Syria in September - The "Perfect Mousetrap"

A note from MeanMesa:  The blog has been off the air for a few days while the hand was healing.  It's been a bit of a problem when typing more than two sentences has sent this old bird into a self-pity tizzy!  All that is over now.  Glad you're here!

 The Variety of the Dreams of Victory

Dreams of victory and justifications for fighting seem to run in paired sets.  As one of the historically most war like nations in the modern world, these dreams and justifications extracted from our recent domestic history are telling.  When attacked, we countered with a rueful propaganda effort in Afghanistan married to an oil war in Iraq.  

Drenched in both false shame and quite reasonable trepidation, the Saudis offered up a symbolic pittance as compensation for the grisly work of their countrymen.  Happily, for them, their "connections" diverted the retaliatory attacks and invasions onto two of their unfortunate neighbors.

The war making climate has now become so superficial that practically anything will serve to justify it.  Worse, those flimsy, meat handed justifications are simply too complex to actually metamorphose into workable results corresponding to any publicly held "dreams of victory."  These days find that already questionable old adjacency abandoned in favor of a variety of impulses disgustingly akin to simple religious vengeance, usually amounting to little more than a discarded rag soaked with testosterone and clotted blood driven by a public opinion campaign.

Rather than fighting because we were attacked or might be attacked, because our allies were attacked or in danger or even because our countrymen were attacked in some distant corner of the world, we fight for greed.  Further, it is not national greed which might -- conceivably -- be somewhat more coherent and understandable, it is the craven greed of oligarchs.

Those would be the oligarchs directly behind that line of war mongers eliciting the vast, raucous cheers during the debates of the Republican Primary.  MeanMesa is surprised that the stupefied teenagers in that audience had not already begun to bleed before the applause had ended.

Running along with the "becauses" which "justify" these monstrosities, we can see the chilling absence of any view of success.  There were no informed Americans who thought, even briefly, that an occupied medieval Afghanistan would become a modern democracy.  There were no informed Americans who thought that an Iraq with the autocracy removed would become "just like here."

Amazingly, there were no dreams of victory.  A few inches beyond the "catch phrases," "talking points" and false dichotomies only an empty hole remained where, in better times, victory might have held forth her dream. Down here on the ground we must still discuss the horrors with returning veterans, or even more perplexing, the reasons.  Down here on the ground we must still engage our neighbors in conversations about justifications and national accomplishments.

As one ascends to the atmospheric heights, the mindless realm of the oligarchs, such discourse falls silent.

We have managed to develop a national foreign policy which is absolutely devoid of discernible success. In fact, we -- as a national demographic of consolidated interests -- can't even agree on what such a success might be.

Thanks to the flat sighted reactionaries and their legions of the terrified, thinly disguised servants of those cursed by greed without limit, we are a paralyzed and demoralized remnant of what we were -- of what we must be again.  Relief is unlikely unless our reasonable national goals mature to a place commensurate with our actual strength.

By "relief" we mean a return to cogency.

The "October Surprise" - An American Tradition

There are plenty of accounts of various insurgent operations stepping up hostilities "in the spring" or "after the monsoon season."  We can immediately think of the on-going, annual conflicts in the Congo, in Aceh Banda or the wild western provinces of Pakistan.  We understand the alluring convenience of this scheduling pattern.

Around the world, fighting men without boots are making their way to combat zones in small, hidden places where the mud, heat and mosquitoes alone can be their greatest enemies.  These seasonal blood letting festivals are not the same as our domestic Easter or Thanksgiving celebrations.  They are scheduled to coincide with military and tactical advantages.

Here at home, however, it's just a bit less comprehensible. We have watched seven Republicans with the ambition of high office parrot out the war bait, one after another, to the deafening roar of responding cheers at their debates.  Instead of scheduling the proposed mayhem for better weather, here all such matters must be placed in the context and on the calendar of our the elections.

Systematically instilling a coarse, post literate fear in one crowd while inciting another to inflamed chest beating for the latest war making plan, these bellicose monstrosities from another era make the rounds, first for campaign contributions from those with ambitions of somehow profiting from such adventures and only later for the votes of those they have managed to frighten with hideous tales of the latest synthetic enemy. 

Finally, installed in power, they are taxed only for the maintenance of the respective opportunities of sustained terror and outrage.  Actual policy becomes nothing more than a potentially risky, flippant, unnecessarily complicating public opinion problem.

It's just as if actual blood did not exist.

It's just as if war were cheap.

War by Accident, Hubris or Oversight

We find ourselves in a state of economic collapse.  Although there are many "truisms" which can be uttered about war, one with exceptionally valid continuity is that it is expensive.  The more desperate it is, the more expensive it can become, in fact, the more expensive it will almost certainly become.

Our war with Afghanistan was blessed with only the most tenuous such validity.  It was a war for domestic consumption, and it was a war for unexamined vengeance.  There was essentially no prospect for enhanced national security by changing the warlords currently in power in Afghanistan.  Any actual incremental enhancements for national security would be both defensive and domestic ones.

The al Qaeda who attacked New York knew this.  Their bold strategy was entirely designed to avoid our military power.  They knew that they could pose no substantial threat to the United States beyond the furtive opportunity placed at their disposal.  The advantage which they carefully designed into their plot was the advantage of "pure asymmetry." 

They were protected from US military might because there would be neither traditional attack nor traditional retaliation.  Of course, the weakened US leadership, perhaps an unanticipated additional advantage, "took the bait."

Likewise, the oil war in Iraq could only be made valid in its own right by the proposition that it, too, was preventing an attack.  The argument began to literally fall apart the day it was first proposed, but the hypnotic attraction continued.  It didn't end there.

War.  War.  War.  War. (image source)

The most available and conveniently "hateable" adversary remained in the punching ball of Iran.  The country had already been pilloried by economic sanctions -- foreign policy which was actually effective -- by the time of the Republican debates, but the old penchant for violence hadn't moved an inch.

Plus, there was oil there.

Naturally, the reckless policy promises of those desperately transfixed with the necessity of "collecting" votes from an illiterate base ran immediately to a familiar theme.  Iranian "red meat" outrages could provide electoral cover for the hideous echo of the last Republican administration if only the base could be distracted long enough.

It's not a base which has a history of being difficult to distract.

Syria: The Stars Align for the "Perfect Mousetrap"

2012's "Perfect Mousetrap"

Granted, this post has "wandered" through some rather "big picture" issues of wars and war making.  That largess was precisely the intention.  Americans -- especially in election time and especially as we approach October -- should probably be interested in such a disturbingly sultry mix of both "big picture" and "contemporary specifics."

If one has paid even a passing attention to the commercial news or the content of this little blog from the desert, every one of the little white boxes in the "mousetrap" diagram above will mean something.  Should one or more of them mean nothing, MeanMesa strongly suggests that our noble visitor here tear that attention away from the political "frog festival" long enough to catch up with reality.

This is a potentially very bad collection of current events.

If you felt a few pangs of national uncertainty while we were careening into Iraq, a quite similar feeling should probably be emerging just about now.

The "trigger" seems to be -- at least for the moment -- centered on the question of whether or not the dictator of Syria will grow desperate enough to use his bunker full of poison gas in an attempt to hang on to his "legacy."  The current death toll in Syria now is in the range of around 20,000, mostly civilians.  The dictator's father is reported to have slaughtered 92,000 in his successful bid to "keep the garden."

The United States has very publicly revealed that our policy of not intervening militarily would have to be "rethought" if the gas were used.  The Europeans, Syria's neighbors -- especially Turkey -- would, most likely, be able to "rethink" their own positions even more rapidly.  The now openly fascist State of Israel is currently sipping tea and having wet dreams of its own about the same potentiality.

