{"id":62894,"date":"2015-08-24T12:00:28","date_gmt":"2015-08-24T11:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=62894"},"modified":"2015-08-24T10:54:48","modified_gmt":"2015-08-24T09:54:48","slug":"the-iranian-threat-who-is-the-gravest-danger-to-world-peace","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2015\/08\/the-iranian-threat-who-is-the-gravest-danger-to-world-peace\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cThe Iranian Threat\u201d – Who Is the Gravest Danger to World Peace?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Noam<\/a>

Noam Chomsky<\/p><\/div>\n

20 Aug 2015 – <\/em>Throughout the world there is great relief and optimism about the nuclear deal reached in Vienna between Iran and the P5+1 nations, the five veto-holding members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany. Most of the world apparently shares the assessment of the U.S. Arms Control Association that \u201cthe Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action establishes a strong and effective formula for blocking all of the pathways by which Iran could acquire material for nuclear weapons for more than a generation and a verification system to promptly detect and deter possible efforts by Iran to covertly pursue nuclear weapons that will last indefinitely.\u201d<\/p>\n

There are, however, striking exceptions to the general enthusiasm: the United States and its closest regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia. One consequence of this is that U.S. corporations, much to their chagrin, are prevented from flocking to Tehran along with their European counterparts. Prominent sectors of U.S. power and opinion share the stand of the two regional allies and so are in a state of virtual hysteria over \u201cthe Iranian threat.\u201d Sober commentary in the United States, pretty much across the spectrum, declares that country to be \u201cthe gravest threat to world peace.\u201d Even supporters of the agreement here are wary, given the exceptional gravity of that threat.\u00a0 After all, how can we trust the Iranians with their terrible record of aggression, violence, disruption, and deceit?<\/p>\n

Opposition within the political class is so strong that public opinion has shifted quickly from\u00a0significant support<\/a>\u00a0for the deal to an\u00a0even split<\/a>. Republicans are almost unanimously opposed to the agreement. The current Republican primaries illustrate the proclaimed reasons. Senator Ted Cruz, considered one of the intellectuals among the crowded field of presidential candidates,\u00a0warns<\/a>\u00a0that Iran may still be able to produce nuclear weapons and could someday use one to set off an Electro Magnetic Pulse that \u201cwould take down the electrical grid of the entire eastern seaboard\u201d of the United States, killing \u201ctens of millions of Americans.\u201d<\/p>\n

The two most likely winners, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, are battling over whether to bomb Iran immediately after<\/a> being elected or after the first Cabinet meeting<\/a>.\u00a0 The one candidate with some foreign policy experience, Lindsey Graham, describes<\/a> the deal as \u201ca death sentence for the state of Israel,\u201d which will certainly come as a surprise<\/a> to Israeli intelligence<\/a> and strategic analysts — and which Graham knows to be utter nonsense, raising immediate questions about actual motives.<\/p>\n

Keep in mind that the Republicans long ago abandoned the pretense of functioning as a normal congressional party.\u00a0 They have, as respected conservative political commentator Norman Ornstein of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute observed<\/a>, become a \u201cradical insurgency\u201d that scarcely seeks to participate in normal congressional politics.<\/p>\n

Since the days of President Ronald Reagan, the party leadership has plunged so far into the pockets of the very rich and the corporate sector that they can attract votes only by mobilizing parts of the population that have not previously been an organized political force.\u00a0 Among them are extremist evangelical Christians, now probably a majority of Republican voters; remnants of the former slave-holding states; nativists who are terrified that \u201cthey\u201d are taking our white Christian Anglo-Saxon country away from us; and others who turn the Republican primaries into spectacles remote from the mainstream of modern society — though not from the mainstream of the most powerful country in world history.<\/p>\n

The departure from global standards, however, goes far beyond the bounds of the Republican radical insurgency.\u00a0 Across the spectrum, there is, for instance, general agreement with the \u201cpragmatic\u201d conclusion<\/a> of General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the Vienna deal does not \u201cprevent the United States from striking Iranian facilities if officials decide that it is cheating on the agreement,\u201d even though a unilateral military strike is \u201cfar less likely\u201d if Iran behaves.<\/p>\n

