cold-war-ii-by-noam-chomsky

8/7/2019 cold-war-ii-by-noam-chomsky

1/8

Cold War II

Will the U.S. response to Iran's supposed threat heat up Cold War II?

October 2007

By Noam Chomsky

These are exciting days in Washington, as the governmentdirects its energies to the demanding task of containing Iran inwhat Washington Postcorrespondent Robin Wright, joiningothers, calls Cold War II.

During Cold War I, the task was to contain two awesome forces.The lesser and more moderate force was an implacable enemywhose avowed objective is wor ld domination by whatever meansand at whatever cost. Hence if the United States is to

survive, it will have to adopt a repugnant philosophy andreject acceptable norms of human conduct and the long-standing American concepts of fair play that had beenexhibited with such searing clarity in the conquest of thenational territory, the Philippines, Haiti, and other beneficiaries ofthe idealistic new world bent on ending inhumanity, as thenewspaper of record describes our noble mission. Thejudgments about the nature of the super-Hitler and thenecessary response are those of General Jimmy Doolittle, in acritical assessment of the CIA commissioned by PresidentEisenhower in 1954. They are quite consistent with those ofTruman administration liberals, the wise men who werepresent at the creation, notoriously in NSC 68 but in fact quiteconsistently.

In the face of the Kremlins unbridled aggression in every corner

of the world, it is perhaps understandable that the U.S. resistedin defense of human values with a savage display of torture,terror, subversion, and violence while doing everything in itspower to alter or abolish any regime not openly allied withAmerica, as Tim Weiner summarizes the doctrine of theEisenhower administration in his recent history of the CIA. Andjust as the Truman liberals easily matched their successors infevered rhetoric about the implacable enemy and its campaignto rule the world, so did John F. Kennedy, who bitterlycondemned the monolithic and ruthless conspiracy, anddismissed the proposal of its leader (Khrushchev) for sharpmutual cuts in offensive weaponry, then reacted to his unilateralimplementation of these proposals with a huge military build-up.The Kennedy brothers also quickly surpassed Eisenhower inviolence and terror, as they unleashed covert action with anunprecedented intensity (Wiener), doubling Eisenhowersannual record of major CIA covert operations, with horrendousconsequences worldwide, even a close brush with terminalnuclear war.

But at least it was possible to deal with Russia, unlike the fiercerenemy, China. The more thoughtful scholars recognized thatRussia was poised uneasily between civilization and barbarism.As Henry Kissinger later explained in his academic essays, onlythe West has undergone the Newtonian revolution and istherefore deeply committed to the notion that the real world isexternal to the observer, while the rest still believe that the realworld is almost completely internal to the observer, the basicdivision that is the deepest problem of the contemporaryinternational order. But Russia, unlike third word peasants whothink that rain and sun are inside their heads, was perhaps


2/8

coming to the realization that the world is not just a dream,Kissinger felt.

Not so the still more savage and bloodthirsty enemy, China,which for liberal Democrat intellectuals at various timesrampaged as a a Slavic Manchukuo, a blind puppet of itsKremlin master, or a monster utterly unconstrained as itpursued its crazed campaign to crush the world in its tentacles,or whatever else circumstances demanded. The remarkable tale

of doctrinal fanaticism from the 1940s to the 1970s, whichmakes contemporary rhetoric seem rather moderate, isreviewed by James Peck in his highly revealing study of thenational security culture, Washingtons China.

In later years, there were attempts to mimic the valiant deeds ofthe defenders of virtue from the two villainous globalconquerors and their loyal slavesfor example, when the Gipperstrapped on his cowboy boots and declared a NationalEmergency because Nicaraguan hordes were only two daysfrom Harlingen Texas, though, as he courageously informed thepress, despite the tremendous odds, I refuse to give up. Iremember a man named Winston Churchill who said, Never givein. Never, never, never. So we wont. With consequences thatneed not be reviewed.

Even with the best of efforts, however, the attempts never wereable to recapture the glorious days of Cold War I. But now, atlast, those heights might be within reach, as another implacableenemy bent on world conquest has arisen, which we mustcontain before it destroys us all: Iran.

