ID :
187180
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 10:29
Auther :
Shortlink :
https://oananews.org//node/187180
The shortlink copeid
American Activist: US Fearful of Iran's Regional, Int'l Clout
TEHRAN (FNA)- American author and activist Phil Wilayto says that the US is at loggerheads with Iran for fear that Iran as an independent and anti-imperialist power may set an example for the other third-world countries.
"Contrary to how it's presented in the West, the problem between the US and Iran has never really been about the false charge that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran is a country that in 1979 broke free from Western domination, taking its large oil and gas reserves with it. It pursued its own political course, gave support to anti-imperialist movements in the region and developed itself as an economic, political and military regional power. In addition to the fact that Iranian oil is now off-limits to Western exploitation, Iran's steadfast insistence on its right to self-determination is seen as setting a bad example for other non-imperialist countries," Wilayto, a Virginia based activist, said during an interview with FNA.
The following is the full text of his interview with FNA:
1- What is your take on the Middle East unrests? I think that most of the opposition movements we see erupting across Northern Africa and the Middle East are reactions to long-standing popular grievances. Most of these countries have been governed by elitist, reactionary regimes dependent for their survival on Western governments and corporations. The result has been corruption, inequality, widespread poverty and brutal political repression of the poor, the working people and the oppressed. Over time, the entire region became a social time bomb. Finally, when one desperate street vender in Tunisia decided he would rather die than continue to live under these conditions, the flames that ended his life set off the social explosions that continue to roil across the region.
2- It seems that there is a different basis for the unrest faced in Libya and Syria compared with that faced in the rest of the region. All the situations are surely not the same. In your opinion, what is the solution for this puzzle? There are several factors at play. In Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen and Pakistan you have or have had governments that opened their countries to exploitation by Western corporations, that supported the strategic objectives of the US and other Western governments and that showed an arrogant indifference to the needs of their poor and working classes. So when the protests developed, they focused on two main demands: improvement in the economic conditions of the masses, and an end to political repression. And because the rulers of these countries had been supported by the West, the protests also had a certain anti-Western orientation. By and large they did not look to the West for support. In Libya, the government had for many years been known for opposing Western policies in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and even in Europe. And it used the profits from its nationalized oil industry to promote education and health-care for the people. As a result, Libya today has the highest literacy rate, the highest educational level, the longest life expectancy and the lowest infant mortality rate of all the North African countries. These are not the hallmarks of a right-wing dictatorship. And so the opposition isn't demanding an improvement in the lives of the workers and the poor - its demands are solely political. That's not to say there are no legitimate grievances, but it is a major difference. In addition, Libya's opposition has not been characterized by peaceful protests, but by an armed struggle that sought and has received political, economic and military support from the US and NATO. Amazingly, within a matter of weeks, the opposition had developed its own oil company and was ready to sell refined oil to European countries. It announced the formation of a "provisional government" that was almost immediately recognized by France, which does a lot of oil business with Libya. So you can see that this opposition was not a spontaneous reaction to oppression. It had been preparing for this moment for some time, and already had lined up its outside support. In Syria, you also have a government that has opposed Western aims in the region, but one that has only this April, under the pressure of mass demonstrations, has lifted a 48-year "state of emergency." This is a dangerous situation, in which some Syrians with legitimate grievances may be seduced into seeking support from the West, which in the long run could lead to reducing Syria to a neo-colony of the Western powers.
In all these situations, it should be clear that, whatever legitimate grievances the peoples of all these various countries may have, the criteria used by the West to decide whether or not to support particular opposition movements has been consistent: will Western interests be better served by defending the present governments or by actively their removal? It doesn't matter to Washington, London, Paris, Berlin or Rome if a government is democratic or repressive. The only question is this: does it open its country's natural resources, labor force and markets to Western exploitation?
3- In the beginning of the Egyptian revolution, the American media tried so badly to connect the Egyptian revolution with Green movement in Iran, but after a while silence came to media! Is this because of Bahrain and Saudi's unrest?
