Dublin Opinion

In the episode The Second Coming from the last series of The Sopranos AJ, Tony’s son, is caught by his sister checking out the Al-Jazeera website on his laptop (because he tries to hide his screen she presumes he’s surfing porn). She’s coming in to ask him if he wants to watch Borat with her again. He says something like: “that film exploited everyone in it”, to which his sister replies, ‘you loved that movie when it came out’. AJ has changed. He’s deeply anxious, reflecting perhaps the general anxiety pervading American since the post 9/11 instigated War on Terror. AJ is not so anxious about the threat of terrorism. Certainly not as much as Tony is when he agrees to help the FBI track down some Muslim gentlemen that he’s been doing business with. Rather, AJ is concerned with the general direction of US foreign policy.

After a moments silence AJ asks his sister: “Do you think Bush is going to bomb Iran?”

“Why are you even thinking about that?” she replies tersely. And it seems curious that he should, or rather that ordinary people like AJ should be worried about Bush bombing Iran. Surely that’s the concern of broadsheet commentators, major think tanks like Chatham House, Senate Committees and foreign policy wonks the world over. That such an event is even possible seems like untrammeled madness. That it appears imminent suggest that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.

So, Seumas Milne, part-time scourge of muscular liberals – those who insist upon protecting their cherished Western Liberalism by ditching the tenants upon which it is founded – is writing about it today and says that the level of noise being produced by the war mongers in Washington is reaching industrial level, so much so that its getting increasingly impossible to avoid.

But how could anyone be convinced that there is a justifiable reason for attacking Iran? Clearly the WMD thing is not going to wash – you can fool the public once, etc.

“What is becoming clearer is that the likely pretext for aggression against Iran has shifted from the possibility that Tehran might develop nuclear weapons to its role in supporting and allegedly arming the resistance in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration is increasingly convinced that it will be far easier to convince the American public of the case for war on Iran if it’s seen as being about the protection of US troops rather than nuclear scaremongering from the people who brought you Saddam Hussein’s WMD.”

Iran is a thorn in the side of the US’s plan for hegemonic control of the Middle East, but the irony is that the increasing influence of Iran, within Iraq (where it never had an influence) and with Syria (ditto) and Lebanon (where there was influence over Hezbollah, but now to the extent it has now) is largely due to the incompetence of the US Administration. The power in the region that Iran now has, especially within Iraq was provided by way that the US destabilized the country, suppressed the Sunni minority, who largely controlled the country through their dominance of the Baath party and provided the means for the Shia to run militias almost free-rein.

But what we are seeing now is a phony war, with the Iranians publicly talking about the possibility of an attack on Iran as a psychological ploy. But following a phony war, real ones are known to follow:

“Iranian leaders have dismissed the threat of attack as “psychological warfare”, and no doubt the US would prefer to bring Iran to heel through political upheaval in Tehran rather than by force. But current destabilisation efforts seem unlikely to succeed, and so, short of a sudden US embrace of genuine negotiation, the chances of war before Bush leaves office look high.”

I hope this is not true. Certainly, as I’ve argued before, while we are worried about Bush, we should be equally concerned about who might follow him if a Republican is elected in 2008. If Rudy – with his coterie of retro styled neo-cons – is elected, it won’t be a matter of if, but when.

And the result would be grim.

“What should not be in doubt is that the consequences of an attack on Iran would be devastating, both in the region and beyond. Iran has the reach to deliver an unconventional armed response in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf - as well as on the streets of London. The economic impact could be even greater, given Iran’s grip on the 20% of global oil supplies that are shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. It would also certainly set back the cause of progressive change in Iran.”

However fun it might be, in a weird way, to paint apocalyptic scenarios such as the use of unconventional weapons in a global guerilla war, the reality might be different. Much of this is talk. The US Administration knows it can’t handle a war situation with Iran. It is overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bombing of that country would bring an increasingly fractured nation together as a reactive force against US and Israeli interests (instead of bombing it back to the stone age - it would be more like bombing it back to 1980).

Certainly, Israel’s air attack on Syria doesn’t bode well, but let’s stop this crazy talk about bombing Iran. Its not going to happen. We shouldn’t even be thinking about it?

The Sopranos episode I mentioned at the beginning is called The Second Coming after the poem by WB Yeats. In it AJ sits on his bed and reads the Yeats poem a loud and it seems to echo all his misgivings and indeed, those of his country. I’d forgotten what a great poem it is and how famous so many of its phrases are. Also, it seems more than appropriate in the context of this talk of war, which is one of the reasons why The Sopranos was such a great show.

The Second Coming – William Butler Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

New Update: Actually, for a much clearer picture of Iran – US relations see The Victor? By Peter W. Galbraith in the Oct 11th edition of the New York Review of Books.

“The United States has two options for dealing with Iran’s nuclear facilities: military strikes to destroy them or negotiations to neutralize them. The first is risky and the second may not produce results. So far, the Bush administration has not pursued either option, preferring UN sanctions (which, so far, have been more symbolic than punitive) and relying on Europeans to take the lead in negotiations. But neither sanctions nor the European initiative is likely to work. As long as Iran’s primary concern is the United States, it is unlikely to settle for a deal that involves only Europe.
Sustained air strikes probably could halt Iran’s nuclear program. While some Iranian facilities may be hidden and others protected deep underground, the locations of major facilities are known. Even if it is not possible to destroy all the facilities, Iran’s scientists, engineers, and construction crews are unlikely to show up for work at places that are subject to ongoing bombing.

But the risks from air strikes are great. Many of the potential targets are in populated places, endangering civilians both from errant bombs and the possible dispersal of radioactive material. The rest of the world would condemn the attacks and there would likely be a virulent anti-US reaction in the Islamic world. In retaliation, Iran could wreak havoc on the world economy (and its own) by withholding oil from the global market and by military action to close the Persian Gulf shipping lanes.”

He points to the possibility of re-engaging on the terms suggested by the Iranian’s in 2003, when they made a secret offer to the US in May of that year. I’ve spoken about this before, but the Galbraith article is very even-handed and revealing.