symmetry USPeace
Munich American Peace Committee (MAPC)
home



Radio Lora, 9. Mai und 13. Juni 2006

Alternative Radio

Noam Chomsky
Iran im Fadenkreuz
David Barsamian von Alternative Radio interviewte Noam Chomsky am 10. Februar 2006 in Cambridge MA.

Prof. Noam Chomsky vom Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) ist nicht nur der weltberühmte "Erfinder" der modernen Linguistik, sondern auch  eine weltweit beachtete Stimme für Frieden und soziale Gerechtigkeit. Die "New York Times" bezeichnet den Autor zahlreicher Bücher als den "wohl meist gelesenen außenpolitischen Kommentator unseres Planeten."  Sein neu erschienenes Werk "Imperial Ambitions" wurde sofort zu einem Bestseller.


Alles, was die Bush Regierung heute über Iran sagt, klingt genauso, wie das, was sie seinerzeit über den Irak verbreitete. Für Präsident Bush und Verteidigungsminister Rumsfeld ist Iran "der Hauptsponsor des Terrors". Die US Außenministerin hat für dieses Land nur "Verachtung" übrig und die Medien stimmen nur allzu willig in diesen Chor mit ein.

Seit mehr als einem halben Jahrhundert hat sich das Muster der US-Iranpolitik nicht verändert. Alles begann 1953 mit dem Sturz der demokratisch gewählten Regierung  Mossadegh durch einen von den USA und Großbritannien unterstützten Militärcoup, der den Schah an die Macht brachte. In den USA spricht man immer nur von den US Geiseln und nie von den vorausgegangenen 25 Jahren des Terrors und der Folter unter dem Schah-Regime. 1979, nach dem Sturz des Schahs, versuchte Washington, das iranische Militär gegen die neue Zivilregierung aufzurüsten. Als dies nicht gelang, unterstützte man statt dessen im irakisch-iranischen Krieg den Irak. Saddam Hussein steht heute für Verbrechen vor Gericht, die er 1982 begangen hat, also damals, als Ronald Reagan den Irak von der Liste der Terrorstaaten gestrichen hatte und ihn mit ABC Waffen und Bauteilen zur Herstellung von Massenvernichtungswaffen ausstattete. Das haben die Iraner nicht vergessen, denn sie waren die Opfer der irakischen Aggressionen und Giftgasangriffe. Und noch heute läßt man sie mit Gewalt- und Kriegsandrohungen dafür büßen, dass sie sich von einem brutalen Tyrannen, der ein Freund der USA war, befreit haben.

Israel ist quasi ein Übersee-Militärstützpunkt der USA. Nur die US Air Force ist besser und moderner ausgestattet als die israelische Luftwaffe. Als die USA Israel über 100 hochmoderne Kampfjets lieferten, versäumte man nicht zu erwähnen, dass man nun Iran mit "Spezialwaffen" angreifen könne. Kein Wunder, dass diese Nachricht in Iran Angst und Schrecken hervorgerufen hat.
 
Seit den Angriffen auf den Irak und Afghanistan ist Iran eingekesselt von US-Truppen und Israel und Pakistan, seine feindlichen Nachbarn, verfügen über Atomwaffen. Deshalb schrieb sogar der israelische Militärhistoriker Martin van Creveld in der International Herald Tribune, dass Iran verrückt wäre, wenn er angesichts dieser strategischen Situation keine wirkungsvolle atomare Abschreckung aufbauen würde.
Als Iran ankündigte, Uran für zivile Zwecke anzureichern, entsprach dies durchaus den Regeln des Atomsperrvertrages. Vielleicht sollte man diesem Zusammenhang auch daran erinnern, dass 1977 das MIT - gegen die Stimmen der Studentenschaft - dem Schah für teures Geld wissenschaftliche und technische Unterstützung bei der Atomentwicklung gewährte und Henry Kissinger erklärte, dass Iran dringend Atomenergie bräuchte, um sein Erdölvorkommen  für andere, sinnvollere Zwecke einsetzen zu können. Heute erzählt uns derselbe Henry Kissinger, dass Iran keine Atomenergie benötige und deshalb ohne jeden Zweifel Atombomben entwickle. Gewiß, der Schritt von der friedlichen Nutzung hin zum Bau einer Atombombe ist klein und wer weiß, vielleicht hat ja van Creveld recht und die Iraner sind nicht verrückt.
Vor zwei Jahren traf die Europäische Union mit Iran eine Vereinbarung, wonach Iran, die im Atomsperrvertrag genehmigte Urananreicherung beenden würde und die EU im Gegenzug Garantien für Irans Sicherheit zusagte. Doch trotz der ständig zunehmenden israelisch-amerikanischen Bombendrohungen standen die Europäer nicht zu ihrem Wort. Sie gaben dem Druck der USA nach und verweigerten die versprochenen Sicherheitsgarantien. Warum sollte sich Iran danach noch an seine Zusagen gebunden fühlen?
Drohungen und Sanktionen werden die iranische Atombombe nicht verhindern, das könnte allein ein Zugehen auf Iran und die Aufnahme des Landes in die Weltgemeinschaft und das internationale Wirtschaftssystem.


