War Against Iran and the Logic of Dominance

If the Bush administration launches an attack on Iran, the reason won't be that Iran was about to obtain a nuclear weapon. The real reason will be that United States, as the world's only superpower, wants to establish clearly that it -- not Iran -- is the dominant power in the Middle East. That would make us all less secure, but the insistence on asserting dominance in the Middle East is the essence of the Bush administration's policy.

That quest for dominance over all other states in the Middle East can be traced back to the 1992 Draft Defense Planning Guidance, drafted by Paul Wolfowitz's staff at the Pentagon -- Zalmay Khalilzad and Scooter Libby. It said, "[We] must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role".

For the neoconservatives and their allies, that has meant that Iran could not be allowed to emerge as a power center in the Middle East. Of course the Bush administration has had cover their designs in a fog of propaganda portraying Iran as the worst thing to come along since Hitler. But at least one insider in neoconservative circles has been honest enough to reveal the real problem the hawks in the administration have with Iran.

Tom Donnelly was the main author of the neoconservative September 2000 blueprint for military policy in the Bush administration, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which involved four prominent figures on the neoconservative right who would take prominent positions in the administration: Libby, Wolfowitz, Stephen A. Cambone, and John Bolton.

In a chapter in the book "Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran", published in 2005, Donnelly admitted that, contrary to the official U.S. line depicting Iran as a radical state threatening to plunge the region into war, Iran was "more the status quo power" in the region in relation to the Bush administration's "project of regional transformation". The problem with Iran, he explained, is that it "stands directly athwart this project of regional transformation".

The Bush project for bringing the magic of advanced capitalist democracy to the benighted Arab states of the Middle East has proven to be a neoconservative pipe dream in Iraq, Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories. But forget the "spreading democracy" ploy and think of that "regional transformation" as simply another layer of justification for exerting military pressure and, if necessary, war on states that refuse to fall in line. Donnelly cut through the façade of official propaganda to write that the prospect of a "nuclear Iran" was unacceptable to the Bush administration mainly because of "the constraining effect it threatens to impose upon U.S. strategy for the greater Middle East".

In other words, Iran could not be allowed to have even the option of a nuclear weapon capability, because the United States had to be able to operate with a completely free hand militarily in the region. What Donnelly did not say, but which follows from that posture, is that even a non-nuclear Iran that has links to strong allies such as Hezbollah and Hamas, could not be allowed to be a regional power.

What Donnelly -- and presumably his friends in the Bush administration -- regarded as the "greatest danger" in regard to Iran was that the "realists" in the administration would "pursue a 'balance of power' approach with a nuclear Iran, undercutting the Bush 'liberation strategy'".

With this valuable key to the real thinking of the Bush administration's most influential figures -- most, but not all of which have now departed -- we can understand a series of policy decisions on Iran that otherwise make no sense.

First, there was the administration's dismissal of the proposal from the Iranian leadership in early May 2003, to negotiate with the United States on the very issues which the administration had claimed were the basis for its hostile posture toward Tehran: its nuclear program, its support for Hizbollah and other anti-Israeli armed groups and its hostility to a peace settlement with Israel.

Instead, the Pentagon was pushing for the adoption of an official policy of regime change in Iran. Although the administration never explicitly said that it has pursued that policy, it openly wielded the threat of regime change as part of its pressure on Iran. Rice, on a trip to the Middle East in May 2005, warned Iranian leaders that were not immune to the "major changes doing on in the region" -- a code phrase for the U.S. pursuit of the "regional transformation" to which Donnelly referred.

Finally, the Bush administration refused to tolerate any real negotiations by the Europeans with Iran over its uranium enrichment program in 2004-2005, even though those negotiations could have resulted in an agreement that would limited Iran to a level of uranium enrichment that would have only a small fraction of what is required for the production of a nuclear weapon. In March 2005, Iran proposed to its European negotiating partners to submit to a system of their devising to guarantee against enrichment that could support a nuclear weapons through an inspection system. But under U.S. pressure the Europeans refused even to discuss it.

The administration's argument against such an agreement was that there was a secret enrichment program paralleling the acknowledge program that would fall under international inspection. But as Sy Hersh reported last November , after years of trying, the CIA still had found "no conclusive evidence" a such a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the one being monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In fact the still classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program in mid-2005 concluded that no final Iranian decision had been made to pursue the manufacture of a nuclear weapon.

We know that the policy of attacking Iran is being pushed by a handful of men with extreme views, and that it has been opposed by many in the State Department, the intelligence community and the military leadership. But the "moderates" in the administration, as well as the leading Democratic candidates and virtually everyone in the Democratic Party leadership -- have been supporting the threat of war against Iran for years, in large part because they share the illusions of power that go with being the militarily dominant state in the world. The chief illusion is that one can and should use U.S. power to coerce an uncooperative state.

The entire spectrum of political leadership in this country now appears to accept that idea, which is an indication of just how far U.S. military dominance has tilted the policy debate in this country.

