Every weekend we (Bunny, Kim, Mimi, and I) try to make it a point to have a 'articles' meeting. We sit around and exchange copies of the most important or interesting articles we've encountered during the week. At today's meeting one of the articles Mimi presented was especially helpful in allowing me to get a clearer picture of what's really going on behind the U.S.'s incessant calls for sanctions and military strikes against Iran. It's written by Michel Chossudovsky and is called Iran: War or Privatization: All Out War or "Economic Conquest"?
Like everybody else, I like articles that provides new information. But I especially like articles that answers a question that I've been confused about for a while. And even better than those kinds of articles are the articles that asks a question that I hadn't thought of asking, then gives me a moment to realize that I don't know the answer to this new question, and then finally answers the question for me! Awesome! Well this article is exactly like this.
Here's a few excerpts from the article:
"Tehran is to allow foreign investors, in what might be interpreted as an overture to the West, to acquire full ownership of Iran's State enterprises in the context of a far-reaching "free market" style privatization program...
It is important to carefully analyze this decision. The timing of the announcement by Iran's Privatization Organization (IPO) coincides with mounting US-Israeli threats to wage an all out war against Iran...
...Is this decision by Tehran to implement a far-reaching privatization program, in any way connected with continuous US saber rattling and diplomatic arm twisting?
At first sight it appears that Tehran is caving into Washington's demands so as to avoid an all war.
Iran's assets would be handed over on a silver platter to Western foreign investors, without the need for America to conquer new economic frontiers through military means?
But there is more than meets the eye.
Washington has no interest in the imposition of a privatization program on Iran, as an "alternative" to an all out war. In fact quite the opposite. There are indications that the Bush adminstration's main objective is to stall the privatization program...
...Now why on earth would the Bush administration be opposed to the adoption of a neoliberal-style divestment program, which would strip the Islamic Republic of some of its most profitable assets?
If "economic conquest" is the ultimate objective of a profit driven military agenda, what then is the purpose of bombing Iran, when Iran actually accepts to hand over its assets at rock-bottom prices to foreign investors, in much the same way as in other compliant developing countries including Indonesia, the Philippines, Brazil, etc?"
Do you know the answer to this? If not, please go read the article! The article is kind of like the Raed Jarrar talk, in that after reading it you be more able to decode the illogical "news" we are constantly getting pounded with here in the U.S. Since our so-called leaders seem to be in near-universal agreement over how important it is for us to destroy Iran, it seems that resistance to this kind of predatory thinking will have to come from a well-informed citizenry.
Read Michel Choussudovsky's article here.