Former Clinton and Obama Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross typically recommends that \u201cIran must have no doubts that if we see it moving towards a weapon, that would trigger the use of force\u201d even after the termination of the deal, when Iran is theoretically free to do what it wants.\u00a0 In fact, the existence of a termination point 15 years hence is, he adds, “the greatest single problem with the agreement.” He also suggests that the U.S. provide Israel with specially outfitted B-52 bombers<\/a> and bunker-busting bombs to protect itself before that terrifying date arrives.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Greatest Threat\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Opponents of the nuclear deal charge that it does not go far enough. Some supporters agree, holding that<\/a> \u201cif the Vienna deal is to mean anything, the whole of the Middle East must rid itself of weapons of mass destruction.\u201d The author of those words, Iran\u2019s Minister of Foreign Affairs Javad Zarif, added that \u201cIran, in its national capacity and as current chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement [the governments of the large majority of the world\u2019s population], is prepared to work with the international community to achieve these goals, knowing full well that, along the way, it will probably run into many hurdles raised by the skeptics of peace and diplomacy.\u201d Iran has signed \u201ca historic nuclear deal,\u201d he continues, and now it is the turn of Israel, \u201cthe holdout.\u201d<\/p>\n

Israel, of course, is one of the three nuclear powers, along with India and Pakistan, whose weapons programs have been abetted by the United States and that refuse to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).<\/p>\n

Zarif was referring to the regular five-year NPT review conference, which ended in failure in April when the U.S. (joined by Canada and Great Britain) once again blocked efforts to move toward a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone in the Middle East. Such efforts have been led by Egypt and other Arab states for 20 years.\u00a0 As Jayantha Dhanapala and Sergio Duarte, leading figures in the promotion of such efforts at the NPT and other U.N. agencies, observe<\/a> in \u201cIs There a Future for the NPT?,\u201d an article in the journal of the Arms Control Association: \u201cThe successful adoption in 1995 of the resolution on the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the Middle East was the main element of a package that permitted the indefinite extension of the NPT.\u201d \u00a0The NPT, in turn, is the most important arms control treaty of all.\u00a0 If it were adhered to, it could end the scourge of nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n

Repeatedly, implementation of the resolution has been blocked by the U.S., most recently by President Obama in 2010 and again in 2015, as Dhanapala and Duarte point out, \u201con behalf of a state that is not a party to the NPT and is widely believed to be the only one in the region possessing nuclear weapons\u201d — a polite and understated reference to Israel. This failure, they hope, \u201cwill not be the coup de gr\u00e2ce to the two longstanding NPT objectives of accelerated progress on nuclear disarmament and establishing a Middle Eastern WMD-free zone.\u201d<\/p>\n

A nuclear-weapons-free Middle East would be a straightforward way to address whatever threat Iran allegedly poses, but a great deal more is at stake in Washington\u2019s continuing sabotage of the effort in order to protect its Israeli client.\u00a0 After all, this is not the only case in which opportunities to end the alleged Iranian threat have been undermined by Washington, raising further questions about just what is actually at stake.<\/p>\n

In considering this matter, it is instructive to examine both the unspoken assumptions in the situation and the questions that are rarely asked.\u00a0 Let us consider a few of these assumptions, beginning with the most serious: that Iran is the gravest threat to world peace.<\/p>\n