Perhaps its a lift to the spirits to be able to recover those headyCold War days when at least there was a legitimate force tocontain, however dubious the pretexts and disgraceful themeans. But it is instructive to take a closer look at the contoursof Cold War II as they are being designed by the formerKremlinologists now running U.S. foreign policy, such as Riceand Gates (Wright).

The task of containment is to establish a bulwark against Iransgrowing influence in the Middle East, Mark Mazzetti and HeleneCooper explain in the New York Times(July 31). To contain Iransinfluence we must surround Iran with U.S. and NATO groundforces, along with massive naval deployments in the Persian Gulfand of course incomparable air power and weapons of massdestruction. And we must provide a huge flow of arms to whatCondoleezza Rice calls the forces of moderation and reform inthe region, the brutal tyrannies of Egypt and Saudi Arabia and,with particular munificence, Israel, by now virtually an adjunct ofthe militarized high-tech U.S. economy. All to contain Iransinfluence. A daunting challenge indeed.

And daunting it is. In Iraq, Iranian support is welcomed by muchof the majority Shiite population. In an August visit to Teheran,

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki met with the supreme leaderAli Khamenei, President Ahmadinejad, and other senior officials,and thanked Tehran for its pos itive and constructive role inimproving security in Iraq, eliciting a sharp reprimand fromPresident Bush, who declares Teheran a regional peril andasserts the Iraqi leader must understand, to quote the headlineof the Los Angeles Timesreport on al-Malikis intellectualdeficiencies. A few days before, also greatly to Bushsdiscomfiture, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Washingtonsfavorite, descr ibed Iran as a helper and a solution in hiscountry. Similar problems abound beyond Irans immediateneighbors. In Lebanon, according to polls, most Lebanese seeIranian-backed Hezbollah as a legitimate force defending theircountry from Israel, Wright reports. And in Palestine, Iranian-


3/8

backed Hamas won a free election, eliciting savage punishmentof the Palestinian population by the U.S. and Israel for the crimeof voting the wrong way, another episode in democracypromotion.

But no matter. The aim of U.S. militancy and the arms flow to themoderates is to counter what everyone in the region believes isa flexing of muscles by a more aggressive Iran, according to anunnamed senior U.S. government officialeveryone being the

technical term used to refer to Washington and its more loyalclients. Irans aggression consists in its being welcomed bymany within the region, and allegedly supporting resistance tothe U.S. occupation of neighboring Iraq.

Its likely, though little discussed, that a prime concern aboutIrans influence is to the East, where in mid-August, Russia andChina today host Irans President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at asummit of a Central Asian security club designed to counter U.S.influence in the region, the business press reports. Thesecurity club is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO),which has been slowly taking shape in recent years. Itsmembership includes not only the two giants Russia and China,but also the energy-rich Central Asian states Kyrgyzstan,Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan. Hamid Karzai ofAfghanistan was a guest of honor at the August meeting. In

another unwelcome development for the Americans,Turkmenistans President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov alsoaccepted an invitation to attend the summit, another step in itsimprovement of relations with Russia, particularly in energy,reversing a long-standing policy of isolation from Russia. Russiain May secured a deal to build a new pipeline to import more gasfrom Turkmenistan, bolstering its dominant hold on supplies toEurope and heading off a competing U.S.-backed plan that wouldbypass Russian territory.

Along with Iran, there are three other official observer states:India, Pakistan, and Mongolia. Washingtons request for similarstatus was denied. In 2005 the SCO called for a timetable fortermination of any U.S. military presence in Central Asia. Theparticipants at the August meeting flew to the Urals to attendthe first joint Russia-China military exercises on Russian soil.

Association of Iran with the SCO extends its inroads into theMiddle East, where China has been increasing trade and otherrelations with the jewel in the crown, Saudi Arabia. There is anoppressed Shiite population in Saudi Arabia that is alsosusceptible to Irans influenceand happens to sit on most ofSaudi oil. About 40 percent of Middle East oil is reported to beheading East, not West. As the flow Eastward increases, U.S.control declines over this lever of world domination, astupendous source of strategic power, as the StateDepartment described Saudi oil 60 years ago.

In Cold War I, the Kremlin had imposed an iron curtain and builtthe Berlin Wall to contain Western influence. In Cold War II,

Wright reports, the former Kremlinologists framing policy areimposing a green curtain to bar Iranian influence. In short,government-media doctr ine is that the Iranian threat is rathersimilar to the Western threat that the Kremlin sought to contain,and the U.S. is eagerly taking on the Kremlins role in the thrillingnew Cold War.