In part, yes. When it comes to domestic problems, at least ones that can be resolved within the boundaries of the present US political and economic system, the corporate media can play a certain adversarial role in relation to the government. This can actually help strengthen the system by removing some causes for popular discontent. But in matters of foreign policy, the media knows it must look out for the long-term interests of the US banks and corporations. After all, almost all US media is itself owned by large, for-profit corporations. There is a harmony of class interests. So the media quickly realized that it was not in its own interest to portray all the opposition movements as the same. There were "good" opposition movements, as in Libya, Syria and Iran. There were movements that might be vulnerable to being co-opted, as they thought might be true in Egypt. And there were movements that were definitely not going to be helpful to US interests, as in Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. But a more immediate problem for the US media was that the Egyptian people's movement refused to be lulled by a change from a Western-supported Mubarak dictatorship to a Western-supported military dictatorship. The demands of the people include a material improvement in the lives of the masses and popular democracy, as well as an end to Egypt's pro-Israel policies. This makes it a problem for the US government, its economic establishment and its corporate media. So to continue to portray the Egyptian opposition as being similar to Iran's was no longer helpful.
4- Do you think American policy has been changed towards Iran? If not, what is going on within America and Iran? I think what's happened is that the Big Bad Wolf of US Imperialism huffed and puffed but failed to blow down the solidly built house of the Iranian Revolution. Successive waves of both US and UN sanctions, military threats by the US and its proxy Israel, political support for the Iranian opposition and a sustained media misinformation campaign have all failed to bring Iran to its knees. Contrary to how it's presented in the West, the problem between the US and Iran has never really been about the false charge that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran is a country that in 1979 broke free from Western domination, taking its large oil and gas reserves with it. It pursued its own political course, gave support to anti-imperialist movements in the region and developed itself as an economic, political and military regional power. In addition to the fact that Iranian oil is now off-limits to Western exploitation, Iran's steadfast insistence on its right to self-determination is seen as setting a bad example for other non-imperialist countries. In this respect, Iran is like Cuba. The US doesn't care what kind of government a country has, so long as it bows to the imperialist master. And that's something Iran refuses to do. So no, there has been no change in US aims in regard to Iran. It just ran out of threats. The only course left is to attack Iran or to allow Israel to attack, and so far it has had enough good sense to realize that that would be a war it couldn't win. It might destroy Iran, but at such a cost to its attempts at regional control that it would be a Pyrrhic victory. Besides, the US is hemorrhaging resources, both human and material, in its occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is hesitant to carry out a full-scale war against Libya, a country of less than 7 million people. How could it afford to attack 70-million-strong Iran, a development that would inevitably lead to the need to occupy at least part of Iran's national soil? However, imperialist leaders do not always follow common sense. The neoconservatives in the US government and political establishment believe only in the logic of force. Their capacity for aggression should never be underestimated, no matter how insane a particular option may seem.
5- What is the root of the conflict between the US and NATO?
The European powers in NATO have economic interests in Libya that they believe would be better served by a new, more pliable government. But with their own economies under severe strain, they are reluctant to commit the kinds of resources necessary to overthrow the Libyan government. So they want their Uncle Sam to take on the lion's share of the burden. However, the US economy is barely emerging from its own financial crisis. And while its "recovery" has resulted in record profits for the banks and corporations, it hasn't been able to seriously reduce the high unemployment or rate of home foreclosures or to revive the consumer spending that propels 70 percent of the economy, let alone reduce the soaring deficit. So the solution US politicians are turning to is to try and force deep cuts in social services as well to launch unprecedented attacks on unions. The result has been the awakening of a popular movement right here in the US, as we saw in February and March when more than 100,000 working people and their supporters crowded into the streets of Madison, Wisconsin, and for weeks even occupied the State Capitol building. So there are certain restrictions, even for an Empire. The US, which has limited interests in Libya, wants the European powers to bear the major burden of effecting a regime change. It's a dispute among imperialists over who will pay for their attempts to return Libya to the status of an economic colony. Hopefully, the vast masses of the world's peoples will come to see that we have much more in common with each other than with the wealthy and powerful. What happens to a poor family in sub-Saharan Africa affects a poor family in Tehran, in London, in Caracas and in Washington, D.C. We have the common enemies of hunger, disease, poverty and racism. And whatever natural causes are responsible for these age-old plagues, they are exasperated beyond bearing by the fact that the world is still dominated by an economic system that values the accumulation of profits over meeting people's needs. As more and more of us come to understand that simple truth - and millions are now waking up to that reality across Northern Africa and the Middle East - it will be possible for us to move forward together and remake this sad world into a place of justice, peace and caring for all.