In the U.S., it is a virtual clich\u00e9 among high officials and commentators that Iran wins that grim prize.\u00a0 There is also a world outside the U.S. and although its views are not reported in the mainstream here, perhaps they are of some interest.\u00a0 According to the leading western polling agencies (WIN\/Gallup International), the prize for \u201cgreatest threat\u201d is won by<\/a> the United States.\u00a0 The rest of the world regards it as the gravest threat to world peace by a large margin. \u00a0In second place, far below, is Pakistan, its ranking probably inflated by the Indian vote.\u00a0 Iran is ranked below those two, along with China, Israel, North Korea, and Afghanistan.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe World\u2019s Leading Supporter of Terrorism\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Turning to the next obvious question, what in fact is the Iranian threat?\u00a0 Why, for example, are Israel and Saudi Arabia trembling in fear over that country?\u00a0 Whatever the threat is, it can hardly be military. \u00a0Years ago, U.S. intelligence informed Congress that Iran has very low military expenditures by the standards of the region and that its strategic doctrines are defensive — designed, that is, to deter aggression. The U.S. intelligence community has also reported<\/a> that it has no evidence Iran is pursuing an actual nuclear weapons program and that \u201cIran\u2019s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.\u201d<\/p>\n

The authoritative SIPRI review<\/a> of global armaments ranks the U.S., as usual, way in the lead<\/a> in military expenditures.\u00a0 China comes in second with about one-third of U.S. expenditures.\u00a0 Far below are Russia and Saudi Arabia, which are nonetheless well above any western European state.\u00a0 Iran is scarcely mentioned<\/a>.\u00a0 Full details are provided in an April report<\/a> from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which finds \u201ca conclusive case that the Arab Gulf states have… an overwhelming advantage of Iran in both military spending and access to modern arms.\u201d<\/p>\n

Iran\u2019s military spending, for instance, is a fraction of Saudi Arabia\u2019s and far below even the spending of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).\u00a0 Altogether, the Gulf Cooperation Council states — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE — outspend<\/a> Iran on arms by a factor of eight, an imbalance that goes back decades.\u00a0 The CSIS report adds: \u201cThe Arab Gulf states have acquired and are acquiring some of the most advanced and effective weapons in the world [while] Iran has essentially been forced to live in the past, often relying on systems originally delivered at the time of the Shah.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, they are virtually obsolete.\u00a0 When it comes to Israel, of course, the imbalance is even greater.\u00a0 Possessing the most advanced U.S. weaponry and a virtual offshore military base for the global superpower, it also has a huge stock of nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n

To be sure, Israel faces the \u201cexistential threat\u201d of Iranian pronouncements: Supreme Leader Khamenei and former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad famously threatened it with destruction.\u00a0 Except<\/a> that they didn\u2019t<\/a> — and if they had, it would be of little moment.\u00a0 Ahmadinejad, for instance, predicted that \u201cunder God\u2019s grace [the Zionist regime] will be wiped off the map.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, he hoped that regime change would someday take place.\u00a0 Even that falls far short of the direct calls in both Washington and Tel Aviv for regime change in Iran, not to speak of the actions taken to implement regime change.\u00a0 These, of course, go back to the actual \u201cregime change\u201d of 1953, when the U.S. and Britain organized a military coup to overthrow Iran\u2019s parliamentary government and install the dictatorship of the Shah, who proceeded to amass one of the worst human rights records on the planet.<\/p>\n

These crimes were certainly known to readers of the reports of Amnesty International and other human rights organizations, but not to readers of the U.S. press, which has devoted plenty of space to Iranian human rights violations — but only since 1979 when the Shah\u2019s regime was overthrown.\u00a0 (To check the facts on this, read The U.S. Press and Iran<\/em><\/a>, a carefully documented study by Mansour Farhang and William Dorman.)<\/p>\n

None of this is a departure from the norm.\u00a0 The United States, as is well known, holds the world championship title in regime change and Israel is no laggard either.\u00a0 The most destructive of its invasions of Lebanon in 1982 was explicitly aimed at regime change, as well as at securing its hold on the occupied territories.\u00a0 The pretexts offered were thin indeed and collapsed at once.\u00a0 That, too, is not unusual and pretty much independent of the nature of the society — from the laments in the Declaration of Independence about the \u201cmerciless Indian savages\u201d to Hitler\u2019s defense of Germany from the \u201cwild terror\u201d of the Poles.<\/p>\n

