Because You Never Asked

(5/07, Spain)

     This is the fifth time I’ve come to Spain since the war in Iraq began. The first four years always engendered essays meant to contrast the attitude of the Spanish press from that of America’s with regard to the tragic incursion. This gave rise to the “Escape From America” series (see essays with “escape” in its title), as well as numerous others. The purpose of these essays was to show how American journalism was lending itself to the propaganda push necessary to sell the war. By the third year of this, due to the obvious failure of the war itself, this concept had lost much of its relevance. By the fourth year, the demise of the series had already been forewarned by the writer, though he correctly predicted the war would still be going on and going badly when he sat down to write in Spain the following year.

     The following year is now, and trying to compare the Spanish press against its American counterparts with regard to the war has become thoroughly irrelevant. What more is there to say? In spite of the Bush administration’s stubborn immorality, the disaster is a consummated reality everywhere. The war coverage in Spain has been reduced to cable news articles enumerating casualties with the same ho-hum routine given the weekend soccer results. Iraq (at least the war itself) has become part of the furniture of news we know is there but pay little attention to.

     With the Iraq war, even in America, now relegated to the tomb of historical disasters, this lack of a tense dichotomy reduced my angst to see an American newspaper. What usually took no more than two weeks to manifest itself, was stretched to almost a month when I bought “The Trib” yesterday. But a great imperial power, no matter when or where in history, will never stop trying to justify itself. It didn’t take long for an American newspaper to offer some plump McNuggets of fast food party line rhetoric.

     The lead article on the editorial page of the May 25^th edition of the International Herald Tribune was about Iran, the Bush cadre’s next great enemy to rid ourselves of if we are to continue living happily ever after with the buffoonery of Terrell Owens and the succulent 99 cent cuisine offered at Burger King. It was written by one Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA  officer who is obviously an expert on these affairs (is that any name for a CIA officer? How about Brockton or Spencer?). It was a lengthy dissertation exhorting what is now a minority position warning against trying to engage Iran diplomatically (the Iraq Study Group being the flagship for the majority view). He feels any attempt to open a dialogue with the Iranians is a waste of time. He articulately sites many reasons why, including previous attempts by the Clinton government, as well as the general nature of the regime itself. Gerecht describes himself as “suspicious, cynical, hawkish”, and claims Iran’s Islamic rulers “understand nothing but brute force” (they seem to have this in common with the Bush government).

     It is not the purpose of this essay to dispute Mr. Gerecht’s opinions with regard to the Iranian government’s sincerity. He is far more familiar with this terrain than almost any of the rest of us could ever be. Maybe, as he says, it is a waste of time to talk to a regime of this nature (well heck, it was certainly a waste of time to talk to the United States before the Iraqi invasion. Maybe it takes one to know one?). But the real question, it seems, is not the nature of the current government in Iran, but why we have come into conflict with it? In spite of the depth of Mr. Gerecht’s expertise, he doesn’t touch upon this question. He is asking Americans like myself to support a possible military engagement with Iran simply because we wouldn’t want to be governed by this government, and he uses some tired rhetoric in trying to recruit us.

     First he appeals to our pride and fear. “The humbling of the U.S. remains the raison de’etre’  of Khomeini’s children, who still see themselves as the vanguard of a militant Islamic world”. As a citizen of Occidente, secure in my view of the world and without the faintest desire to exchange my culture for theirs, nor the least bit of envy for what they represent or have, I couldn’t care less what “Khomeini’s children” think of me-us. There is no way for them to “humiliate” me. From an emotional standpoint, there is absolutely no chance the Iranians have anything that could undermine the way of life Reuel Marc so fervently believes in. If we compare this to the threat once represented by the Soviets, we see there is no threat at all. The Russians were pushing an idea that had roots all over the world. It was an idea --- regardless of its wisdom, practicality, proper or improper implementation --- based upon a romanticized kind of universal justice, that resonated worldwide. It was an ideology that was a focal point of debate and conflict, such that everyone alive had to take the other side seriously, no matter where they fell on the ideological ledger. Each side had powerful ideas to sell.

     From an emotional-intellectual standpoint, Mr. Gerecht’s fear of a militant Islamic world is paranoiac. His socio-cultural idea is in no way threatened by Islamic militancy. There is no debate anywhere in Occidente questioning its form of life against that offered by Iran’s mullahs.

