Friday, February 02, 2007

Zbigniew Brzezinski, "conspiracy theorist": A new 9/11 to justify an attack on Iran.

On February 1st 2007, , the Former National Security Advisor to President Carter addressed the Senate Committee On Foreign Relations.

Mr. Brzezinski seems worried, as well he might. This is a man who knows his Washington:


A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II.

7 comments:

  1. its strangely encouraging to see the CFR saying enough is enough, which shows how bad things are, but will it be enough?

    ReplyDelete
  2. warszawa8:42 AM

    The problem is, Paul: I'm sure the CFR knows just as well as the Bush Gang (and the Democrat leadership) that the US does not run on Coca-Cola. The world is running out of oil, China and India are not getting any less thirsty, the American way of life is not sustainable without massive bloodshed in the short-to-medium term, and the competition for the earth's remaining energy resources is not going to have pleasant consequences for the losers. As we see already, everywhere.

    Everyone in Washington knows this, so the Cheney administration has a very strong hand. "Why not strike now, while America is still top dog? Why wait till we're weaker?"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, I disagree about running out of oil, we have at least enough to cook our collective goose. The glimmer of hope I wishfully think about is that there is a powerful enough bloc who wish to secure what there is in a reasonably orderly fashion.

    Which, on reflection, I admit is unfairly optimistic.

    Its gruesome to think that in six months we might be living with the fact of a persian holocaust, just like life goes on after the controlled demolition of lebanon.


    Chalmers Johnson has a reasonably balanced take on things here (ie fairly bleak)

    ReplyDelete
  4. warszawa9:57 AM

    Sorry, "running out of" was a bit loosely expressed. I mean: demand (ever-increasing) has only now begun to exceed supply (ever-dwindling). Quite simply: something has to give - and it's not likely to be the US/British ruling class or the captains of global industry. Hence, war.

    The energy problem is the crux. I've just read a really brilliant article by Stan Goff on this whole complex of interrelated issues - energy, power, war, population, Marx and Malthus, and much more. The title is modest, but his analysis is very wide-ranging and goes very deep:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/goff08132004.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. ta, I'll read it when I get back in.

    Maybe there's a limit to what a I can contemplate, but then looking around at my totally hydrocarbonic existence, could be its war or peonage (or both)

    ReplyDelete
  6. abbass12:37 PM

    i agree withe warszawa that the energy problem is the crux. In fact I firmly believe Cheney knows we are already at or past global peak oil production and is serious about undertaking this Iran thing.

    Article worth reading

    Has anyone seen the oil prices of late? USD 30 is ancient history ; now $40 is considered "cheap".

    ReplyDelete
  7. I tend to go along with greg palast on this, a rising price in oil makes plenty of previously uneconomic sources (in a cock eyed way eg the canadian oil sands) viable.

    But, as it has leeched (or been direct injected)into practically every aspect of modern life, even if its running out there's still plenty to control.

    In fact genuine shortages make life sweeter for the dealers. Managed shortages would work just as well, no? The science of scarcity is where the juice is, after all.

    Of course it benefits bad guys like chavez and Ahmadinejad in the short term, but then you can deal with them diplomatically and militarily.

    Just obliterate them.

    The real problem for me,is how not to use and be controlled by a hydrocarbon way of life. In a world where you can ban smoking, anything is possible, but then it's also a world that spurned salter's duck.

    We'll run out of fresh water before oil in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete