The loss of the Amer­i­can “em­pire” is baked in the cake

Tehran Times - - FRONT PAGE - Po­lit­i­cal an­a­lyst from North Carolina Mar­tin Love

So much go­ing on round the world of note, and too few re­mark­ing at at­tempts to tor­ture or wa­ter­board free speech in the U.S., ex­cept this time if the sub­ject lit­er­ally drowns or dies, which jour­nal­ist Ja­mal Khashoggi did in his own blood, no prob­lem – that may be the in­tent any­way, to elim­i­nate all dis­sent­ing voices that are, to one de­gree or an­other and maybe too loud about it, ap­palled by var­i­ous ram­pant, overex­tended “isms”: Zion­ism, Neo-lib­er­al­ism, run amok Cap­i­tal­ism, Com­mu­nism, Na­tion­al­ism, Nazism, Wah­habism, Amer­i­can­ism, and oth­ers.

But clearly the most egre­gious of them all, as per­haps has been the case since the be­gin­ning of recorded time, is “stu­pidism”, the fa­tal ail­ment of too much of homo sapi­ens par­tic­u­larly when now we read about cli­mate change, which may be the most dan­ger­ous devel­op­ment of all, which al­legedly has gone past the point where it might be re­versed. It’s all rather fright­en­ing and in the case of Iran, too, when one con­sid­ers lim­ited wa­ter re­sources and a pop­u­la­tion which has soared in the past cen­tury. The re­mark­able “Qanats” worked well for cen­turies, but go­ing for­ward? But that’s an­other sub­ject.

One must won­der that if ev­ery­one arose each morn­ing, sat on their edge of what­ever space com­prised their bed, and asked them­selves one ques­tion, it does seem any­way that the hu­man world might be im­me­di­ately im­proved. That ques­tion would be: Can I be aware enough to­day to eval­u­ate and re­act prop­erly and wisely and hon­estly to what­ever I must face?” But re­gard­ing press free­dom, or sim­ply the telling of truths by a few en­light­ened re­porters, it re­mains re­mark­able that some re­porters in Is­rael get to tell dis­sent­ing truths more than Amer­i­can ob­servers with­out gross pun­ish­ment. Gideon Levy, who writes for Ha-eretz, is a case in point.

Levy has done two things for years: he has slammed a cow­ardly Amer­i­can main­stream me­dia in which the na­tives of the Holy Land can only be vil­lainized, and he has pointed to the gross mis­use of the charge of “anti-Semitism”. The re­cent fir­ing by CNN of Marc La­mont Hill, a Black Amer­i­can writer and univer­sity aca­demic who has called for the free­dom of Pales­tini­ans in a speech at a U.N. con­fer­ence, Levy has also con­demned.

An Is­raeli news­pa­per gets to pub­lish this con­dem­na­tion by Levy, but not Amer­i­can me­dia out­lets. And Iran, too, had long been vil­i­fied for sup­port­ing jus­tice in Pales­tine, or at least some kind of equal­ity for half the be­lea­guered pop­u­la­tion west of the Jor­dan River.

The ut­ter cor­rup­tion over the is­sue of not merely re­lief for Pales­tini­ans but over a host of other is­sues is telling. For ex­am­ple, a re­cent bill cir­cu­lat­ing in the U.S Congress to halt U.S. mil­i­tary and other sup­port for the Saudi and Emi­rates war on Ye­men was con­demned by a cou­ple score of U.S. sen­a­tors who hap­pened to rake in many thou­sands of dol­lars paid by lob­by­ists for Saudi Ara­bia. And all the lies, too!

One whop­per of late is that Iran’s al­leged test­ing of its lat­est de­fen­sive mis­sile tech­nol­ogy was claimed to be a di­rect vi­o­la­tion of the orig­i­nal terms of the still alive but nearly mori­bund JCPOA deal, but it was not such. Yes, U.N. Se­cu­rity Coun­cil Res­o­lu­tion 2231 does “call upon” Iran not to con­duct mis­sile tests, and for all U.N. mem­ber states to try to re­frain from ac­tions that harm JCPOA com­mit­ments, but if Iran is in di­rect vi­o­la­tion of any­thing, as Mike Pom­peo claimed, so is the U.S. un­der Trump who com­pletely canned U.S. par­tic­i­pa­tion in the JCPOA.

Iran has any­way long main­tained that its mis­siles have never been de­signed to carry nu­clear weapons, and given Iran’s re­li­able and strict ad­her­ence to the JCPOA to date, only a fool would not be­lieve Iran. Is not Iran, or ANY coun­try for that mat­ter, not al­lowed to de­velop de­fen­sive de­ter­rents in such a hos­tile en­vi­ron­ment? The Trump Ad­min­is­tra­tion and the Zion­ists and Saudis have been all about a des­per­ate search for any pre­text to at­tack Iran fur­ther, boast­ing re­cently of an ex­tant “mil­i­tary op­tion”. Iran must not pro­vide a pre­text be­cause the U.S., de­spite its eco­nomic and mil­i­tary clout, is los­ing the bat­tle for hearts and minds world­wide.

Per­haps the key to un­der­stand­ing what is likely to hap­pen in fu­ture is a recog­ni­tion of the fact that the U.S. “em­pire” of hege­monic pre­ten­sions can­not be main­tained given its de­pen­dence on the strength of the U.S econ­omy. Even Neo­con John Bolton is aware of this given a re­cent state­ment of con­cern about “na­tional se­cu­rity” – which would not re­ally be threat­ened by a debt cri­sis, but an evis­cer­ated dol­lar and any loss as the pri­mary “re­serve cur­rency” would likely limit what the U.S. could do glob­ally. This is what Neo­con Bolton ap­par­ently fears the most. Real “na­tional se­cu­rity” is NOT a valid con­cern for the U.S. be­cause it is, quite sim­ply, de­fense of the ge­o­graph­i­cal U.S and its bor­ders.

But make no mis­take. A U.S. debt cri­sis is a cer­tainty in com­ing years. Maybe not in the next two or so years, but even­tu­ally, be­cause the U.S. gov­ern­ment is lit­er­ally ad­dicted to profli­gacy and the ca­reers and liveli­hoods of too many of the po­lit­i­cal oli­garchy are de­pen­dent on it. The vast ma­jor­ity of the pop­u­la­tion would be in open re­volt, say, if the causes of ram­pant debt cre­ation, aside from over­seas mil­i­tary ac­tiv­ity and em­pire sus­te­nance, such as Medi­care and So­cial Se­cu­rity en­ti­tle­ments, were di­min­ished sub­stan­tially. And if they were, there would be im­me­di­ate de­mands for the elim­i­na­tion of a huge chunk of mis­named mil­i­tary “de­fense” out­lays.

It has been sug­gested, for one thing, that the rea­son Vladimir Putin has seemed wary about tak­ing ac­tion against the lies and provo­ca­tions by the U.S. against Rus­sia is be­cause he prob­a­bly sees an im­plo­sion of U.S. fi­nan­cial mar­kets ahead, which would of course cur­tail Amer­ica’s ca­pac­ity to start ad­di­tional wars and sow more may­hem in­ter­na­tion­ally. The in­evitabil­ity of a col­lapse un­der more debt than has ever been ac­cu­mu­lated by any coun­try in all of hu­man his­tory is pre­cisely what lead­ers in Iran must await pa­tiently to fi­nally wit­ness re­lief from U.S sanc­tions and hubris.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Iran

© PressReader. All rights reserved.