The West is looking for war

The reports in the media allow no room for doubt; the West is once again beating the war drums. And as usual the targets are in the Middle East. Not only Iran, but Syria too is in the sights of the NATO generals. The question is why all of this is happening now? To find an answer we must look at the recent history of the region. For years now the Americans have said that they want a completely new Middle East. And when they say such things we know that they mean that they want a Middle East which observes the orders from Washington. To create such a situation the Americans could go it alone. But they are hesitant about that. They always need partners to drag into the murky war business. It does not matter if they are called Blair or Merkel, Cameron or Rutte. The important thing is that there flag is there next to the stars and stripes.  

In the past the European nations were happy to take part. They liked showing off a little on the world stage, some still do. But after the lies that surrounded the Iraq war most heads of state are less eager to become involved. Their peoples are totally fed up with the losses and the high costs of yet another so-called humanitarian intervention. So finding partners is less easy for Washington. But the conflicts still happen and the pattern is always the same. They pick a country, recently it was Libya, and they start destabilising it. Out of nothing a rebel opposition appears and before you know it a new war has been created. At first this is seen as an internal conflict. A people that rises up against a dictator or a regime. But when we look at the so-called opposition forces or militias, we see a very different picture.

Most of the time they are build up out of Islamic militants, criminals, and hired soldiers. They have very little to with the people who make up the majority in such a country. We saw such a picture in Libya, for example. The rebels there would never have won if they did not have support from the West, mostly the Americans. The procedure is always the same. All of a sudden the rebels have weapons which they would normally never get their hands on. They also get other supplies and intelligence. To back them up further special forces, again mostly American or British, carry out secret operations in the country to sabotage and destabilise. When this is not enough the intervening powers create a so-called humanitarian disaster. There are reports of bloodbaths against civilians, there is lack of food and shelter, and naturally, they create a refugee problem. All these problems are blamed on the sitting regime, while it is in fact the West which creates these conditions.

When this stage has been reached things move forward quickly. The civilians need help, so the matter is taken to the United Nations. There must be sanctions and naturally a no-fly zone. To the uninformed observer a no-fly zone seems a good option. It should mean that the regime can no longer use air power to attack civilians and rebels. You would say that it is a good humanitarian measure. But no-fly zone is a term which does not means what it seems. In fact it is a license for NATO to carry out unlimited bombings in the country. That was very visible, first in Iraq and recently in Libya. The raids kill many civilians, but that is never mentioned. Without these measures the rebels would never have a chance, because they do not represent the majority of the people.

We now see a similar picture appearing in Syria. The rebels there are a similar mix as in Libya and most of the procedure has already been played out. The no-fly zone has already been discussed, but it is not yet in place because Russia is opposed. But it will come sooner or later and then the trigger happy Americans can start blasting away again. In the meantime, it has become clear that many people in Syria still back the regime. These pictures are naturally never or rarely shown on Western TV. They would undermine the picture the generals and politicians want to create.

How the confrontation in Syria will finish will depend on how long Russia can hold out against more Western aggression. The same goes for China which also backs Syria. But the next problem is already there; Iran and its nuclear program. Israel wants quick action to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb, but the Americans hesitate. Not because they don’t want war, but because they are in the middle of an election year. They all know that Iran will not be an easy war, and they are afraid that the possible chaos will have a huge influence on the possible reelection of Obama.

We must ask ourselves if it is necessary to destroy the Iranian nuclear capability. The regime in Iran consisting of mad Mullahs and fascist militants deserves to be ousted as soon as possible. And it is certainly not a pleasant thought to see nuclear weapons in their hands. But even if they have the bomb, what can they do with it? Israel has its own nuclear weapons and the American arsenal can blow up the whole world many times over, let alone Iran. So even if the Iranian bomb becomes a reality they will never be able to use it. When they would try, their own country would be totally destroyed. So, in fact, the bomb is useless. It will only be of use to show off, just like the Iranian rockets which can hit European capitals. They have them, but cannot use them, even for blackmail, because there are thousands of rockets standing against them.

So what is the use of destroying the Iranian nuclear industry? It will destabilise the country and make the way free for the new Middle East which the Americans are so keen on. That is the only reason for all these conflicts, the increase of American power. Never believe the lies that it is for democracy or humanitarian purposes. Look at the countries where such interventions have already taken place or are ongoing. They are in total chaos and thousands of people have lost their lives. They have not become more democratic either. Usually Islamic hardliners start playing a leading role. For the Americans this is no problem. They are now creating the enemies for the future. Madness, you would say. But they are clever. The Americans need enemies all the time to keep their weapons industry going. Without this industry the American economy would collapse. If there were no new enemies the American people would never tolerate such a huge defence budget. So Washington is planning ahead and lining up new enemies for tomorrow.           

All this makes it essential that we oppose new wars and interventions. Not because we support regimes like in Syria or Iran. These regimes have no right to keep their own peoples in chains. But they must be destroyed by the peoples, not through Western intervention. Some on the left blindly support these regimes because they claim that they are anti imperialist. This is total nonsense, and we distance ourselves from such a point of view. We want to see a socialist Middle East where the people are in charge, not the Americans and not the Islamic fundamentalists. That is the only right stand to take. The view that the enemy of your enemy is automatically your friend does not work and is naïve to say the least.

So oppose all Western intervention in the Middle East or elsewhere and support every people who are trying to do away with their local tyrants. A new world can only emerge out of our own power. Every other way is a roadway to disaster.