Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Iran, Image of U.S. Militarization of the World

Iran, image of US militarisation of world

By Ismael Hossein-Zadeh

A bully or a mafia godfather would never run out of excu-ses to punish an insubordinate soul in "his territory."

Accordingly, US imperialism has been very creative in invoking all kinds of excuses to punish Iran for its aspirations to national self-determination.

To justify the criminal economic sanctions against the Iranian people, the US has for years insisted that Iran is supporting terrorism, threatening US national interests, and pursuing a programme of nuclear weapons manufacturing.

As these harebrained allegations are increasingly losing credibility, the United States is now invoking a new ploy to justify its decision to further tighten the sanctions on Iran: "military dictatorship" and "human rights abuses," as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has occasionally grumbled about in recent months.

There are a number of obvious problems with this latest US excuse for escalating sanctions against Iran.

To begin with, it is a blatant interference in the internal affairs of Iran.

Second, considering the fact that the US has armed its "allies" in the Middle East (and beyond) to the teeth, its condemnation of the rise of Iran’s military power is clearly hypocritical.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, cited in Wikipedia, while Iran’s military spending in 2009 was US$9,174 billion (or 2,7 percent of its GDP), that of Saudi Arabia was US$39,257 billion (8,2 percent of its GDP).

That of Israel was US$14,34 billion (7 percent of its GDP), and that of the United Arab Emirates was US$13,5 billion (or 5,9 percent of its GDP).

Third, in light of the fact that the US is the most militarized country in the world, it’s belly-aching about "militarisation of Iran" (whose military spending is less than one percent of the US) is patently ironic; it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Again, while Iran’s military spending in 2009 was US$9,174 billion, that of the US was US$663,255 billion.

However, the official US$663,255 billion includes neither the Homeland Security budget, nor the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, nor a number of supplemental expenditures added to military spending during the fiscal year.

Once these omitted (or hidden) expenditures are added to the official Pentagon budget, total US military-security expenditures would easily amount to US$1 000 billion, or one trillion dollars. Even in relative terms, Iran’s military spending is infinitesimally small compared to that of the United States. For example, while Iran’s per capita military spending is $1 319 174 000 000 : 70 000 000), that of the US is $3333 (1 000 000 000 000 : 300 000 000).

And whereas Iran’s military spending as a share of its GDP is 2,7 percent (9,174 billion : 340 billion), that of the United States is nearly 7 percent (1 trillion : 14 trillion).

Fourth, in light of the fact that the US is altogether silent in the face of heinous human rights violations under the rule of the regimes it calls "allies," its alleged concern for "human rights abuses" in Iran is hypocritical and utilitarian.

It uses the lofty ideal of defending human rights to disguise its nefarious intentions to impose economic sanctions or to embark on military aggression against that country.

Hypocritical defence of human rights is often used to justify wars of aggression as humanitarian operations, or "just wars," as they were called in times past.

Just as this ruse was used in 1999 to wreak carnage on Yugoslavia, so it is now used to pave grounds for committing similarly heinous crimes against Iran.

Regrettably, many left/liberal/antiwar individuals and organisations often fall for this hoax, thereby endorsing (or remaining silent in the face of) US wars of aggression on ethical grounds, that is, on grounds of fighting dictatorship or terrorism in the hope of achieving liberation and democracy.

Of course, to make the ruse credible, champions of war and militarism usually start with demonisation and distortion, and then proceed to aggression and invasion.

It must also be pointed out that the purported US support for human rights tends to be narrowly focused on purely cultural issues such as lifestyle and identity politics, that is, the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation.

As such, it is largely devoid of basic economic needs for survival.

Even a cursory comparison with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedom, adopted on December 10, 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations, reveals some fundamental shortcomings of the US human rights protocol.

Human rights according to UDHRF include basic economic or survival needs such as: "the right to work . . . to protection against unemployment . . . to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection . . .

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, and housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control…

"Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection…Everyone has the right to education."

Human rights a la USA does not include any of these basic human — all the nauseating propaganda of championing human rights notwithstanding.

Indeed, many of the basic economic rights, which came to be known as the New Deal reforms, and which were achieved through long and heroic struggles of the working people and other grassroots, are now systematically undermined in order to pay for the gambling losses of the Wall Street financial giants.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, to the extent that there has been an undeniable rise in the power of armed forces in Iran, as well as a corresponding curtailment of civil liberties there, such unfortunate developments have evolved as a direct consequence of the constant threats posed by the US imperialism and its allies to that country.

Iran’s strengthening of its armed forces has become a virtual necessity in self-defence against threats of war, destabilisation, sabotage, sanctions, and other kinds of covert and overt operations engineered by the imperialist-Zionist forces.