"Contrary to how it's presented in the West, the problem between the US and Iran has never really been about the false charge that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran is a country that in 1979 broke free from Western domination, taking its large oil and gas reserves with it. It pursued its own political course, gave support to anti-imperialist movements in the region and developed itself as an economic, political and military regional power. In addition to the fact that Iranian oil is now off-limits to Western exploitation, Iran's steadfast insistence on its right to self-determination is seen as setting a bad example for other non-imperialist countries," Wilayto, a Virginia based activist, said during an interview with FNA.
The following is the full text of his interview with FNA:
1- What is your take on the Middle East unrests? I think that most of the opposition movements we see erupting across Northern Africa and the Middle East are reactions to long-standing popular grievances. Most of these countries have been governed by elitist, reactionary regimes dependent for their survival on Western governments and corporations. The result has been corruption, inequality, widespread poverty and brutal political repression of the poor, the working people and the oppressed. Over time, the entire region became a social time bomb. Finally, when one desperate street vender in Tunisia decided he would rather die than continue to live under these conditions, the flames that ended his life set off the social explosions that continue to roil across the region.
2- It seems that there is a different basis for the unrest faced in Libya and Syria compared with that faced in the rest of the region. All the situations are surely not the same. In your opinion, what is the solution for this puzzle? There are several factors at play. In Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen and Pakistan you have or have had governments that opened their countries to exploitation by Western corporations, that supported the strategic objectives of the US and other Western governments and that showed an arrogant indifference to the needs of their poor and working classes. So when the protests developed, they focused on two main demands: improvement in the economic conditions of the masses, and an end to political repression. And because the rulers of these countries had been supported by the West, the protests also had a certain anti-Western orientation. By and large they did not look to the West for support. In Libya, the government had for many years been known for opposing Western policies in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and even in Europe. And it used the profits from its nationalized oil industry to promote education and health-care for the people. As a result, Libya today has the highest literacy rate, the highest educational level, the longest life expectancy and the lowest infant mortality rate of all the North African countries. These are not the hallmarks of a right-wing dictatorship. And so the opposition isn't demanding an improvement in the lives of the workers and the poor - its demands are solely political. That's not to say there are no legitimate grievances, but it is a major difference. In addition, Libya's opposition has not been characterized by peaceful protests, but by an armed struggle that sought and has received political, economic and military support from the US and NATO. Amazingly, within a matter of weeks, the opposition had developed its own oil company and was ready to sell refined oil to European countries. It announced the formation of a "provisional government" that was almost immediately recognized by France, which does a lot of oil business with Libya. So you can see that this opposition was not a spontaneous reaction to oppression. It had been preparing for this moment for some time, and already had lined up its outside support. In Syria, you also have a government that has opposed Western aims in the region, but one that has only this April, under the pressure of mass demonstrations, has lifted a 48-year "state of emergency." This is a dangerous situation, in which some Syrians with legitimate grievances may be seduced into seeking support from the West, which in the long run could lead to reducing Syria to a neo-colony of the Western powers.
In all these situations, it should be clear that, whatever legitimate grievances the peoples of all these various countries may have, the criteria used by the West to decide whether or not to support particular opposition movements has been consistent: will Western interests be better served by defending the present governments or by actively their removal? It doesn't matter to Washington, London, Paris, Berlin or Rome if a government is democratic or repressive. The only question is this: does it open its country's natural resources, labor force and markets to Western exploitation?
3- In the beginning of the Egyptian revolution, the American media tried so badly to connect the Egyptian revolution with Green movement in Iran, but after a while silence came to media! Is this because of Bahrain and Saudi's unrest?