     In examining the military threat, one can only feel the same confidence in the western world’s security. When Gerecht talks of the Iranians as wanting to be in the “vanguard of a militant Islamic world”, there is a dose of ambiguity. If he means taking the dominant role within the Moslem world, one could be tempted to ask, “so what?” The power struggles within this huge entity should not be fundamental for our own security. But even if they were --- and for Gerecht and his ilk, they are, for reasons to be explained later in this essay --- the Iraqi war has brought clearly into focus the severe divisions within this vast and complex culture. Any one part of it trying to establish hegemony would run into a struggle that could keep it occupied for generations.

     If Mr. Gerecht means an Iranian attempt to lead a united, militant Moslem world in an effort to conquer the world for Islam, he could be a candidate for psychological evaluation. Given the almost non-existent attraction in Occidente for the socio-cultural personality of what Iran would be offering, such conquest would have to be a purely military one. The nuclear option could provide the paranoia the Gerechts of the world live off of, but I am immediately led to ask 3 questions: 1) how close are they to having such a device and being able to deliver it?, 2) in the unlikely case that this is possible, what would they do with it; start killing us all (including themselves) with nuclear attacks?, and 3) aren’t there more efficient ways to deal with Iran’s possible nuclear ability other than military aggression?

     In examining the conjunction of these 3 questions, Mr. Gerecht’s indirect calls for a military option in Iran, based upon the security concerns for the United States and the broader cultural concept it shares with its western relatives, seems twitchy-faced neurotic.

     It is relevant to note that since 1099, when Saladin liberated what we now refer to as Palestine from brief Christian rule, and taking into account some minor adjustments in Moorish Iberia and Ottoman southeast Europe, the boundaries between the Christian and Moslem worlds have almost been etched in stone. And this is why the forced imposition of the Jewish state in Palestine has been such a profound trauma for the Moslem world. With 50 years of hindsight, I’m sure the Occidental powers that crafted the Zionist solution after WWII, would now come up with a different way to accommodate the survivors of the great Holocaust. Unfortunately, at this juncture in history, there is no choice but to resolve the problem as it now exists.

     But the Israeli-Palestinian problem is not a geo-political problem, it is a purely emotional one. It is just a symptom made critical by the true geo-political disease that has become a nasty cancer in the Middle East. It is just this disease that people like Reuel Marc Gerecht never want to talk about. They have to write lengthy, convoluted articles like the one under discussion here in order to justify their homicidal arrogance.

     What he is really saying with this verbose editorial is that we cannot let a regime we have no influence over control a natural resource we are still pathetically dependent on.

     That’s right, ladies and gentlemen, the dreaded “o” word.

     But this doesn’t sell with the American rank and file, so they have to come up with some pathetic sound bite, something that appeals to our pride and patriotism, to try and get the war machine greased and running.

     Near the end of his article, Mr. Gerecht uses just such a manufactured sound bite in a desperate effort to get us in a fighting mood, one that degrades the high intellect he surely possesses. It is a “Rovian” type sound bite that has aroused little enthusiasm for the moribund carcass our military actions in the Fertile Crescent have become. But this hasn’t stopped “Reuel” from making it a part of his lexicon.

     He accuses Iran of “exporting explosive devices to Iraq that are killing American and British soldiers.”

     I don’t doubt the veracity of such a claim, but it subscribes to a moral ethic with no logic. Within Mr. Gerecht’s perverted view of the world, it is perfectly OK for his country to attack another country, without provocation, from 10,000 miles away, with 150,000 of the most well armed troops in the world, a country with which it shares virtually no cultural relation, leading to the horrifying death, destruction and chaos we are all familiar with by now, and yet ---

     A nation right next door to the conflict, a nation that shares a common religion and similar way of life with the invaded nation, is somehow doing something vile and punishable by providing explosive devices (not soldiers) to those resisting the invasion.

     The only reason American and British soldiers are being killed in Iraq is because they are there. I don’t defend the Iranian government, how it views the world and how it goes about its business. But that is not why we are in conflict with this government. The reason we are in conflict with this government and so many other elements that make up the Middle East, is a petro-geo-political concept that is already way past its prime. It is an athlete whose skills have begun to erode years ago, and people like “Reuel” have let this athlete play way too long. This athlete should have been replaced long ago.