All of this is presented without noticeable concern. Nevertheless,the recognition that the U.S. government is modeling itself onStalin and his successors in the new Cold War must be arousingat least some flickers of embarrassment. Perhaps that is how wecan explain the ferocious Washington Posteditorial announcingthat Iran has escalated its aggressiveness to a Hot War: the


4/8

Revolutionary Guard, a radical state within Irans Islamic state, iswaging war against the United States and trying to kill as manyAmerican soldiers as possible. The U.S. must therefore fightback, the editors thunder, finding quite puzzling...themurmurs of disapproval from European diplomats and otherswho say they favor using diplomacy and economic pressure,rather than military action, to rein in Iran, even in the face of itsoutright aggression. The evidence that Iran is waging war againstthe U.S. is now conclusive. After all, it comes from anAdministration that has never deceived the American people,even improving on the famous stellar honesty of its

predecessors.

Suppose that for once Washingtons charges happen to be true,and Iran really is providing Shiite militias with roadside bombsthat kill U.S. forces, perhaps even making use of some of theadvanced weaponry lavishly provided to the Revolutionary Guardby Ronald Reagan in order to fund the illegal war againstNicaragua, under the pretext of arms for hostages (the numberof hostages tripled during these endeavors). If the charges aretrue, then Iran could properly be charged with a minusculefraction of the iniquity of the Reagan administration, whichprovided Stinger missiles and other high-tech military aid to theinsurgents seeking to disrupt Soviet efforts to bring stabilityand justice to Afghanistan, as they saw it. Perhaps Iran is evenguilty of some of the crimes of the Roosevelt administration,which assisted terrorist partisans attacking peaceful andsovereign Vichy France in 1940-41, and had thus declared waron Germany even before Pearl Harbor.

One can pursue these questions further. The CIA station chief inPakistan in 1981, Howard Hart, reports that I was the first chiefof station ever sent abroad with this wonderful order: Go killSoviet soldiers. Imagine! I loved it. Of course the mission wasnot to liberate Afghanistan, Tim Wiener writes in his history ofthe CIA, repeating the obvious. But it was a noble goal, hewrites. Killing Russians with no concern for the fate of Afghans isa noble goal, but support for resistance to a U.S. invasion andoccupation would be a vile act and declaration of war.

Without irony, the Bush administration and the media charge

that Iran is meddling in Iraq, otherwise presumably free fromforeign interference. The evidence is partly technical. Do theserial numbers on the Improvised Explosive Devices really traceback to Iran? If so, does the leadership of Iran know about theIEDs, or only the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Settling thedebate, the White House plans to brand the Revolutionary Guardas a specially designated global terrorist force, anunprecedented action against a national military branch,authorizing Washington to undertake a wide range of punitiveactions. Watching in disbelief, much of the world asks whetherthe U.S. military, invading and occupying Irans neighbors, mightbetter merit this chargeor its Israeli client, now about to receivea huge increase in military aid to commemorate 40 years ofharsh occupation and illegal settlement, and its fifth invasion ofLebanon a year ago.

It is instructive that Washingtons propaganda framework isreflexively accepted, apparently without notice, in U.S. and otherWestern commentary and reporting, apart from the marginalfringe of what is called the loony left. What is consideredcriticism is skepticism as to whether all of Washingtonscharges about Iranian aggression in Iraq are true. It might be aninteresting research project to see how closely the propagandaof Russia, Nazi Germany, and other aggressors and occupiersmatched the standards of todays liberal press andcommentators.

The comparisons are of course unfair. Unlike German andRussian occupiers, American forces are in Iraq by right, on the


5/8

principle, too obvious even to enunciate, that the U.S. owns theworld. Therefore, as a matter of elementary logic, the U.S.cannot invade and occupy another country. The U.S. can onlydefend and liberate others. No other category exists.Predecessors, including the most monstrous, have commonlysworn by the same principle, but again there is an obviousdifference: they were wrong and we are right. QED.

