Imagine a society in the grips of civil war. On one side stand the partisans of theocracy; on the other, the partisans of secularism. As they fight over their country, a larger imperial power decides to invade, citing as justification the apparent approval of (a faction of) the secular side, along with the inherent evils of theocracy. Taking advantage of the smaller country’s internal division and weakness, the imperial power then tears the country to pieces that neither side will ever be able to govern. Besieging, starving, and massacring the people it claims to be liberating, the imperialists eventually conquer the place, lording it over the defeated population. They then spend the next several centuries singing their own praises–until they, too, are defeated by a rival power and swept away. Continue reading
Tag Archives: iran
Defeat Will Do
Twelve days into the war with Iran, The New York Times is gradually coming to acknowledge that the war has not been a one-way affair. For twelve days, the Times has covered the war as though the US and Israel have had free rein to attack Iran, but as though Iran itself had been a passive recipient of the shock and awe campaign inflicted on it. Now all of a sudden, we get four major articles within 24 hours telling us otherwise:
- “How Trump and His Advisers Miscalculated Iran’s Response to the War”;
- “At Least 17 US Sites Damaged in War with Iran, Analysis Shows”;
- “Iranian Military Shows It Knows How to Adapt, US Officials Say”;
- “At least 3 ships are struck in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran claims responsibility for one”;
Better late than never, but still pretty late to be telling your audience that the other side had not only managed to retaliate over the last two weeks, but had inflicted a fair bit of unexpected damage, and promises more. Continue reading
Malley and Wertheim on Iranian “Responsibility”
When people commit crimes, they often invent elaborate rationalizations to conceal or dilute the moral turpitude of the offense. Rapists notoriously claim that their victims asked to be raped, or enjoyed it during the act. Murderers cite the imperatives of retributive justice. Etc. When it comes to ordinary crimes, most people can see the gaslighting involved for the deception it is. Unfortunately, this tends not to be true of crimes by nation-states. A nation-state can commit an obvious, egregious crime in the plain light of day, lie about it in an obvious way, and be believed by millions of people. Continue reading
This Be the Hearse
David French on the “legal and moral justifications for war” against Iran:
There is little question that we have many legal and moral justifications for war. When Trump spoke about Americans killed by Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, that struck home for me. We lost men in my own unit to Iranian-backed militias using Iranian-supplied munitions. I knew those men, and I will never forget the terrible days when they fell.
In other words, twenty years ago, the United States initiated a war of aggression against Iraq premised on florid, systematic lies. The victims fought back, killing some of the aggressors. In answer to those acts of self-defense, we’re now obliged to initiate yet another war of aggression, this time against Iran, eliciting yet another round of defensive attacks by the successors of yesteryear’s victims. Continue reading
Iran as a “War of Choice”
Wherever you go, you’ll find imperialist wars described, particularly by their self-styled liberal opponents, as “wars of choice.” Having described a given war as a “war of choice,” the critic will then go on to criticize it as ill-conceived and ill-executed while conceding the underlying reason for going to war. The unspoken implication is that the same war, conceived and executed more competently, would have been perfectly justified. It’s just that this particular iteration is not. Continue reading
Iran and the Perpetuity of Empire
The Intercept reports that Trump is menacing Iran with a massive armada capable of prolonged war. The Times of Israel is talking about a “countdown” to war. The Washington Post reports that satellite imagery shows a rapid increase of US military planes near Iran. Responsible Statecraft’s lead story concerns the inadequacy of airpower to achieve Trump’s stated goals in Iran: ground troops would be required. The Guardian’s top five stories concern the imminence of a US attack on Iran, same with Reuters. The Financial Times has a top story on the imminent Iran war as a crisis of Trump’s own making. Continue reading
When Self-Defense Is “Terror”
A recent article in The New York Times by its so-called “national security correspondent” is an indication of how incompetent mainstream journalists are, and how unreflectively eager they are to do the bidding of the national security establishment they supposedly cover. The article is “Iran Could Direct Proxies to Attack U.S. Targets Abroad, Officials Warn,” by Eric Schmitt. Nothing in it is newsworthy or news. All of the work in it is done by its brainless and tendentious reliance on the term “terrorism.” Continue reading
War Is Peace
We’re reportedly about to go to war with Iran. I just checked a minute ago: The lead story at The New York Times is the Supreme Court’s tariff decision; likewise The Washington Post and MS NOW. At CNN, the lead story is Trump’s trade war. At Fox, it’s a toss up between the trade war and a debit card scandal in California. And so on. Literally business as usual. The pattern is clear enough: as we prepare for war, the thing to do is to turn inward and turn away from it in a spirit of make-believe. Tariffs matter more than war. Trump matters more than war. Debit cards matter more than war. At this point, anything matters more than war. War is imminent, hence unreal.
War, in short, has become normalized in the familiar imperial way, by equating peace with perpetual warfare confined to the periphery of empire, and to the peripheries of consciousness. It’s out there, hence not here, hence nowhere. Continue reading
Loyalty and Academic Freedom
The case of Jonathan A. C. Brown
A friend is circulating an Open Letter to Interim President Robert Groves of Georgetown University in defense of Professor Jonathan A.C. Brown, the Alwaleed bin Talal chair of Islamic Civilisation in the School of Foreign Service. Apparently, during the recent US-Israel-Iran war, Brown made this comment on X:
“I’m not an expert, but I assume Iran could still get a bomb easily. I hope Iran does some symbolic strike on a base, then everyone stops,” Brown wrote on X.
Brown has tenure and a chaired professorship at Georgetown, but apparently the comment was regarded as frightening enough to call for his suspension. The President forced Brown to delete the tweet, and he’s now been suspended. He’s also been removed as chair of his department, which I believe was intended as punishment. Continue reading
Davenport et al on Regime Change in Iran
PoT’s own John Davenport has a piece in The Defense Post attacking the idea of regime change in Iran. John argues, reasonably enough, that a war with Iran is ill-conceived, partly because it’s based on Israeli deceptions, and partly because it’s likely to lead to terrible, even catastrophic consequences. Continue reading
Policy of Truth 