Today's agreement by the European Union to impose an oil embargo on Iran brings the world closer to war. This piece in The Guardian explains the volatile situation, concluding: "Even if Washington and Tehran remain determined to avoid an all-out war, with every passing month there is a rising chance of one breaking out by accident."
Into this tense situation comes Stephen Harper, who took the opportunity of a sit-down with Peter Mansbridge on the CBC last week to make his latest in a series of incendiary comments regarding Iran. I wrote an op-ed for the Georgia Straight to explain why Harper's rhetoric should frighten us all.
The prime minister has been fear mongering about Iran for some time, repeatedly calling Iran the greatest threat to world peace. Harper one-upped himself in this latest conversation with Mansbridge, asserting that he knew "beyond any doubt" that Iran was working to develop nuclear weapons. Not only that, but Harper stated that he is "absolutely convinced" that Iran "would have no hesitation about using nuclear weapons."
This last comment is extraordinary; Harper is in effect claiming to know for a fact that the regime in Tehran is suicidal. Israel already has an arsenal of nuclear weapons -- a fact everyone knows but which the government in Tel Aviv has never formally admitted. (Israel, unlike Iran, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.) Any attack by Iran, let alone its use of hypothetical nuclear weapons, would result in its total obliteration.
A slight hyperbole in that last sentence, perhaps, but Harper has it completely backwards. For all its repugnant and repressive characteristics, the regime is hardly the irrational caricature drawn by Harper. It is capable of assessing and acting on its self-interest, as indeed it has in expanding its regional influence in recent years. The theocratic government seized the opening provided by the blundering U.S. invasion of Iraq to become a powerful influence there. The same goes for Afghanistan, where Iran quietly provided military assistance to the initial invasion and has since built up its sway over the weak Karzai regime. Some careful observers of the situation in Iran argue that the aggressive sanctions from the West may be causing the regime -- extremely wary of another 2009-style mass movement -- to see increased confrontation as their best bet.
One final, related note: it's astonishing the way the mainstream media in the U.S. and Canada remain almost completely silent on Israel's possession of nuclear weapons. In Israel itself, you can go to jail for the crime of speaking truthfully about this issue. Here in Canada, every media story speculating about whether Iran's development of nuclear power is part of an effort to get the bomb should include mention of Israel's arsenal of nukes. That context is essential to understanding the terrifying dynamics at play.
Harper has a simplistic world view. There are the good guys and the bad guys. Iran's a bad guy; Israel's a good guy. It's that simple. The PM is willing to back up the tough talk with action. Remember, he wanted Canada to get into the Iraq war. A war with Iran would make Iraq look like a bun fight. Iran is by no means isolated. It has allies in Iraq and Lebanon to name just a few places. By contrast, the US, Israel and any of its alies, including the Sunni who rule the Arab world, are detested. iran will make a ruthless and resourceful enemy that will unite in the face of an external threat as it did in the '80s. We could be looking at WW3. Still those complexities don't vex Harper.
But the question is why be frightened by the likelihood of a war in the Middle East? Would it not settle a few issues? Certainly, the inevitable US loss might drive the Yanks into a prolonged period of much-needed isolation and destroy the political careers of their supporters such as Harper. Yes, I know wars bring death and destruction but sometimes you have to look on the bright side of death.
This pressure on Iran could force the current regime to pay hardball. As Harper and most Canadians no doubt are aware, a significant chunk of World crude travels through a narrow stretch of water controlled by Iran. Any {perceived} threat to the flow of oil through the Straight of Hormuz, will drive world crude prices well north of $100/brl. While escalated western response might see Canadians paying with their lives and tax dollars to particpate in another foreign war, it would greatly bolster the coffers of the "eithical oil" backers. It would also provide this Prime Minister a pro-Keystone XL "fear stick" to swing in the US during an election year and a flag to wave at home as justification for a heavy-handed decision to see the Northern Gateway pipeline proceed.
War with Iran as a distraction...
Stephen Harper has made statements about the Iranian nuclear agenda for several years...but at this point in history is it possible that his joining in the anti-Iranian rhetoric is as much about creating an imported oil crisis as it is about his one dimensional view of the Middle East?
Our Prime Minister is currently pressuring President Obama to approve a pipeline meant to massively increase US demand for tar sands oil; at the same time he will be doing everything that he can to undermine public consultation on the Gateway project, an environmentally dangerous and costly scheme to increase tar sands oil sales to offshore markets.
What possibility is there that a conflict can be avoided when so much tar sands oil revenue is at stake? (When are our conflicts NOT about oil?) For Stephen Harper this is the perfect opportunity to please a massive percentage of his base as he works to fulfill his vision of a northern dominion, energy superpower. Having a go at his favourite middle eastern ally's staunchest enemy is a temptation that our Prime Minister can't resist. Where is the Official Opposition?