No serious analyst believes that Iran would ever use, or even threaten to use, a nuclear weapon if it had one, and so face instant destruction.\u00a0 There is, however, real concern that a nuclear weapon might fall into jihadi hands — not thanks to Iran, but via U.S. ally Pakistan.\u00a0 In the journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, two leading Pakistani nuclear scientists, Pervez Hoodbhoy and Zia Mian, write<\/a> that increasing fears of \u201cmilitants seizing nuclear weapons or materials and unleashing nuclear terrorism [have led to]… the creation of a dedicated force of over 20,000 troops to guard nuclear facilities. \u00a0There is no reason to assume, however, that this force would be immune to the problems associated with the units guarding regular military facilities,\u201d which have frequently suffered attacks with \u201cinsider help.\u201d In brief, the problem is real, just displaced to Iran thanks to fantasies concocted for other reasons.<\/p>\n

Other concerns about the Iranian threat include its role as \u201cthe world\u2019s leading supporter of terrorism,\u201d which primarily refers to its support for Hezbollah and Hamas.\u00a0 Both of those movements emerged in resistance to U.S.-backed Israeli violence and aggression, which vastly exceeds anything attributed to these villains, let alone the normal practice of the hegemonic power whose global drone assassination campaign<\/a> alone dominates (and helps to foster) international terrorism.<\/p>\n

Those two villainous Iranian clients also share the crime of winning the popular vote in the only free elections in the Arab world. \u00a0Hezbollah is guilty of the even more heinous crime of compelling Israel to withdraw from its occupation of southern Lebanon, which took place in violation of U.N. Security Council orders dating back decades and involved an illegal regime of terror and sometimes extreme violence.\u00a0 Whatever one thinks of Hezbollah, Hamas, or other beneficiaries of Iranian support, Iran hardly ranks high in support of terror worldwide.<\/p>\n

\u201cFueling Instability\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Another concern, voiced<\/a> at the U.N. by U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power, is the \u201cinstability that Iran fuels beyond its nuclear program.\u201d The U.S. will continue to scrutinize this misbehavior, she declared.\u00a0 In that, she echoed the assurance Defense Secretary Ashton Carter offered<\/a> while standing on Israel\u2019s northern border that \u201cwe will continue to help Israel counter Iran\u2019s malign influence\u201d in supporting Hezbollah, and that the U.S. reserves the right to use military force against Iran as it deems appropriate.<\/p>\n

The way Iran \u201cfuels instability\u201d can be seen particularly dramatically in Iraq where, among other crimes, it alone at once came to the aid of Kurds defending themselves from the invasion of Islamic State militants, even as it is building a $2.5 billion power plant<\/a> in the southern port city of Basra to try to bring electrical power back to the level reached before the 2003 invasion.\u00a0 Ambassador Power\u2019s usage is, however, standard: Thanks to that invasion, hundreds of thousands were killed and millions of refugees generated, barbarous acts of torture were committed — Iraqis have compared the destruction to the Mongol invasion of the thirteenth century — leaving Iraq the unhappiest country in the world according to WIN\/Gallup polls.\u00a0 Meanwhile, sectarian conflict was ignited, tearing the region to shreds and laying the basis for the creation of the monstrosity that is ISIS. \u00a0And all of that is called \u201cstabilization.\u201d<\/p>\n

Only Iran\u2019s shameful actions, however, \u201cfuel instability.\u201d The standard usage sometimes reaches levels that are almost surreal, as when liberal commentator James Chace, former editor of Foreign Affairs<\/em>, explained<\/a> that the U.S. sought to \u201cdestabilize a freely elected Marxist government in Chile\u201d because \u201cwe were determined to seek stability\u201d under the Pinochet dictatorship.<\/p>\n

Others are outraged that Washington should negotiate at all with a \u201ccontemptible\u201d regime like Iran\u2019s with its horrifying human rights record and urge instead that we pursue \u201can American-sponsored alliance between Israel and the Sunni states.\u201d\u00a0 So writes<\/a> Leon Wieseltier, contributing editor to the venerable liberal journal the Atlantic<\/em>, who can barely conceal his visceral hatred for all things Iranian.\u00a0 With a straight face, this respected liberal intellectual recommends that Saudi Arabia, which makes Iran look like a virtual paradise, and Israel, with its vicious crimes in Gaza and elsewhere, should ally to teach that country good behavior.\u00a0 Perhaps the recommendation is not entirely unreasonable when we consider the human rights records of the regimes the U.S. has imposed and supported throughout the world.<\/p>\n