By dividing the world into "allies" and "enemies," the powerful war profiteering interests in the Unites States, the military-industrial-security colossus, compel both "allies" and "enemies" to militarise.

On one hand, "enemies" such as Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea are forced to strengthen their defence capabilities against imperialistic aggressions,.

On the other, "allies" such as the regimes ruling Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Colombia are driven to militarisation against their own people, since regimes loved by US imperialism are hated by the overwhelming majority of their own citizens.

Critics tend to bemoan the rise in the power of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in Iran without bothering to explain how the IRGC came to existence, or why it has expanded to where it is today. Who is to be blamed for the ascendance of its influence in the Iranian politics and economics?

Those even faintly familiar with the history of the IRGC would recall that it came into existence as a resistance force against counter-revolutionary forces in Iran, which have always been supported by US imperialism and its allies.

Although it was formed in the spring of 1979 as a small paramilitary revolutionary force in the fight against the Shah’s rule, it remained for the US-instigated invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein to expand it to a fully-fledged military power in defence of Iran’s territorial integrity.

The ensuing brutal eight-year Iran-Iraq war (1980-88), in which the US and its allies whole-heartedly supported Saddam Hussein, and the Guards’ legendary sacrifices and heroic defence of Iran independence drastically enhanced their size, their prestige and their power.

Although Iraq’s war with Iran ended in 1988, other forms of US wars against Iran have continued to this day.

These have included destabilising "soft-power" operations in the name of democracy, covert operations through all kinds of NGOs and fifth-column groupings, promotion of and support for terrorist operations such as those carried out by Jundullah and Mojadeen Khalgh (MKO, or MEK), constant military threats, psychological warfare, and economic sanctions.

Not surprisingly, the role and the influence of IRGC and other security forces in Iran have increased accordingly.

Also unsurprisingly, as the political power of Iran’s armed forces has thus increased, so has their economic power.

I say "unsurprisingly" because it is altogether in the nature of things that large standing armies gradually extend their military-security power to the realm of economics.

The fully-fledged and the best example of this phenomenon is the rise of the monstrous military-industrial complex in the United States — which, contrary to the defensive nature of Iran’s military force, represents an offensive imperialistic force.

It is of course a truism that maintaining large standing armies will sooner or later lead to authoritarianism.

It is equally obvious that by the same token that militarisation of the world can be blamed largely on imperialistic US foreign policies, so can the rise of many authoritarian regimes around the world be attributed to those oppressive policies.

When a country (whose only sin is its aspiration to national self-determination) is labelled by US imperialism as "our enemy" and is, therefore, encircled and threatened by the US military monster, that country’s political, economic and democratic growth is bound to be distorted or derailed from a path of a healthy, natural or spontaneous evolution.

Finding themselves in the bull’s eye of the menacing US war juggernaut, security forces of such beleaguered countries are bound to react nervously/harshly in the face of protest demonstrations of domestic opposition, even when such demonstrations are for legitimate reasons.

The shameful history of covert US operations abroad, including the violent overthrow of many democratically elected leaders through military coup d’├ętats, shows that expressions of indigenous opposition or grievances in such "enemy" countries are often subverted by well-financed and well-armed US agents.

They are either penetrated from outside or recruited from within, thereby warping the development of a "healthy" political/democratic process in those countries.

What is utterly demagogical is that, having thus perverted the politico-democratic process in such countries, US propaganda machine then turns around and blames the religion or culture or leaders of those countries as inherently incompatible with democratic values.

Regrettably, not only do most of the American people but also many people elsewhere, including in the countries targeted for destabilisation, fall for this ruse — in effect, blaming the victim for the crimes of the perpetrator.

Viewed in this light, the rise in the influence of the military-security forces in the Iranian politics and economics is a direct result of the menacing imperial policies of the United States and its allies toward that country.

Thus, President Obama’s or Secretary Clinton’s or other US policy makers’ bellyaching about the rise of the power of the armed forces in Iran represents a case of gross obfuscation.

That is, a case of barking up the wrong tree: instead of blaming IRGC they should blame their own imperialistic foreign policies, which nurtures militarisation and curtailment of civil liberties not only in Iran but also in many other parts of the world.

Indeed, militarisation of the world and the resulting proliferation of many (relatively smaller) military-industrial complexes around the globe are unmistakable byproducts of the monstrous US military-industrial complex.

The inherent dynamics of this monster as an existentially driven war juggernaut compels other countries around the world (both "allies" and "enemies") to embark on paths to militarism and authoritarianism.

Ismael Hossein-Zadeh, author of The Political Economy of US Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2007), teaches economics at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa — Mathaba.net

No comments: