- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Iran has stated repeatedly, when anyone appeared to be listening, that the goal of their technological programs, including their nuclear one, is to become the pre-eminent technological, scientific, cultural, and economic power of West and Central Asia. That's how it was sold to the Iranian people, and that's what they've told others, including the U.S.
They've also stated specifically on the subject of nuclear power that the previous offers, over the entire period since 1979, to hand them the processed fuel, build them the reactors for nuclear power, and monitor, as a "solution" to letting them have nuclear power but not weapons, has never worked because by the time the ink is dry on such agreements, whoever is signing them always fails to come through with the components and fuel.
They believe the world is acting hypocritically: The world claims it doesn't want a nuclear power in the Middle East or Central and South Asia, but doesn't mind Israel, Pakistan, and India. The world acts as if it becoming a technological, scientific, and economic threat is a problem, 'given its human rights record', but gladly forks over all the controls on technological, scientific, and economic supremacy to China.
The primary obstacle to defusing Iran as a threat is the belief in a permanent unipolar world with the U.S. as the single pole. Were we to entertain a multipolar world, we would easily see how we could integrate Iran's stated goals with our own, and even construct our usual 'constructive engagement' bullshit to go with it, like we do/did with Apartheid South Africa and with China, and with the Arab Oil Sheiks, and with.... Constructive engagement might even work, given that Iran is a very proud nation about culture, and that they have democratic underpinnings in place. Those two elements give public pressure more clout than in someplace like China which doesn't have much cultural opposition to autocracy.
What's astounding to me is that Barack Obama, by acquiescing to the unipolar world view isn't being conservative like the DLC, he's being more conservative than the DLC. That unipolar world view as a justification for the necessity to always have war on the table is the essence of the Project for a New American Century. Barack Obama is apparently striking a compromise between the DLC position and the PNAC position, which puts him far to the right of the only DLC president we've had, Bill Clinton, who turned down PNAC's letter demanding immediate war with Saddam Hussein in 1998.
Of course, the primary obstacle to a multipolar world in technology, science, economy, and culture is the belief by our major corporations that they shouldn't have to compete on techology, science, economy and culture. That's a harder nut, but one our domestic agenda president would probably be good at, if even one of his blue ribbon advisers was secure enough of their position in the 'meritocracy' to suggest it.
