Karl Weiss – Die Menschheit rutscht langsam in den Dritten Weltkrieg und man merkt es kaum. Die Büchse der Pandora wurde geöffnet. Nachdem nun allen Ländern ausführlich vorgemacht wurde, daß man beliebig Nachbar- und andere Staaten angreifen kann, ohne dafür verurteilt oder bestraft zu werden (irgendwelche Vorwände finden sich ja immer), beginnen sich allenthalben die Konfliktpunkte in Kriege umzuwandeln.

Während im Januar/Februar 1991 noch ein kleiner Staat, der einen anderen, noch kleineren Staat angegriffen und besetzt hatte (Irak- Kuwait), heftig bestraft wurde (inzwischen weiß man, daß die Gründe ganz andere waren), begannen danach die Regeln zu verwischen, die Standards interpretierbar zu werden, was sich vor allem zeigte, als es plötzlich akzeptabel war, daß sich Teile Jugoslawiens einfach unabhängig erklärten, ohne darüber mit der Zentralregierung Einigung zu suchen. Deutschland unter Außenminister Genscher war jeweils das erste Land, das Kroatien, Slowenien und Bosnien anerkannte, alle Regeln internationaler Diplomatie brechend.

New War
Danach kam der Krieg gegen Rest-Jugoslawien wegen des Kosovo, dann der 11. September. George W. Bush erklärte den „New War“. Alle Nato-Staaten erklärten sich im Kriegszustand und sind es noch heute, ohne zu merken (wirklich?), was sie damit anstellten.

Waren vorher, während der Zeit des „Kalten Krieges“, jegliche Überfälle auf andere Staaten (mit Ausnahme natürlich jene der zwei damaligen Supermächte), jegliche Unabhängigkeitserklärungen von Teilen souveräner Staaten absolut verboten und Ziel massiver Eingriffe, waren nun alle Regeln geändert.

Das nächste Ziel war Afghanistan – da machte man sich nicht einmal die Mühe, wirklich plausible Begründungen zu finden, man marschierte einfach ein.

Als dann auch der Irak überrollt wurde und von der US-Regierung und seinen (abbröckelnden) Willigen zu einer Kolonie gemacht wurde, begannen alle Dämme zu brechen.

Die Genscher Doktrin
Zu diesem Zeitpunkt hatten sich bereits vier Teilstaaten von Post-SU-Ländern für unabhängig erklärt: Abchasien und Südossetien (von Georgien), Berg-Karabach (von Aserbeidschan) und Transnistrien (von Moldawien). Das schwelt vor sich hin. In diesem Fall gilt plötzlich nicht mehr die „Genscher-Doktrin“, daß Abspaltungen anerkannt werden sollen, wenn es Mehrheitsentscheidungen in überwachten Volksentscheiden gegeben habe.

In Afrika gibt es wegen der willkürlichen Grenzziehungen der früheren Kolonialmächte sowieso ein riesiges diesbezügliches Konfliktpotential.

Das Ganze begann sich langsam in den Köpfen von Tausenden von Politikern in Konfliktregionen zu klären: „Die Regeln wurden geändert. Das gilt auch für uns. Auf geht’s, machen wir Krieg!“

Als die USA dann die Israelis in den Libanon marschieren ließen, war endgültig klar: Jetzt gibt’s kein Halten mehr. Als erstes marschierte Äthiopien in Somalia ein, wenn auch noch nicht mit der ganzen Truppenmacht. Auch im Süd-Sudan gibt es Kämpfe. Angesichts des Hauptinteresses für den Libanon blieben diese Dinge fast unbeachtet.

Der Nächste war die Türkei: Man begann Truppen an der Grenze zum Irak zusammenzuziehen und seit Beginn des Libanon-Kriegs begannen Übergriffe auf irakisches (kurdisches) Staatsgebiet, die von der Öffentlichkeit ebenfalls kaum zur Kenntnis genommen wurden.

Dann der Iran. Ganz offen und ungehindert unternimmt man Luftangriffe im Nachbarland Irak (kurdischer Teil).