Another comparison comes to mind, which is studiously ignored

when we are sternly admonished of the ominous consequencesthat might follow withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Thepreferred analogy is Indochina, highlighted in a shameful speechby the president on August 22. That analogy can perhaps passmuster among those who have succeeded in effacing from theirminds the record of U.S. actions in Indochina, including thedestruction of much of Vietnam and the murderous bombing ofLaos and Cambodia as the U.S. began its withdrawal from thewreckage of South Vietnam. In Cambodia, the bombing was inaccord with Kissingers genocidal orders: anything that flies onanything that movesactions that drove an enraged populaceinto the arms of an insurgency [the Khmer Rouge] that hadenjoyed relatively little support before the Kissinger- Nixonbombing was inaugurated, as Cambodia specialists Owen Taylorand Ben Kiernan observe in a highly important study that passedvirtually without notice, in which they reveal that the bombingwas five times the incredible level reported earlier, greater thanall allied bombing in World War II. Completely suppressing allrelevant facts, it is then possible for the president and manycommentators to present Khmer Rouge crimes as a justificationfor continuing to devastate Iraq.

But although the grotesque Indochina analogy receives muchattention, the obvious analogy is ignored: the Russian withdrawalfrom Afganistan, which, as Soviet analysts predicted, led toshocking violence and destruction as the country was takenover by Reagans favorites, who amused themselves by suchacts as throwing acid in the faces of women in Kabul theyregarded as too liberated, and who then virtually destroyed thecity and much else, creating such havoc and terror that thepopulation actually welcomed the Taliban. That analogy couldindeed be invoked without utter absurdity by advocates ofstaying the course, but evidently it is best forgotten.

Under the heading Secretary Rices Mideast mission: containIran, the press reports Rices warning that Iran is the singlemost important single-country challenge to...U.S. interests in theMiddle East. That is a reasonable judgment. Given the long-standing principle that Washington must do everything in itspower to alter or abolish any regime not openly allied withAmerica, Iran does pose a unique challenge, and it is naturalthat the task of containing Iranian influence should be a highpriority.

As elsewhere, Bush administration rhetoric is relatively mild inthis case. For the Kennedy administration, Latin America wasthe most dangerous area in the world when there was a threatthat the progressive Cheddi Jagan might win a free election in

British Guiana, overturned by CIA shenanigans that handed thecountry over to the thuggish racist Forbes Burnham. A fewyears earlier, Iraq was the most dangerous place in the world(CIA director Allen Dulles) after General Abdel Karim Qassimbroke the Anglo-American condominium over Middle East oil,overthrowing the pro-U.S. monarchy, which had been heavilyinfiltrated by the CIA. A primary concern was that Qassim mightjoin Nasser, then the supreme Middle East devil, in using theincomparable energy resources of the Middle East for thedomestic population. The issue for Washington was not somuch access as control. At the time and for many years after,Washington was purposely exhausting domestic oil resources inthe interests of national security, meaning security for theprofits of Texas oil men, like the failed entrepreneur who now sits


6/8

in the Oval Office. But as high-level planner George Kennan hadexplained well before, we cannot relax our guard when there isany interfence with protection of our resources (whichaccidentally happen to be somewhere else).

Unquestionably, Irans government merits harsh condemnation,though it has not engaged in worldwide terror, subversion, andaggression, following the U.S. modelwhich extends to todaysIran as well, if ABC news is correct in reporting that the U.S. is

supporting Pakistan-based Jundullah, which is carrying outterrorist acts inside Iran. The sole act of aggression attributed toIran is the conquest of two small islands in the GulfunderWashingtons close ally the Shah. In addition to internalrepressionheightened, as Iranian dissidents regularly protest,by U.S. militancythe prospect that Iran might develop nuclearweapons also is deeply troubling. Though Iran has every right todevelop nuclear energy, no oneincluding the majority ofIranianswants it to have nuclear weapons. That would add tothe threat to survival posed much more seriously by its nearneighbors Pakistan, India, and Israel, all nuclear armed with theblessing of the U.S., which most of the world regards as theleading threat to world peace, for evident reasons.

Iran rejects U.S. control of the Middle East, challengingfundamental policy doctrine, but it hardly poses a military threat.