In part, yes. When it comes to domestic problems, at least ones that can be resolved within the boundaries of the present US political and economic system, the corporate media can play a certain adversarial role in relation to the government. This can actually help strengthen the system by removing some causes for popular discontent. But in matters of foreign policy, the media knows it must look out for the long-term interests of the US banks and corporations. After all, almost all US media is itself owned by large, for-profit corporations. There is a harmony of class interests. So the media quickly realized that it was not in its own interest to portray all the opposition movements as the same. There were "good" opposition movements, as in Libya, Syria and Iran. There were movements that might be vulnerable to being co-opted, as they thought might be true in Egypt. And there were movements that were definitely not going to be helpful to US interests, as in Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. But a more immediate problem for the US media was that the Egyptian people's movement refused to be lulled by a change from a Western-supported Mubarak dictatorship to a Western-supported military dictatorship. The demands of the people include a material improvement in the lives of the masses and popular democracy, as well as an end to Egypt's pro-Israel policies. This makes it a problem for the US government, its economic establishment and its corporate media. So to continue to portray the Egyptian opposition as being similar to Iran's was no longer helpful.
4- Do you think American policy has been changed towards Iran? If not, what is going on within America and Iran? I think what's happened is that the Big Bad Wolf of US Imperialism huffed and puffed but failed to blow down the solidly built house of the Iranian Revolution. Successive waves of both US and UN sanctions, military threats by the US and its proxy Israel, political support for the Iranian opposition and a sustained media misinformation campaign have all failed to bring Iran to its knees. Contrary to how it's presented in the West, the problem between the US and Iran has never really been about the false charge that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran is a country that in 1979 broke free from Western domination, taking its large oil and gas reserves with it. It pursued its own political course, gave support to anti-imperialist movements in the region and developed itself as an economic, political and military regional power. In addition to the fact that Iranian oil is now off-limits to Western exploitation, Iran's steadfast insistence on its right to self-determination is seen as setting a bad example for other non-imperialist countries. In this respect, Iran is like Cuba. The US doesn't care what kind of government a country has, so long as it bows to the imperialist master. And that's something Iran refuses to do. So no, there has been no change in US aims in regard to Iran. It just ran out of threats. The only course left is to attack Iran or to allow Israel to attack, and so far it has had enough good sense to realize that that would be a war it couldn't win. It might destroy Iran, but at such a cost to its attempts at regional control that it would be a Pyrrhic victory. Besides, the US is hemorrhaging resources, both human and material, in its occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is hesitant to carry out a full-scale war against Libya, a country of less than 7 million people. How could it afford to attack 70-million-strong Iran, a development that would inevitably lead to the need to occupy at least part of Iran's national soil? However, imperialist leaders do not always follow common sense. The neoconservatives in the US government and political establishment believe only in the logic of force. Their capacity for aggression should never be underestimated, no matter how insane a particular option may seem.
5- What is the root of the conflict between the US and NATO?
The European powers in NATO have economic interests in Libya that they believe would be better served by a new, more pliable government. But with their own economies under severe strain, they are reluctant to commit the kinds of resources necessary to overthrow the Libyan government. So they want their Uncle Sam to take on the lion's share of the burden. However, the US economy is barely emerging from its own financial crisis. And while its "recovery" has resulted in record profits for the banks and corporations, it hasn't been able to seriously reduce the high unemployment or rate of home foreclosures or to revive the consumer spending that propels 70 percent of the economy, let alone reduce the soaring deficit. So the solution US politicians are turning to is to try and force deep cuts in social services as well to launch unprecedented attacks on unions. The result has been the awakening of a popular movement right here in the US, as we saw in February and March when more than 100,000 working people and their supporters crowded into the streets of Madison, Wisconsin, and for weeks even occupied the State Capitol building. So there are certain restrictions, even for an Empire. The US, which has limited interests in Libya, wants the European powers to bear the major burden of effecting a regime change. It's a dispute among imperialists over who will pay for their attempts to return Libya to the status of an economic colony. Hopefully, the vast masses of the world's peoples will come to see that we have much more in common with each other than with the wealthy and powerful. What happens to a poor family in sub-Saharan Africa affects a poor family in Tehran, in London, in Caracas and in Washington, D.C. We have the common enemies of hunger, disease, poverty and racism. And whatever natural causes are responsible for these age-old plagues, they are exasperated beyond bearing by the fact that the world is still dominated by an economic system that values the accumulation of profits over meeting people's needs. As more and more of us come to understand that simple truth - and millions are now waking up to that reality across Northern Africa and the Middle East - it will be possible for us to move forward together and remake this sad world into a place of justice, peace and caring for all.