Presumably there are Russian military and diplomatic folks walking around all over the country.  More than "presumably," there are scores of Iranian nationals in make shift militias handling the dirty work in the dictator's door to door practices.  The orders for those  "door to door" visits are largely too savage to hand off to the dictator's Alaouite regulars.

This means that any substantial military intervention with the purpose of suppressing the use of the gas would be raining down on both Russian Federation military personnel and Iranian nationals.

It's been a while since the United States or NATO killed any Russian soldiers or diplomats.  Obliterating a few Iranians would probably not bother us too much, but the mullahs, already sitting on a wrecked economy [worse than ours], languishing under sanctions which have made civilian life awful and desperately watching the capstone of their tenuous terrorist arch to Hezbollah and Hamas slowly crumble would probably block the Gulf of Hormuz the next morning.

Further, MeanMesa assumes that the Russian defense fortifications at Tartus include either on-site nuclear capacity or hair trigger reinforcement from the Federation proper.  If the Iranians have a bomb of their own, which they might, it could also be insinuated into the defense alliance with Syria, a far more intimidating location for a nuclear test that anywhere in the Iranian desert. 

This level of escalation would not be offered as an indulgence to the dictator so much as evidence of the legitimacy for the Russians to rehabilitate the rather sorry record of lack of effectivity for Russian weapons systems which failed all through the countries of the Arab Spring.  The Iranians are more similar to the loud mouthed bully standing second in a line for a fist fight.

Both the Syrians and the Iranians are watching their dreams become chaotic junk yards, a state which makes them dangerous.

This rambling scenario could unfold a thousand different ways, but the "exciting" parts would easily include some or all of the nightmare being described here.

Sleep well.  Cavort through a moon lit comedy of the Republican Abortion Festival being inundated by an out of control hurricane in Tampa.

MeanMesa's compliments to the President.

For a couple other MeanMesa posts on Syria:
http://www.meanmesa.com/2012/06/syria-and-russia.html

http://www.meanmesa.com/2012/08/russia-china-syria-disgracing-great-and.html
and BBC, about Tartus:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18616191

Solidifying Syria

Looking Again for Syria-Libya Similarity

The American public didn't do too well in perceiving Libya.  In fact, we revealed a very nasty co-dependent streak.  We kept insisting that until we knew all about the "replacement regime," we just couldn't really help out much beyond bad mouthing Gaddafi.  Of course, as the overly righteous bunch that we are, we hardly broke a sweat with the dutiful "bad mouthing" assignment.

The premise was simple enough.  "We are so good that you can't possibly be good unless we like you."

Someone had to take the political risk of acting on ideals rather than craven, petrogarchic capitalism or our usual psychopathic fear of anything happening anywhere in the world which unfolds beyond our control.  Happily, our President took the risk.

However, it was in the "behind the scenes" action with Libya where the similarity to Syria can be found.  In order to survive the predictable onslaught by the domestic wing nuts who would blame him for a rainy day, a few details had to get kicked into order before even Obama could proceed.  These are precisely similar to the "loose ends" prevailing in Syria.

Rent-a-General, retired (image source)

The wing nut mantra was familiar.  No exit strategy.  Endless quagmire.  A third war in the Middle East.  The fear mongers barely had to even do so much as change the country name.

Someone to Answer the Phone

"Good afternoon.  This is the United States calling. With whom am I speaking?"

The usual talking heads immediately took up the challenge.  The preachers, coaches and retired generals marched out in lock step to tell Judy Woodruff about all the horrible things which were about to happen thanks to the incompetent and inexperienced professor in the Oval Office.  When the nightmarish military failure had been robustly described, the rant moved on to being fooled by none other than al Qaeda itself masquerading as Libyan freedom fighters.

Ben Ghazi didn't help much.  It seemed to take forever for the new government to reassure the West that they really were good guys, and all the while Gaddafi's tanks were warming up in the suburbs for some real meat grinding.  Ask anyone in Misrata.

Well, Ben Ghazi then -- and still, even now -- faced the traditional problem of a suddenly successful insurgency.  Unlike the other side where a heavy handed autocracy had long ago "homogenized" all disparate interests which could be useful and eliminated all those who were simply problems, the insurgents were composed of all sorts of elements united primarily by their consolidated determination to oust the last guys.

Typically, these various parts of an insurgency had spent little time imagining a unified state once their work was complete.  All the rough edges of centuries of tribal conflicts, religious animosity, wealth disparity and the rest were alive and well, set aside only for the task at hand.  This was the case in Libya, and this is the case in Syria.

Let's take a look at the various interest players in the conflict and the corresponding obstacles each one brings for solution.

The Syrians

Syria isn't quite as bad as Iraq in terms of pre-existing tribal divisions.  After all, there was a place called Syria even in the time of the Roman Empire, although this isn't to say that all the factions had ever particularly mastered to art of getting along.  The important point here is that each of these factions has its own priorities which must be satisfied in the end result.

Further, at some time through the long history of the place, most of these factions had attacked others, winning or losing, and creating very durable animosities. In the naive view of American Sunday School graduates and other policy Pollyannas, these difficulties should, reasonably, be simply swept away in favor of uniting under common cause.  The idea that what exists is an historical equivalent of Lutherans declaring open war on Presbyterians for a couple of decades completely escapes them.

The conclave of interested parties at the Syrian Opposition has worked to form what is loosely named the National Council outside the country.  With uncertain ties to the Free Syrian Army of defectors and regional insurgents around the country, the National Council is still being disrupted by factional priorities and questionable affiliation with the hundreds of thousands of Syrians still protesting on the streets.

Arab Spring Measure:  The Syrians are in their Arab Spring.

The Iranians

Syria has long been a "jewel" in the Islamic Republic's structure for regional dominance.  In the Sunni Shi'ite violence during the sectarian phase of US occupation in Iraq, the Iranian client state provided large numbers of "volunteers" to move across the common border to Iraq.  Currently, a large part of the Iranian military shipments to Syria cross the Eastern regions of Iraq against UN arms embargoes.

Syria supplies military equipment to both the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian [Gaza] Hamas against the UN arms embargoes in place for both destinations.  Syria, itself without much capacity for arms manufacturing, acts as a forwarding agent in these cases. 

Iran's worst nightmare is to become isolated.  Without access to its client states in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, Iran's capacity to create and sustain irreconcilable hostilities would be gravely reduced, leaving the Islamic Republic with only far more direct alternatives for expressing its influence in the region.  Tehran has no appetite for face to face conflict, although accomplishing its nuclear ambitions might mitigate some of this reluctance.

Arab Spring Measure:  Iranians are more than half way into their Arab Spring.

The Chinese

The catastrophic Security Council failure on Syrian issues was orchestrated by the Russians and the Chinese.  China's motive is slightly more passive that the Russian Federation's. Politically, China has little hegemonic interest in non-adjacent territories. The Chinese clearly valued Iranian oil supply and general "coziness" with Middle Eastern dictatorships who have survived the Arab Spring.  The PRC took a much more troubled glance at the Arab Spring than was presented in domestic US news because something similar could easily contest the State Council's total control inside China.

Arab Spring measure:  Rural areas, ethnically diverse areas and acquired provinces such as Tibet and the Uighurs are ready to begin their Arab Spring.

The Russians

The Russian Federation, however, has a much more direct interest in the survival of the Assad regime in Syria.  For one thing, Syria is saturated with Russian military products -- everything from the SAM's Syria has installed to prevent another Israeli air threat to Damascus to the smoke belching tanks which were unable to prevent the Israeli incursion into Golan.  If the Assad government, as a military client, were overthrown by street protests and the Free Syrian Army, global Russian arms sales would suffer.