- 2 -

Weil China sich von den USA nicht einschüchtern läßt, fürchten sich die USA vor China. Anders als die europäischen Investoren, die sich aus Angst vor den USA aus Iran zurückzogen, zeigten sich die Chinesen völlig unbeeindruckt. Und das macht sie den Amerikanern so unheimlich. Angesichts der amerikanischen Drohpolitik und der Feigheit der Europäer könnte sich Iran vom Westen abwenden und gemeinsam mit China, Russland, Indien und eventuell auch Südkorea einem unabhängigen Energieversorgungssystem für diese aufstrebende Industrieregion beitreten. Das wäre ein herber Schlag für die US-Weltherrschaft! Mit dem wichtigen Öllieferanten Saudi Arabien unterhält China nicht nur rege Handelsbeziehungen, sondern plant auch bereits ein für die USA höchst bedrohliches Militärabkommen. Auch könnte das militärische Desaster im Irak durchaus auf eine schiitische Regierungsmehrheit mit engen Beziehungen zum schiitischen Iran hinauslaufen. Der vor dem Irakkrieg völlig unbedeutende schiitische Prediger Muktada al-Sadr gewann bei den Parlamentswahlen 50% der Stimmen und drohte, bei einem Angriff Israels oder der USA auf Iran, die Amerikaner im Irak, möglicherweise gemeinsam mit der iranischen Armee anzugreifen. Das sollte als Abschreckung genügen. Aber es könnte auch der Beginn des amerikanischen Albtraums von einem schiitischen Block aus Iran, Irak und Saudiarabien sein, der unabhängig von den USA, den größten Teil der Ölreserven der Erde kontrolliert und einem asiatischen Energie - Sicherheitssystem angehört. Damit wäre es der Bush-Regierung gelungen, die Stellung der USA in der Welt erfolgreich zu unterminieren.

Nicht nur im Mittleren Osten demonstrieren die USA ihr Talent, sich mit Verbündeten zu überwerfen. Sie haben es geschafft, auch Kanada und Venezuela, ihre wichtigsten Energielieferanten, so vor den Kopf zu stoßen, dass diese in Zukunft ihr Öl an China verkaufen wollen. Vorbei sind die Zeiten, als die USA Lateinamerika durch Militärumstürze und Waffengewalt unter ihre Kontrolle zwingen konnten. Inzwischen wird dort Demokratie ernster genommen als in Washington und längst hat man sich dem Einfluß des Internationalen Währungsfonds und der Weltbank entzogen..
Eine gewaltige Bedrohung für das internationale Finanzsystem bedeutet die Absicht des Asiatischen Energie -Sicherheitsverbandes, seine riesigen Geldreserven nicht wie bisher ausschließlich in US-Dollar, sondern auch in anderen Währungen anzulegen.

Wie wir gesehen haben, nehmen die USA, Großbritannien und inzwischen auch Frankreich im Falle einer Bedrohung für sich und nur für sich das Recht auf einen Präventivschlag in Anspruch. Außenministerin Condoleezza Rice geht sogar soweit zu behaupten, dass das internationale Recht für die USA keine Anwendung findet.

Das erinnert an die Geschichte von Alexander dem Großen und dem Piraten. Der eine stört die Ordnung des Meeres, der andere die Ordnung der ganzen Welt. Den einen bestraft man als Verbrecher, den anderen bejubelt man als Kaiser. Als im Januar 2006 bei einem amerikanischen Raketenangriff 18 pakistanische Zivilisten getötet wurden, bezeichnete dies die  New York Times als einen legitimen Schlag gegen flüchtige Al-Qaida Anführer und drückt damit aus, dass die USA - ganz so wie Alexander der Große - jenseits von Recht und Gesetz stehen und jederzeit gegen jedermann Gewalt anwenden dürfen.