Though the Iranian government is no doubt a threat to its own people, it regrettably breaks no records in this regard, not descending to the level of favored U.S. allies.\u00a0 That, however, cannot be the concern of Washington, and surely not Tel Aviv or Riyadh.<\/p>\n

It might also be useful to recall — surely Iranians do — that not a day has passed since 1953 in which the U.S. was not harming Iranians. After all, as soon as they overthrew the hated U.S.-imposed regime of the Shah in 1979, Washington put its support behind Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who would, in 1980, launch a murderous assault on their country.\u00a0 President Reagan went so far as to deny Saddam\u2019s major crime, his chemical warfare assault on Iraq\u2019s Kurdish population, which he blamed on Iran instead.\u00a0 When Saddam was tried for crimes under U.S. auspices, that horrendous crime, as well as others in which the U.S. was complicit, was carefully excluded from the charges, which were restricted to one of his minor crimes, the murder of 148 Shi\u2019ites in 1982, a footnote to his gruesome record.<\/p>\n

Saddam was such a valued friend of Washington that he was even granted a privilege otherwise accorded only to Israel.\u00a0 In 1987, his forces were allowed to attack a U.S. naval vessel, the USS Stark<\/em>, with impunity, killing 37 crewmen.\u00a0 (Israel had acted similarly in its 1967 attack on the USS Liberty<\/em>.)\u00a0 Iran pretty much conceded defeat shortly after, when the U.S. launched Operation Praying Mantis against Iranian ships and oil platforms in Iranian territorial waters.\u00a0 That operation culminated when the USS Vincennes<\/em>, under no credible threat, shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in Iranian airspace, with 290 killed — and the subsequent granting of a Legion of Merit award<\/a> to the commander of the Vincennes<\/em> for \u201cexceptionally meritorious conduct\u201d and for maintaining a \u201ccalm and professional atmosphere\u201d during the period when the attack on the airliner took place. Comments<\/a> philosopher Thill Raghu, \u201cWe can only stand in awe of such display of American exceptionalism!\u201d<\/p>\n

After the war ended, the U.S. continued to support Saddam Hussein, Iran\u2019s primary enemy.\u00a0 President George H.W. Bush even invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the U.S. for advanced training in weapons production, an extremely serious threat to Iran.\u00a0 Sanctions against that country were intensified, including against foreign firms dealing with it, and actions were initiated to bar it from the international financial system.<\/p>\n

In recent years the hostility has extended to sabotage, the murder of nuclear scientists (presumably by Israel<\/a>), and cyberwar<\/a>, openly proclaimed with pride.\u00a0 The Pentagon regards cyberwar as an act of war, justifying a military response, as does NATO, which affirmed in September 2014 that cyber attacks may trigger the collective defense obligations of the NATO powers — when we are the target that is, not the perpetrators.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Prime Rogue State\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is only fair to add that there have been breaks in this pattern. President George W. Bush, for example, offered several significant gifts to Iran by destroying its major enemies, Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.\u00a0 He even placed Iran\u2019s Iraqi enemy under its influence after the U.S. defeat, which was so severe that Washington had to abandon its officially declared goals of establishing permanent military bases (\u201cenduring camps<\/a>\u201d) and ensuring<\/a> that U.S. corporations would have privileged access to Iraq\u2019s vast oil resources.<\/p>\n

Do Iranian leaders intend to develop nuclear weapons today?\u00a0 We can decide for ourselves how credible their denials are, but that they had such intentions in the past is beyond question.\u00a0 After all, it was asserted openly on the highest authority and foreign journalists were informed that Iran would develop nuclear weapons \u201ccertainly, and sooner than one thinks.\u201d The father of Iran\u2019s nuclear energy program and former head of Iran\u2019s Atomic Energy Organization was confident that the leadership\u2019s plan \u201cwas to build a nuclear bomb.\u201d The CIA also reported that it had \u201cno doubt\u201d Iran would develop nuclear weapons if neighboring countries did (as they have).<\/p>\n

