|
|
 |
Follow the Money
// Old Advice is Still Good Advice
The future of world politics will largely depend on two questions. First, will the US attack Iran? Second, who will win the US presidential elections? These questions are interlinked.
There is a large array of arguments in support of the inevitability of war. First, Iran is making a nuclear bomb almost in plain sight. Also, a year ago the Iranian leaders at least pretended to listen to the advice of the international community (even if their performances were fairly clumsy). Now the masks are off. This is absolutely unacceptable for the current American administration, for it undermines the entire picture of the world as the neoconservatives know it.
Another argument is that war is the only way that George Bush can go for the brass ring and be relegated to history as a great warrior rather than a bumbling failure as a president.
Finally, the opinion of business is extremely important. It is clear that the faction of the American business world that is standing behind the current Republican administration is for war. First in line is the American military-industrial complex, which got its second wind in the run-up to Iraq. And in general, war gives the American economy a real boost: government tenders are posted and money is spent.
However, a counterargument can be found for each of these lines of reasoning. For instance, a certain fraction of the American political elite (and, incidentally, a significant number among its European counterparts) take a different view of Iran's nuclear potential. They reason thus: "So let Iran have a bomb, what's the matter with that?" They remember the notorious phrase "nuclear containment." Israel, India, and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, so why not Iran? And anyway, that assumes that Iran will acquire them sometime soon. At the very least, if you believe today's Iranian ideologues, a nuclear bomb is good as a means of improving national self-consciousness and guaranteeing the nation's self-defense against America, while actually using one is an affront to God and a violation of the law of Islam.
The closer the presidential elections approach in the US, the larger will be the number of prominent American politicians who firmly turn their backs on President Bush's worldview. Even for the majority of Republicans, the president is a lame duck who is seriously throwing them off their stride.
Finally, business. Companies that support the Democrats are apparently not thrilled about the possibility of another national mustering of all hands on deck. The new legislation introduced by the Democrats, including presidential candidate Barack Obama, is a fight against Iran "with a human face." Their proposed means of fighting obviously provokes nothing but irritation among Republican hawks. "What investments? What economic sanctions? Let's get going with the bombs already," they mutter.
The legendary "Deep Throat," the secret White House source that spoke to the journalists from the Washington Post who were unraveling the Watergate Affair, advised them to "follow the money." Once again, that's just the rule to follow. Though the White House has already drawn up most of its plans for its next war, one trifle could mess up all the cards: if business votes against it with its money. Obviously, that's how answers will be found to the two most important questions in world politics today.
Mikhail Zygar
All the Article in Russian as of May 18, 2007
|
|
|