However, Russia's stance with the Security Council VETO squarely places its traditions of revolutionary thought on the examining table for the world to see.  Russia might have appeared to be dealing with Syria, but it was concentrating on rebellious satellite countries where Arab Spring ideas were taking root. 

Arab Spring measure:  Many of the Federation's satellite states are ready to begin their Arab Spring.  Urban citizens inside Russia proper are getting closer, freaked about the heavy hand of the Putin oligarchs.

The Americans

This administration has set its own high bar in American policy for direct intervention.  The Libyan expedition was made legitimate by NATO participation, Security Council validation and Arab League approval.  This should not be surprising for a President with such a legalistic outlook in such matters.  It should also introduce the idea of a limit in the successful operation in the case of bin Laden.  Obama will do it, but Obama will feel the full burden of what he's doing while he does it, not the least of which derives from his own idea of legitimacy.

Obama's ideals will be in play if he decides to act on the Syrian pogrom, but those ideals will not be gaseous niceties about poorly defined ideas of liberty and progress.  Instead, they will be much more akin to the South Chicago street realities we saw in Pakistan.  Bold, decisive and direct.

Pentagon and Congressional policy wonks will predictably offer up the same types of heavy handed, Cold War solutions enumerated with naval blockades, ground troops in the tens of thousands, saturation bombing and the like.  The Pentagon will be looking for the next career opportunity, the Senate will be fiddling while the slaughter continues and the House will be consumed only with the happy, wet dream prospect of a military disaster for the Commander in Chief  months before the election.

Although reasonably compassionate folks might wish for some "middle of the road" path forward, those in the government aspiring to the status of "war making expert" will be locked, as usual, in their tragically unsuited, out dated set of false choices.  MeanMesa doesn't think that Obama sees it this way at all.

He has military technology which has never been available to past Presidents as they contemplated such questions.  He matches this technological advantage with a steady pragmatism and steely will -- both of which represent unsettling, essentially unknown attributes to the stodgy remnants of the Bush military establishment.

Arab Spring measure:  The Americans may be further into their Arab Spring than they are willing to admit.

The "technology?"

Drones

Of course there are a few "loose ends," but the military element is straight forward enough.  US drones are a perfect match for tanks firing randomly into civilian areas and convoys of troops and military supplies rolling along Syrian highways to their next killing field.  Coupled with no longer particularly secret satellite intelligence, the combination would castrate the dictatorship's and his terror squads' fire power advantage in days.

Low Hanging Fruit (image source)

We would then be at a very familiar foreign policy place.  The codependent side of American life would be screaming the predictable questions about "Who are we helping?" and probably moaning the now over worked, road weary lament about an exit strategy.

Libya has shown us that the "exit strategy" hobgobblin has no teeth if there has never been an "entrance."  As for Syria, flatten a few tanks actively engaged in the act of civilian murder, and level enough convoys so that the remainder start taking the threat seriously enough to begin keeping their heads down. 

The plan would be to "plow the road" for a bit, then let the insurgency run its course.  With the tanks and convoys more or less out of the picture, it wouldn't take long.

Loose Ends

We can address this issue best with a few questions.  Imagine an irate Russian Federation Foreign Ministry staffer in a closed meeting with Secretary of State, Hillary.

"You had no right to attack the Syrian government.  What makes you think you can just fly in there are start blowing up tanks?"

"The tanks were murdering the legitimate Syrian government."


"The US didn't even have a treaty with the Syrian opposition government!  You had no legal basis for this unprovoked attack."


"Okay.  We haven't heard any requests about stopping from the legitimate Syrian opposition government, but you have a point.  We'll stop the attacks right away, although it will probably take a few days for the order to move through the Pentagon."

"Al Qaeda and the Iranians are going to move in there and take over.  The US can't trust the terrorists and foreign insurgents to 'play nice' with the US after they take power."

"We don't think so.  We're willing to take the risk.  It's not likely that the new Syrian government is going to be interested in keeping the same friends as the old one.  We expect to just help out a bit, then slip away and let things take their course."

"You're going to recklessly unleash chaos and instability throughout the region."

"If you haven't noticed, there is a tidal wave of chaos and instability in the region already.  We're determined to not be cynical.  Instead, we'll be optimistic.  We're trying to work on our control issues.  You have shown the world which side of things you favor with your VETO vote.  We're showing the world which side of things we favor. After this, everyone will pretty much know everything."

The drones make US involvement truly "casual."  The particular drones selected for the mission should be among the cheapest, simplest choices.  The devices were designed to be expendable, and Syrian SAMs will inevitably shoot down some.  There are no particular treaty obligations to be met.  The collateral damage will be very limited -- tanks sitting out in the open firing on a Syrian city are pretty much "low hanging fruit."

When the drone attacks suddenly cease and no invasion follows, the message to the Syrian people will be clear.  "Now it's your turn.  You're in charge."

A MeanMesa "Quickie" - Iran, the Fountain of Evil?

Achhh.  It is the tale of two countries ... the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran.  One of them, the Bright City on the Hill and a nuclear super power, was eager, in the past, to shred the democratically elected government of the other one to violently replace it with a royal autocrat who would willingly sell every drop of oil to the West.

Uh, Mr. Palavi, if you want to be the Great Shah that will be fine -- just remember the oil, please.  By the way, help yourself to a few dozen of our finest F-15's.

Uh, we also realize that it may be necessary to establish the deadly Savak and tear the arms and legs off a few folks to keep our oil scheme on the tracks.

Uh, it's also no surprise to us that all the Shah's relatives and friends have prospered magnificently, turning the forlorn desert into a green paradise of "free market" "Capitalism" where matters of competition are quickly decided by the Savak's "death squads."  Who could question the value of a few tortured relatives dumped in the gutter in front of one's house compared to a vast, neo-conservative style wet dream?

Oooops.  All the Shah's non-friends and non-relatives grew tired of being savaged day after day.  Who?  You know, the "axis of evil" crowd who "hate our freedom."  OMG!  This nobody Muslim preacher who has been hiding out in Paris has SHUT OFF OUR OIL!

Meanwhile, the super power "elects" a thinly disguised Baptist draft dodger and a corporate oil crony to be "President."  In the next chapter of the story, the super power gives poison gas to a nearby dictator, encouraging him to start an incredibly bloody war to depose the "Nobody Muslim preacher" and get the oil flow "back on track."

Chevron smiled with eager glee with such a reassuring development.  A "thank you" card was immediately dispatched to the CIA.

Predictably, this turned into a bit of a "PR Problem" in the Islamic Republic for the super power.  The autocrat in charge of the super-power, unhappily, had a lingering reputation of being in charge of  the "gang who couldn't shoot straight," so the situation went from bad to worse.  The decision was made that, since Chevron would not be able to get the Iranian oil, it would be necessary to "liberate" the oil of Iran's neighbor.

The next step for the draft dodgers in charge of the super power was to repeatedly threaten to nuke Iran.  The "PR Problem" got even worse.

Although the new government of the "Nobody Muslim Preacher from Paris" had started out as a fairly populist outfit, under this recurring threat from the draft dodgers running the super power, things in Iran gradually became more and more reactionary.

By the way, the super power had dispatched two huge armies to Iran's closest neighboring countries where they were both "liberating all the misplaced oil" and making the "world safe for freedom."  When the neo-conservative "wet dream" which had initially justified all this nonsense finally collapsed into an unsustainable, gaseous lie, the whole mess had to be turned over to the "next guy."

The next step for the neo-cons was to begin criticising the "next guy" for not immediately making sense out of this horrible, embarrassing mess.

For those who might be interested in a more in depth discussion of the history of the current situation, please link to MeanMesa's archives.

Comprehending Iran: The Nuclear Power

Iran: The Mystical Glory of "Reciprocal History"

This is a "high stakes" game.  Because of that, this is a time to back up President Obama's efforts to settle the disaster the W started.  The alternative will be yet another Middle East war.

