USA
& UK versus Iran:
A Transcend perspective
By
Johan
Galtung, TFF Associate
June 21, 2006
1.
Diagnosis
There are obvious similarities to
USA/UK vs Iraq, but possibly less obvious that UK will
follow suit or even play a major role ("The Downing
Street Memorandum") this time.
The goals of the USA seem to be
diverse, like these nine:
- regime change, like in
1953, possibly also to reinstate the Shah family,
again assuming Iranians will be receptive;
- Middle East political control,
fearing that control is slipping from USA-Israel to
Iran-Hamas and shia/radical Islam;
- revenge for the 52
hostages-444 days humiliation;
- eliminating any Iranian threat
to the US/UK Iraq construction;
- eliminating any Iranian threat
to Israel, nuclear or not, given the statements by
president Ahmadinejad;
- securing Iranian oil flow at
affordable prices;
- protecting the use of dollars
against euros for oil trade;
- expanding further the military
bases encircling Russia-China;
- eliminating any Iranian
nuclear weapon capability.
The last goal is the public text,
the others are subtexts. That text may also be a
pretext, for public consumption and - like the
WMD-Al Qaeda connection for the case of Iraq - without
substance.
Iran's public text is the NPT right
to enrich uranium up to industrial grade, e.g. to
diversify energy. Subtext goals include:
- Never more 1953!
Sovereignty, no more humiliation/intervention;
- surrounded by 3 nuclear powers
and 3 more, USA/Israel/France, threatening, keeping
the nuclear option is understandable;
- with the dollar falling opting
for the euro is understandable;
- Islamic/shia solidarity in an
Islam world divided by the West;
- an open, high level dialogue
of civilizations with the West.
2.
Prognosis
There is enough raw material here
to process into a war if so wanted, with air strikes
without Security Council authorization (economic
sanctions are less likely as they may hurt the West more
than Iran). But, can Bush afford it economically and
Blair politically? The answer is probably no. And, air
strikes may lead to attacks on US/UK soil by major bombs
assembled in US/UK for remote detonation. A ground attack
would make the resistance in Iraq look like a tea party;
an opportunity welcomed by some. Closing the Strait of
Hormuz is a minor part of the response.
3.
Therapy
The keys to acceptable and
sustainable ways out are in the subtexts, not in the
texts. In the text focus, uranium enrichment, IAEA
inspection might be helpful. But it is difficult to see
why Iran should submit when Israel and India have
enriched up to weapons grade and gotten away with it.
Unless, that is, USA reverses its Israel/India policy,
like it did during the 1962 Cuba crisis by the
tit-for-tat of taking US missiles out of
Turkey.
It is a sad reflection on the
spiritual poverty of the West that the obvious way out is
not traveled: Bush-Blair apologizing for the CIA-MI6
overthrow of a legally elected prime minister, Mossadegh,
and support of 25 years Shah autocracy; combined with a
joint fact- finding historical commission. And Bush-Blair
accepting the invitation by the former Iran president,
Khatami, to a high level, open dialogue, also using the
Spanish-Turkish-UN Alliance of Civilizations for that
purpose. Needless to say, recognition of some truths is
needed to clean up the past before turning to the
pragmatics of opening for a cooperative, peaceful
future.
Do that, and almost for sure the
negotiation road would open up, including over what kind
of Israel Iran might accept, like, for instance, the
Israel of 4 June 1967? (Today's Israel not).
The onus is on the West. Only the
weak cannot admit mistakes of the past.
Is Anglo-America strong enough? Or
are they still so addicted to belligerence that they
prefer another major mistake?
Get
free articles &
updates
©
TFF & the author 2006
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|