Flächenbrand
In dem Maße, wie sich der Libanon-Krieg zu einem Flächenbrand im ganzen Nahen Osten ausweiten könnte, würde man mit Sicherheit die nächsten militärischen Abenteuer erwarten können. Daß er das tun wird, ist angesichts der Bedingungen („Neuer Naher Osten“, vollständiges Besiegen und Entwaffnen der Hisbollah), die durch die US-Regierung für einen Waffenstillstand gestellt wurde, praktisch nicht mehr abzuwenden – es sei denn, diese Bedingungen werden fallengelassen.

Hat nicht Aserbeidschan schon mehrfach angekündigt, Berg-Karabach müsse wieder dem Staatsverband einverleibt werden? Das würde Krieg mit Armenien bedeuten.

Man könnte sich aber auch in eine andere Richtung bewegen und sich des Schicksals der armen unterdrückten Aserbeidschaner im Iran annehmen. Da gäbe es gewiß bestimmte Nationen, die das aus vollem Herzen unterstützen würden.

Aber es gibt noch so viele andere Stellen, die der neuen Doktrin der gewaltsamen Konfliktlösung aufgeschlossen sein könnten. Auf Zypern steht zum Beispiel noch ein ungelöstes Problem an, das auch zum Krieg Türkei-Griechenland führen könnte.

Griechenland hat außerdem noch ein Hühnchen mit Mazedonien zu rupfen, Albanien könnte den Kosovo gleich einverleiben, was dann wohl Serbien auf den Plan ruft.

Der serbische Teil Bosniens steht auch noch an, nicht?
Ganz zu schweigen von wichtigen ungelösten Problemen zwischen Ungarn und Rumänien. Es gibt auch noch eine ungarische Minderheit in einem Eck Serbiens, die müßte sich doch auch noch unabhängig erklären, oder nicht?

Polen hat mit Weißrußland einen Gebietskonflikt, die Situation in der Ukraine schreit nach einer Trennung in Ost und West und daß Tschetschenien nicht bei Rußland bleiben will, weiß man ja nun.

Oder sehen Sie nach Spanien. Ein weites Feld! Und Großbritannien – ja, ist das zuzumuten, daß weiterhin Schottland, Wales und Nordirland besetzt sind?

Oder stellen Sie sich einmal vor, Deutschland würde anfangen. Muß nicht endlich das Sudetenland „heim ins Reich“ – und wie ist es mit Österreich? Dann gibt es da noch eindeutig deutsche Gebiete in Polen, nicht wahr? Die unterdrückten Deutschen in Dänemark müssen endlich befreit werden, was dann dazu führt, daß die Dänen die unterdrückten Dänen in Deutschland befreien müssen. Und was ist mit Südtirol, hä? Und Ostpreußen? War nicht Elsaß-Lothringen auch deutsch? Dann haben wir da noch eine Rechnung mit den Niederlanden offen wegen einer Spucke auf „uns Rudi“ bei der WM 90 und – und – und …

Nun, so werden Sie sagen, wird es aber absurd! Wird es? Oder war es das schon?

Wenn die Libanonoffensive jetzt so ausgeweitet wird, daß Syrien zum Eingreifen gezwungen ist und dann der Beistandspakt mit dem Iran greift, und der Iran in den Krieg eingreift, wenn dann der Iran von US-Truppen angegriffen wird – wäre das nicht absurd?

So absurd wie das Szenario da oben?

Davon sind wir keineswegs weit entfernt. Rußland sah sich schon veranlaßt, Syrien zu bitten, einen eventuellen Vergeltungsschlag auf Israel nicht mit russischen Raketen durchzuführen. Warum hat man wohl solche Besorgnisse?

Türkische Truppen stehen in irakischem Gebiet und überfliegen es. Jetzt. Heute.

Iranische Flugzeuge greifen irakisches Gebiet an. Jetzt. Heute.

Äthiopische Truppen sind in Somalia. Jetzt. Heute.

Israelische Truppen stehen im Gaza-Streifen und Ramallah.