The implication of the general acceptance of the threat of war against Iran as instrument of policy is that neither the "moderates" inside the administration nor the Democrats will be in a position to offer effective resistance to actual war against Iran before it is too late. Unless someone begins to push back soon, the distorted logic of dominance may carry this nation into an irrational and criminal war whose consequences for us and for the world would be the gravest imaginable.

Comments

[Atheo]

Isn't it Israel that poses the greatest challenge to US dominance in the M.E.?

[Atheo]

'New Yorker' Editor: Israel and Lobby Bear Responsibility for Iraq War
In a remarkably-fair piece about Walt and Mearsheimer in the latest New Yorker, the magazine's editor, David Remnick, summarizes part of the scholars' argument:

Israel and its lobby bear outsized responsibility for persuading the Bush Administration to invade Iraq and, perhaps one day soon, to attack the nuclear facilities of Iran...

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/08/remnick-writes-.html

[BushMustDisarm]

You forgot to mention that the main reason why the US govt is so eager to go to war against Iran is because of the Israeli lobby and the zionists who view Iran as a threat to Israel military dominance of the Middle East.
This is the MAIN reason why there is such a push for war.
Israel views Iran as a threat and is only power in the Middle East who can challenge it.
Israel wants the US to remove that threat and the neo-cons who are for the most part zionists, are the driving force behind the push for war.

[Dunnage]

What about North Korea?

[mgloraine]

North Korea hasn't built any nuclear warheads of their own as yet, although they may have acquired some from China. They don't have a global delivery system in any case: their rocketry is still pretty limited (their claim to be able to reach the US mainland is unsubstantiated and unlikely), and they have no nuclear subs or long-range bombers. They are mostly a threat to South Korea and Japan, which makes them a nuisance but not a superpower by any means. They could cause some trouble, but probably couldn't directly interfere with US actions in the Middle East.

[mgloraine]

The US is NOT the world's only superpower. Just last week, Russia flew long-range bombers to near the edge of both US and British air space, causing each to scramble fighters in response.

Russia hasn't disappeared, and neither has China, both of whom have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. To overlook them in devising plans for regime change throughout the Middle East is not merely arrogant and short-sighted, it is likely to be a fatal error.

It's not enough to oppose an attack on Iran as a moral outrage (which it certainly would be), but also as a move likely to instigate the next World War. Terrorists are not the only people capable of bringing death to the US mainland, and to suppose that there will be no retaliation for unilateral strikes against Iran is very foolish indeed.

[thirteen13]

China is our major creditor. It is only a matter of time at the rate we are borrowing,
bankruptcy is a real threat to the USA.

[breakfast]

Bush spent most of his life, prior to being president, failing in the oil business. Actually failing at everything, but we are talking oil here. Failure after failure, even with the help of Poppy's friends. Poppy never approved of him and he never got the respect of the big oil men he grew up around.

Now he is president and is trying to do the biggest oil deal ever, and finally get the approval of his Poppy and take his rightful place as an oil man among oilman.

Plus, he found Jesus along the way, and now God talks to him and is actually guiding him, the ultimate approval.

Impeach

[Incredulous]

Infinite global conflict is on the horizon, so invest your savings in oil and defense now, (like the rest of the neocons do) for a comfortable retirement. Cynical? Not likely! Enjoy the blood money.

[Snakeback]

bethinCary has it right.

Any, and I mean ANY, discussion of US Govt policies in the Middle East that do not have oil has the CENTERPOINT of the discussion is going to be off-base.

Iraq has I think either the second or third largest known supply of oil. The Caspian sea has an even greater amount of oil. The only sensible way to get the Caspian Sea oil is to pump it across Iran, back over to Iraq, where, according to the plan revealed in the secret energy summit of Dick Cheney we theoretically should be in control of the oil by now.

Invading Iran is an attempt to proceed with the PNAC inspite of the fact that the step before it, subduing Iraq and controlling its oil, was botched up severely.

It 's about OIL. I'm telling you, once you start viewing things through the lens of OIL rationales, this whole thing will fall into place for you.

The neocons aren't smarter than anyone else, they just want to control the world's oil. There's certain steps that have to be taken to to that. Since we can't take over Saudi Arabia directly, the next best thing is to take over Iraq. After that, it's all about the Caspian Sea oil, and the country of Iran is standing between it and us.

If you're a junkie, you will do what's necessary to get your fix. If someone is standing between you and your fix, and you have a gun, you will shoot them to get your fix.

America is an oil junkie.

Really, I don't understand why all these bloggers have these merry-go-round discussions trying to figure out the Administration's actions in the Middle East.

It isn't freaking rocket science, dude. They want the dang oil.

Hello???

[Thorn]

Hi!

[Atheo]

Hello snakebite,

The US is presently spending over $1,000 for every barrel of oil lifted from Iraq. How many more of these barrels do you think that the US can borrow that kind of money for???

[peterg76]

Bullying is not the same as dominance.

