Sunday, 8 January 2012

Insanity is a virtue

 The world is turning crazy. 

While the Libyans are still picking through the smoldering ruins of their battered country, overtones of another war are growing louder by the day.

It is not as if invasions are a novelty – far from it – but the frequency at which they are occurring at the moment is worrying.

 First it was Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Libya, and now (if things escalate any further) Iran might be the next country to bite the dust.

Its crime? Developing  nuclear weapons. Unfortunately the charge brought forward by the United States and bolstered by a report by the U.N nuclear watchdog, the Atomic Energy Agency, is very thin on evidence.

Since the accusation, the war of words between both countries has escalated.

We know they’ve been at each other’s jugular for decades, but now rhetoric is morphing into action. Notable examples include  U.S’  increased surveillance of Iran’s nuclear sites; Iran’s capture/seizure of an American spy drone; E.U’s proposed sanction against Iran, and Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil-trade route.

The most worrying developments of recent are:
  • ·         An upcoming joint military exercise between Israel and the States – the biggest of its kind – that will simulate ballistic missile defence
  • ·         A U.S deal with Saudi Arabia to supply $30 billion worth of weapons
To me, that signals one thing: conflict.

U.S invasion = World War III 

Many commentators have dismissed the talk of war as unlikely saying it would be profound foolishness on the part of U.S, and tantamount to starting world war III. After all Iran has the world’s fourth largest oil reserves; and if the Hormuz strait is closed in the event of conflict, a barrel of oil could sell for as much as 200 US dollars; leading to worldwide inflation.

I desperately hope they are right. 

In any event, it looks like a lose-lose situation for Iran. 

Because whether Iran steps up or steps down the rhetoric, it cannot wriggle out of the impossible situation it is trapped in. As the saying goes, give the dog a bad name and hang it. Iran is stuck with the ‘axis of evil’ sobriquet which dogs its steps like a shadow. 

Iran has been known to sponsor terrorism; it has taken hostages and bombed U.S embassies, but has not invaded any country in modern history. That will not save its skin.

It is stuck with two unsavoury options:
  1. ·         Giving up its nuclear programme OR
  2.       Carrying on with it at the risk of treading the same path as its neighbour, Iraq
If Iran gives up its nuclear programme , it will be caving into the demands of imperialist countries and will personify weakness.

If it does not, it could be invaded. A new government will be installed (by western countries), rubber-stamped by the UN, and maintained by a western military presence.

There are two worlds

It is happening to Iran right now but other non-conforming (Southern) countries should not watch on distantly. 

They could be next. 

Today's world operates under two domains: the imperialists’ who are simply the dominant class that  write world rules. The rules favour them politically and economically and marginalise the other domain (the non-imperialists) who must either bite the bullet or face the consequence.

Political analyst Michael Parenti describes the non-imperialists as ‘comprador’ classes. 

A comprador is one that cooperates in turning its own country into a client state for foreign interests.
A client state is one that is open to investments on terms that are decidedly favorable to the foreigner.
These are old realities, but ones that need to be tackled if not resource-rich countries from the South will continue to be subsumed by a system that does not favour them.

Former British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli once said it is easier to be critical than correct. Anyone can criticise but not everyone can proffer solutions. I don’t know what solution you have in mind but here’s mine:
There should be a new law – the law of reaction.

Law of reaction: to every action there is (should be) an equal and opposite reaction.

To every superpower/world power/imperialist/northern alliance there should be an equal and opposite reaction – the building of a Southern alliance/superpower/world power, if things are to even out.

That could cost the non-imperialist world a leg and an arm. It would resemble insanity, but in this case, insanity will be a virtue.

Question is, how can it be achieved and will it work?


  1. The truth is for every US, there is a China and Russia. So far most of the sanctions carried out on Iran has been through individual countries and not through UN because Russia and China has vetoed every sanction so far.

    I think Iran can live with any negative image the west has painted because the truth is a bad image is only a justification by imperialist to its citizens of the necessity to engage in brutal tides of wars and guess what, I doubt there would be any demonstrations against invasion of Iran if a quiet country such as Afghanistan was demonized.

    However Iran has played their hand beautifully so far. They have made key alliances with Russia and China with Russia being a military superpower and China an economic superpower. The US cannot keep overstretching itself as its economy is just getting back on track and their debt spiraling out of control.

    Therefore the US and EU hopes to keep hitting Iran with sanctions that will cripple its economy and hopefully bring the civilization to its knees. If Iran can adapt like Cuba and North Korea did and live within their means while empowering its society through education, then this would just be a war that never was because in all essence, war is terrible for business when it involves two superpowers.

    Lovely article by the way, loved the last picture, that was excellent.

  2. Chuks, you're points are spot on. Even while writing I knew it's not so black and white, after all countries like Brazil and China have been able to stave off imperialist manipulation.

    Russia and China are allies, agreed, but I'm not sure if they will be willing to make too many sacrifices for Iran. Russia is increasingly important to U.S 'cos it wants to shift its supply lines to Afghanistan from Pakistan to Russia.
    BUT even at that Russia is not in support of Iran's nuclear programme & would rather the nuclear club remained exclusive.

    China, to me, have always preferred to take a neutral stance. And don't forget that out of about $2 trillion America spends on imports, around 600 billion goes to China.

    Gaddafi thought he had allies until the last minute.

    Yes, the U.S' economy is stretched, but the thumb rule of capitalism is you never invest in a venture that will not yield more profits than the initial capital.

    Thanks for your fantastic comment. Appreciate.

  3. Did anyone miss Pres Obama's speech last week, laying out the shift in US foreign policy? He mentioned that the US focus will now be the Asia-Pacific region..More importantly he said they will now be focusing on bolstering their economic position while maintaining their military superiority. He said they will now utilise their military power to protect their economic interests. So there it is. This simply means Iran is not safe in any way and I would like to predict that the next theatre of war will be the skies over Iran. The Americans will do everything in their power to protect Israel, including unilateral military action.

  4. Thanks for your comment, Will. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out.

    I have just read a media response by China. Apparently U.S are shifting to Asia because they fear China's growing influence in the area & their increasing ability to take them on as a world power.

    I don't see Iran as a threat to Israel; again, we need concrete proof that they are development nuclear weapons and not nuclear energy.

  5. @Oluchi Let me point out that Iran IS a threat to Israel, based on the words of its president, who expressed his desire-and I quote "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" unquote. And they don't need nuclear weapons to do it; their newly tested Ghadar missile, with a range of 2000km, is capable of reaching Israel. So the threat doesn't necessarily have to be nuclear.

  6. @Will, wiping Israel off the map is the desire of many Arab nations not just Iran.It is part of their rhetoric; they know better than make good their desires because Israel is powerfully backed by U.S. So I wouldn't attach too much importance to his rant.

    Iran has the Ghadar missile...well many countries have an assortment of weapons, that does not amount to evidence that they want to attack their neighbours.

    I don't support any attacks on Israel in anyway. They have a right to live in peace. So it's good they demonstrate their military strength to put off any potential attacks.

    At the same time I don't support one country lording it over another. To repeat myself, you can't attack another country based on conjecture. If the country is a threat, prove it before picking up arms.

    Good point made.