All of this was, of course, under the Shah, the \u201chighest authority\u201d just quoted and at a time when top U.S. officials — Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Henry Kissinger, among others — were urging him to proceed with his nuclear programs and pressuring universities to accommodate these efforts.\u00a0 Under such pressures, my own university, MIT, made a deal with the Shah to admit Iranian students to the nuclear engineering program in return for grants he offered and over the strong objections of the student body, but with comparably strong faculty support (in a meeting that older faculty will doubtless remember well).<\/p>\n

Asked later why he supported such programs under the Shah but opposed them more recently, Kissinger responded honestly that Iran was an ally then.<\/p>\n

Putting aside absurdities, what is the real threat of Iran that inspires such fear and fury? A natural place to turn for an answer is, again, U.S. intelligence.\u00a0 Recall its analysis that Iran poses no military threat, that its strategic doctrines are defensive, and that its nuclear programs (with no effort to produce bombs, as far as can be determined) are \u201ca central part of its deterrent strategy.\u201d<\/p>\n

Who, then, would be concerned by an Iranian deterrent?\u00a0 The answer is plain: the rogue states that rampage in the region and do not want to tolerate any impediment to their reliance on aggression and violence.\u00a0 In the lead in this regard are the U.S. and Israel, with Saudi Arabia trying its best to join the club with its invasion of Bahrain (to support the crushing of a reform movement there) and now its murderous assault on Yemen, accelerating a growing humanitarian catastrophe in that country.<\/p>\n

For the United States, the characterization is familiar.\u00a0 Fifteen years ago, the prominent political analyst Samuel Huntington, professor of the science of government at Harvard, warned in the establishment journal Foreign Affairs<\/em> that for much of the world the U.S. was \u201cbecoming the rogue superpower… the single greatest external threat to their societies.\u201d Shortly after, his words were echoed<\/a> by Robert Jervis, the president of the American Political Science Association: \u201cIn the eyes of much of the world, in fact, the prime rogue state today is the United States.\u201d As we have seen, global opinion supports this judgment by a substantial margin.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the mantle is worn with pride.\u00a0 That is the clear meaning of the insistence of the political class that the U.S. reserves the right to resort to force if it unilaterally determines that Iran is violating some commitment.\u00a0 This policy is of long standing, especially for liberal Democrats, and by no means restricted to Iran.\u00a0 The Clinton Doctrine, for instance, confirmed that the U.S. was entitled to resort to the \u201cunilateral use of military power\u201d even to ensure \u201cuninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources,\u201d let alone alleged \u201csecurity\u201d or \u201chumanitarian\u201d concerns.\u00a0 Adherence to various versions of this doctrine has been well confirmed in practice, as need hardly be discussed among people willing to look at the facts of current history.<\/p>\n

These are among the critical matters that should be the focus of attention in analyzing the nuclear deal at Vienna, whether it stands or is sabotaged by Congress, as it may well be.<\/p>\n

_________________________________<\/p>\n

Noam Chomsky is the Institute Professor and Professor\u00a0Emeritus in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT. The most cited living source in the world, his\u00a0theories have been extremely influential in the fields of\u00a0analytic philosophy, psychology, modern language, and computer science. He has written over 100 books examining the media, US foreign policy, social issues, Latin American and European history, and more.<\/em><\/p>\n

Copyright 2015 Noam Chomsky<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 tomdispatch.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cIn the eyes of much of the world, in fact, the prime rogue state today is the United States.\u201d As we have seen, global opinion supports this judgment by a substantial margin. Furthermore, the mantle is worn with pride. The Clinton Doctrine, for instance, confirmed that the U.S. was entitled to resort to the \u201cunilateral use of military power\u201d even to ensure \u201cuninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources,\u201d let alone alleged \u201csecurity\u201d or \u201chumanitarian\u201d concerns.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62894","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-in-focus"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62894","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62894"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62894\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}