Israelische Truppen strömen in den Libanon.

US-, Deutsche und viele andere Truppen in Afghanistan.

US- und britische Truppen im Irak.

Absurd, nicht?

Die Regeln wurden geändert! Machen wir Krieg!

Introduction & Part One: Ramsey Clark from Attorney General to the IAC

Kevin Coogan – On September 29th, 2001, just a few weeks following the September 11th terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a large peace rally was held in Washington, D.C., to oppose an American military response to the attack.

The main organizer of the D.C. rally, ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism), was officially established shortly after the 9/11 attack. The leading force behind ANSWER’s creation is the International Action Center (IAC), which represents itself as a progressive organization devoted to peace, justice, and human rights issues.

The IAC’s organizational clout is considerable: for the past decade it has played a leading role in organizing protest demonstrations against U.S. military actions against both Iraq and Serbia. After the September 11th attack, the IAC decided to turn its long-organized planned protest against the International Monetary Fund and World Bank gathering, scheduled for the 29th, into an action opposing any use of U.S. military power in response to terrorism.

The IAC owes its current success to Ramsey Clark, a former Attorney General during the Johnson Administration, who is listed on the IAC’s website as its founder. Clark’s establishment credentials have caused many in the mass media to accept the IAC’s self-portrayal as a group of disinterested humanitarians appalled by war and poverty who are working to turn American foreign policy towards a more humane course. On its website the IAC says it was „Founded by Ramsey Clark“ and then describes its purpose: „Information, Activism, and Resistance to U.S. Militarism, War, and Corporate Greed, Linking with Struggles Against Racism and Oppression within the United States.“

Yet since its inception in 1992, the IAC’s actions have given rise to serious doubts about its bona fides as an organization truly committed to peace and human rights issues.

Behind the blue door entrance to the IAC’s headquarters on 14th Street in Manhattan can be found deeper shades of red. When one looks closely at the IAC, it becomes impossible to ignore the overwhelming presence of members of an avowedly Marxist-Leninist sect called the Workers World Party (WWP), whose cadre staff virtually all of the IAC’s top positions. Whether or not the IAC is simply a WWP front group remains difficult to say.

Nor is there any evidence that Ramsey Clark himself is a WWP member. What does seem undeniable is that without the presence of scores of WWP cadre working inside the IAC, the organization would for all practical purposes cease to exist. Therefore, even if Clark is not a WWP member, he is following a political course that meets with the complete approval of one of the most pro-Stalinist sects ever to emerge from the American far left.

Part One: Ramsey Clark from Attorney General to the IAC
Before analyzing the role of the WWP in both the creation and control of the IAC, it is first necessary to explain just how the IAC managed to link up with Clark, a 74-year old Texas-born lawyer and the IAC’s one big name media star.

The son of Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark (himself a Attorney General in the Johnson administration), Ramsey Clark radiates „middle America“ with his puppy dog eyes, short hair, jug ears, Texas twang, plain talk, and „aw, shucks“ demeanor. Clark backs up his folksy public persona with some dazzling credentials that include serving as the National Chairman of the National Advisory Committee of the ACLU, as well as serving as past president of the Federal Bar Association.

Despite his prominence within the establishment, Clark also maintains close ties to the Left. After he ceased being LBJ’s Attorney General in 1969 when Nixon became President, Clark visited North Vietnam and condemned U.S. bombing policy over the „Voice of Vietnam“ radio station. He also served as a lawyer for peace activist Father Phillip Berrigan, and led a committee that investigated the killing of Chicago Black Panther leader Fred Hampton by local police in collusion with the FBI.

At the same time, Clark remained politically active inside the more moderate ranks of the Democratic Party. In 1976, however, his defeat in the New York Democratic primary campaign for Senate ended his political ambitions. From the mid-1970s until today, the Greenwich Village-based Clark has pursued a career as a high-powered defense attorney who specializes in political cases.