On the contrary, it has been the victim of outside powers foryears: in recent memory, when the U.S. and Britain overthrewits parliamentary government and installed a brutal tyrant in1953, and when the U.S. supported Saddam Husseinsmurderous invasion, slaughtering hundreds of thousands ofIranians, many with chemical weapons, without theinternational community lifting a fingersomething thatIranians do not forget as easily as the perpetrators. And thenunder severe sanctions as a punishment for disobedience.

Israel regards Iran as a threat. Israel seeks to dominate theregion with no interference, and Iran might be some slightcounterbalance, while also supporting domestic forces that donot bend to Israels will. It may, however, be useful to bear inmind that Hamas has accepted the international consensus on atwo-state settlement on the international border, and Hezbollah,

along with Iran, has made clear that it would accept anyoutcome approved by Palestinians, leaving the U.S. and Israelisolated in their traditional rejectionism.

But Iran is hardly a military threat to Israel. And whatever threatthere might be could be overcome if the U.S. would accept theview of the great majority of its own citizens and of Iranians andpermit the Middle East to become a nuclear-weapons free zone,including Iran and Israel, and U.S. forces deployed there. Onemay also recall that UN Security Council Resolution 687 of April3, 1991, to which Washington appeals when convenient, callsfor establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons ofmass destruction and all missiles for their delivery.

It is widely recognized that use of military force in Iran would riskblowing up the entire region, with untold consequences beyond.We know from polls that in the surrounding countries, wherethe Iranian government is hardly popularTurkey, Saudi Arabia,Pakistannevertheless large majorities prefer even a nuclear-armed Iran to any form of military action against it.

The rhetoric about Iran has escalated to the point where bothpolitical parties and practically the whole U.S. press accept it aslegitimate and, in fact, honorable, that all options are on thetable, to quote Hillary Clinton and everybody else, possibly evennuclear weapons. All options on the table means thatWashington threatens war.


7/8

The UN Charter outlaws the threat or use of force. The UnitedStates, which has chosen to become an outlaw state, disregardsinternational laws and norms. Were allowed to threatenanybody we wantand to attack anyone we choose.

Washingtons feverish new Cold War containment policyhas spread to Europe. Washington intends to install a missiledefense system in the Czech Republic and Poland, marketed toEurope as a shield against Iranian missiles. Even if Iran hadnuclear weapons and long-range missiles, the chances of itsusing them to attack Europe are perhaps on a par with thechances of Europes being hit by an asteroid, so perhapsEurope would do as well to invest in an asteroid defense system.Furthermore, if Iran were to indicate the slightest intention ofaiming a missile at Europe or Israel, the country would bevaporized.

Of course, Russian planners are gravely upset by the shieldproposal. We can imagine how the U.S. would respond if aRussian anti-missile system were erected in Canada. TheRussians have good reason to regard an anti-missile system aspart of a first-strike weapon against them. It is generallyunderstood that such a system could never block a first strike,but it could conceivably impede a retaliatory strike. On all sides,missile defense is therefore understood to be a first-strikeweapon, eliminating a deterrent to attack. A small initialinstallation in Eastern Europe could easily be a base for laterexpansion. More obviously, the only military function of such asystem with regard to Iran, the declared aim, would be to bar anIranian deterrent to U.S. or Israel aggression.

Not surprisingly, in reaction to the missile defense plans,Russia has resorted to its own dangerous gestures, includingthe recent decision to renew long-range patrols by nuclear-capable bombers after a 15-year hiatus, in one recent case nearthe U.S. military base on Guam. These actions reflect Russiasanger over what it has called American and NATOaggressiveness, including plans for a missile-defense system inthe Czech Republic and Poland, analysts said (Andrew Kramer,NYT).

The shield ratchets the threat of war a few notches higher, in theMiddle East and elsewhere, with incalculable consequences, andthe potential for a terminal nuclear war. The immediate fear isthat by accident or design, Washingtons war planners or theirIsraeli surrogate might decide to escalate their Cold War II into ahot onein this case a real hot war.

Z

Noam Chomsky is a linguist, lecturer, social critic, and author ofnumerous articles and books.


8/8

From:Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives

URL:http://www.zcommunications.org/cold-war-ii-by-noam-chomsky
http://www.zcommunications.org/cold-war-ii-by-noam-chomsky

cold-war-ii-by-noam-chomsky

Documents