Chomsky’s latest view around Iran.
Noam Chomsky’s latest writing on US foreign policy – Cold War II – is as eloquent, insightful, readable, and profoundly clarifying as ever. I actually got the urge to go info-seeking after reading this appalling new piece on Al Jazeera about how Mahmoud Ahmadinejadh is currently being denied permission to place a wreath at the WTC site in New York when he attends the UN next week. So Iran can help the US locate Al Qaeda operatives in the Middle East… but can’t lay flowers at a shrine? It’s as much about symbolic hypocrisy as the anti-abortionists who support war.
If you need a reason to take 20 minutes to properly digest the article, check out the following excerpt. If you really don’t have the time right now, please do yourself a favour and get clued up on this later. Either way – not to be missed, seriously.
Without irony, the Bush administration and the media charge that Iran is “meddling” in Iraq, otherwise presumably free from foreign interference. The evidence is partly technical. Do the serial numbers on the Improvised Explosive Devices really trace back to Iran? If so, does the leadership of Iran know about the IEDs, or only the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Settling the debate, the White House plans to brand the Revolutionary Guard as a “specially designated global terrorist” force, an unprecedented action against a national military branch, authorizing Washington to undertake a wide range of punitive actions. Watching in disbelief, much of the world asks whether the US military, invading and occupying Iran’s neighbors, might better merit this charge — or its Israeli client, now about to receive a huge increase in military aid to commemorate 40 years of harsh occupation and illegal settlement, and its fifth invasion of Lebanon a year ago.
It is instructive that Washington’s propaganda framework is reflexively accepted, apparently without notice, in US and other Western commentary and reporting, apart from the marginal fringe of what is called ‘the loony left.” What is considered “criticism” is skepticism as to whether all of Washington’s charges about Iranian aggression in Iraq are true. It might be an interesting research project to see how closely the propaganda of Russia, Nazi Germany, and other aggressors and occupiers matched the standards of today’s liberal press and commentators..
The comparisons are of course unfair. Unlike German and Russian occupiers, American forces are in Iraq by right, on the principle, too obvious even to enunciate, that the US owns the world. Therefore, as a matter of elementary logic, the US cannot invade and occupy another country. The US can only defend and liberate others. No other category exists. Predecessors, including the most monstrous, have commonly sworn by the same principle, but again there is an obvious difference: they were Wrong, and we are Right. QED.