Stay informed.

Stay involved.

Remember what it means to be an American citizen.  We are responsible for everything we do, everyone we kill, everything we steal and whether or not we want friends and honor or just more profits.

MeanMesa's compliments to the President.

Tulsa, Teheran and Terre Haute: Creepy Commonalities

Yes, the cultural nuances vary, but, also yes, the common structure is historically suspicious. 109

Recent events in Teheran, at least for those more excited by quick similarity than by more distant analysis, remain detached from recent events in our own country. After all, those suspicious Muslims crowding into the streets or chanting “Allah Akbar” from their night time roof tops don't, at first glance, seem to have much in common with the simultaneous and contemporary dilemma faced by Americans. Yet, when considered, perhaps with a cooler head, the structural similarities are disturbingly refreshing.

The events and motives driving this remarkable similarity are, well, historically explosive.

By the numbers, 2009 Iranian – American parallels:

1. Small issues leading to larger issues:

We have seen the uprising in Iran. Its first, clear cause was the illegitimate election. Prior to the election, there was – at least seemed to be – a passive acceptance of an Iranian government “slightly” tilted toward a medievalist cultural approach, but still “close enough” to comfortable, cultural norms to be generally supported. However, the question of supporting that government had never before been formalized into a volatile, concrete “yes” or “no” dichotomy.

The election revealed the careless, unpremeditated arrogance of an unprepared theocratic autocracy. The Iranian government had not been wringing its hands, lying in wait for an opportunity to very visibly express contempt for popular opinion. It was caught in events astonishingly similar to what “caught” the population. By “caught,” we mean actions taken which were equally unanticipated and unsponsored. In both cases, all parties seem to have been “snatched” by relatively uncontroversial developments which suddenly “grew legs.” There was probably no particular conspiracy to elevate the defects of the election to such a contentious state. Both government and resistance, even now, might agree that it just happened to turn out that way.

In the United States, the population has gradually been confronted with the intractable inertia held by its own “theocrats.” Being a capitalistic, free market nation, those “theocrats” turned out to be “oligarchs,” a privileged rich so highly moneyed as to enjoy a heretofore unexamined authority similar to that of the Iranian mullahs. The American equivalent to the botched Iranian election has emerged in the very suspicious matter of Obama's health care proposal.

Of course, everyone reasonably expected such a fundamental change to unavoidably incite some heated debate. However, the fabrications which “captured” the media's attention in the nation-wide town hall meetings seemed to “grow like Topsey” disguised as a populist frenzy. The carefully dramatized popular uprising against health care, largely populated by Americans who would greatly benefit from the changes proposed, is, like the Iranian election, an affront which the perpetrators assumed would be effective. These scripted fanatics were supposed to influence public opinion, but not in any manner which might require a close examination of any details

Instead, the perpetrators were caught in an unanticipated social conflict. Their assault had been meant to be a background talking point, a subtle bias which could quietly reshape public opinion as a shadowy, detail-free, reaffirmation of ideas supporting their ambitions. In fact, they intended to provide nothing more news worthy than a slight addition to the “straws which might assist in breaking the camel's back,” not an awkward fire storm of “pro-health care” versus “anti-health care” polemics.

2. Revelations I:

The Iranians had not carefully crafted a public relations mechanism to deceive the voting population about the validity of the election. Instead, they had assumed that the election itself would be “close enough” to something appearing legitimate that only a few miscreants would comment on its execution. Low level issues of dissent such as this one, they presumed, could be dependably suppressed by generally accepted applications of theocratic force. When the issue rose above this modest level of anticipated discontent, the Iranian theocrats were unprepared to initiate a “surgical” response. Instead, the waters seemed to be immediately and uncontrollably “muddied” by a “meat handed” reaction. From there, the entire affair quickly “turned South” on them.

Here in the United States, the sponsors of the unruly “grassroots constituencies” made a similar mistake in their estimation of the general impact of the performance of their poorly trained actors. The heavily biased corporate media grasped the fraud far too quickly and far too respectfully, subverting what had been intended as a mere “glancing blow.” The cheap theater was transformed from a useful background innuendo into a front line reporting point. As a background subtlety, it might well have been accepted quietly, effectively plying their relentless wares of deception, that is, constructing simply another unexamined “sand hog,” made real as a mistaken certainty by their usual approach of “1,000 kisses” for consumption by the American public.

3. Invitations to a momentary, culturally numbing acceptance:

Both the Iranians and the masters of the American oligarchy presented their public premises with the hope that they might fulfill this bashful, sideline ambition. Once either of the two outrages had passed through the high speed news exposure, the perpetrators assumed that the implications of their frauds would subside into a very effective “axiom status.” In both cases, the unexpected volatility of their machination caught them by surprise.

Both the embarrassed theocrats and the unprepared corporatists then proceeded to compound their self-inflicted exposure with, at first, plausible adjustments, but these were followed by further insults resulting from unreasonable assessments of what opportunities might suddenly have sprung into existence. The trip out along the “limb,” was transformed into a seriously troubling tactical mistake which threatened to sweep away the numbing, popular acceptance they had previously counted on so heavily. In both Iran and the United States, this describes the situation in which the corresponding electorates find themselves mired at this moment.

For both sets of the schemers, the unsettling realization that the “genie cannot be returned to the lamp” came to call with a very impolite proximity.

4. Revelations II:

Both the Iranian theocrats and the elitist, American billionaires have suffered a penetrating moment of bright illumination. Denizens of the dark realm of cynical manipulation consistently flourish best in dark, dank places. After the phony election and the manipulated town halls, the mullahs and the “capitalists” realized that the interest they had stirred up was now roaming the streets with fog lamps, filled with curiosity. There were questions being muttered on those streets. Who were these powerful few with such outrageous ambitions? How long had they been controlling everything that, at the time, seemed to be something akin to representative democracy?

The Iranian theocrats had been very careful to disguise the luxury of their existence. In a land awash with international oil money, yet still economically castrated by the greed of an authoritarian elite, indulgences must be shielded from public sight. The Ayatollah had inherited a population groomed by our Shah to accept their poverty, an acceptance the new residents of the caliphate's palace were determined not to mismanage. However, this turmoil was not – immediately and directly – founded on a simple disparity of wealth. This Iranian problem was arising from a newly revealed disparity of entitlement. The hoarding habits of a few greedy mullahs might have subsided quietly, but the people in the streets of Teheran now felt disenfranchised.

In the United States, similar revelations were unfolding. The privileges of CEOs of health insurance corporations were unexpectedly “uncovered.” While the masses of Americans were either uninsured or cruelly deceived by the insurance they were buying at an ever increasing price, they discovered that executives were being paid as mush as $5,000 and hour, amassing in one day a greater sum than their victims could hope to earn in a year. In lock step with their Iranian peers, these “free market” giants had always previously guarded their secret lives, and especially, their secret avarice for unbridled power and fortune. The daylight was, well, uncomfortable to the cock roaches – whether Iranian or American.

Much like the “genie,” it turns out that these cockroaches could not be “replaced in the lamp,” either.

5. The chilling reality of “class war” in Iran and in the United States:

The outcome in Iran and the outcome in the United States shared yet another common feature. In both cases, quiet, deeply held beliefs were submitted to a conceptual meat grinder. In Iran, minor difficulties living under the theocracy had been patiently set aside previously. Although this part of the Iranian situation is one which is a dismal constant in nation states which continue to extract legitimacy from revolutions, in Iran there had been some actual improvements since the Shah's stumbling abdication. These, for a while, justified the excesses of the Iranian revolution and the heavy handed suppression by security forces. However, the theocracy found those validations “too tired” among an unwieldy population of unemployed young people who had missed both the battles with Sadam and the unelected Shah.

