before the invasion. I even commented in writing that the CIA Chief, George Tenet, had agreed to be the fall guy blamed for “faulty” intelligence..

The question should be: If the decision makers in our administration knew the truth then, what prompted them to push the nation toward war with Iraq? There must have been a good reason, a good reason for America, one might expect, to venture into this dangerous venture that every international observer knew would be anything but a cakewalk. But what good reason?

Of course, while we can be confident that faulty intelligence regarding an Iraqi threat was not to blame, we could blame poor judgment in the part of the movers and shakers of America’s foreign policies that led to this tragic error. But is it logical to think that the likes of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Scooter Libby and other “neocons” were not as informed or as smart as those of us who could see absolutely no benefit for us to march into Iraq?  I don’t think so; not for one second.

As I have said many times before, I believe we attacked Iraq knowing fully well that there would be no weapons of mass destruction or a meaningful resistance by an Iraqi military to cause us any problems. Also, it would have taken an idiot in foreign affairs to have predicted welcoming committees by the “liberated” Iraqis covering the roads to Baghdad with rose petals and chanting Long live our Savior, George W. Bush! And yet, the gullible American public was actually sold that line of crap.

So, the policy making cabal knew that pretexts for going to war were totally unfounded, and must have known that the aftermath of the rather easy military victory would be a long term involvement in that quagmire.

I would prefer to believe that our neocon cabal that has been running our foreign policies, and the radical rightwing conservative think tanks that mastermind and write the scenarios of war in the Middle East are not a bunch of uneducated, trigger-happy morons who now want to drag us into yet another bloody mess by extending our involvement into Iran, so that they can be celebrated on Fox TV for their role in spreading freedom and democracy worldwide!

For a list of relevant think tanks, groups and organizations that fall into that category, check out the following short list on the Web:

American Enterprise Institute

The Project for the New American Century

AIPAC

Clean Break, Securing the Realm

Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs

The Middle East Forum

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Pastor John Hagee Ministries

as well as several other “Rapture” oriented evangelical groups.

Look at the membership rosters of these organizations and trace their associations, affiliations and loyalties. You will not only see that there are no idiots or imbeciles among them, excepting, of course, some devotees of the last group, most have a common denominator that would take a blind person not to see. 

Surely, diversionary tactics and conspiracy theories will continue to be employed to focus attention away from the real culprit in this macabre chess game being played in the Middle East theater. On top of the list has been the subject of oil and our control over the oil shipments from the Persian Gulf. Next, we have been inundated with Halliburton affairs and the Vice President’s former connection in that company. Finally, we are led to believe that the “true” culprit is the military-industrial complex that benefits from a dragged on conflict and involvement in the Middle East.

Oil exporting countries count primarily, and very unfortunately, on the sale of their oil for their economic survival. Countries like Iraq and Iran must depend on that export to feed their economies, while in the case of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Emirates, the sale of oil provides the Kings or Emirs with their only guarantee of personal existence. Therefore, there will never come a time when the shipment of oil from that region will be interrupted by the producing countries voluntarily.

Regarding Halliburton, I do not believe for one second that Mr. Cheney, who has not been enjoying good health for a number of years, is really interested in revenues from his Halliburton involvements to take the nation to war for it!

The military-industrial complex, a network of suppliers, manufacturers and propagandists who cater to and profit from the defense establishment, do not need wars of aggression to prosper. As long as instabilities and threats to the nation’s strategic interests exist, there will be ample rationale to maintain a well equipped and capable force to protect against such threats, fabricated, exaggerated, perceived or real. Ironically, a terrorist attack or assault on the nation or against the widespread military forces worldwide would further validate the importance of the US military and, consequently, the industries that feed and support it. We really do not need to go into an actual war to prove that.

I am sure many readers are tired of my harping on the same chord, Israel. But I am sick and tired, too, of listening to or reading about the Israeli regime and its Zionist sympathizers and congressional amen corner here attacking Iran at every opportunity, proposing, even demanding, an attack on Iran.

There was once an innocent, young and inexperienced fellow, Barak Obama by name. He spoke eloquently and with a degree of honesty and genuine self-confidence unlike his older and more politically savvy fellow lawmakers. He saw the opportunity to claim more public recognition by becoming a candidate for the presidential elections in 2008. His sudden popularity even alarmed the front runners and, much to his own surprise, he found himself the darling of the cheering crowds as he traveled the country.

He and his handlers soon realized that he was indeed a viable candidate for the Democratic Party, worthy of serious recognition. And, so did the movers and the shakers behind the scene who make or break political hopefuls in this country.

Oh, bummer, Obama; your only asset and real charm, your charisma, was in your innocence, your refreshing inexperience. You were unpolluted and brave while you really had nothing to lose. As a viable candidate your very future was now suddenly at risk. So you allowed them to rape you and lift that virginity that was the source of your noble pride and charm.

First it was that fundraiser in Hollywood and then your speaking and commitments at the annual AIPAC event in Washington. You had to make certain statements in public to satisfy the demands of the puppeteers who conduct the puppet show, denouncing Iran as the biggest threat to America and Israel! What in the hell did you or do you really know about Iran or anything else about foreign affairs to have made that uneducated observation, Obama?

In one of your latest appearances on television, you were asked about a comment you had made a while back before you became a viable candidate, that the Palestinians have been suffering the worst human rights violations in the world. The candidate Obama, no longer a virgin, answered that what he meant was that it was the Palestinians’ own fault for their miseries! Israel, you also said, is our best ally and the only true democracy in the Middle East. Really Obama, really?

... Payvand News - 5/2/07 ...

... Payvand News - 5/2/07 ... --