The first shots of what appears to be a renewed
Lebanese civil war rang out three days ago as the
U.S.-backed government cracked down on Hezbollah,
the main opposition party, with a ban on the group's
private telecommunications network and the
attempted ouster of an alleged sympathizer,
Brig. Gen. Wafiq Shuqeir, as overseer of the
Beirut airport. This is plainly meant as a
provocation: Hezbollah, which fought off the
Israelis during the 2006 war, is not about to
give up its communications infrastructure.
After all, it was Hezbollah, not the Lebanese army,
that resisted the Israelis when they rained bombs
down on Lebanese civilians, killing and maiming thousands,
destroying homes, factories, and houses of worship.
The army stayed in its barracks while Hezbollah fought
for Lebanon. But no matter. The Lebanese government
– with the Americans and the Israelis behind it –
clearly wants a fight.
That fight is part of a brewing regional battle that would
leave the Middle East a cauldron of flame and blood.
This dire prospect doesn't deter the War Party: they
have been waiting for this moment for years. It is
their moment of triumph.
As we ordinary folk go about our lives – paying bills,
raising children, attending to the mundane and
increasingly difficult everyday affairs that dominate
our lives – our betters are planning a surprise.
You might call it an October Surprise, although it may
take place much sooner – rumor has it as early as
summer.
The second chapter in the Great Middle Eastern War is
being written, and its authors in Washington have in
mind an even more dramatic plot-line than we
witnessed in chapter one, which was, of course, the
invasion of Iraq. In the run-up to that conflict,
we were told Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction, links to al-Qaeda, and was getting ready
to wreak havoc on our allies in the region – and even
attack the United States. None of it turned out to be
true, as we now know, but, as John McCain says,
"we're there now," "we're in it to win it" – and winning
it apparently means extending the war to Iran.
In a rerun of the cherry-picked "intelligence"
-mongering of the pre-Iraq war years, we are being
treated to a propaganda campaign that blames Iran for
the failure of the "surge," ignoring the inherent
impossibility of subduing an occupied people. Ever
since Judy Miller, the New York Times has been the
neocons' favorite venue for war propaganda, and now
we have a new report from the Old Gray Lady that
asserts Hezbollah is training Iraqi militias on the
outskirts of Tehran.
Here we have an all-inclusive stew that includes
practically all the "bad guys": Hezbollah, the Iraqi
militias, and the Iranians. If we hear tomorrow that
Osama bin Laden himself is personally instructing the
attendees of this "training camp" and plotting another
9/11 with their assistance, no one wil be the least bit
surprised. It's Halloween in springtime: all the ghouls
and goblins are out, haunting and gibbering and
howling at the moon.
With U.S. casualties up in the last month and the situation
on the ground steadily worsening, the War Party is
seizing the opportunity to target Tehran, positioning itself
to launch Operation Iranian Freedom under the guise of
"defending" our troops in Iraq. But first comes
the provocation, the catalyzing incident that creates a
"crisis" atmosphere and inspires our warmongers –
and theirs – to act.
Lebanon is a tinderbox, the Balkans of the Middle East,
and the "government" – which is not quite a government,
since it lacks a president – has lit the fuse. For 17 months,
the two sides have been locked in a confrontation with little
prospect for a peaceful resolution, and foreign hands –
the Americans, the Israelis, the Iranians, the Syrians,
the Saudis – are stirring the pot.
Amid all this tumult and drama, as armed factions engage
in street battles and a country that was once the jewel
of the Middle East is blackened in the flames of war, what
is the American interest? What does the United States
have to gain by starting World War III?
The answer is clearly nothing. War with Iran would put
our troops in Iraq at risk and plunge the entire region into
chaos: the economic consequences of this alone should be
enough to deter us. Rumors of oil at $200 a barrel already
have the markets roiling. Wait until you see what happens
to prices when the Persian Gulf is impassable.
Who benefits from such a war? Not the Lebanese, who have
suffered enough over the years and want only to live in
peace. Not the Iranians, either, who are stumbling under
the weight of economic sanctions imposed at the instigation
of the Western powers. And surely not the war-weary
American people, who want out of Iraq and have
no desire to "liberate" another unwilling candidate
for "democratic" emancipation.
Israel's lobby in the U.S. has been calling for
confrontation with Iran ever since "Mission Accomplished."
AIPAC, the powerhouse lobby for the Jewish state, has
made the Iranian "threat" the centerpiece of its legislative
and "educational" agenda. The Lobby's neoconservative allies
have been clamoring for a fresh conflict, using their key
positions as columnists, publicists, think-tank gurus, and
television talking heads to beat the drums for war.
And those neocons still in positions of power in the government,
centered in the office of the vice president, have been making
the case inside the administration, with some success.
The people of Israel will also be big losers if –
or, rather, when – war comes. The governing
elites, on the other hand, have plenty to gain.
In both Israel and the U.S., where pressing
economic problems and continuing scandals
threaten their grip on power, the elites will have a
welcome respite from having to explain their failures,
and a new "enemy" to pin the blame on. The rulers of
both countries desperately want to change the subject,
diverting the rising tide of anger away from themselves
by conjuring up an external "threat." Both regimes are
in the midst of a political crisis and could use a good
old-fashioned war to channel the frustrations and
pent up hostility of their long-suffering citizens in a
convenient direction. It's the oldest trick in the book
– and it's working.
We are in the midst of a presidential campaign season, yet
not a single major candidate has pointed with alarm to the
rather obvious fact that we are on the brink of a major
military conflict. Indeed, two of them have welcomed this
prospect, while the third – the Democratic front-runner,
who owes his status to his antiwar credentials –
has addressed the subject only indirectly.
It's like one of those dreams where you scream and no sound
comes out, so that none can hear your cries for help. Peace
advocates might as well be living ghosts, whose hands pass
through solid matter and whose voices merge with the
sighing of the wind. We are invisible and unheard:
the Silenced Majority.
0 Have Your Say!:
Post a Comment