- 3 -

Ende Januar schrieb die Los Angeles Times, dass inzwischen 57% der US Bevölkerung einen Militärschlag gegen Iran befürworten, aber gleichzeitig der Widerstands gegen den Irakkieg ständig wächst. Ist das nicht paradox?
 
Keineswegs, auch beim Irak plädierten fast Zweidrittel der Befragten gegen einen Angriff falls Saddam Hussein nicht über Massenvernichtungswaffen verfügen sollte, während  50% eine Invasion befürworteten und auch noch an eine Bedrohung durch Massenvernichtungswaffen glaubten, als schon längst klar war, dass die Regierung gewußt hatte, dass es keine gab. Regierungspropaganda und Medien hatten mit ihrer Panikmache gute Arbeit geleistet. Und genauso läuft es jetzt mit Iran. Schenkt man den Zeitungen Glauben, dann schweben wir alle in höchster Lebensgefahr, sobald Iran auch nur über eine einzige Atomwaffe verfügt. Dabei ist allen klar, dass eine solche Waffe lediglich als Abschreckung dienen soll und ein Einsatz unweigerlich die totale Vernichtung Irans nach sich zöge. Wie wirkungsvoll Angst-Propaganda sein kann, hat sich auch am Deutschland der Weimarer Republik gezeigt, als innerhalb von nur wenigen Jahren aus einem der kultiviertesten Ländern der Welt ein Haufen irrer Fanatiker wurde, dem man eingehämmert hatte, sich gegen Juden und Bolschewisten verteidigen zu müssen. Wir alle wissen, wie diese Geschichte ausgegangen ist.
Doch auch Verschweigen ist Propaganda. Außer in den großen Wirtschaftszeitungen liest man heute kein Wort darüber, dass Iran mit der Urananreicherung ja erst begann, nachdem die Europäer nicht mehr zu ihren Sicherheitsgarantien standen.

Hat man eigentlich schon einmal nachgerechnet, wie viel unser Öl kosten würde, wenn man die Ausgaben des Pentagons für Bodentruppen, Marine- und Luftstützpunkte im Mittleren Osten und für die Bereitstellung von Massenvernichtungswaffen und konventionellem Kriegsgerät hinzuzählte?

Politik wird  nicht für den Steuerzahler oder für das Wohl der Gemeinschaft gemacht, sondern für Machterhalt und Profit. Um ihre wirtschaftlichen Defizite zu kaschieren, hat die Bush-Regierung aus den USA eine monströse, unberechenbare Angriffsmaschine gemacht und sie damit ganz bewußt der Gefahr durch internationalen Terror und Atomangriffe ausgesetzt.









Radio Lora, 9. Mai und 13. Juni 2006


    NOAM CHOMSKY
    Targeting Iran
Interviewed by David Barsamian
Cambridge, MA  10 February 2006

Noam Chomsky, internationally renowned MIT professor, practically invented modern linguistics. In addition to his pioneering work in that field he has been a leading voice for peace and social justice. He is in huge demand as a public speaker all over the world. The New York Times calls him, "a global phenomenon, perhaps the most widely read voice on foreign policy on the planet." Author of scores of books, his latest is the bestseller "Imperial Ambitions."

 Bush administration rhetoric on Iran reflects similar comments it made about Iraq. The president calls Iran “the world's primary state sponsor of terrorism,” the secretary of state calls the country “something to be loathed,” Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said “the Iranian regime is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.” And accompanying that rhetoric is the media echo chamber. The February 13th cover story of Newsweek. “The Next Nuclear Threat: How Dangerous Is Iran?” with a grim photo of the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Where is U.S. policy going on Iran?

