In the years of conscious, self-inflicted decline at home, \u201closses\u201d continued to mount elsewhere.\u00a0 In the past decade, for the first time in 500 years, South America has taken successful steps to free itself from western domination, another serious loss. The region has moved towards integration, and has begun to address some of the terrible internal problems of societies ruled by mostly Europeanized elites, tiny islands of extreme wealth in a sea of misery.\u00a0 They have also rid themselves of all U.S. military bases and of IMF controls.\u00a0 A newly formed organization, CELAC, includes all countries of the hemisphere apart from the U.S. and Canada.\u00a0 If it actually functions, that would be another step in American decline, in this case in what has always been regarded as \u201cthe backyard.\u201d<\/p>\n
Even more serious would be the loss of the MENA countries — Middle East\/North Africa — which have been regarded by planners since the 1940s as \u201ca stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.\u201d Control of MENA energy reserves would yield \u201csubstantial control of the world,\u201d in the words of the influential Roosevelt advisor A.A. Berle.<\/p>\n
To be sure, if the projections of a century of U.S. energy independence based on North American energy <\/strong>resources<\/a> turn out to be realistic, the significance of controlling MENA would decline somewhat, though probably not by much: the main concern has always been control more than access.\u00a0 However, the likely consequences to the planet\u2019s equilibrium are so ominous that discussion may be largely an academic exercise.<\/p>\n The Arab Spring, another development of historic importance, might portend at least a partial \u201closs\u201d of MENA.\u00a0 The US and its allies have tried hard to prevent that outcome — so far, with considerable success.\u00a0 Their policy towards the popular uprisings has kept closely to the standard guidelines: support the forces most amenable<\/a> to U.S. influence and control.<\/p>\n Favored dictators are supported as long as they can maintain control (as in the major oil states).\u00a0 When that is no longer possible, then discard them and try to restore the old regime as fully as possible (as in Tunisia and Egypt). \u00a0The general pattern is familiar: Somoza, Marcos, Duvalier, Mobutu, Suharto, and many others. \u00a0In one case, Libya, the three traditional imperial powers intervened by force to participate in a rebellion to overthrow a mercurial and unreliable dictator, opening the way, it is expected, to more efficient control over Libya\u2019s rich resources (oil primarily, but also water, of particular interest to French corporations), to a possible base for the U.S. Africa Command (so far restricted to Germany<\/a>), and to the reversal of growing Chinese penetration.\u00a0 As far as policy goes, there have been few surprises.<\/p>\n Crucially, it is important to reduce the threat of functioning democracy, in which popular opinion will significantly influence policy.\u00a0 That again is routine, and quite understandable.\u00a0 A look at the studies of public opinion undertaken<\/a> by U.S. polling agencies in the MENA countries easily explains the western fear of authentic democracy, in which public opinion will significantly influence policy.<\/p>\n Israel and the Republican Party<\/strong><\/p>\n Similar considerations carry over directly to the second major concern addressed in the issue of Foreign Affairs<\/em> cited in part one of this piece: the Israel-Palestine conflict.\u00a0\u00a0 Fear of democracy could hardly be more clearly exhibited than in this case.\u00a0 In January 2006, an election took place in Palestine, pronounced free and fair by international monitors.\u00a0 The instant reaction of the U.S. (and of course Israel), with Europe following along politely, was to impose harsh penalties on Palestinians for voting the wrong way.<\/p>\n That is no innovation.\u00a0 It is quite in accord with the general and unsurprising principle recognized by mainstream scholarship: the U.S. supports democracy if, and only if, the outcomes accord with its strategic and economic objectives, the rueful conclusion of neo-Reaganite Thomas Carothers, the most careful and respected scholarly analyst of \u201cdemocracy promotion\u201d initiatives<\/a>.<\/p>\n More broadly, for 35 years the U.S. has led the rejectionist camp on Israel-Palestine, blocking an international consensus calling for a political settlement in terms too well known to require repetition.\u00a0 The western mantra is that Israel seeks negotiations without preconditions, while the Palestinians refuse.