January 3rd, 2007
Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh spoke at the New York Society for Ethical Culture this past October about Ritter’s new book, which reports his certainty that the movement to attack Iran is alive and well in Washington and Tel Aviv.
I’d intended to attend the event, but, if memory serves, fell asleep instead. Good then the good folks at Sound Posse have archived the conversation. Easy and worthwhile listening. Superior to anything you’ve seen on the tube since the mideast war began in 2003.
Hersh first broke the story of the Rumsfowitzian plans for attacking Iran in early 2005, then followed up across more than a year with periodic grumblings of admirals and generals, all of which helped to forestall the project. In October he seems skeptical that the “Real men want to go to Iran” school has survived the bad press in Iraq. Then again, he opens the evening by warning that if you think baby Bush has been a bad boy so far, wait ‘til you see him as a true lame duck (post the now past mid-term elections).
Ritter (the former UN weapons inspector) is one of the few critics stateside who dare complain about the Likud lobby’s influence on Bush’s foreign policy. Perhaps this is why the local Barnes & Noble does not stock his books, and why The New York Times stopped reviewing them after Endgame in 1999. (Here, however, is a better voice.) In October Ritter again head-butts the Likudists but also blasts other blameworthy Beltway powers (Bush-Cheney itself, Rice, silently suffering Pentagon brass…).
During the Q&A someone asks how Iran, if attacked, would react:
RITTER: The Iranians will use the weapon that is the most effective weapon … the Iranians realize that they have to inflict pain upfront. The pain is not going to be inflicted militarily, because we’re not going to commit numbers of ground forces on the ground that can cause that pain. The pain will come economically.
Our oil-based economy is operating on the margins, as we speak. We only have 1.0% to 1.5% excess production capacity. If you take the Iranian oil off the market, which is the first thing the Iranians will do, we automatically drop to around minus-4%, which means there ain’t enough oil out there to support the globe’s thirst for oil, especially America’s thirst for oil. … You think for a second the Chinese and the Indians, the world’s two largest developing economies, are going to say, “Hey, Uncle Sam, we’ll put everything on hold, so we can divert oil resources, so you can feed your oil addiction, because you attacked Iran”?
And it’s not just Iranian oil that will go off the market. Why do you think we sent minesweepers up there? We’ve got to keep the Straits of Hormuz open. The Iranians will shut it down that quick. They’ll also shut down oil production in the western oil fields of Saudi Arabia. They’ll shut down Kuwaiti oil production. They’ll shut down oil production in the United Arab Emirates. They’ll shut down whatever remaining oil production there is in Iraq. They’ll launch a massive attack using their Shia proxies in Iraq against American forces. That will cause bloodshed.
The bottom line is, within two days of our decision to initiate an attack on Iran, every single one of you is going to be feeling the consequences of that in your pocketbook. And it’s only going to get worse. This is not something that only I recognize. Ask Dick Lugar what information he’s getting from big business, who are saying, “We can’t afford to go to war with Iran.”
HERSH: Final question — given all this, are we going to do it?
RITTER: Yes, we’re going to do it.
Also during the Q&A the prospect of the Dems re-taking Congress is raised. Ritter responds that the attack on Iran will go ahead in any case. My own guess, as a mere reader of dispatches, is that the publicity wars have shifted a bit such that Israel, alone, is now the likely first-striker. But perhaps I’m naive.
January 1st, 2007
Editor Theodore Hamm of The Brooklyn Rail — an excellent local mind rag — has announced their Man of the Year. Hear him!
QUOTE:
Satan played a starring role on the world political stage during 2006. His presence was felt from the Persian Gulf to the banks of the Mississippi. Other than the devil’s handiwork, how else to explain why Iraq became hell on earth, and New Orleans remained in tatters?
As the Middle East slid into chaos, the world ignored Darfur, and the polar ice caps’ melting accelerated, 2006 indeed seemed like a banner year for Beelzebub. But it was also the year in which he was finally unmasked. And when it happened, his face was so familiar that the only real shock was how long people had mistaken him for Alfred E. Newman.
The moment of recognition occurred, of course, on September 20, 2006, when Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez addressed the United Nations. As he held up a copy of Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, Chavez declared:
“The first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is in their own house. The devil is right at home… The devil, himself, is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday. [applause] Yesterday, the devil came here. Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today…”
As pure political theater, Chavez’s act was brilliant, worthy of a Tony.
The statement was so forcefully dramatic, perhaps, that many carefully stage-managed American politicians, led by Nancy Pelosi, rushed to condemn Chavez. Their anger thinly concealed their envy of a man allowed to speak the truth without first having to seek permission from an army of consultants and focus groups.
The outrage against Chavez centered on his reference to “smelling the sulfur,” which made the devil less of a metaphor than a fact. But how can the rest of us who were not at the U.N. that day know for certain how the podium smelled? Are we to trust Chavez or the defenders of George W. Bush?
In any case, few have paid attention to Chavez’s subsequent remarks that day, which offered further insight into the present world condition. According to Chavez, Bush, “the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world.” Though it was far down on his original list of reasons for invading Iraq, Bush had tried to make his case to the U.N. for the spread of democracy. A noble goal to be sure, but as for what that meant in practice, Chavez asked, “What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?”
The answer seems to be the chaos that is Iraq.
By contrast, consider the democratic success of Venezuela itself, where Chavez was recently reelected with more than 60% of the vote. The U.S., which had supported both the failed 2002 coup against Chavez as well as his most recent opponent, thus suffered another setback. “It’s another defeat for the devil, who tries to dominate the world. Down with imperialism,” said a triumphant Chavez.
How far Chavez’s Bolivarian revolution will go is an open question. Tariq Ali, author of the excellent new work Pirates of the Caribbean, believes that his next term will be “radically redistributive.” But as the Latin American scholar Steve Stein reminds Chavez specialist Nikolas Kozloff in these pages, the level of such redistribution depends on future oil prices.
In terms of his influence over Latin America, there is no doubt. His support has directly affected the outcomes of elections in Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua; he has close ties to several other leading nations in the region, notably Argentina and Brazil; and like his hero, Fidel Castro, Chavez has now created a model (in this case, a democratic one) that now fundamentally shapes all politics, left and right, in Latin America.
Despite the best efforts of the U.S. media, Chavez continues to win the war of public opinion. His “petro-populism” will make an impact here in the U.S. again this winter, as Venezuela provides home heating oil (at a 40% discount) in 16 states, from Alaska to our own Bronx, and to 163 Indian tribes. According to Tariq Ali, Chavez’s popularity is rapidly growing in the Middle East as well, a region better known for its “petro-fascist” regimes.
Chavez is not perfect, and his silence regarding the anti-Semitism of his OPEC ally Ahmadinejad in Iran is quite troubling. But like John Murtha last year, Hugo’s actions have shaken up the world. That fact alone could merit this year’s award, but in many ways, the U.N. speech carries the day.
For calling out the Prince of Darkness, Hugo Chavez is the Brooklyn Rail’s person of the year for 2006.
END QUOTE.
Hear, hear!