U.S. policy has been fairly consistent with regard to Iran for over half a century. There are variations depending on circumstances, but the guiding principles are the same. Here people sort of pretend it's ancient history. The people who hold the clubs typically like to forget history, say it's irrelevant. But the people who are hit by the clubs tend to remember history, for good reasons, because it teaches you something. If we want to learn about it, we should be with the victims. They are correct in this.
Crucial, relevant parts of U.S. policy towards Iran begin, of course, with the overthrow of the parliamentary government in 1953 by a U.S., British-backed initiated military coup, which installed the Shah, one of the most brutal tyrants of the last half century and supported him fully to the end. A couple of months before he was overthrown, President Carter was telling him how much the Iranian people love him because he's so marvelous and so on.
He was overthrown in 1979.  There were hostages taken at the time of the crisis. The only event that exists in American history is that hostages were taken, not 25 years of terror and torture after the overthrow of the government. But Iranians look at it differently. This is more history. Ever since that time the U.S. has tried to destroy the government.  Right away Carter sent a NATO general to try to instigate a military coup. The U.S. had close relations with the Iranian military. It didn't work. They started providing the Iranian military with arms—that’s the way you overthrow a civilian government: you arm the military—via Israel, with Saudi Arabian money, which makes sense because Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey were the allies in controlling Middle East oil. That didn't work. Then the U.S. supported Iraq's war against Iran. Iraq invaded Iran.
Saddam Hussein is now on trial for crimes that he committed in 1982. If we had a free press in the country, it would be pointing out that 1982 is quite an important year in U.S., Iraqi, Iranian relations. That was the year in which Reagan took Iraq off the list of states supporting terror. And the reason was so that he could provide Iraq with aid,
including means to develop weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, biotoxins, chemical weapons, and so on. At that time it was primarily for the war against Iran, although the
same aid continued long after that war was over. There were other reasons. Donald Rumsfeld, whom you quoted, was sent to Iraq to finalize the deal with their friend Saddam. The Iranians don't forget this. They lost a huge number of casualties to the U.S.-backed Iraqi aggression. They were attacked with chemical weapons, and other atrocities.
It continues until today. And the basic reason is simply that Iran disobeyed orders. Overthrowing a U.S.-installed tyrant is not acceptable behavior, and in one or another way the Iranian people have to be punished for it. So they've been under harsh sanctions, now threats of attack—not just threats, preparations for attack.
Israel is a small country, but it's more or less by now a U.S. offshore military base, It has a very powerful military. Its air force is larger and technologically more advanced than any NATO power outside the U.S. For the last couple of years the U.S. has been sending over 100 advanced jet bombers to Israel, very publicly advertised as capable of, with the intention of, bombing Iran, equipped with what are called “special weapons” in the Hebrew press. No one knows what that means, but it's for the ears of Iranian intelligence. They're supposed to make a worst-case analysis.
And the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan put U.S. forces surrounding Iran. The major and only serious nuclear power in the region is Israel. It has hundreds of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Iran is simply surrounded by hostile forces. The invasion of Iraq was a very clear signal, quite well understood everywhere, that if you want to deter a U.S. invasion, you have to have some kind of deterrent. One deterrent is terror. Another deterrent is nuclear weapons. So it's basically a plea to Iran to develop nuclear weapons. And that's understood. One of Israel's leading military historians, Martin van Creveld, wrote, I think it was in the International Herald Tribune, that of course it doesn't want Iran to get nuclear weapons, but he said if they're not doing it, they're crazy, given the strategic situation.
Let's come closer to the present. Two years ago, the European Union and Iran made a bargain. Iran says they're enriching uranium for the development of nuclear energy. If that's what they're doing, it's entirely within the framework of the nonproliferation treaty. In fact, it's little bit ironic at MIT, where we are now, I should say, because around 1977 MIT made a deal with the Shah of Iran pretty much to sell him the nuclear engineering department. The deal was that MIT would train lots of Iranian nuclear engineers and in return the Shah would pay some big sum of money. That leak led to a huge protest on campus by students, who were overwhelmingly opposed to it. The faculty equally overwhelmingly approved it. All of this was done if not at U.S. initiative certainly with its support. At that time Henry Kissinger was explaining that Iran needs nuclear energy. It has to preserve its petrochemicals for other purposes. Now Henry Kissinger—he's just a symbol, the same with everyone—is saying they can't possibly need nuclear energy, they have so much petroleum gas reserves, so they must be developing nuclear weapons. This is the same program. In fact, Kissinger was asked about this, and he said, well, they were an ally, so then they needed nuclear energy. Now they broke out of our control so they don't need nuclear energy. Enrichment of uranium, which is legal under the NPT, is not a long step from developing nuclear weapons. So who knows? Maybe van Creveld is correct and they're not crazy. I don’t know.
Anyway, two years ago the European Union did make a bargain with them that Iran would stop enriching uranium, though they're legally entitled to do it, and in return—here’s the other half of the bargain—the European Union would provide firm guarantees on security issues. The phrase “security issues” refers to U.S.-Israeli threats to bomb Iran, which are very serious. By U.S. standards, Iran ought to be carrying out terrorist acts in the U.S. In fact, we ought to be demanding that they do it. They're under far greater threat than anything Bush or Blair ever conjured up. And that's supposed to authorize what they call anticipatory self-defense, namely attack. They can't bomb the U.S. They could do something else. Of course, that's totally outrageous, but that just tells you something about U.S., British standards. However, Europe did not live up to its half of the bargain. Under U.S. pressure, it backed off. It did not make any offer to provide any guarantees of security. After a couple of years Iran backed off from its side of the bargain.
