During George W. Bush’s inaugural speech one of the most evocative words in the English-language “freedom” was mentioned more than 40 times. This was the “big picture” address. The man who believes he has a mandate from not only the American people but also the Creator to pursue his agenda refrained from sullying his lips with his country’s murky adventurism in Afghanistan or Iraq. After all, who knows how those freedom-spreading New American Century projects will be written up in future history books?
Is “freedom” going the way of “democracy”, a word, which has replaced the “bogeyman” in the vocabulary of some harassed Iraqi mothers? “If you don’t behave, democracy will get you,” they warn.
Iraqis are preparing to receive their version of democracy on Sunday by sealing their borders, closing down the airport, restricting travel, applying curfews, keeping candidates and the location of polling stations secret and planning to surround them with US tanks.
Interestingly just days before the election, the elusive Abu-Musab Al-Zarqawi, who has a $25 million bounty on his head, put out an anti-democracy tape and calls Ayatollah Ali Sistani “Satan”. This is curiously reminiscent of the tape issued by the even more elusive Osama Bin Laden, whose bounty has been upped to $50 million, days before the US vote. Some suggest this served to sway voters in their commander-in-chief’s favor.
The president may have refrained from an unseemly descent from Cloud Nine to the sordid world of Real Politic in that speech, but his faithful mentor Dick Cheney had little compunction in doing so. In “good cop, bad cop” style, Cheney was on the radio virtually giving a green light to Israel to bomb Iran’s nuclear reactors.
“One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked; that if, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had a significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, that the Israelis might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterward,” he said.
Cheney’s response serves as an apology for Israel even before it takes any such decision. America’s newly confirmed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice later put Iran among “six outposts of tyranny” while Bush refused to rule out a military option.
It looks as though the freedom merchants could be on the warpath again soon, although, this time without the coalition of the coerced, most of which have already packed up and gone home. Nowadays unconcerned about how the Middle East will react to anything, Israel will be anointed to lead the charge.
Israel is the only state in the region whose nuclear arsenal is blessed. This is the unwritten rule. Israel can have as many nukes as it pleases because it and it alone can be counted upon to behave responsibly. Translated, this means Israel will protect America’s interests and do its bidding. That is as long as America supports its own.
Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist who broke the Abu Ghraib story, lends credence to the indications concerning Iran. He quotes an intelligence source as saying US operatives have planted nuclear detection devices in Iran and are sharing information with their Israeli counterparts. Hersh maintains that intelligence and military officials have repeatedly told him “the next strategic target is Iran”.
This is of course music to the ears of Ariel Sharon who during an interview with The Times as far back as 2002 called upon the international community to target Iran once the Iraq conflict concluded. “Iran is a center of world terror and makes every effort to possess weapons of mass destruction,” he said, adding “that is a danger to the Middle East, to Israel and a danger to Europe.”
The EU, which is going all out to seek a diplomatic solution with the help of the nuclear watchdog the IAEA, seemingly begs to differ.
Paul Craig Roberts, a former assistant secretary to the US Treasury writing on CounterPunch asks: “Can you believe this administration’s insanity? Bush intends to rise from the ashes of defeat in Iraq by invading Iran, a country three times the size in population and geography?”
I am not so sure that the US intends to invade Iran, although the hawks would love to be able to do so. The fact is that its forces, weapons and equipment are stretched, while morale throughout the services is faltering with complaints of a back-door draft.
Military recruiters are having a hard time getting youngsters to sign up. US public opinion is wavering over the validity of invading Iraq following reports from the Iraq Survey Group contradicting the administration’s earlier assertions.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et al will, no doubt, have a hard time selling this war whether internally or externally. Surely, it is far better from their point of view to allow Israel — already considered by many a pariah state — to carry out its dirty work, while it helps out covertly.
Bearing in mind the current saber rattling directed at Iran, it is unlikely that country actually possesses a nuclear capability. No such threats have gone the way of nuclear North Korea, for instance. Notice, too, that China isn’t being threatened with democracy.
Furthermore, Israel isn’t dumb enough to strike a nuclear-armed enemy near enough to be capable of wiping it off the map. When Israel attacked Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, it was certain Iraq could not respond with a nuclear warhead. Sadly, it was due to that pre-emptive strike that Saddam Hussein decided to pursue a uranium enrichment program.
It is surely ironic that prior to its inclusion in Bush’s evil axis and the build-up of anti-Iranian rhetoric, Iran was pursuing a path to freedom on its own. The reformists were gaining strength and the mullas losing their iron grip. There were growing possibilities of dialogue between Iran and the US, especially post-Sept.11 when thousands of Iranians took to the streets to light candles for the victims. Iran, further, went out of its way to be helpful with the War on Terror. This opportunity for rapprochement was squandered.
As was the case with Iraq in the run-up to war, Iran does not seek confrontation and has shown willingness to compromise. Would the same could be said of the latter day Lady Liberty, whose beacon of freedom has been swapped for a sword.
— Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback.