A dominant world power simply exercises its dominance without all the equivocating and petty publicity stunts. An attack on Iran would merely demonstrate the weakness, immaturity, cowardice and insecurity of Bush, and no-one with access to any form of actual journalism would be fooled in the least.

Particularly since, aside from the barbaric threat of nuclear weapons, there's no particular reason to think the US would win in a conflict with Iran. Sure, the US Navy could destroy lots of things and kill lots of people - but that's called terrorism.

[ag7]

Thorn,
Read any book by Noam Chomsky (Failed States or Hegemony or Survival) or Chalmers Johnson and you will perhaps see how naïve a question that is (though it is no fault of your own if you rely on the mainstream media).
HEGEMONY IS THE NAME OF THE GAME WHEN IT COMES TO US FOREIGN POLICY, everything else is secondary.
Besides look at the changing storyline for the Iraq occupation -- WMD's, no, Al Qaeda connection, no...um spreading democracy, no... uhh ... if we pullout now they will follow was home... no ... there will be a genocide...

[Scarabus]

Look! Neither the "White House" nor the "administration" can attack Iran. Only another nation can do that. Point? If this happens, then Cheney and Bush will be partly to blame. But we ourselves will be even more to blame. It will be America--that is, us!--attacking Iran, not the "White House" or the "administration."

The attack is not a "fait accompli." Granted, our elected representatives are caving yet again with craven cowardice: Grovel, grovel; please don't hurt me Faux Noise. (Senator Reid's pre-capitulation is disgusting!) Granted, the so-called "fourth estate" are just as craven as our elected representatives. But so what?

We still can raise our voices. We still can go on record. Our children and grandchildren deserve to know that we stood up for what's right.

I'm proud that Bob Graham, then senator from my state (Florida), was one of the very few who actually bothered to read the intelligence reports before voting on the authorization to allow Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush to launch the worst moral and strategic blunder in our nation's history.

This time it's different. This time there can be no excuse about not having had time to read the intelligence reports, not having had time actually to read the Patriot (sic!) Act, before voting to burden our nation and our world with these horrors. This time everyone knows the administration is lying about the positive effects of the escalation, and about the immanence of the threat from Iran.

Predictably, the administration is lying yet again. Predictably, the administration is befuddled by hubris and greed. Predictably, the administration has found a military sock-puppet willing to mouth their lies.

Yeah. But this time every rational person in the civilized world knows what's going on. Cripes! Even the MSM realize it! This time there can be no excuse. This time, if we permit the evil, then we share the guilt for the evil. Yet again, as Walt Kelly's Pogo the Possum said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

[Singha]

I vote not to bomb Iran.
How do we stop bush short of revolution?
We the people are now we the corporations.
If we show them how to make a better profit during peace than war, then it might happen.



Naaaaaaaaaaa

[mommadona]

War is Big Business.
War makes money.
Men make war to make money.

[Singha]

At the taxpayer's expense.

And, there's no one out there to step up and lead us out of Iraq NOW! All of them want us to wait until 2009. By then, bush would have bombed Iran and it will be a mess of global proportions. I wonder if this is how founding fathers felt with the British...helpless?

[Purple Girl]

You have to have an army to carry on 3 wars- not to mention the other areas of the world we are 'watching over', and finally what we may need those resources here at home. We have no more resources for Pinky & the Brain's plans for world domination- go talk to your corporate bosses they are going to need start kicking down.
There will be a huge backlash not only from the Middle East BUT HERE with US.

[mgloraine]

You don't need an Army for War No. 3 if you only intend to destroy without occupying. Cruise missiles will do that. Like those which were flown over the Midwest last week to their staging point for deployment in the Middle East. Smoking Craters 'R' Us!

[altohone]

Alternative energy sources and global awareness of warming as a threat could effectively eliminate oil as an "interest" we need to dominate.

Instead, the current policy will alienate other powers, both allies and competitors, encouraging anti-Americanism and spawning new groups opposed to our domination while sapping resources from development of energy alternatives not to mention health care, education and other worthy pursuits.

It is also questionable whether our occupation of Iraq has actually proven we can dominate militarily.

The limits of our power seem to be the ability to destroy military competitors, economies and infrastructure. The actual threat Americans hoped would be dealt with however will continue.

Box cutters and home-made explosives remain to be used against us... and the number of those willing to use them has increased. More lethal means short of weapons that require government funded facilities to manufacture remain likely in the future.

The elimination of the worst weapons of all becomes ever less likely if global domination becomes, or appears to be American policy. Meanwhile, encouraging dissemination of nuclear technology for corporate profit actually increases the risks of weapons proliferation.

I hope you are wrong in thinking these policies are supported by future leaders in both parties.

[bethinCary]

Thorn,
Please read some history on the oil industry.

egypt, Israel, India, Pakistan and Jordan-maybe even more have nukes also.
Why single Iran out?
Becasue it's in the way of getting to Caspian oil-that's why.

[Thorn]

No, there's actually one thing that sets Iran apart from those other countries.

Can you guess what that might be?

[hoopoe]

it's the only one with the balls to stand up to US imperialism?