\u00a0 The opposite is more accurate.\u00a0 The U.S. and Israel demand strict preconditions, which are, furthermore, designed to ensure that negotiations will lead either to Palestinian capitulation on crucial issues, or nowhere.<\/p>\n The first precondition is that the negotiations must be supervised by Washington, which makes about as much sense as demanding that Iran supervise the negotiation of Sunni-Shia conflicts in Iraq.\u00a0 Serious negotiations would have to be under the auspices of some neutral party, preferably one that commands some international respect, perhaps Brazil.\u00a0 The negotiations would seek to resolve the conflicts between the two antagonists: the U.S.-Israel on one side, most of the world on the other.<\/p>\n The second precondition is that Israel must be free to expand its illegal settlements in the West Bank.\u00a0 Theoretically, the U.S. opposes these actions, but with a very light tap on the wrist, while continuing to provide economic, diplomatic, and military support.\u00a0 When the U.S. does have some limited objections, it very easily bars the actions, as in the case of the E-1 project linking Greater Jerusalem to the town of Ma\u2019aleh Adumim, virtually bisecting the West Bank, a very high priority for Israeli planners (across the spectrum), but raising some objections in Washington, so that Israel has had to resort to devious measures to chip away at the project.<\/p>\n The pretense of opposition reached the level of farce last February when Obama vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for implementation of official U.S. policy (also adding the uncontroversial observation that the settlements themselves are illegal, quite apart from expansion).\u00a0 Since that time there has been little talk about ending settlement expansion, which continues, with studied provocation.<\/p>\n Thus, as Israeli and Palestinian representatives prepared to meet in Jordan in January 2011, Israel announced new construction<\/a> in Pisgat Ze\u2019ev and Har Homa, West Bank areas that it has declared to be within the greatly expanded area of Jerusalem, annexed, settled, and constructed as Israel\u2019s capital, all in violation of direct Security Council orders.\u00a0 Other moves carry forward the grander design of separating whatever West Bank enclaves will be left to Palestinian administration from the cultural, commercial, political center of Palestinian life in the former Jerusalem.<\/p>\n It is understandable that Palestinian rights should be marginalized in U.S. policy and discourse.\u00a0 Palestinians have no wealth or power.\u00a0 They offer virtually nothing to U.S. policy concerns; in fact, they have negative value, as a nuisance that stirs up \u201cthe Arab street.\u201d<\/p>\n Israel, in contrast, is a valuable ally.\u00a0 It is a rich society with a sophisticated, largely militarized high-tech industry.\u00a0 For decades, it has been a highly valued military and strategic ally, particularly since 1967, when it performed a great service to the U.S. and its Saudi ally by destroying the Nasserite \u201cvirus,\u201d establishing the \u201cspecial relationship\u201d with Washington in the form that has persisted since.\u00a0 It is also a growing center for U.S. high-tech investment.\u00a0 In fact, high tech and particularly military industries in the two countries are closely linked.<\/p>\n Apart from such elementary considerations of great power politics as these, there are cultural factors that should not be ignored.\u00a0 Christian Zionism in Britain and the U.S. long preceded Jewish Zionism, and has been a significant elite phenomenon with clear policy implications (including the Balfour Declaration, which drew from it).\u00a0 When General Allenby conquered Jerusalem during World War I, he was hailed in the American press as Richard the Lion-Hearted, who had at last won the Crusades and driven the pagans out of the Holy Land.<\/p>\n The next step was for the Chosen People to return to the land promised to them by the Lord.\u00a0 Articulating a common elite view, President Franklin Roosevelt\u2019s Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes described Jewish colonization of Palestine as an achievement \u201cwithout comparison in the history of the human race.\u201d Such attitudes find their place easily within the Providentialist doctrines that have been a strong element in popular and elite culture since the country\u2019s origins: the belief that God has a plan for the world and the U.S. is carrying it forward under divine guidance, as articulated by a long list of leading figures.