The good general told Associated Press the day after the March 23
incident: “We were informed [about the British troops’ arrests] by
Iraqi fishermen, after they had returned from sea that there were
British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control. We don’t know
why they were there.’”
Gen. Jassim -- again, working for the
Anglo-American occupiers of his nation -- does not sound outraged by
the Iranian action. And notice how the Iraqi client-state apparatus,
which for some time has been telling Washington, “Don’t drag us into
your anti-Iranian projects” is not calling the detained Britons
“hostages.” It has indeed (with much of the world) protested the
illegal US detention of Iranian diplomats in Irbil, in Iraqi Kurdistan.
(That particular instance of “inexcusable behavior” hasn’t
gotten much press in this country. Nor has the subdued Iranian response
to the provocation.)
Gen. Jassim would agree that the Shatt
al-Arab river where the Brits were seized has no clearly marked
boundary and has been the focus of past quarrels between Iraq and Iran.
(Commodore Peter Lockwood of the Royal Australian Navy, commanding the
Coalition task force in the waterway last October, said as much: “No
maritime border has been agreed upon by the countries.”) Craig Murray,
once head of the British Foreign Office’s maritime section, writes that
Prime Minister Blair “is being fatuous” in stating that he is “utterly
certain” the British ship was seized within Iraqi territorial limits.
Murray, best known as the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan (who
exposed British complicity in torture in that country)
writes:
There
is no agreed boundary in the Northern Gulf, either between Iran and
Iraq or between Iraq and Kuwait. The Iran-Iraq border has been agreed
inside the Shatt al-Arab waterway, because there it is also the land
border. But that agreement does not extend beyond the low tide line of
the coast.
Even that very limited agreement is arguably no
longer in force. Since it was reached in 1975, a war has been fought
over it, and ten-year reviews -- necessary because waters and sandbanks
in this region move about dramatically -- have never been carried out.
Gen.
Jassim might privately agree that this border issue in any case is the
business of Iraqis and Iranians -- rather than British and American
imperialists popping up in the region at no one’s invitation, on false
pretexts, slaughtering people and expecting as they do so that the
conquered locals will say “Thanks, boss!”
Bush is trying to
depict the March 23 incident as a “hostage crisis,” stoking memories of
the 1979-81 Iran Embassy episode. (Younger readers may need some
reminding. After the overthrow of the US-backed and universally
despised Shah of Iran, in the most genuine mass-based revolutionary
upheaval in the history of the modern Islamic world, the Carter
administration allowed the Shah refuge in the US and refused to
extradite him to Iran to stand trial. This prompted Iranian students to
seize the US embassy and detain its personnel. Those seized were
released as Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as Carter’s successor in
January 1981. The incident unleashed much bigotry, hatred and war fever
in this country, to the delight of those wishing to shock the US public
out of the “Vietnam Syndrome.”)
Just as the seizure of the
Americans in 1979 needs to be understood in perspective, the detention
of these Britons has to be understood in the context of the crime of
the Iraq War itself. Whatever the actual coordinates of the vessel
boarded and seized by the Iranians, why are the British policing the
Shatt al-Arab waterway at all?
They’re there fighting an
imperialist war. That war is going badly. The neocons still in charge
in Washington (and building bridges to the resurgent Democrats led by
opportunists competing to convey deference to AIPAC and embrace a hard
line against Iran) wish to expand it to include the Islamic Republic.
They work overtime organizing that project. That much should be obvious
to anybody paying attention.
“How about spinning this as a
hostage crisis?” some fine neocon might have said the other day, around
the water cooler in the hallway outside the Pentagon’s Iran Directorate
offices.
“That could mobilize public opinion. Victims in
custody on TV, making ‘forced propaganda statements’ in violation of
the Geneva Conventions and stuff like that.”
“Yeah that could help. We have the moral high ground and all that. Good concept.”
“Good
to have Brits seized. If it were Americans, there’ll be all these
charges that it was contrived, to justify war, yadayada…”
“Right, seems nastier if it’s them, not so connected with Bush, because he’s… y’know…”
“I know. People won’t link this to him, or to us. They’ll think, ‘There they go again, taking British hostages this time.’”
“Nice white people just there doing their job, trying to help us out, not trying to provoke anybody.”