Some of Clark’s current clients, including Shaykh Umar `Abd al-Rahman, the „blind Sheik“ who was convicted and sentenced to a lengthy prison term for his involvement in helping to organize follow-up terrorist attacks in New York City after the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, are a far cry from Father Berrigan. Shaykh `Abd al-Rahman, of course, deserves legal representation. What makes Clark’s approach noteworthy is that in the case of `Abd al-Rahman (as well as those of Clark’s other political clients), his approach is based more on putting the government on trial for its alleged misdeeds than actually proving the innocence of his clients.

While completely ignoring Shaykh `Abd al-Rahman’s pivotal role in the Egyptian-based Islamist terror group al-Jama`a al-Islamiyyah, as well as the central role that the Shaykh’s Jersey City-based mosque played in the first World Trade Center attack, Clark tried to portray the blind Shaykh as a brilliant Islamic scholar and religious thinker who was being persecuted simply as a result of anti-Muslim prejudice on the part of the American government.

Clark appears to be driven by intense rage at what he perceives to be the failures of American foreign policy; a rage so strong that it may well be irrelevant to him whether his clients are actually innocent or guilty as long as he can use them to strike back at the American establishment which once welcomed him with open arms. After losing his 1976 Senate bid, Clark deepened his opposition to American foreign policy. In June 1980, at a time when American hostages were in their eighth month of captivity in Iran, Clark sojourned to Tehran to take part in a conference on the „Crimes of America“ sponsored by Ayatollah Khomeini’s theocratic Islamic regime.

According to a story on Clark by John Judis that appeared in the April 22nd, 1991 New Republic, while in Iran Clark publicly characterized the Carter Administration?s failed military attempt to rescue the hostages as a violation of international law. By the time Clark was sipping tea in Tehran, American foreign policy was in shambles. In both Nicaragua and Iran, U.S.-backed dictators had fallen from power. In Europe, the incoming Reagan Administration would soon be faced with a growing neutralist movement that was particularly strong in Germany. Inside the U.S., the anti-nuclear „freeze“ movement was then in full swing. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union had deployed massive amounts of troops into a formerly neutral nation for the first time since the end of World War II.

By the mid-1980s, however, the combination of Reagan in America and Margaret Thatcher in England had brought the Left to a screeching halt. Huge sums of covert CIA aid allowed the mujahidin to turn Afghanistan into a cemetery for Russian soldiers, while in Central America the U.S. managed first to destabilize and then to bring down Cuban-allied states like Nicaragua and Grenada. In the Middle East, the U.S. (with help from Israel) successfully encouraged both Iraq and Iran to fight a long bloody war against each other, a war triggered by Saddam Husayn’s attempted invasion of Iran. In 1986 American planes even bombed Libya to punish Colonel Qadhdhafi for backing terrorist groups in the West.

As U.S. power began to reassert itself globally, Clark became even more extreme in his opposition to American foreign policy. He first astonished many on the Left when he agreed to defend former Grenada Defense Minister Bernard Coard, leader of the ultra-leftist clique responsible for the assassination of Maurice Bishop. (It was Bishop’s 1983 murder that had supplied the pretext for the U.S. invasion of Grenada.)

After the U.S. attack on Libya, Clark journeyed to Tripoli to offer his condolences to Colonel Qadhdhafi. That same year he defended Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leaders from a legal suit brought by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly retired man in a wheel chair who was murdered by Palestinian terrorists on the Italian cruise ship „Achille Lauro“ simply because he was Jewish. Clark even became the lawyer for Nazi collaborator Karl Linnas, who was unsuccessfully fighting deportation to his native Estonia to face war crimes charges.

Clark’s next legal client was equally surprising. In 1989 he became Lyndon Larouche?s lead attorney in Larouche?s attempt to appeal his conviction on federal mail fraud charges. Larouche, who began his political career in the late 1940s as a member of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party (SWP), had by the late 1970s embraced the far right, anti-Semitism, and Holocaust denial.

