Christopher King
As provocation, I would have thought that a much better example was the approval recently given by the US Congress for a USD 400 million package for clandestine operations against Iran. More an act of war, really. Clandestine operations apparently means supporting terrorist groups, subversion, sabotage, kidnapping and assassination within Iranian territory. What would be the USA’s reaction if, say, China were to openly allocate similar funds and undertake similar activities against the USA? After years of American intervention in its affairs, sponsored war against it together with current lies and threats, Iran’s missile test seems a very sensible and modest defensive measure.
This is reminiscent of the USA’s attitude to water-boarding. It’s merely “enhanced interrogation” when the USA does it but if anyone else waterboards a US citizen, President Bush will seek the death penalty. Surely, this says something about the president’s mentality and American ethics.
Still considering provocation, however, wasn’t Israel’s recent rehearsal of an attack on Iran provocative? No? Or the USA’s agreement with the Czech Republic for the installation of a missile system component on Russia’s border? Condoleeza Rice says that these missiles won’t be aimed at Russia and I think that she’s right. The purpose of this missile system is puzzling because Condoleeza’s statement that it protects the US and European Union from Iran and other rogue states is obviously nonsense. Militarily, it’s useless. However, if it can irritate Russia into retaliatory missile deployment and cold-war rhetoric, this gives multiple perceived benefits for the USA:
► Ability to blame Russia for more military spending, giving profits for firms such as Haliburton
► Ability to sour relations between the EU and Russia and disrupt further rapproachment
► Distract from US violence in the Middle East by giving Europeans problems nearer home to worry about
Read More
