EDITOR'S NOTE
The world's only supersuicide bomber
At least one reader has been demanding to know where Asia Times Online's editors stand in relation to our columnist Spengler's arguments for the bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities
Daniel Mazir, of Perth, Australia, writes on our Letters page (April 6): "Most of the letters regarding Spengler's piece ... were addressed specifically to the editors of ATol, not to the author. Again, would the editors of ATol please tell its readers where they stand regarding Spengler's repeated calls to the bombing of a country (Iran) ... The reason many of us are asking you the question is very simple: we highly value your site ... and we don't want to see it publishing the writings of racists and psychotics ..."
A question springs to mind in response to Mr Mazir: Why should the opinions of the ATol editors be so important to you? Your stated reason is not cogent. Well, that aside, lower down in this "Editor's Note" I will spell out my stance on the bombing of Iran, but first I want to explain why that stance should not be of compelling importance to readers.
Asia Times Online does not exist to push specific causes or philosophies, and we should never be confused with propaganda vehicles such as Fox News or Jihad Now! or subtler, smarter vehicles like the New York Times. For this reason, ATol has no qualms about publishing opposing points of view on any subject, as long as they are well argued, informative and original. We do this in the belief that readers wish to be fully informed about all sides of a dispute, and thus more able to make an informed judgment.
We also do this in the certain knowledge that the great majority of our readers are smart enough to make informed judgments, rather than allow themselves to be told what to think by an omniscient Editor or Columnist. Readers need not fear arguments that run counter to their own, or dismiss them as "racist" or "psychotic", if their own opinions are on a firm footing.
To be specific about the Iranian nuclear issue, ATol publishes not only Spengler's comments but also - more frequently - the analyses of Kaveh L Afrasiabi, who sees the issue from a diametrically opposite direction. Afrasiabi has an insider's knowledge of the Iranian position, while Spengler provides invaluable insights into the way of thinking of those who advocate dropping the bombs.
So the personal beliefs or ideologies of the editors are not of great relevance, and that's one reason readers will not find a regular editorial in this publication. If we were to preach, we would be preaching only to the converted.
However, I will not sidestep Mr Mazir's demand. Actually, I'd be crazy to throw up this chance of having my two cents' worth. It's strictly personal, and does not necessarily gel with those of my colleagues or ATol's owner. I provide it in the hope that it will contribute something to the debate.
I do not believe the US should bomb Iran to preempt the development of nuclear weapons. I believe such a step would have incalculable consequences for the United States - the mother of all blowback, if you like. And I suggest that there are much better, safer and, above all, less bloody ways to resolve the issue.
Several proposals to defuse the crisis have been put forward. All have been rejected out of hand by Washington, which bluntly demands that Iran immediately suspend its uranium-enrichment activities before another (non-threatening) word is said on the subject.
Washington's intransigence stems from the Bush administration's obsession with dividing the world into "friends" and "enemies", those "with us" and those "against us". With breathtaking double standards and utter disregard for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Washington's "friends" - eg, India, Pakistan, Israel - are allowed to enrich uranium, and/or even to possess nuclear weapons, whether they are signatories to the treaty or not. But Iran is part of an "axis of evil", despite being an NPT signatory with a perfectly legal right to develop a uranium fuel cycle, and therefore it must be beaten into submission to Washington's will.
Actually, as Gabriel Kolko notes in his new book The Age of War, [1] the threat, or frequent actual use, of armed force to impose Washington's will around the world is hardly an invention of the administration of President George W Bush, but has been the defining characteristic of US foreign policy since World War II. It's just that the Bush administration is so much cruder and more open about it. Another defining characteristic of US policy is that the use of armed force, whether by the US itself or by its proxies, has very seldom had the desired outcome for Washington - witness the Korean and Vietnam wars, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq II, all of which have resulted in defeat, stalemate, or massive blowback for the US.
Nuclearizing its friends while using force against its foes invites disaster for the US. Who knows who will be the United States' friends and foes 30 years hence? It was not so long ago that India was regarded as an ally of the Soviet Union, while Iraq under the shah was a docile US client state. Remember how the US armed and funded the Afghan mujahideen to fight the Soviets, and how that came back to haunt it on September 11, 2001? And now it wants to allow its "friends" to have potential nuclear weapons capability?!
(Or does neo-conservative hubris feed a belief that in 30 years' time the US will have no enemies, only a worldful of bombed-out client states? If so, God help us all, especially the Americans.)
It would seem then to be good long-term policy for Washington and the world to halt all nuclear proliferation, not selectively to allow some countries access to the nuclear fuel cycle while denying it to others.
To this end, a new proposal to resolve not only the Iran crisis but proliferation in general comes from a somewhat surprising source: Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to former presidents Gerald Ford and George H W Bush. It has much to recommend it. Its originality lies in that it flattens the nuclear playing field - in other words, it avoids dividing the world into the nuclear-privileged "us" and the to-be-deprived "them". Whether it's workable and whether the Iranians would accept it, I won't hazard a guess, but at least it should be one of the options that are, like the bombs, "on the table".
I will not attempt to summarize Scowcroft's proposal. If you're interested, please read How to resolve the Iran-US nuclear standoff in Scowcroft's own words. His concluding paragraph:
Nuclear weapons technology is no longer a closely guarded secret in the possession of a handful of countries. And an approach that relies on determining the character of regimes to assess worthiness to use nuclear energy is full of loopholes. Only by creating a new international regime - and applying it without exception across the board - can we hope to guarantee that all countries can enjoy the benefits of nuclear energy without risking the spread of the world's deadliest weapons.
Bombing Iran to deprive it of its nuclear fuel cycle would be akin to putting out a fire with gasoline while there are safer alternatives at hand. Bombing would likely result in a month of September 11s. It would likely throw previously antithetical states into each others' arms and open the way for uncontrollable nuclear proliferation as these states join forces against the world's bully-boy.
If it bombs Iran, the US is going to have to continue bombing, more and more, around the globe. That's apparently not a prospect that deters some of those currently making US foreign policy, but it is something that US citizens ought to consider.
Spengler calls for Iran to be bombed before it's "too late". If indeed President Bush agrees with Spengler, Americans may decide it's a better idea to impeach their president before it's too late.
I am grateful to Spengler for revealing the thought processes that could turn the world's only superpower into the world's only supersuicide bomber, and I will not silence him.
The Editor
Asia Times Online
Note
1. The Age of War: The United States Confronts the World by Gabriel Kolko. Boulder, Colorado, and London, England: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc, 2006.
atimes.com |