Clark claimed that the government was persecuting Larouche solely to suppress his political organizing, and even went so far as to express „amazement“ at the personal „vilification“ directed at his client! A report from the left-wing watchdog group Political Research Associates suggests that Clark’s fondness for Larouche may have been rooted in Larouche’s aggressive support for Panamanian dictator General Manuel Noriega, who had been forcibly removed from power by the Bush Administration. Both Larouche and Clark participated in the movement opposed to American military intervention in Panama. Clark even visited Panama in January 1990 as part of an „Independent Commission of Inquiry“ to examine American „war crimes.“ (Not surprisingly, the Commission found America „guilty.“)

Clark’s willingness to defend political clients so long as he felt he could use their cases to put the American government on trial meant that he was less interested in proving that his clients were saints than in proving that members of his own government were sinners. Clark’s logic now began to extend beyond his choice of legal clients to encompass groups that he was willing to collaborate with who he felt might help advance his political agenda. By 1990, Clark decided he was even willing to ally himself closely with an ultra-left Marxist-Leninist sect called the Workers World Party (WWP).

Clark’s ties to the WWP first became apparent during the 1990-1991 foreign policy crisis in the Middle East that began unfolding after Iraqi dictator Saddam Husayn invaded Kuwait in an attempt to dominate the Middle East?s oil supplies. During the Winter 1990-91 Mideast crisis, two separate „anti-war“ coalitions arose to protest the first Bush Administration’s policies.

Before the military attack on Iraq took place in January 1991, the Bush Administration (with support both from Congress and many other nations) imposed an economic embargo on Husayn in an attempt to pressure him to voluntarily withdraw his forces from Iraq and avoid a full-scale war. The embargo policy was strongly endorsed by Democrats in Washington. Although the Russians had long maintained strong ties to Iraq, even Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev tried to persuade Husayn to withdraw his forces or face military defeat.

The Bush Administration made it clear to Husayn that he was on a tight deadline, and that any failure to meet that deadline and withdraw his forces would result in war. The first anti-war coalition, the National Campaign for Peace in the Middle East, strongly opposed the idea of a deadline and advocated the extension of the sanctions policy against Iraq as an alternative to military action.

The National Campaign also made it clear that no matter how much it was opposed to a war against Iraq, it also considered Husayn?s invasion of Kuwait to be an undeniable act of aggression. The National Campaign’s stance on the Gulf War was challenged by a rival organization, the National Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East. The National Coalition bitterly opposed the National Campaign’s support for the extension of sanctions.

The Coalition argued that Iraq itself was the victim of „U.S. Oil Imperialism,“ which was working in cahoots with reactionary states like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the ruling class of Kuwait itself. The Coalition demanded, instead, that the Left uncritically defend „the Iraqi people“ against both continued economic sanctions and direct American military intervention. The divisions inside the Left over this issue became so deep that both groups were forced to hold rival rallies in Washington in January 1991.

The hard Left National Coalition came out of a long-standing Workers World Party front organization known as the People’s Anti-War Mobilization (PAM), which quickly reorganized itself into the National Coalition. The WWP’s prominent role in the National Coalition was made evident by the group’s choice of a leader, a WWP member named Monica Moorhead (the WWP’s candidate for President in the 2000 elections).

The Coalition’s office was adjacent to Clark’s Manhattan law office, where another WWP cadre member named Gavriella Gemma (Coalition Coordinator) worked as a legal secretary. The National Coalition (most likely through Gemma) extended an invitation to Clark to serve as its official spokesman. To the astonishment of many, he accepted.

Yet Clark and the WWP, at least publicly, had so little in common that as late as 1989 the WWP?s official mouthpiece, Workers World (WW), never even mentioned Clark in a favorable light.
Clark’s decision paved the way for his subsequent involvement in the WWP-allied International Action Center.

After the Gulf War ended, Clark established an „International War Crimes Tribunal“ to denounce U.S. actions against Iraq. When the Tribunal held its first hearings in New York on May 11th, 1991, the speakers included WWP members Teresa Gutierrez („co-coordinator“ of yet another WWP front, the International Peace for Cuba Appeal), Moorhead, and WWP stalwart Sarah Flounders. One year later, on July 6th, 1992, Workers World announced the creation of a „center for international solidarity“ (the IAC) with Clark as its spokesman.

