Some comments on typical howlers contained in an excerpt from the most recent Chomsky:
“In the energy-rich Middle East, only two countries have failed to subordinate themselves to Washington’s basic demands: Iran and Syria. Accordingly both are enemies, Iran by far the more important.”
Actually, Syria would like nothing better than to subordinate itself to Washington, and has tied itself in pretzels trying to do so. Every effort has been blocked by the neocons for Zionist reasons, a fact inconvenient to Chomsky. Syria’s recent alliance with Iran isn’t one Syria wants, but is solely of necessity. Note how Chomsky ties Israel’s enemies together, reflecting the hidden Zionist point of view.
“For the United States, the primary issue in the Middle East has been and remains effective control of its unparalleled energy resources. Access is a secondary matter. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. Control is understood to be an instrument of global dominance.”
Smarter lite Zionists have given up on the claim that the war was about the oil itself, as that is laughable. The sophisticated story is that it was about ‘control of oil’, a slightly less laughable excuse to hide the real Zionist reasons behind the attack (reasons set out in crystal clear form in the ‘Clean Break’ document written by the very people who entered the American government and successfully completed a campaign of lies and deception to carry out their own plan). In fact, the war has gravely reduced American control over Middle East oil, something the oil companies knew for certain would happen before the attack took place. The war was the exact opposite of 100 years of Anglo-American policy in the Middle East, policy that had been spectacularly successful in controlling Middle East oil.
“Iranian influence in the ‘crescent’ challenges U.S. control. By an accident of geography, the world’s major oil resources are in largely Shiite areas of the Middle East: southern Iraq, adjacent regions of Saudi Arabia and Iran, with some of the major reserves of natural gas as well. Washington’s worst nightmare would be a loose Shiite alliance controlling most of the world’s oil and independent of the United States.
Such a bloc, if it emerges, might even join the Asian Energy Security Grid and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), based in China. Iran, which already had observer status, is to be admitted as a member of the SCO. The Hong Kong South China Morning Post reported in June 2006 that ‘Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole the limelight at the annual meeting of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO) by calling on the group to unite against other countries as his nation faces criticism over its nuclear programme.’ The non-aligned movement meanwhile affirmed Iran’s ‘inalienable right’ to pursue these programs, and the SCO (which includes the states of Central Asia) ‘called on the United States to set a deadline for the withdrawal of military installations from all member states.’
If the Bush planners bring that about, they will have seriously undermined the U.S. position of power in the world.”
Actually, Bush planners have brought much of that about. Make of it what you will, but when you see somebody walk smack dab into what is supposed to be his worst nightmare, and seems not to care in the least, perhaps that wasn’t his principle concern after all.
“Last July (2006), Israel invaded Lebanon, the fifth invasion since 1978. As before, U.S. support for the aggression was a critical factor, the pretexts quickly collapse on inspection, and the consequences for the people of Lebanon are severe. Among the reasons for the U.S.-Israel invasion is that Hezbollah’s rockets could be a deterrent to a potential U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran.”
Wow! Let me repeat that last line, so it sinks in: “Among the reasons for the U.S.-Israel invasion is that Hezbollah’s rockets could be a deterrent to a potential U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran.” How backasswards is that? In fact, we never heard of an attack on Iran until Israeli strategists learned – to their shock and horror – of the effectiveness in the Israeli psyche of the Hezbollah rockets. Hezbollah having rockets was blamed on Iran; hence the sudden and new need to attack Iran. Iran talk also helps to destabilize the Middle East by driving a wedge between Shi’ites and Sunnis, and serves as a distraction for the failures of the Israeli government (it is less embarrassing to blame the IDF loss on Iran than on Hezbollah).
“Despite the saber-rattling, it is, I suspect, unlikely that the Bush administration will attack Iran.”
Even stopped clocks are right twice a day, as is Noam here (but just wait for either President Giuliani or President Clinton).
“Meanwhile Washington may be seeking to destabilize Iran from within.”
This is the other time the clock is right, but the destabilization has been an utter failure, and has even strengthened conservative control in Iran (something which Chomsky notes later).
“The U.S. invasion of Iraq virtually instructed Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld writes that after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, ‘had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy.’ The message of the invasion, loud and clear, was that the U.S. will attack at will, as long as the target is defenseless. Now Iran is ringed by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Persian Gulf and close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and particularly Israel, the regional superpower, thanks to U.S. support.”
Very typical Zionism. Chomsky implies that Iran in fact has a nuclear program, something the only people who would know, the official inspectors, have vehemently denied. Thus, if an attack on Iran occurs, Chomsky backs up the Zionist excuse.
The cleverest thing about Chomsky is that he manages to consistently maintain a seemingly ‘progressive’ line while studiously leading the reader away from the truth and providing the basis, by implication, for attacks on enemies of the Likudniks. He really is a genius.