- Is Iran – the next
target?
By K.Asif
Without any doubt, Iran is the next target for US. It
would not be an easy option though. But year 2007 has been
allotted to Iran; there are so many allusions to support
this perception. Another war is inevitable. With current
leadership of Iran, not ready to give in to the demands,
the situation is fiercer than any previous occasion. 9/11
has provided a platform for US to target what it calls the
‘Enemies of Democracy’. First it was the turn of a nation,
now turned into one of the most worst democracies – Iraq,
and now US is eyeing another much similar nation – Iran.
Pressurizing it on all the sides, with some bizarre
accusations, US is definitely trying every weapon in its
armory so that Iran capitulates.
Gone are the days when there were wars like a trade war,
covert war, or hot war. Today it is more overt. On one
side, American ‘political elitism’ is blatant and other
side is glaringly different story. We remember how a
great, grand country like Iraq and Afghanistan, were
pushed into a pre-emptive political bickering, a
pre-planned condition of forcibly playing a war game and
consequently succumb to death. Fake WMD allegations,
nuclear weaponry and so on, but something else, hidden
from the public gaze is there. US military forces have
massacred tens of thousands of Afghani and Iraqi civilians
and destroyed the social infrastructure, including
schools, hospitals, water and power systems, office
buildings and so on. The US has used the most lethal
weapons of mass destruction, including various types of
bombs and ammunition tipped with depleted uranium. These
kill civilians in large numbers immediately and long after
hostilities. The ordeal for Iraq is not yet over, they
have been thrown into a political, social and economic
predicament that would, certainly last for ages to come.
The phony ruling government in Iraq is nothing except a
spin doctrine methodology placed and furnished at the
behest of US.
Surprising as it seems that even the so called
‘independent’ UN finds it difficult to delve into any such
affair. UN inspectors work hand in glove with the western
intelligence agencies. They are masters in making a story
out of nothing. It is shameful for them rather a shocking
violation on their part to take sides with US and yield to
their demands.
These days US is trying to amass its bag full of
unreasonable, awkward complaints against Iran. They are
good at waging “Psychological warfare” and that is what
they are doing right now. US, an absolute power in the
world this time, is out of its wits and seems psychotic,
trying hard to gather support from allies – Allied forces
are not more than what should be called ‘gauche bearers’
for US. It is congenital ‘Bush – war syndrome’, taking
another chance here to dislocate another big nation from
the map of the world. US has certainly lost all its
urbanity in dealing with foreign affairs and the only
option left for her is to wage a war without considering
the implications.
I really wonder why should US insinuate themselves into
such state of affairs. If at all US should strike Iran, it
would prove lethal for both sides. This time more on the
side of the powerful one, It because of so many factors!
Already in the world, people are skeptical about US plans.
Is there is a war; it would definitely abet the entire
Muslim world. It is going to create much hatred against
US. Furthermore, any such strike possibly huff the Muslim
world. They want to silence Iran on its nuclear programme
but don’t know how to do it? Why? Because there are no
perfect reasons for them to dictate such terms to any
country especially like the one in question. But everyone
knows it, not for long they are going to strike Iran.
Fareed Zakaria (a prominent Indian Diaspora writer for
Newsweek) once quoted, “At best a strike would set back
Iran's program by a few years. But it would inflame public
opinion there and unify the nation in its determination to
go nuclear. It is a substantial country—with three times
the population of Iraq, for example—that has a powerful
sense of national pride. And Iran would have many ways of
retaliating, especially with American troops next door in
Iraq”.
While US discern well, it would reasonably take a heavy
hand if it strikes Iran anyway. Here a question seems
apparent, as to why does US and allied countries come to
such terms. The answer may be well defined in following
lines attributed to J.W. Smith. He adds:
“Except for religious conflicts and the petty wars of
feudal lords, wars are primarily fought over resources and
trade. President Woodrow Wilson recognized that this was
the cause of World War I:
“Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any
child here that does not know that the seed of war in the
modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?”
Right now the whole world wants to ask US a basic
question. What would United States do with its enormous
“surplus of power”? Washington's answer, particularly
after 9/11, has been to pursue its imperial ambitions
through renewed interventions in the global periphery - on
a scale not seen since the Vietnam War. In the waging of
its imperial War on Terrorism the U.S. state is at one
with the expansionary goals of U.S. business.
Once George Bernard Shaw had something to say about
British imperialism and same can be inertly thought about
US imperialism. He says: “There is nothing so bad or so
good that you will not find an Englishman doing it; but
you will never find an Englishman in the wrong. He does
everything on principle. He fights you on patriotic
principles; he robs you on business principles; he
enslaves you on imperial principles; he bullies you on
manly principles; he supports his king on loyal principles
and cut off his king's head on republican principles”.
America is no different. It claims to act in terms of
international law; but feels free to subvert international
norms whenever it wants. It supports the authority of the
United Nations but turns its back on the U.N. to suit its
convenience. It globalizes trade in the name of fairness;
and most unfairly usurps the major trade benefits to its
own advantage. It launches a war to secure the largest oil
reserves in the world but pretends it fights for peace. It
claims to act in the name of democracy, but leaves behind
battered states wherever it has gone. It fights a war for
peace, but makes huge profits by the sale of arms that
follows. Its peacekeeping results in war. Its war brings
no peace. No sooner are its interests maintained, it
leaves behind debris of enfeebled states. It is never at a
loss for an effective moral attitude.
It is for time to decide whether the US arrogance
overpowers the strong nation like Iran and hold it to
submit completely to US hegemony or else suffer the fate
of Iraq. But one thing seems clearer; it is not going to
be as easy as it came out to be in Iraq for US.