That brings us up to the present, with Europe refusing to live up to the bargain, the U.S. and Israel continuing, extending, in fact, the threats to security, which are serious, and Iran, we don't know. They're probably back to enriching uranium, and we don't know for what purposes. No one wants Iran to get nuclear weapons. If there were any interest in preventing that, what would happen is you would reduce the threats, which are making it likely that they'll develop them as a deterrent, implement the bargain that was made, and then move towards integrating Iran into the general international economic system, remove the sanctions, which are against the people, not the government, and just bring them into the world system. The U.S. refuses. Europe is so cowardly that they do what the U.S. orders them to do.
One of the problems that the U.S. is facing is that China is not intimidated. That's why the U.S. is so frightened of China. You see headlines on the front pages, “How Dangerous Is China?”  Of all the major nuclear powers, China has been the most restrained in its development of offensive weaponry. But China is frightening because it was not intimidated. Europe will back off and China won't. European companies, frightened of the U.S., have backed away from investments in Iran, but China just proceeds. That's why the U.S. is so terrified of China. If you're the Mafia don and somebody doesn't pay protection money, that's scary, especially when you can't do anything about it.
What may happen, the Bush administration may succeed in driving Iran into the Asian energy security system. Iran has options. They might decide that Europe is much too cowardly to stand up to the U.S. and decide, okay, they'll break their ties with the West and turn eastward. There is an Asian energy security grid. It's based in China and Russia. India will probably join. It's unclear. South Korea will probably join. They want to develop an independent energy security system for this rapidly growing industrial region in Asia. That's a very frightening prospect for the U.S., because it reduces global domination. If Iran joins it, it could be a kind of lynchpin. It has plenty of natural gas, substantial petroleum, and so on. And the U.S. may drive them into that grid, which would strengthen it. And that's expanding.
China, as I say, is not intimidated. They're also making deals with Saudi Arabia, which is the main center of energy production. I forgot the exact number, but I think they're getting maybe 10-15% from Saudi Arabia. They're also entering into military relations both with Iran and Saudi Arabia. With Iran, it's presumably because the two countries regard it as a deterrent to U.S. threats. With Saudi Arabia, it's extremely frightening to U.S. planners. The U.S. military catastrophe in Iraq, which is one of the worst in history, nobody anticipated it, may end up leaving Iraq with a Shiite majority, with pretty close relations with Shiite Iran. A lot of the clerics, including the Ayatollah Sistani, come from Iran. The major militia in the south, the Badr brigade, was trained in Iran, and actually fought with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.
These ties have already been increasing. Moqtada Sadr leads Mahdi, the other major militia. The U.S. has turned him from a minor, unknown cleric into a major figure in Iraq by attacking him. He gained, I think, 50% or so in the last parliamentary elections and is now on a par with the other major Shiite bloc. He may end up being the leading element in the Shiite bloc. He was in Tehran recently and announced that if the U.S. or Israel attacks Iran, his militia—and the U.S. is afraid maybe the Iranian army—will join in attacking the U.S. in Iraq. That could blow up. That's one of the deterrents. We don’t know. Nobody knows. The Pentagon doesn't know. But it could end up the ultimate nightmare for Washington: a Shiite bloc, including Iran, Iraq to the extent it attains any sovereignty, and the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, which are adjacent to the two, which happen to be where most of Saudi Arabian oil is. That could be conceivably an independent, loose, Shiite alliance controlling most of the world's oil, not subordinated to the U.S., possibly even joining the Asian energy security grid. If the Bush administration achieves that, they will have seriously undermined the U.S. position in the world.
Moving elsewhere, they're doing the same thing in the western hemisphere. Their talent for alienating allies is phenomenal. They've even succeeded in alienating Canada, and that takes tremendous talent. But the Bush administration has refused to follow NAFTA judgments in favor of Canada in Canada-U.S. cases. The U.S. just told them to get lost, of course, after they ruled against the U.S. Canada is not very happy about it. They don’t stand up to the U.S., but they didn't like it. And  the government has said that, Well, if this continues, we'll divert oil that we're sending to the U.S. to China. Canada is one of the major energy providers to the U.S.
The other major provider in the western hemisphere is Venezuela. U.S. hostility to Venezuela has driven them also to diversify. They have increasing relations with China. They are quite happy to do it. They're diversifying their exports. And from Venezuela down to Argentina, the region is almost out of control. The U.S. doesn't have the mechanisms it used to have, like military coups and attacks and so on. It can't do that anymore. In fact, they tried. In 2002, they did try to support a military coup in Venezuela to overthrow the government. That's the standard technique. But they had to back off very quickly.     There was a huge uproar in Latin America, where democracy is taken more seriously than in Washington. They had to back away and turn to subversion. They are also losing the economic controls. The main economic stranglehold for Latin America has been basically the offshoots of the Treasury Department: the IMF, World Bank. They have led Latin America into a complete economic disaster almost everywhere, and they're now being kicked out.
Argentina, which was the poster child for the IMF, had a terrible economic collapse following IMF rules. They managed to recover, but only by radically violating the rules. They are now, as the president says, ridding themselves of the IMF, paying off the debt, no more contact with the IMF. They're being helped by Venezuela, which bought up part of their debt. Bolivia will probably do the same. The same IMF, World Bank catastrophe for the last 25 years. And if the U.S. loses its economic stranglehold over Latin America and can no longer carry out military attacks, which is not so obvious, incidentally. The U.S. is considerably increasing its military forces in Latin America. But if those controls are gone, it may not have any effect, almost certainly won't have anything like the degree of control it's had before. That includes major resource producers, oil in particular. Venezuela and Canada aren't going to drift very far. But even if they do a little, if you add that to what they might do in Middle East, it's going to change world affairs considerably.
If the Asian energy security grid expands and if, an even worse nightmare for Washington, it includes Iran as a sort of a lynchpin, possibly even Shiite Iraq and Saudi Arabia, they're going to diversify their financial reserves. They're held in dollars. That's part of what's propping up the U.S. economy. They have enormous financial reserves, the biggest in the world. If they diversify to other currencies, which is going to come sooner or later, that's going to be a major blow to the international financial system. Nobody knows what would happen, but it would be significant.
And, yes, the threats against Iran, which are very serious and criminal, in fact, literally —