Clark told WW that „the international center can become a people’s United Nations based on grass-roots activism and the principles of peace, equality and justice.“ With Clark as spokesman and Sarah Flounders as a coordinator, the IAC sheltered a myriad of WWP front groups and allied organizations, including the National Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East, the Haiti Commission, the Campaign to Stop Settlements in Occupied Palestine, the Commission of Inquiry on the US Invasion of Panama, the Movement for a Peoples Assembly, and the International War Crimes Tribunal.

From 1991 until today, the IAC/WWP has led repeated delegations to Iraq with Clark at their head to meet with Saddam Husayn and other top Iraqi officials. The close ties between the IAC and Husayn have led other critics of U.S. foreign policy toward Iraq, such as former UN inspector Scott Ritter (who, like the IAC, opposes the continuation of sanctions as being far more harmful to the Iraqi people than to Husayn), to distance himself from any association with the IAC. Ironically enough, a few years before the Gulf War broke out, the WWP had no qualms about labeling Saddam Husayn as a genocidal war criminal.

In a September 22nd, 1988 WW article entitled „Iraq launches genocidal attack on Kurdish people,“ WWP cadre (and current IAC honcho) Brian Becker denounced Iraq’s „horrific chemical weapons attacks on Kurdish villages,“ citing „ample evidence“ from Kurdish sources and „independent observers“ that „mustard gas, cyanide and other outlawed chemical weapons have been used in a massive fashion“ not just against the Kurds but also against „thousands of rebelling Iraqi forces who deserted from the army in 1984 during the Iran-Iraq war, and took refuge in the marshland areas in southern Iraq.“

Becker then noted that the Iraqi attempt to crush the Kurds „by a combination of terror and systematic depopulation“ has been „the hallmark of the government’s policy for the last several years.“

More recently both Clark and the IAC have played a leading role in uncritically defending former Serbian leader Slobodon Milosevic’s brutal attempts to dominate both Bosnia and Kosovo. (Clark even defended Radovan Karadzic, the notorious Bosnian Serb warlord allied with Milosevic, against a civil suit brought against him for the atrocities carried out by his forces.)

While accusing NATO of committing war crimes against Serbia, neither the IAC nor the WWP criticized Serbia’s notorious record of terror against civilians, one which includes both the infamous massacre at Srebrenica and the displacement of a million Muslim refuges from Kosovo. The Clark/IAC War Crimes Tribunal’s hatred of American policy, which comes coated in legal jargon, borders on the comic as well as the megalomaniacal.

One IAC „legal brief,“ for example, accuses President Clinton, the U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and „U.S. personnel directly involved in designating targets, flight crews and deck crews of the U.S. military bombers and assault aircraft, U.S. military personnel directly involved in targeting, preparing and launching missiles at Yugoslavia“ with war crimes. Nor does the IAC indictment ignore the political and military leadership of England, Germany, and „every NATO country,“ not to mention the governments of Turkey and Hungary.

It then charges NATO with „inflicting, inciting and enhancing violence between Muslims and Slavs,“ using the media „to demonize Yugoslavia, Slavs, Serbs and Muslims as genocidal murderers,“ and „attempting to destroy the Sovereignty, right to self determination, democracy and culture of the Slavic, Muslim, Christian and other people of Yugoslavia.“ The Alice in Wonderland quality of the „war crimes indictment“ is further highlighted by its demand for „the abolition of NATO“!

No matter how surreal the IAC’s actions sound, there can be little doubt that they are well-funded, since IAC/WWP cadres regularly fly to Europe and the Middle East to attend conferences and political meetings. Through a 501(c) 3 organization called the People’s Rights Fund, a wealthy Serbian-American who may even have business connections to Belgrade can freely donate to both the IAC and its related media propaganda arm, the Peoples Video Network. Nor are foreign diplomats terribly shy about being publicly associated with IAC events.