What became all too clear in the demonstrations following the election was that there had always previously been at least one additional justification for the oppression. That was the paranoia of the theocrats. The clerics had been a marginally religious, secretive elite of power brokers intent on operating every bell and whistle in the entire Islamic Republic to their own benefit. The protesters on the street may have “unofficially” realized this, but the reactionary response of the election doubters brought the image to the very front row. The Iranian public finally realized that, quite aside from the carefully crafted counter revolutionary forces and colonial interventionists, they had been in the midst of a class war with their own religious rulers.

The election brought forth the inescapable conclusion that the Iranian people had lost that class war and were now in the cultural doldrums of the vanquished. The Theocracy had carefully gathered every tiny bit of social power and was hoarding it like an old woman with her farthings. The Iranian population had remain passively malleable as the theocracy had introduced one external threat after another, but, riding the wave of a new, brave awareness after Obama's speech in Cairo, they had proved to have much less of an appetite for simply walking quietly back into the night after the fraudulent presidential election.

Meanwhile, across the ocean in the United States, new players had emerged on the political scene. Although they remained nameless, the common population could still confidently identify them by their uncounted, tax free billions. They were literal dynasties of ill gotten gains. The fact that the health care debacle forced them into the sunlight was only mildly troubling to them. Their comfort arose from their idea that no constitutional process would ever allow the common people to “reach” any of their money. Just as was the case with the ill prepared mullahs, the fear of losing their “franchise” as owners of the United States began to loom larger and larger. The response of reactionaries in such cases is to be even more reactionary.

However, such a state of economic hierarchy did not sit well with the voters. They had been bombarded with difficult to consolidate facts about this horde of predators during the election, the stimulus, the auto bail out and the banking pay-off, but the totality of the situation had, previous to the health care matter, remained conveniently discarded as possibly true but stoically inconvenient to consider too long or too seriously. The people of the United States had been informed of the magnitude of the outrage, but, hypnotized by the fraudulent media, they had succumbed to a silent acceptance of its inevitability.

An American Class War? An exaggeration? Sobering up, the American citizens took another look at the numbers, this time with what they had experienced from this crowd during the health care debate. 400 of the richest Americans had increased their net worth by $630,000,000,000 ($630 billion) during the Bush autocracy. In the depths of the economic collapse of 2008, the top 1% of the population had incomes exceeding the total of the lower 50% of the people.

The entire U.S. economy was shuddering helplessly as a comatose victim of greed and corruption. Laying aside all the complicated answers as to the cause of such a global plague, the salient features paint the picture well enough. The Bushites had managed to extract roughly $3,000,000,000,000 ($3 trillion) dollars from the economy. The “books” had been thoroughly cooked. A trillion dollar tax cut for the very top end wealthy had been covered with borrowed money. The trillions of dollars of expenses for the two wars were also paid for with borrowed money, but never put on the books of the Federal Budget. The Treasury had been ruthlessly emptied. The rich were richer, and everyone else was ordered to do with less.

For the first time during the health care debate, common citizens were staring at a Senate almost completely owned by these billionaires. Before, these voters thought they could still induce the government to do what they wanted in the democracy. After the health care matter was utterly trounced in the Congress, the U.S. citizens began to have the same impression of things that their Iranian counterparts did. There had been a class war in the United States, and the citizens of the country had lost. The visible issue was that, regardless of what they wanted, they would have the health care that the billionaires decided they could have. You know, class war.

The Iranian dream of representative democracy was shattered. Soon the bumbled election moved to the back seat, and the Iranians in the streets were mad not about the election, but about the government. The American dream of fair treatment in the representational democracy was also shattered. The frustration about the health care legislation began the avalanche, but, expanding, it moved quickly into the exposure of corruption in the United States House and Senate. The corruption which “sneaked through” the colossal media fraud reporting it produced United States citizens who were over the health care crime, now focusing on – like their Iranian counterparts – larger issues.

6. The outlook for an uncertain future:

History offers two alternate outcomes for situations such as these. In one case, the momentarily sensitive hides of the voters simply become numb again, edging back into the state of hypnotic acceptance. In the other case, well, let's just say that hypnotic acceptance is no longer the “coping tool” of the voters. The reactionaries have already lost control of their instigators.

It is the studied opinion of MeanMesa that the course of events will pursue the second path. The violence has already begun. The electorate is infuriated. One reactionary Congressman, speaking and writing far too much for those with such a shaky strategy, said that he hoped the health care contest would be Obama's Waterloo. Well, there is to be a Waterloo, but it will not be Obama's.

With the American population already incoherent at the depth of their wounds from the economic collapse, they are in no mood for maudlin dramatics. The Republicans have self-destructed. When the U.S. economy takes its final plunge for this recession sometime in September or October of 2009, and any manageability – even previously imagined -- over the electorate becomes no more than a distant, ancient dream, the reactionary billionaires will become even more reactionary, that is, even more self-destructive.

The cynical division which was the result of the Bush autocracy's attempts to validate its unelected status has a certain new, overly odorous, special quality now. The “sides” are no longer sectioned by politics or ideology, but by psychology. The “brown shirts” of the now deposed autocracy, populated to a man by hillbillies, crooks and bigots, jumped on the command from their reactionary masters to a sort of brief effectivity two weeks ago when they began wrecking town hall meetings, but now, accidentally inebriated by the mishandled media, they are out of control. Although both the “foot soldiers” and the party leadership (Rush Limbaugh?) have now become grotesque, unwanted guests at the country club, all their feet still stink. For their billionaire masters, all these thugs have migrated from being slightly useful to being an endless public relations toothache. There are no opportunities left for which they might serve.

We are certain that the Iranians have not finished with their complaints about the theocracy. Here in the United States, a similar development is unfolding. Obama gets this. He has no intention of succumbing to the traditional corruption he was elected to counter. How will it turn out? Hide and watch.

Iran: The Mystical Glory of “Reciprocal History”

A lesson for Americans unfolds in the streets of a great Iranian city. 100

Greetings to the people of Iran. Thank you for reminding us of the nature of leadership. Thank you for reminding us that the special leadership which changes history arises from the common sense at the foundation of culture and not from the sterile, frightened, ideological ambitions at the top.

Thank you for your sacrifice. Thank you for reminding us that following is an honorable equivalent to leading. Thank you for reminding us that ordinary citizens actually do have the time to perform the work of leading themselves, the ordinary insight to direct their futures and the ordinary knowledge to discern the true from the false when they awake and strive for such great things.

In our proud history, the United States sent the entire world the vivifying glimpse of freedom, then it sent that same whole world our very worst face right behind that glimpse. We have extracted, coerced, manipulated and suppressed your dreams and put the results in the banks of our most greedy and least honorable. We have imprisoned the men you elected. We have watched while our lowest neighbors have corrupted entire countries for cheap oil and labor and stolen for themselves every crumb of your dreams for your own future and the future of the lives of your children and families.

We watch these same hollow, fearful Americans attempt to turn even your bravery and suffering to an advantage for their politics. “Intervene or you’re soft on freedom!” they wail.

But now, we find ourselves stranded in the disaster we made. We see the broken faces of the shocked victims of our "depression" staring blankly through the smoke of our own avarice, our own rampage, as it passes through Europe and Asia like a plague, devouring their lives and fortunes. Their futures. Their lifetimes of work and prudence. For a whole generation.

Worse, we see ourselves numbed by the final realization of the scope and gravity of what Americans have done, astonished that we could have allowed our countrymen to inflict such immense harm while blindly watching, seeing only our lofty, spoken claims, not the substance of such horrible acts. As a country, we find ourselves stupefied in a hangover, haunted by growing waves of realization, inescapably trapped by history. All our "knowledge" turns out to be nothing but a shabby deception. At this sobering moment, we find our thoughts too soiled, too horribly manipulated, to understand Iran, the "axis of evil."

