Home

Preventing War on Iran

Comment by Larry Ross, April 7, 2007

Noam Chomsky gives an excellent analysis of the crisis, and how the US is building up fake accusations and justifications for war with Iran as it did to make war on Iraq in 2003.

He then offers a brilliant analysis of logical steps toward peace which would be supported by world public opinion as indicated in public opinion polls.

But I doubt if this brilliant solution will be allowed by those who control the power to wage wars and thereby destroy our world. They are on a collision course with Iran in pursuit of their vision of global domination, including control of the world's oil resources.

Nevertheless, Noam Chomsky's reality - that we all stand on the brink of World War III, and his vision of what our world could be instead, could inspire remedial action - if there is still time.

Obviously the article quoting Russian intelligence as predicting a US strike on Iran to be on April 6, proved wrong. When President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad graciously releasing the 15 British sailors it removed one of the excuses that Bush and Blair had constructed to make war on Iran.

However a large US military air, naval and ground force surrounds Iran. US war drum beating, demonising of Iran, and inventing justifications for war still emanate from the Bush Administration and are echoed by Tony Blair. So the crisis remains - that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III" as UK military historian Corelli Barnett warned.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chomsky: Preventing War with Iran

by Noam Chomsky, April 6, 2007

Stopping a war with Iran requires a strong organized popular opposition.

Unsurprisingly, George W. Bush's announcement of a "surge" in Iraq came despite the firm opposition to any such move of Americans and the even stronger opposition of the (thoroughly irrelevant) Iraqis. It was accompanied by ominous official leaks and statements -- from Washington and Baghdad -- about how Iranian intervention in Iraq was aimed at disrupting our mission to gain victory, an aim which is (by definition) noble.

What then followed was a solemn debate about whether serial numbers on advanced roadside bombs (IEDs) were really traceable to Iran; and, if so, to that country's Revolutionary Guards or to some even higher authority.

This "debate" is a typical illustration of a primary principle of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed -- or else. What you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief; the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe.

Continue.....