Iraq’s UN Ambassador, Dr. Sa`id Hasan, for example, even spoke at the IAC’s „First Hearing of the Independent Commission of Inquiry to Investigate U.S./NATO War Crimes Against the People of Yugoslavia,“ held in New York City on July 31st, 1999. One foreign official who will not be attending any IAC conferences in the near future, however, is former Yugoslav leader Slobodon Milosevic, who is currently on trial for war crimes in the Hague.

Next: Part Two: The Crisis of the Marxist Left and the Rise of the WWP

Presse Portal – Der amerikanische Regisseur Oliver Stone fürchtet, dass sich der Konflikt im Mittleren und Nahen Osten zu einen Dritten Weltkrieg ausdehnen könne. „Angesichts all der Brandsätze mache ich mir Sorgen, dass wir uns auf eine Situation wie vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg zubewegen“, sagte Stone in einem Interview mit dem Hamburger Magazin stern.

„Wir sehen das häufig am Beginn eines Jahrhunderts. Es könnte einer der schlimmsten Kriege werden.“

Stone, der für seinen neuen Film „World Trade Center“ die Anschläge vom 11. September 2001 als Grundlage genommen hat, macht vor allem die Regierung von George W. Bush dafür verantwortlich, dass die „Welt heute ein anderer Ort“ sei. Die Folgen der US-Reaktion auf die Anschläge seien „fraglos viel größer als der 11. September selbst: Hunderttausende sind tot, wir haben öffentliche Hinrichtungenauf Video, eine Serie von Terroranschlägen, hohe Staatsschulden in Amerika, den Bruch der Verfassung. Das ist schlimmer, viel schlimmer.“

Der 11. September sei „zu einem Monstrum aufgeblasen“ worden, sagte Stone dem stern. Die Anschläge seien eine Rebellion gegen den „American Way of Life“ gewesen, „leider eine Rebellion, die nicht eingedämmt wurde, wie es eine smarte, normale Regierung getan hätte, sondern vielmehr angeheizt wurde zu einem Dschihad“.

Der 59-Jährige, der seit Filmen wie „Platoon“ und „JFK“ zu den umstrittensten Regisseuren Hollywoods zählt, äußert sich im stern auch zum Irak-Krieg:

„Was, zum Teufel, war der Irak-Krieg anderes als eine Verschwörung von Cheney und Bush und einer Bande im Pentagon? Die wollten Krieg auf Teufel komm raus und ignorierten alle anderen Einschätzungen. Das ist eine Verschwörung.“

Rachel Alexander – Critics of the Bush administration who complain that the U.S. is too hawkish toward Iran have no better plan of their own to offer. U.N. member countries who are not on Ahmadinejad’s top two enemies list care more about oil than whether Ahmadeinejad wants to bomb us.

Ahmadinejad reportedly played a role in the kidnapping of hostages from the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Ironically, although Iran may have temporarily diverted attention from its refusal to comply with nuclear inspections by aiding Hezbollah’s attack on Israel, the overall increasing level of violence in the Middle East is building more support for a U.S. or NATO strike against it. War against Israel is inevitably accompanied by attacks on American citizens. In addition to saying that the Holocaust never happened and that Israel should be „wiped off the map,“ President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened the U.S., saying that the U.S. should be „tried as war criminals in courts.“ Ahmadinejad reportedly played a role in the kidnapping of hostages from the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Critics of the Bush administration who complain that the U.S. is too hawkish toward Iran have no better plan of their own to offer. Many would continue to do nothing, even as violence escalates, deferring to the U.N. and its agencies to negotiate with Iran. The U.N. has a poor record of stopping tyrants. Member countries of the U.N. have different priorities than the U.S. Other countries aren’t on Ahmadinejad’s top two enemies list, and as we learned in the past from France, Germany, and Russia’s vote against the 2003 Iraq War, are more concerned about access to cheap oil than whether someone is plotting to drop nuclear bombs on Israel or the U.S.