Why do these people hate us? Can it be that they are so unfair? Hardly.

Iran, you have grasped the dream we have forgotten. To every one of you with a bloody back or a broken knee in the streets of Teheran, we salute you. Now, after you have followed our magnificent dream, it is time for us to return to our lost honor, to, this time, follow yours.

Enough said, America.

We might yet avoid what we see in Teheran in our own cities, but we will not avoid it sitting abashedly in our houses. We Americans still have the wounds and scars of letting the same sad pathos of profit and power almost wrest our nation away from us. Our adversaries are temporarily at rest, licking their wounds, but still filled with that same blood frenzy, that same predatory ambition of completing what they only barely failed to finish before last year. They plan to enslave us with either our own fears or, shockingly, with our own lethargy.

These wretches have divided us against ourselves with the dream of creating an Iran here, not a theocracy per se, but an unassailable oligarchy embued with an equally ominous perfidy. They think that, with the election of Obama, we will once again drift back to a state where we are too occupied to care what they take from us. They are out there in our midst, skulking, hiding behind their billions and dreaming of owning our souls.

What’s left but Shakespeare?

With Julius Caesar destroyed in the Senate, the Roman Republic slides into civil war at the battle of Phillipi from which it will emerge an Empire. Marcus Brutus, friend and assassin who faces defeat in the coming battle, speaks:

That we have tried the utmost of our friends,
Our legions are brimful, our cause is ripe:
The enemy increaseth everyday;
We, at the height, are ready to decline.
There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea we are now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
or lose our ventures.

William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Scene III.

Now, who feels like just sitting there until we are Iran?

MeanMesa suggests a posting on this blog which provides a historical overview of the present conflict: "Comprehending Iran: The Nuclear Power"

http://meanmesa.blogspot.com/2009/06/comprehending-iran-nuclear-power.html

Comprehending Iran: The Nuclear Power

Does this look like the beginning of President Obama's Iran problem? Read on ...

George Bush, "Master of Disaster," and the "gift" that just keeps on giving. 96

MeanMesa finds too many of our younger acquaintances dangerously unfamiliar with the recent history and the geopolitical challenges President Obama must face with the Iranian nuclear situation. Consequently, this long post hopes to fill out that understanding with at least a few of the more important aspects of the puzzle. If you are already comfortably informed about the situation, just relax and wait for the next Short Current Essay after this one! Otherwise, spend a few minutes coming up to speed on the Iranian situation in preparation for President Obama's speech to the Islamic world this week in Cairo, Egypt.

Elections have consequences. So do revolutions. President Obama faces a troubling Iran (and a troubling Pakistan, a troubling Afghanistan, a troubling North Korea, and others, but this post is about Iran) which seems intractably intent on developing its own nuclear weapons.

As with many of the events of the Bush autocracy, public opinion about Iran’s ambitions has been tragically diverted from any sort of informed, rational understanding to the modern equivalent of an invitation to a dog fight. The well crafted misrepresentation sacrificed U.S. national security interests for the sake of political advantage with domestic opinion. This claim could be no more than another lambast at George Bush if the stakes weren’t so high.

However, as it stands, the psychopathic ambition of George Walker Bush and his opportunistic servants has now grown to such a grave severity that merely pointing to the autocrat’s failings is, probably, far too generous. What confronts President Obama and this country is now a blood feud, and some of that blood may well prove to be American blood, that is, more American blood than has already been shed because of it.

Let’s take a MeanMesa look at it from three different perspectives. First, we can review the inflammatory, Bush Presidential Lies and their outcome both on public opinion and on national security. Second, we can consider what this looks like from the point of view of Iran. And, third, we can consider what possibilities may yet exist for a successful conclusion to a shocking, pointless and reckless provocation on our part.

A Quick Overview of Iran in 2009

There is no such thing as a brief history of Iran. An historical survey would begin earlier than 7,000 B.C., roughly the date of the first written history of the place. Our glimpse into the background of this matter will, of necessity, deal exclusively with far more recent events. First, a little geography. This is a good point to disabuse ourselves of any idea that Iran is somehow similar to Iraq.

Size: 18th largest country in the world, 1,650,000 square kilometers.
Population: 70 million (Iraq has a surviving population of 22 million)
Neighbors: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Russia,, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey and Iraq.

The southern coast of Iran abuts the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. The Strait of Hormuz where significant shipment of the world’s oil passes in tankers is bound on the north by Iran.

The country is now the Islamic Republic of Iran. The government came to power after the overthrow of Shah Pahlavi in 1979 when the U.S. Embassy in Teheran was taken and its staff held hostage for 444 days, ending with the election of Ronald Reagan in the United States. Current "conspiracy history" in the United States claims that Reagan, in a political move to discredit the then former President, Jimmy Carter, asked the Iranians to keep the hostages until the day of his inauguration, which they did.

Current government officials:
- Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
- First Vice President Parviz Davoodi
- Chairman of the Assembly of Experts and Expediency Discernment Council
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani
- Speaker of the Majlis (Parliament) Ali Larijani

Part One: American Blood -- The George W. Bush “Church of Death”

The Government of George W. Bush, deeply entrenched with private oil interests in the U.S., openly invaded Iraq where approximately one fifth of the proven reserves of the planet are located. We all know this part of the story. After six years of criminally bad military policy, those oil interests signed the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Treaty with western oil companies, making the invasion a “success.” In 2009 it has become sickeningly apparent that every alternative pretense offered to legitimatize that invasion was entirely fraudulent. U.S. combat fatalities are currently around 4,500 and combat injuries around 25,000. Iraqi deaths resulting from the invasion are estimated by Lancet (British Medical Journal) at 1 to 1.6 million.

Naturally, George Bush and his friends were interested in further military conquest of Iranian oil. Iran has proven reserves of approximately 10% of the planetary supply.

After 911, the government of Iran assisted the U.S. in the invasion of Afghanistan. However, even before George Bush began his criminal conspiracy, Iran already had a very suspicious outlook on the U.S. The country of Iran had been treated badly since World War II. In 1941, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran, forcing the ruler, Shah Pahlavi (Sr.) to abdicate in favor of his son, Shah Pahlavi (Jr.).

In 1951 Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and, amidst Cold War fears, invited the United States to join in a plot to depose Mossadegh, and in 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mossadegh was arrested on 19 August 1953, returning the monarchy of Shah Pahlavi (Jr.) to power.

That was the last open election in Iran. Shah Pahlavi (Jr.) and his secret police, SAVAK, began a reign of terror happily sponsored by U.S. and European oil interests. Shah Pahlavi had expensive habits for such a poor country. His “Birthday Party,” held shortly before his overthrow, was an extravaganza in the Persian desert estimated to cost $3 Bn. (U.S.). He was replaced by Ayatollah Khomeini who returned to Iran from exile and founded the Islamic Republic.

During his reign, Shah Pahlavi (Jr.) managed to torture and maim every Iranian who was not his “friend.” His “friends” prospered incredibly. After the revolution, most of them moved into mansions in Beverly Hills. Ayatollah Khomeini managed to torture and maim everyone who was not his “friend” after he took over the country. He stopped all oil shipments to the U.S. in retaliation for what the CIA had done to his country and its citizens -- which, it turns out, was quite a bit.

Ayatollah Khomeini, the first Supreme Leader of the Iranian theocracy, nationalized Iranian oil (again). When he died, the current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei came into power.

Enter George W. Bush. Although Iran had been a U.S. ally in the invasion of Afghanistan, he quickly added Iran to his famous “Axis of Evil” in his State of the Union address. Everyone was listening, and everyone, including the Iranians, heard him.

