Comment

Iran: The Next Target for US Aggression?

Reg Lee

It's no secret that Iran would celebrate the demise of Israel and the USA. It's no surprise that the latest public announcement by the Iranian leadership is that it would like Israel to be wiped off the earth. This isn't news! Well, that's if we define news as non-historical, as of the contemporary. Iran has been shouting this type of rhetoric for a very long time so what's the difference or shall we put it another way; what's news? Perhaps it's worth considering this, just as a starter: Iran is not capable of taking out Israel. Oh, okay, and while we're at it Iran is not capable of taking out the USA. Iran isn't even capable of taking out Saudi Arabia, the friend and ally of the USA. Come to think of it Iran would probably struggle in taking out, hum, let's see … oh okay I'll think about that one. So what's the deal? Why are the USA and the UK worried about the latest proclamation by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel 'must be wiped off the map'?

There are two issues here that we must consider; firstly, Ahmadinejad is an Iranian nationalist and he is driven by the idea that he must pander to Iranian nationalism. As Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi of Rutgers University, New Jersey claimed in 1996 nationalism has replaced religion as the main Iranian ideology: 'The time has come to reconsider the image of Iran as a rigidly religious society, governed by Islamic fundamentalist ideology. Iranians and their government are increasingly moving away from political Islam and toward secular nationalism. This trend has been most vivid since Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's second term as president began in 1993.'

This doesn't make the latest statements any less offensive but they place into context the insecurities of Ahmadinejad's leadership. That is to argue his statements are particularly vocal because he is trying to establish a new autocracy and hegemony over the people of Iran; it's not one that is life threatening to the West; it's just that the US and UK government's would like us to think this is so. Similar to the TV images of so-called 'religious fundamentalists' under the rule of Khomeini this latest display is a visible Iranian nationalism of a minority but speaks above itself via communication networks. It's meant to have an impact; it's meant to install fear and panic. In other words its significance is lesser than it appears, but the Western media portray this as indicative of Iran. To put it another way would we hold the whole of the USA or the UK responsible for Bush's, or Blair's actions in Iraq? Well a few terrorists would I guess, but perhaps Bush and Blair also think on that level.

The fact is that contemporary Iranian nationalism as an, 'official political discourse', is mediated in very much the same way as ideology was under Stalin and Hitler. The media organs are merely the means in which ideas are conveyed and it gives the impression that the ideas that Ahmadinejad represents are not only the official ones of Iran, that's in political terms, but are equally representative of all Iranians. On both counts this is not true! The latter is obvious, the former less so, but it is true that there are factions opposed to Ahmadinejad's style of leadership and opposed to what he represents, therefore not all Iranians want Israel to disappear.

There's also the issue of 'self-determination'; if the Iranians want change then that's their deal, not ours! After all we wouldn't want the Iranians sniffing around our patch, would we? Besides, the USA has never made it a secret that it would like to see 'regime change' in Cuba or Venezuela. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander right? Whilst we're on this topic the US government under Bush have continued a tradition that portrays Cuba as morally corrupt. For instance in July 2004 Bush claimed that Cuba is the preferred destination for paedophiles and other sordid sex tourists. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said at the time that: 'The issue of prostitution in Cuba is something, I think, that is well-documented'. To which we could add the prostitution in the USA, UK, Holland, France, Germany etc., is equally documented, so what?

The second point to consider is far more serious and this reflects the ambitions and motives of the neo-cons in the US who are vulnerable, depleted and weakened to such an extent that they seek new enemies in order to justify their existence in power. Iran is a diversion. Unlike Israel, Iran has no nuclear capabilities. Any military strike by the US would invairably be air based. They wouldn't risk ground troops because they wouldn't want to become embroiled in a long-standing war. What they want is something quick and swift to make sure that the Republican ratings go the other direction to spiralling downwards in preparation for their third term.