Sanctions on Iran: Prelude to War or Revolution?

Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel at the UN General Assembly, 2012

During the recent United Nations General Assembly, the prime minister of Israel gave a memorable performance. Prime Minister Netanyahu repeated his usual warnings about Iran, this time with the help of poster with a cartoon bomb. Claiming that Iran will soon create a nuclear weapons program, he calls on the United States to commit to a "red line", a point beyond which there would be a military intervention. In other words, Netanyahu wants America to threaten Iran with war for the sake of nuclear nonproliferation, even though Iran is not actively developing nuclear weapons. Iran does not claim to have a nuclear weapons program, and US intelligence has found no evidence of such a program. However, Iran is developing its nuclear energy capabilities. Some argue that the abundance of oil and gas in Iran makes it implausible that the government would invest in nuclear energy unless they intend to later develop nuclear weapons. However real the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons is, the rhetoric used by Netanyahu and American politicians is a facade for what is part of a larger geopolitical struggle.

The hostile attitudes towards Iran among the United States and other western nations date back to the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Demonstrations against the Iranian monarchy headed by the Shah, who supported policies of westernization, rapidly grew into civil resistance and eventually armed conflict. Once the old regime collapsed, a new theocratic government called the Islamic Republic of Iran was established. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was proclaimed the Supreme Leader of Iran. Khomeini tried to distinguish the ideology of the Iranian Revolution from the dominant ideologies of capitalism and communism with the slogan: "Neither East, nor West – Islamic Republic!". From the beginning, the new Iranian state was at odds with the West due to its theocratic government and rejection of liberal capitalism. Relations became even more hostile during the Iranian hostage crisis, which was likely the result of US support for the Shah. It was clear that the Islamic Republic would use any means available to assert its sovereignty and oppose Western expansion into the Middle East.

Iranian election protests, 2009

The situation changed in 2009, when popular protests erupted once again in Iran. This time, the protests were in response to a disputed election result that gave Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a second term in office as President. The opposition Green Movement, headed by Miri-Hossein Mousavi, officially received 34% but claimed the vote was rigged by the government. So many members of the opposition poured into the streets, that the protests were soon dubbed the "Green Revolution". Although they failed to overthrow the government as had been done in 1979, protests erupted again two years later as the Arab Spring was spreading throughout the region. American hostility towards the Iranian government was once again made clear by a speech given by President Obama about the latest round of protests. Obama said:

"The future of Iran belongs to the young people – the youth who will determine their own destiny... You are not bound by the chains of the past – the distracting hatred of America that will create no jobs or opportunity; the rigid and unaccountable government; the refusal to let the Iranian people realize their full potential for fear of undermining the authority of the state. Instead, you – the young people of Iran – carry within you both the ancient greatness of Persian civilization, and the power to forge a country that is responsive to your aspirations. And though times may seem dark. I want you to know that I am with you."

Graph of Iranian currency exchange rate vs US dollar, 2010-2012

It seems that Obama was trying to encourage the protesters to overthrow the Islamic Republic and establish a more West-friendly government. When stated with such grandiose rhetoric, this seems like a noble goal. But since then, Obama has used reprehensible tactics to achieve this end: harsh sanctions against the mass of the Iranian population. Sanctions against Iran were initiated during the Bush era, in 2006, but Obama has intensified the sanctions to a much higher degree. Though the Obama administration describes them as "smart sanctions", affecting only the import of military goods by the government, the vast majority of Iranian civilians have nonetheless been affected. Recently, the effects of the sanctions have developed into a full-blown crisis, with the Iranian currency losing 80% of its value in one year sparking renewed protests. If their currency collapses, all bets are off for the future of Iran. While some believe the sanctions to be a means of weakening Iran for a US-led invasion, they are more likely aimed at triggering an Egypt-style revolution. From the perspective of Western interests, the best case scenario is one that opens up Iran's oil and gas exports to the West while leaving in place part of the old power structure to maintain regional stability. It remains to be seen whether the fate of Iran will benefit the United States and its allies, but what is certain is that the suffering of the Iranian people is far from over.

