The typical leftist view doesn't explain why Washington prefers the riskier, higher-cost option that may very well jeopardize oil supplies rather than help it and the companies that it favors exercise securer control over them, and the typical liberal view doesn't explain why the dominant American ideology in question* is held not just by the Republicans but by the most powerful Democrats as well, notwithstanding a few tactical differences (e.g., more troops vs. fewer troops, unilateral preventive war vs. war endorsed by key allies, etc.).
We need a new theory of the ruling classes of the multinational empire led by the power elite of Washington, better explaining who they are, how they come into and stay in power, why they do what they do.
* The ideology in question may be summed up thus: the US government must be the leading power in not only the Middle East but the whole world (even in places where there are few valuable assets readily available for exploitation); Tel Aviv is the most important ally in the Middle East (even though US support for it enrages most people who live in many of the most important oil exporters, a great source of political instability); and governments of countries that may become regional powers, as well as movements that may challenge friends of Washington anywhere in the world, must be contained or removed.
<http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12300> A Predator Becomes More Dangerous When Wounded by Noam Chomsky March 10, 2007 The Guardian UK
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
For the US, the primary issue in the Middle East has been, and remains, effective control of its unparalleled energy resources. Access is a secondary matter. Once the oil is on the seas it goes anywhere. Control is understood to be an instrument of global dominance. Iranian influence in the "crescent" challenges US control. By an accident of geography, the world's major oil resources are in largely Shia areas of the Middle East: southern Iraq, adjacent regions of Saudi Arabia and Iran, with some of the major reserves of natural gas as well. Washington's worst nightmare would be a loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world's oil and independent of the US.
Such a bloc, if it emerges, might even join the Asian Energy Security Grid based in China. Iran could be a lynchpin.
<http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matthew_yglesias/2007/03/chomsky_its_not_about_energy.html> Iran: it's not about energy
Noam Chomsky argues that saber-rattling with Iran is all about oil. But such arguments are nothing more than useful idiocy for the warmongers.
Matthew Yglesias March 9, 2007 5:00 PM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thus, Noam Chomsky assures us, the issue with Iran is (of course!) oil. Or, as he phrased it for Guardian readers, as if to underline the lack of originality: "for the US, the primary issue in the Middle East has been, and remains, effective control of its unparalleled energy resources." In short, contrary to the superficial appearance that a new administration took power in January 2001 and, when granted a political opportunity by the events of September 11, 2001 began implementing a series of disastrous new policies - of which the heightened conflict with Iran is just one - everything is simply continuing on as it has been for decades. "Washington's worst nightmare," Chomsky informs us, "would be a loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world's oil and independent of the US."
Similarly, the administration "has been unable to establish a reliable client state" in Iraq "and cannot withdraw without facing the possible loss of control of the Middle East's energy resources." It remains "unlikely that the Bush administration will attack Iran" but nevertheless, the United States "may be seeking to destabilise Iran from within" and will achieve "predictable success in Europe" with its bid to "pressure others to join US efforts to strangle Iran economically." Chomsky goes on to present a cogent analysis of the strategic logic behind the Iranian nuclear program and point out, correctly, that if the United States were inclined to engage in good faith negotiations with Iran, the dispute on this point could likely be settled.
He offers us, however, absolutely no reason why an American voter or policymaker should be inclined to support such a policy. Indeed, while styling himself a radical opponent of the status quo, his analysis of the dynamics in the region is curiously identical to the one underlying the very policies he claims to be opposing. To Bush, like Chomsky, the United States and Iran are locked in a zero-sum struggle for control over oil. To Bush, like Chomsky, rolling back Iranian influence in its neighborhood are vital to American national security and economic prosperity. To Bush, like Chomsky, America is all-powerful and can easily succeed at swatting back the Iranian fly. To Bush, like Chomsky, Bush is a clever and brilliant leader full of subtle and cunning schemes to manipulate events inside Iran. To Bush, like Chomsky, Bush's policies are continuous with those employed by past presidents to render the United States the richest and most powerful nation on earth. And so on.
Chomsky's analysis, indeed, is precisely why people have supported Bush-style policies.
Chomsky-style analysis promised us that Bush's pet war with Iraq would be brilliantly managed by cunning imperialists who would bring home vast oil riches from the battlefield that kept our country rich and strong. The truth, however, is more like the reverse. Bush's policies are daft. Neither he nor his top advisers has any clue what they are doing. They don't understand the region. They don't understand global economics. They don't understand either American or Middle Eastern history. They are paranoid hyper-nationalists perfectly capable of mishandling a proliferation scenario in an energy-poor country like North Korea as they are of mishandling one in an energy-rich country like Iran.
The country is being run by dangerous ideologues who don't know what they're doing. The reason the United States should reach a compromise with Iran is precisely that our two countries aren't locked in a desperate clash of interests and Americans don't have any reason to fear Iran becoming a leading power in the region, as demographics and geography indicate that it should.
Today, congressional Democrats have finally united around a plan to end American military involvement in Iraq and deprive Bush of the authority to initiate a war with Iran. Foes of the status quo should be supporting such efforts, not arguing that their success will somehow end up denying Americans the energy resources we need to drive our cars and light our houses.
-- Yoshie