Ahmadinejad very likely detests the U.S. more than any other country except for Israel. Fortunately, because of the U.S.’s strong position, distant proximity, and lack of offensive aggression towards its enemies, it has been able to avoid the prevalent violence Iran engages in with neighboring ethnic minorities in Turkey, Iraq, and Azerbijan.

It is short-sighted to do nothing except issue toothless warnings from the U.N., permitting an unstable and extremist dictator to continue enriching uranium that everyone knows is only meant for one thing, to build nuclear weapons intended for its enemies – which could include possible use against the U.S. and Israel. Speculation that Iran is enriching uranium for nuclear energy purposes is naïve at best, underhanded at worst. If that were true, Iran would have properly reported its progress to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Accusations that the U.S. is planning an aggressive „neocon“ strike against Iran are misplaced. There is a difference between planning a preemptive nuclear strike, and preparing a contingency plan ahead of time in case a nuclear strike becomes necessary. Pacifists and critics of the Bush administration conveniently like to confuse the two in order to mislead the public. The Bush administration has already capitulated considerably to world opinion and criticism from the pacifist left by agreeing to negotiate directly with Iran for the first time in over 26 years. It makes no sense that the Bush administration would agree to these talks if it was planning a strike. The administration is going to utmost lengths in order to forestall military action.

Bush has learned from Iraq that there is no such thing as a guaranteed quick and cheap intervention. The risk of resulting political and economic damage may not be worth the gamble of a military strike. Republicans cannot afford another mire requiring additional troops while still engaged in Iraq; it would lower morale even further. Gas prices would skyrocket, since Iran has vowed to reduce or cut its oil supply if the U.S. strikes. Although the U.S. does not purchase oil from Iran, the countries that do purchase Iranian oil would be forced to buy oil elsewhere, decreasing the amount of oil available to the U.S., which drives the price up. Intelligence sources recently revealed that Iran has been moving its enrichment programs into urban areas, further reducing the possibility of a U.S. strike.

Instead, the Bush administration is prudently taking the middle ground, preparing for the possibility of a military strike while exhausting all realistic negotiating efforts. The U.S. should continue its tough stance, avoiding full recognition of Iran while continuing to freeze its assets and level economic sanctions against it. The U.S. should avoid any region-wide weapons freeze that would affect Israel. Although some claim the U.S. is being hypocritical since it has thousands of nuclear warheads, terrorists and terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda have never abided by international agreements and treaties, so there is no reason to trust them to abide by a regional weapons freeze. The freeze would essentially hand Israel over to terrorists. The U.S. and Israel need nuclear weapons in order to defend themselves and deter despots, which is considerably different than obtaining them to commit terrorist attacks. Ceding ground to an aggressor as unpredictable as Ahmadinejad would likely result in him asking for more.

In a recent column, George Will accused Condoleeza Rice of harboring the naïve belief that any violent activity in Iran signifies progress. This mischaracterization of Rice’s position takes the easy way out of a legitimate debate regarding the extent the U.S. should care about what happens in Iran. Rice would not approve of violent activity by hardliners in the former USSR seeking to communize Iran. Nor would Rice look favorably upon a fascist dictator who sought control over Iran’s oil (let’s not forget Kuwait).

There is only one viable solution. Iran must agree to a Middle East peace process, and cease its support of violent opposition to such a plan. Unless something radically changes the situation in Iraq, U.S. troops are on schedule to withdraw within the next couple of years. Although cynics claim the U.S. cannot „force“ a democracy on an undemocratic country, protesting that the U.S. will be engaged in Iraq for many years to come, history has proven otherwise, most notably in this century with Japan. Absent no other significant active U.S. engagement around the world, the possibility of targeted strikes against Iran may become a reality.

Rachel Alexander

Ist praktizierende Anwältin für die Regierung in Phönix im U.S. Staat Arizona. Als ehemaliges Redaktionsmitglied und Kolumnistin des Arizona Daily Wildcat, gewann sie für ihre journalistischen Arbeiten drei Auszeichnungen und schreibt Kolumnen für IntellectualConservative.com und oraclesyndicate.org