Sustainability, Planning, and the Commons

It is widely known that the current state of human civilization is unsustainable. Whether it's peak oil, global warming, or population growth, we all recognize that humanity faces some profound challenges in the near future. What is not known is how these problems will be solved. We lack not only the solutions, but also the means to find solutions. Our economic and political systems, which are inherently short-sighted, seem completely incapable of tackling such long-term challenges. Businessmen worry about their next quarterly review, and politicians worry about their next election. In both cases, decisions are being made based on what is in their own short-term self interest. What is missing in the system is planning, a method of making decisions for the common good. Without planning, we will never achieve a sustainable civilization.

Karl Marx

It should be noted that not all planning is central planning. By arguing for a system with more planning, I am in no way proposing another experiment in top-down decision-making like what happened in Russia in 1917.   Russian revolutionaries like Lenin, along with their intellectual guides like Marx, believed that the only way to create a just society for all was to have a "dictatorship of the proletariat". This idea had noble intentions, but it resulted in a totalitarian state with complete power. Some still argue that the achievements of the Soviets, for example in rapid industrialization and technological advance, prove the viability of communism. Others will point to the success of modern-day China, the heir apparent of the communist revolution, as evidence of the effectiveness of central planning. But in both cases, any benefits of planning came at a terrible cost. It remains to be seen whether China's prosperity will be sustainable, but even if it is, its political system leaves Chinese citizens with much to be desired.

Occupy Wall Street General Assembly, October 2011

What we need is a new kind of planning, one that is decentralized and democratic. Another way to describe this concept is bottom-up decision-making, as opposed to top-down. The most well known example of this in recent years is the Occupy Wall Street movement, which was a spontaneous serious of protests and encampments that appeared in Fall 2011 across America. The name defined the movement as having an anti-corporate ideology, but Occupy's greater purpose was to create an outlet for frustration and anger against mainstream politics. The reason the protests spread so rapidly is that there is no other outlet for such emotions, no meaningful source of accountability and redress from our current political system. The general assemblies held at Occupy encampments were almost shocking in their radical departure from the normal format of public discussion. There was usually no podium or stage, just a crowd of people on the same level. No one person had control over the flow of the conversation, it was determined simply by what people had to say. They used hand signals to communicate without speaking, and used the "human mic" to amplify whoever was speaking. Occupy was often criticized for not having specific demands, and there is some truth to this. A wide variety of political ideologies were represented in the movement, from old-style leftists to Randian libertarians. While all agreed that the system was corrupt, there was not always agreement on why it was corrupt or how to fix it. The lack of specific demands can also be attributed to the lack of a hierarchical structure. Because Occupy was inherently a leaderless movement, there was no person or group with the authority to declare something as the official demands. But this lack of leadership is also what makes the Occupy movement truly profound. The purpose of Occupy was not simply to argue for a certain set of solutions to our problems. It was to discredit the process of decision-making used in our political system, and to create a new process that can replace it. Their criticism is correct, and their process is promising. If more efforts like Occupy are successful, we have a chance to make the 21st century a golden age of progress. Until then, we will be like hamsters on a treadmill chasing cheese, seeing nothing but what's right in front of us.

Reaganomics: The End of Rising Wages

Graph of worker productivity vs wage and compensation, 1947-2007

For the past few years, the American economy has been in a prolonged period of stagnation. Since the financial crisis in 2007, America's poor economic performance has been described as a recession. Some claim that we are now having a slow recovery from this recession, while others think we are still in it. What is never mentioned in mainstream political discussions is the historical context of this recession. There is one statistic in particular that goes a long way in explaining what is happening in our economy: While average worker productivity has been steadily increasing for over 50 years, average wages and compensation have been roughly stagnant for about 30 years. The idea that everything was okay until just a few years ago is clearly not true. The stagnation we are now experiencing is simply the continuation of a decades-long trend. Getting back to "business as usual" will not solve the problems we face today, because it is the status quo that has brought us to our current situation. Improving our economy will instead require fundamental changes to our economic and political systems. Without such systemic change, we will continue on our current path of stagnation indefinitely.

