'Bring it On' - why Iran can't lose and the US and Israel can't win
By now, many of you already know why Iran can't lose, which by the way, is not the same as saying that Iran can win. Yesterday, the Sunday Times made it crystal clear that US intelligence officials, if not the Bush administration, have already figured that much out, as have a number of other commentators.
Gary North, for example, made an especially convincing argument in his January piece titled 'Bring it On': Why Dr. Ahmedinejad Is Not Worrying - well worth reading in full to understand the complex dynamics involved at this crucial juncture. But, the following sums it up nicely:
An unprovoked American attack on Iran will instantly and permanently de-legitimize every American client state in the Middle East. If the United States bombs Iran, the Bush Administration might as well send that "Mission Accomplished" banner to Al Qaeda headquarters.Emphasis mine because he does not say that the US can't risk a provoked attack. But, that's a different story that entails a wild card and is strictly a matter of strategy. Let's stick to underlying goals, for now.
What he didn't mention, and what the Sunday Times left unexplored, was the likelihood of Israel doing what the US dare not - and the invariable consequences it entails. However, North did include in his analysis of why the US can't win an interesting reference to an important book written by an Israeli military expert.
The crucial issue here is political legitimacy of the nation-state. This is the supreme political issue of our day, as the great Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld has argued in his book, The Rise and Decline of the State (Cambridge University Press, 1999). It is also the supreme strategic issue of fourth-generation warfare, the warfare of the rest of this century.Now, for my take on this exceedingly dangerous path that the US and Israeli governments are treading, because make no mistake, any military strike against Iran by Israel is not only condoned but actively supported by those in control of the US government - just as it was in Lebanon.
However, any attack by Israel against Iran, even a nuclear one, would be suicidal on Israel's part. But, here's the catch - that's the plan.
The nation-state of Israel is a failed project that those in control of most of the world's resources are willing to sacrifice. There's really nothing much left to give up - Israel is a failed state, morally, politically - even economically, despite their ardent protestations.
The corporate interests who control the world's resources can only gain from a dramatic, and more importantly - very destructive - end to the Israeli problem. Only it will not be the end, but just the beginning.
The problem is not simply Israel "the nation-state", but the evil concept behind Israel and those who espouse it - the idea that some people on earth are more deserving of freedom and prosperity than others. And to reach that goal, they are willing to subjugate or destroy everything in sight.
The destruction of Israel and every other nation-state in the Middle East will give the surviving corporate interests the opportunity they need to seize control of the remainder of the world's resources. Such an attack will throw the world's economies into a tail spin, enabling the money masters to assume total control of the world.
This is it - folks. The one world government we've been hearing about all these years is a mercantile one, headed by the world's high priests of finance.
Iran can't lose, but neither can it win, and neither will the US or Israel. An attack on Iran will mark the beginning of the end of nation-states as we know it. All that will remain connecting interests together will be finance.
The thesis is that the nation state as we've known it is a modern invention and a thorough failure, ever more costly and intrusive and unworkable. It is in the process of being supplanted by other institutions less formal and hence more functional to serve the member's goals.
On the plus side, we see the emergence of a decentralized but global market order and the emergence of micro-political communities. On the negative side, there is the development of guerilla armies that act secretively and elude defeat in conventional military terms. The nation state, once the leviathan bestriding the global and ruling all before it, is being reduced in its size because it is being outsmarted and outrun. No longer can it command loyalty and no longer does it have a credible claim to be superior to its alternatives.