It was a “perfect storm.” The Iranian theocrats found themselves in charge of a dangerously wrecked economy. All their oil wealth was, as usual, directed to the elite while the rest of the country had to make do. The madman in the White House had begun to make regular threats of military action against them through his Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, his Secretary of State Rice and his Vice President, Dick Cheney. The Iranians could see what the Americans had already done in neighboring Iraq, so they took all of this very seriously. The Iranians knew that when George Bush (Jr.) looked at their country he was dreaming of another very profitable Hydrocarbon Treaty in the near future. Their near future.

There were complications. The Iranians had just finished an awful, eight year war with Sadam Hussein. This war was extra stinky. Iranians are mostly Shi’a Muslims, and Iraq also had a majority of Shi’a citizens. Sadam had been violently brutal in order to get his Iraqi Shi’a to fight their Iranian Shi'a neighbors. Iraq, under Sadam, was run by Baathists who were from the minority Sunni religious population in Iraq, even though they ran the country -- especially the Iraqi Shi’a -- with an iron fist.

Often compared to the military profile of W.W.I, the Iranians lost approximately 700,000 combat dead and the Iraqi’s lost about 500,000 combat dead. Both sides invested roughly one half trillion dollars (US) in the conflict. The combat losses are interesting when translated into respective proportions of the populations of each country and then calculated with respect to the US population.

Having a well equipped, modern military has its advantages.

The Iraqi military under Sadam was generally regarded as one of the most powerful in the world thanks to its far superior equipment and weapons. The United States had also helped Sadam by selling him poison gas bombs which he dropped on both the Iranians and some of his own citizens, the Iraqi Kurds. These sales were, initially, the basis of the famous “weapons of mass destruction.” Bush’s additional claims about Sadam’s nuclear arms development were all lies. In any event, the Iranians faced very bad equipment disadvantages -- tanks, artillery and air craft -- thanks to the US sponsored UN sanctions which embargoed most military resupply after the embassy incident and the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

Worse, after the revolution huge numbers of Iran’s brightest and most successful had fled the country. This exodus was partly due to the rather unpleasant attitude of the new government toward everyone who had done well under the Shah, and partly due to the nearly collapsing Iranian economy where opportunities had been vaporized by the cost of the war with Iraq and abysmally poor economic planning by the theocracy.

But then, George Bush, enthralled by the possibility of owning a fifth of the world’s oil, turned on Sadam, making him one of the three players in the “Axis of Evil.” The unelected psychopath in charge of the world’s greatest military force had already decided that the Afghans who resisted the United States were both evil and criminals (no P.O.W.’s for this nut case -- Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib) and he effortlessly marched ahead to condemn Iranians with the same “broad brush.”

The Talaban running Afghanistan had refused a pipeline offer from Chevron apparently hours before the 911 attack. And Sadam’s secret police had attempted to assassinate George Bush’s father while he was celebrating the victory of his “liberation of Kuwait” with the Sheik, the owner of that country. That assassination attempt on his father had spurred an extremely unhealthy adolescent “family pride” crisis between Bush (Jr.) and Sadam which ultimately sealed the fate of that Baathist dictator. Naturally, George Bush was searching for a similar avenue in his military threat gambit with the Iranians, and they knew the gravity of the threat by watching what had happened to their neighbor.

Part Two: The Terrified Iranian Theocracy Responds

After every revolution there is always a lot of “cleaning up” to be done. The Iranian theocratic government immediately took strong, violent domestic steps to secure the country which was still well populated by Iranians who had done well under the Shah. The war with Iran had cut deeply into the middle aged male population, leaving the new government with the problem of an unusually large percentage of young men. Revolutions are seldom beneficial to local economies, and after this one there were far too few jobs for such a large number of young people, making the exercise of government control even more difficult. The average age of the population of Iran today is around 25 years, as mentioned before, thanks largely to the war with Iraq.

Further, the half a trillion dollars ($500,000,000,000) spent to conduct the war had flattened even the oil rich revenues of Iran. Now, the young Islamic theocracy found itself with roughly the same military obstacles which had prevailed when Sadam’s Iraq had first invaded Iran in 1980 at the start of the Iran Iraq War. Although there were plenty of young men in Iran to enlist in an army, there were terrible shortages of just about every kind of military equipment and supplies.

To make matters even more threatening, the US autocrat and other voices in his government were now consistently intimating that “there was simply no way a military strike on Iran could be avoided.” Here in the United States, the “talk on the streets” was firmly anchored on the question, “Will we invade Iran?” The reactionary media, along with the neo-con talk show hosts pumped that theme daily for a number of years during the Bush autocracy. In addition to that constant harangue, every effort was being made to blame Iraq for 911.

Although Iran had nothing to do with 911, and, in fact, had assisted the United States in the invasion of Afghanistan, the fire brands had managed to escalate the public suspicion of all Muslims to a fever pitch. The Iranians saw the obvious. As for US public opinion, facts meant very little. The cheaply fabricated Iraq-911 connection had already sold like “whores in a lumber camp” amid all the uninformed US voters long enough to initiate the conquest of Iraq’s oil. They knew that a similar fabrication, this time lubricated mainly by resurrected memories of the embassy take over and gleefully spiced with claims of the murderous involvement of Iran in the IED’s killing American troops in the Iraq invasion force, could place Iran in the same predicament that Sadam had so unsuccessfully faced.

The theocracy dragged out their ancient Persian chess board and sized up what possible strengths remained in their severely handicapped geopolitical position. Iranian sponsorship of Shi’a troublemakers such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon was quickly stepped up, generating the quite predictable psychotic response from George Bush, Jr. and fomenting even more inflammatory statements and policy in the US. For an example of how this worked, Iran began to pump primitive rockets to Lebanon through Syria to be used on Israeli targets. This finally resulted in the bloody war between Israel and the Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

“Somebody” assisted the Syrians with what was claimed to be a nuclear bomb factory, and the Israelis flew a unilateral air attack to destroy the facility. The Iranian sponsored Hamas in the Gaza strip found a ready supply of their own primitive rockets arriving daily through the tunnels they had built across the Egyptian border in the south. At first, Israel provided a surrogate target for Iranian hostilities which would have been made more directly against the United States if they had simply had more military stuff which could be used against the US invasion army now hopelessly stuck in the Iraq war next door.

Israel’s relationship with Iran occupies the road weary axiom of being “driven into the sea” based primarily on the very modern hybrid model of Israeli Arab relations which was carefully groomed by each aspirant colonial power since the 1940’s. However, Israel bombed Sadam’s reactor before the first Iraq War and Syria’s reactor within the last few months. The Jewish State, even though globally famous Jewish physicists have assisted every present day nuclear power with their engineering and design, is an unannounced nuclear member with very credible bomb inventories and delivery systems.

Unlike various other “bomb” holders, Israel also boasts a very effective and well equipped conventional force, the IDF. Military experts agree that Israel could dependably destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities with an air attack. And, just as Iran has publicly stated that it intended to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth,” Israel has publicly stated that a nuclear armed Iran would never be tolerated.

In the previous Israeli attack on Sadam’s reactor, the war planes flew over Saudi Arabia, which although armed, was unable to stop them. However, an attack on Iran would either take that Saudi route or a shorter one over Iraq. Although Iraq could not stop that over flight, its American invasion force might accomplish that. Any Israeli attack would be a sudden, decisive affair executed without warning. The situation is further complicated by Israel’s nuclear capability, presenting to the rest of the world the unpleasant choice of either a preemptive attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear future soon or a war of retaliation between the two states after the Iranians accomplish more progress on both their bombs and their short to intermediate range delivery systems later.