Ronald Reagan

The causes of the stagnation we have experienced over that past 30 years are apparent when one considers the fact that a political revolution occurred at the same time. The so-called "Reagan Revolution" was a fundamental shift in both political policy and culture. A push towards policies of deregulation and small-government came along with an increased cultural emphasis on individuality and personal fulfillment. Whatever the intentions of these changes were, it is clear that they have had a negative effect on our economy from which we have not yet recovered. Corporations and wealthy individuals, who continued to benefit from rising profits, naturally saw the Reagan era as a positive trend. Workers who complained about the end of the rising wages they had been accustomed to were labeled as selfish, despite the fact that their productivity had continued to increase. Demands for policies to counteract the stagnation of wages were labeled as "redistribution of wealth", when in fact it was the status quo that was causing such a redistribution, but one in the opposite direction. The surplus revenue that had previously been given to employees in the form of rising wages and benefits was now being used to generate record corporate profits and massive bonuses to corporate executives. What followed could have been easily predicted: increasing economic inequality and political polarization which has continued to this day. 

To explain all of our economic problems as the result of Reagan's policies would be an oversimplification, of course. Stagnating wages are just one symptom of an unhealthy system, both in America and globally. There is another narrative that can explain this trend, which has long been known as an inevitable long-term challenge faced by human civilization. That challenge is to make our industrial civilization sustainable in a world without oil. With fewer and fewer new oil reserves being discovered, the urgency of transitioning to a post-oil economy is greater than ever. It seems inevitable that civilization will have to reduce its consumption of energy, and we can already see the beginnings of this realization in our political culture. There is an increasing emphasis on conservation and "living within our means", on both sides of the political spectrum. It may seem reasonable to ask people to be satisfied with their current standard of living, considering that oil is becoming increasingly scarce. But this justification of wage stagnation ignores the fact that worker productivity has continued to increase. Although the time may soon come when everyone must accept a more modest standard of living, the economic trends of the past three decades have not been caused by rising oil prices. If these trends are allowed to continue, however, the burden of sustaining a post-oil civilization will fall on the poorest and the weakest in society. With economic inequality reaching medieval levels, severe energy scarcity could mean a bleak neo-feudal society of haves and have-nots. The super rich will continue to live in luxury while the rest of us are left in a collapsing industrial civilization. The power structures will do whatever they can to preserve the political status quo as we transition to a sustainable economy. If they are successful, we will find ourselves living in a dystopian future with no end in sight. The Middle Ages was a period of stagnation, conflict, and oppression, and it lasted a long time. By the end of the 21st century, human civilization will be sustainable one way or another. The only question is what kind of society will be left to sustain.

The War on Oil-Producing Terror

World Trade Center attacks, September 11th 2001

On September 11th, 2001, America experienced a traumatic event. The collapse of the World Trade Center towers, combined with an attack on the nation's military headquarters, was so shocking to American citizens that it changed our entire world view. It created such widespread fear and panic that Americans became united around the common purpose of defending the nation. They were provided with a new enemy, the "terrorists", who were now perceived to be an existential threat to the United States. The most powerful military in the world was then deployed to fight a small, stateless, poorly equipped terrorist organization. The terrorists did not have tanks, jets, helicopters, aircraft carriers, or any other modern military hardware, and yet they were deemed to be a grave threat to America. More importantly, the terrorists were viewed as savages, who hate western civilization with religious fervor and are incapable of reason or negotiation. It was this caricature of the terrorists, as purely evil and irrational, that allowed Americans to cope with the trauma they experienced on September 11th. The idea that a human being, just like us, could be capable of murder and destruction on such a massive scale is so repulsive that we prefer to think of the culprits as subhuman. In truth, terrorists are, of course, just as human as anyone else. Denying the humanity of a nation's enemies prevents them from being understood, and makes the continuation of conflict inevitable. But there is a purpose behind this denial, beyond just providing a means of coping with a national trauma. The mainstream narrative of the so called "War on Terror" is just a facade for what has become an increasingly sinister chapter in American history.