“Mm hm. So our approach will be: Iran’s killing our troops with the IEDs…”
“Building nuclear weapons…”
“…in order to exterminate the Jews…”
“Yes, Holocaust. Works very well. And Islamist Iran’s collaborating with Islamist al-Qaeda --”
“…..facilitating Taliban escape through Iran, or something like that.”
“Might
work. But I’d say, for talking points: IEDs -- Iran killing our boys;
nukes; holocaust plans; support for terrorism -- Hamas and Hizbollah;
and this British hostages thing.”
“Hostages. Nice to have their faces there on screen. So obviously in the enemy’s control.”
“Makes you angry. Nice English people in the custody of evil. This is beautiful.”
“Yeah. Brits making statements, under obvious duress.”
“That lady having to wear a headscarf and being told she’d be freed, and then she wasn’t.”
“It’s torture.”
“Torture.
Yes. We can use the torture thing… I mean, that’s perfect. Tortured
young hostage mother, in Iran, under a Muslim head scarf…”
“Islamist headscarf, forced on her by the terrorists. Good concept, good plan. Let’s see what the VP thinks!”
“Yup, he’s the man.”
This
conversation is of course imaginary, But I do believe this is how the
warmongers reason. The key issue on their minds is: “How can we cause
the American people to agree (or at least not disagree to the extent
that they might impede our agenda) to an aggressive campaign to topple
the Iranian government?” And “How can we get this heroic deed done
before our boy is out of power or this administration crippled by
political scandal?”
Russian intelligence is predicting a US
strike against Iran April 6. This is a nation that has not attacked a
neighbor in modern times, has sought improved relations with Europe and
the US and enjoys good relations with Russia, China and Japan.
Iran
did not provoke the present situation. It did not ask to be surrounded
by US forces in occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, or in the Persian Gulf.
It did not ask to be included in Bush’s bizarre “Axis of Evil” concept,
a statement of hostility as categorical as diplomatic discourse allows.
But Bush wants regime change in Iran. He wants revenge for the
overthrow of the US-backed Shah in 1979. One should see the British
“hostage” situation, and interpret Bush’s rhetoric about guilt and
innocence in that light.
* * * * *
April 6, by the
way, is Good Friday, the day Christians believe Jesus died on the cross
for the sins of the world. Muslims disagree. Jesus (Isa), according to
the Qur’an (4:157) was not killed. Rather, the Jews crucified somebody
else, with his “likeness,” in his place and then lied about it while
God raised Jesus up directly into Heaven. Two different versions of the
tale of Jesus’ unusual departure from this world, equally implausible
from my point of view but embraced by half of humankind. Beautiful
harmless comforting myths perhaps. But among their believers a minority
believes with absolute conviction, and these can be dangerous,
especially if they wield political and military power and think that
the God who sent Jesus wants them to smite his enemies.
Especially
if they think that a great war centering around Jerusalem (foretold in
the Book of Revelation) must precede the Second Coming of Christ.
Especially
if they believe that, as that New Testament book indicates, “kings of
the East” (Revelation 16:12) will attack the Euphrates region (modern
Iraq) before the apocalyptic battles take place in Armageddon and
Jerusalem.
Iran borders Iraq to the east. Military leaders
predict that any US or Israeli attack on Iran will produce Iranian
action against the US in Iraq’s Shiite south.
There are
religious fundamentalists in Iran to be sure, fanatics who can be
dangerous. But again: Iran has not attacked another country in its
modern history. Meanwhile there are religious nuts at the highest
levels of power in Washington, capital of a country which, as the
(devout Christian) Rev. Martin Luther King once put it, is “the
greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”
I will not
prophesy that the evil, dangerous persons (including fundamentalist
Christians and secular Jewish neocons) responsible for the war on Iraq
will purvey a Good Friday assault on Iran. But I won’t be surprised if
it happens, with apocalyptic ramifications. Perhaps only in the
aftermath will redeeming regime change come here.
Writings 
On March 31, the President of the United States made a statement pertaining to the 15 British sailors and marines unfortunately detailed in Iran: “The Iranians must give back the hostages. They’re innocent. The Iranians took these people out of Iraqi waters. It’s inexcusable behavior.”
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Why did he put Muslim money into Jewish banks??????
Please answer, O great and mighty Professor!