Naturally, George Bush’s “dance with disaster” not only spurred the Iranians to take whatever defensive or retaliatory measures possible, but placed two very large American armies within very credible range of those Iranian weapons.

However, for the Iranian theocracy, the “elephant in the living room” was the ugly combination of Bush’s domestic lie campaign inciting hatred of Iran in the American public and that same, now 150,000 strong, American invasion army a few miles away in Iraq. Quite aside from the Israeli difficulty, that mix could promise only a very unhappy outcome if the odds could not be changed somehow in favor of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Enter uranium enrichment. With technical help from Pakistan’s nuclear arms genius, Munir Ahmad Khan (trained as a nuclear expert in the United States), and well staffed with plenty of well educated technical scientists (Iran is one of those forty countries with an educational system producing superior outcomes to the United States), the Islamic Republic “opened the flood gates” for a maximum effort at developing a nuclear bomb.

Only with this concrete advantage accomplished, they thought, could they withstand the daily increasing threats of the Bush autocracy. Such an American attack and invasion could have been called the “Rush Limbaugh War.” A successful nuclear counter strike against the incoming troops would have placed Iran, although still the unavoidable loser in the conflict, on a pedestal among all the other Middle Eastern states who also hated America thanks to the work of our own autocrat.

The Iranian hope was that if this actually ever happened, “All hell would break loose.” It was not a bad strategic gamble given their unfortunate situation, although foreign policy disasters seemed never to bother the Bush while he was obsessed with taking someone else’s oil.

Part Three: America Returns to Stable Mental Health

Although the entire world literally breathed a sigh of relief after our election in November of 2008, the Iranians breathed slightly less than most others. Without the menace of the Bush psycopathy, they were stranded in an awkward spot of their militarization schemes where both their hoped for nuclear threat was more or less “stuck in the swamp” and their Holy War sworn enemy had suddenly disappeared from view on his tragic journey to the “dust bin of history,” most likely some place in Dallas.

Instead, they now found themselves facing an incredibly competent and popular Obama. Even the Limbaugh - Hannity crowd seemed to be slowly losing some of their righteous medieval steam in the face of a new maturity among the electorate. Here, we must frankly note a very interesting paradox. On the one hand, a half-witted U.S. invasion of Iran fired on by radio talk show hosts had probably been avoided. On the other hand, the sanctions initiated against them because of the nuclear effort, and, frankly, the cost of the effort itself, had only served to further aggravate their failing economy and their growing youth unemployment problems. Even their oil revenues were jumping up and down, out of control in a environment of OPEC fear of their threat and a global economic collapse which had gutted oil use -- and sales -- in every developed country.

What had once been a very useful threat from “Great Satan America,” was now becoming a really rotten investment. The Iranians, only recently inebriated with nuclear bombs and $160 a barrel crude, were now paralyzed and exhausted by a worn out jihad screaming forward in a frenzied dance -- now absent its traditional mean spirited enemy -- around what turns out to be a trailer park inching along on $50 a barrel oil. Worse, the new American President had very visibly and openly invited them to “talk.”

Frankly, Iran may actually develop a nuclear bomb with a few years. They may detonate it “North Korean Style” somewhere in their copious desert territory. Given even more time, they might finally perfect their intermediate range delivery missiles to a somewhat dependable state.

But then what?

They had invested heavily to promote themselves to the half wits in the Bush autocracy as totally suicidal Islamic extremists, completely willing to suffer any retaliation to attack Israel or the US invasion army in Iraq and to their Middle Eastern neighbors as the only state with enough resources and political moxy to stand up to George Bush's petroleum colonization plans. This re-imaging of theirs was a predictable response to the “long, sharp teeth” odor of crazy Bush war mongering, but, is there a coherent retreat scheme available to them now? One that might preserve some of their highly expensive efforts to get this far with their regionally selective portrayal of themselves?

As Americans, we are left with the matter of Iran nestled along with far too many others in the nest of calamities which are the legacy of the Bush autocracy. To make much headway in our effort to “get through” this one will require an astonishing advance in our national maturity.

And, there will be a price. It won’t be the “death of the White Christian World at the hands of Islamic fascists” price which was so fervently promoted by the Bush, but even in its most reasonable and rational form, what now confronts us will not become one of our past favorites, a “Winner takes all.” Pastor, coach, talk show host and reactionary will have to relinquish the national driver’s seat to make way for a serious, thoughtful, competent, adult rescue effort.

The previous “directors” such as Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bremmer will have to be prohibited from making any additional, explosive, antagonistic public remarks from their prison cells.

So what does “Iran: the Nuclear Power” actually look like from our seat here in the United States? Right off the bat we can assume that the more credible Iranian nuclear arms become, the less interested in ridiculously inflammatory voices such as that of the current Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the nation’s policy elite will become. With the exception of North Korea, that reassuring drift has been the model for recently nuclearized states such as Pakistan and India, for example.

More bombs, more maturity. More security, less ideology.

Further, although attaining nuclear arms is rather expensive, once they have been created, maintaining them is a real bargain. (See: H-Bomb Love Sonnets, Part One and Part Two, this blog) Once the cost savings are realized when compared to the price of sustaining a million man army, that military economy seems to spread to other issues, primarily, to a realization that very many social projects can be accomplished with the money being saved by those “nukes” parked in low maintenance silos.

The “more maturity, less ideology” concept will probably also quiet down the Iranian diplomatic rantings to a semi-cogent level as time passes. Even the “state suicide” proclamation will subside. The Iranians may well prove to be difficult ascendant leaders in the Middle East, but they will definitely move away from the “We all have bombs strapped to our chests and we’ll kill you because we don’t care what happens to us” image in favor of a more participatory international role, especially one which can result in increased employment and improved trade balances. Some “quiet time” will almost certainly see Iran having a growing interest in domestic manufacturing (other than H-bombs and missiles), better living conditions, a more stable and respected currency and even better profits from their belabored oil industry, now suffering technologically from the country’s isolation. Yes, there are already actually Iranians who, although they fundamentally support the theocracy’s investment in nuclear arms, can also begin to see that more H-bombs mean fewer sewers, schools and agriculture.

Completely crazy, suicidal Islamic Fascists? Not really. Although Bush Jr. and the United States seemed intent on instigating a nuclear attack on Israel and the US army in Iraq, the more any nuclear power has to lose, the more reluctant they are to launch such a first strike.

The most likely scenario is that this new nuclear power will quietly transform into a “nuclear poker game” role where there may continue to be clashes in the conventional weapons range, but the satisfying comfort and confidence of having those H-bombs will, in time, exert a moderating influence. There will certainly never be another Iran - Iraq war. There will almost as certainly never be some screwy, reckless American military invasion to effect an oil takeover.

All the parties are learning important lessons in “Exactly what’s worth what.” Including us.

Still, the New York Times, May 24, 2009, offered an editorial under the title “Have We Already Lost Iran?” “Already lost Iran?” Some of us are learning at different rates.

Obama is no one’s dummy. He is intent on assisting the electorate learn as quickly as possible the reality of possibilities with respect to our ideas about Iran, patiently sifting out the lies and liars who, for a while, were running around like cock roaches. He is also constantly offering the Iranians every incentive to return to a more objective stance, now that we have. They will require the time to pursue exactly what Obama is working on here. The conflict has gone beyond the rumbles of outright military aggression thanks to the introduction of possibly better alternatives for both parties.

Now, all that’s left is for us to grow up enough to accept the choices we actually have and rationally ponder our next decisions.

As usual, Wiki has extensive material available on all aspects of the Iranian situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_minorities_in_Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iran

and, anyone interested in the New York Times story can find it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24leverett.html?_r=1

For more photos of GWB drunk at the Olympics,

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/gw_bush_ghw_bush/news.php?q=1218479857

Google has endless articles and editorials about the subject. Be Informed!