The term "War on Terror" is often attributed to a comment made by President Bush just 5 days after the September 11th attacks, in a quote that quickly became an infamous example of American power being exposed for what it is. Upon returning from Camp David, Bush said that "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while". This quote is notable for two reasons, the first of which is his use of the word "crusade". In Western culture, a crusade is a struggle against forces of evil for the greater good. In Muslim culture, however, the word "crusade" has a much darker meaning. This difference in meaning is obviously a historical legacy, the result of differing perspectives in the Crusades of the Middle Ages. Because the Crusades were European invasions of the Middle East, Muslims rightly associate the word with a struggle for freedom against aggressive foreign powers. It is not surprising, then, that when Bush called the impending War on Terror a crusade, it evoked deep fear and anger in the Muslim world. The millions of people living in the Middle East became worried that the United States would punish all Muslims for the World Trade Center attacks. Their fears, tragically, would soon be proven true.

US mortar team in Afghanistan, December 2001

America's longest war began on October 7th, 2001, as US and NATO forces invaded Afghanistan in the immodestly-named Operation Enduring Freedom. For over ten years now, we have been occupying Afghanistan with the purpose of preventing the Taliban (the local Islamist government) from providing a haven for Al Qaeda (the terrorist organization blamed for September 11th). Although many politicians spoke about bringing democracy to the Middle East, the main motivation for Americans to support the war was to avenge the victims of September 11th and prevent another attack from happening. Two years later, Bush launched another war, this time against Iraq. The official purpose of this war was to secure the so-called "weapons of mass destruction" from Saddam Hussein, who was portrayed as a modern Hitler-like dictator. The unofficial implication was that Iraq was just like Afghanistan, another unstable country that needs to be occupied to prevent the spread of terrorism. In June 2004, Bush said "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda". Despite Bush's eventual denial of this relationship being part of the government's policies, public support of the war in Iraq was possible by the same fears that justified the war in Afghanistan. After the invasion of Iraq, public perception of the War on Terror expanded to a larger struggle to control Middle East. It was no longer just a reaction to the attacks of September 11th, it was a long-term struggle against those who oppose the United States and Western civilization. As the casualties accumulated, the wars became increasingly serious. In Afghanistan: 14,000 US and allied deaths (Taliban and Al Qaeda deaths unknown), 12,000 - 14,000 Afghan civilian deaths. In Iraq: 24,000 US and allied deaths, 28,000 - 37,000 Iraqi military deaths,  103,000 - 113,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. Estimates of the civilian deaths in Iraq vary greatly, with some being as high as one million. By any estimate, it is clear that the War on Terror had caused violence on a scale much greater than the attacks of September 11th. This violence, which has now spread to the entire Muslim world, was the realization of the Muslims greatest fears after hearing Bush's infamous crusade comment. The narrative of a coming "Clash of Civilizations", promoted by Western intellectuals like Samuel Huntington as well as Muslim extremists, was unfolding as a harsh reality in the Middle East. But the aggressive nature of the War on Terror reveals ulterior motives behind its humanitarian facade.

The fact that the War on Terror is being fought in the Middle East has two possible explanations. The one that the Bush administration and the mainstream American media would have us believe is that Muslim culture has fundamentalist tendencies and is thus prone to terrorism. Again, this mainstream narrative is a dehumanization of our perceived enemies that has no factual basis. It is also ignorant of the United States' historical role in supporting fundamentalist regimes in the Middle East. The other explanation of these wars is that there is something in the Middle East that the United States wants to control, a vast supply of oil. This explanation is more consistent with the history of American foreign policy since World War II, which has been a policy of projecting power across the globe to secure American interests. This strategy of global dominance has been explicit, despite its contradiction of traditional American values. Ever since Roosevelt promised that the "Arsenal of Democracy" would protect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, American foreign policy has been one of outright hypocrisy. The War on Terror, a series of invasions masquerading as either preventative anti-terrorism measures or humanitarian interventions, is no exception. The term is nothing more than an attempt to create a brand, an ideological framework, with which to disguise the latest phase of American imperialism. By any reasonable measure, it is the United States that is the greatest source of terror in the world.