<\/p>\n Moreover, evangelical Christianity is a major popular force in the U.S.\u00a0 Further toward the extremes, End Times evangelical Christianity also has enormous popular outreach, invigorated by the establishment of Israel in 1948, revitalized even more by the conquest of the rest of Palestine in 1967 — all signs that End Times and the Second Coming are approaching.<\/p>\n These forces have become particularly significant since the Reagan years, as the Republicans have abandoned the pretense of being a political party in the traditional sense, while devoting themselves in virtual lockstep uniformity to servicing a tiny percentage of the super-rich and the corporate sector.\u00a0 However, the small constituency that is primarily served by the reconstructed party cannot provide votes, so they have to turn elsewhere.<\/p>\n The only choice is to mobilize tendencies that have always been present, though rarely as an organized political force: primarily nativists trembling in fear and hatred, and religious elements that are extremists by international standards but not in the U.S.\u00a0 One outcome is reverence for alleged Biblical prophecies, hence not only support for Israel and its conquests and expansion, but passionate love for Israel, another core part of the catechism that must be intoned by Republican candidates — with Democrats, again, not too far behind.<\/p>\n These factors aside, it should not be forgotten that the \u201cAnglosphere\u201d — Britain and its offshoots — consists of settler-colonial societies, which rose on the ashes of indigenous populations, suppressed or virtually exterminated.\u00a0 Past practices must have been basically correct, in the U.S. case even ordained by Divine Providence.\u00a0 Accordingly there is often an intuitive sympathy for the children of Israel when they follow a similar course.\u00a0 But primarily, geostrategic and economic interests prevail, and policy is not graven in stone.<\/p>\n The Iranian \u201cThreat\u201d and the Nuclear Issue<\/strong><\/p>\n Let us turn finally to the third of the leading issues addressed in the establishment journals cited earlier, the \u201cthreat of Iran.\u201d Among elites and the political class this is generally taken to be the primary threat to world order — though not among populations.\u00a0 In Europe, polls show that Israel is regarded as the leading threat to peace.\u00a0 In the MENA countries, that status is shared with the U.S., to the extent that in Egypt, on the eve of the Tahrir Square uprising, 80% felt that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons.\u00a0 The same polls found that only 10% regard Iran as a threat — unlike the ruling dictators, who have their own concerns.<\/p>\n In the United States, before the massive propaganda campaigns of the past few years, a majority of the population agreed with most of the world that, as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has a right to carry out uranium enrichment.\u00a0 And even today, a large majority favors peaceful means for dealing with Iran.\u00a0 There is even strong opposition to military engagement if Iran and Israel are at war.<\/strong>\u00a0Only a quarter regard Iran as an important concern for the U.S. altogether.\u00a0 But it is not unusual for there to be a gap, often a chasm, dividing public opinion and policy.<\/p>\n Why exactly is Iran regarded as such a colossal threat? The question is rarely discussed, but it is not hard to find a serious answer — though not, as usual, in the fevered pronouncements.\u00a0 The most authoritative answer is provided by the Pentagon and the intelligence services in their regular reports to Congress on global security.\u00a0 They report that Iran does not pose a military threat.\u00a0 Its military spending is very low even by the standards of the region, minuscule<\/a> of course in comparison with the U.S.<\/p>\n Iran has little capacity to deploy force.\u00a0 Its strategic doctrines are defensive, designed to deter invasion long enough for diplomacy to set it.\u00a0 If Iran is developing nuclear weapons capability, they report, that would be part of its deterrence strategy.\u00a0 No serious analyst believes that the ruling clerics are eager to see their country and possessions vaporized, the immediate consequence of their coming even close to initiating a nuclear war.\u00a0 And it is hardly necessary to spell out the reasons why<\/a> any Iranian leadership would be concerned with deterrence, under existing circumstances.<\/p>\n The regime is doubtless a serious threat to much of its own population — and regrettably, is hardly unique on that score.