by James Kanata

Created on: June 29, 2010   Last Updated: June 30, 2010

When the spectre of war looms overhead, as it might be at present regarding Iran, all possible justifications get lumped together. The majority propose using war to force nuclear disarmament, considering a nuclear Iran as a direct military threat. Others suggest it to stabilise the region in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. Some commentators wish to bring western government structure and values to another Middle Eastern country, some wish to curb the power Saudi Arabia has over the oil supply, some want to bring back pre-revolutionary conditions to Iran and build a pro-western bloc in the region.

Those justifications become a juggernaut, crashing through all attempts at discourse and objection. We saw this happen in the debate over Iraq and Afghanistan. All of a sudden, war not only seems inevitable for a lot of people but also an answer. We create so many pillars on which to place our temples of jingoism that all of a sudden we believe that we can cure our own ills. We can cut gas prices, we can bring back civil liberties eroded by terrorist organisations, we can bring back the heady, care free days of a pre 9/11 world. These arguments are tempting, even for those who consider Iraq and Afghanistan expensive failures. We talk ourselves into thinking that its the last big war to bring back our freedoms, dissolve our residual paranoia and secure the economy.

One thing we never consider is maybe it is our meddling in the Middle East that caused these fears and insecurities in the first place. For every terrorist killed in the region another two are born, angry at the colonisation of their country by another power. There is an understandable current of anger behind that. Would we be any less angry if our countries were occupied? Would we be any less angry if we discovered that our fellow civilians were being killed, inevitably, by a war that the majority of people neither need nor want? We might hide behind our desire for democracy in the region, but revolution is hardly ever for the people, it is foisted upon them. The replacement of one power structure, obsessed with its own interest, with another that is the same.
Of course, its not just any power, but a Western power. One must understand the psychology of the region to appreciate how significant an intrusion that is. For all fundamentalist theocratic countries, the West represents the utmost in extravagance, immorality, decadence and an affront to their belief system. It has invaded their territory over and

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>