\u00a0 But the primary threat to the U.S. and Israel is that Iran might deter their free exercise of violence.\u00a0 A further threat is that the Iranians clearly seek to extend their influence to neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, and beyond as well.\u00a0 Those \u201cillegitimate\u201d acts are called \u201cdestabilizing\u201d (or worse).\u00a0 In contrast, forceful imposition of U.S. influence halfway around the world contributes to \u201cstability\u201d and order, in accord with traditional doctrine about who owns the world<\/a>.<\/p>\n It makes very good sense to try to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear weapons states, including the three that have refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty — Israel, India, and Pakistan<\/a>, all of which have been assisted in developing nuclear weapons by the U.S., and are still being assisted by them.\u00a0 It is not impossible to approach that goal by peaceful diplomatic means.\u00a0 One approach, which enjoys overwhelming international support, is to undertake meaningful steps towards establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East, including Iran and Israel (and applying as well to U.S. forces deployed there), better still extending to South Asia.<\/p>\n Support for such efforts is so strong that the Obama administration has been compelled to formally agree, but with reservations: crucially, that Israel\u2019s nuclear program must not be placed under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Association, and that no state (meaning the U.S.) should be required to release information about \u201cIsraeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel.\u201d Obama also accepts Israel\u2019s position that any such proposal must be conditional on a comprehensive peace settlement, which the U.S. and Israel can continue to delay indefinitely.<\/p>\n This survey comes nowhere near being exhaustive, needless to say. Among major topics not addressed is the shift<\/a> of U.S. military policy towards the Asia-Pacific region, with new additions to the huge military base system underway right now, in Jeju Island<\/a> off South Korea and Northwest Australia<\/a>, all elements of the policy of \u201ccontainment of China.\u201d Closely related is the issue of U.S. bases in Okinawa<\/a>, bitterly opposed by the population for many years, and a continual crisis in U.S.-Tokyo-Okinawa relations.<\/p>\n Revealing how little fundamental assumptions have changed, U.S. strategic analysts describe the result of China\u2019s military programs as a \u201cclassic ‘security dilemma,’ whereby military programs and national strategies deemed defensive by their planners are viewed as threatening by the other side,\u201d writes Paul Godwin of the Foreign Policy Research Institute. \u00a0The security dilemma arises over control of the seas off China\u2019s coasts.\u00a0 The U.S. regards its policies of controlling these waters as \u201cdefensive,\u201d while China regards them as threatening; correspondingly, China regards its actions in nearby areas as \u201cdefensive\u201d while the U.S. regards them as threatening.\u00a0 \u00a0No such debate is even imaginable concerning U.S. coastal waters.\u00a0 This \u201cclassic security dilemma\u201d makes sense, again, on the assumption that the U.S. has a right to control most of the world, and that U.S. security requires something approaching absolute global control.<\/p>\n While the principles of imperial domination have undergone little change, the capacity to implement them has markedly declined as power has become more broadly distributed in a diversifying world.\u00a0 Consequences are many.\u00a0 It is, however, very important to bear in mind that — unfortunately — none lifts the two dark clouds that hover over all consideration of global order: nuclear war and environmental catastrophe, both literally threatening the decent survival of the species.<\/p>\n Quite the contrary. Both threats are ominous, and increasing.<\/p>\n _______________________<\/p>\n Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. He is the author of numerous best-selling political works. His latest books are <\/em>Making the Future: Occupations, Intervention, Empire, and Resistance<\/a>,<\/em> The Essential Chomsky<\/a> (edited by Anthony Arnove), a collection of his writings on politics and on language from the 1950s to the present, <\/em>Gaza in Crisis<\/a>, with Ilan Papp\u00e9, and <\/em>Hopes and Prospects<\/a>, also available as an <\/em>audiobook<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n