Why do you say that?

Take a look at the U.N. Charter. The threat of force is ruled out, threat or use of force. But the threat alone is ruled out. We accept that, for example, if somebody threatened us. It is official U.S., British policy that if there is any threat of force against the U.S. and Britain—threat, not act—they can carry out anticipatory self-defense. They can attack the country. That's what happened in Iraq. In fact, France just went along with that. President Chirac a couple of weeks ago said that if any country threatens France with weapons of mass destruction, France is free to attack it. In fact, what he said literally is, “Any country that is considering the use of weapons of mass destruction is subject to attack by France.” Commentators were polite enough not to point out that what he was saying is that the French air force ought to be dropping nuclear bombs on Paris, because, as he announced, France is considering the use of weapons of mass destruction, therefore should be a target of attack by French nuclear forces. Put aside his little logical lapse. But that's an expansion, a corollary to the British-U.S. position.
And, yes, it's the typical imperial mentality. No one can consider the use of force against us, certainly not threaten, obviously, not prepare for it. That would be outlandish. But we can do it against them. In fact, that's considered very righteous. The people at the other end of the club don't necessarily see it that way.

James Traub, in The New York Times Magazine, writes, “Of course, treaties and norms don't restrain the outlaws. The prohibition on territorial aggression enshrined in the U.N. Charter didn't faze Saddam Hussein when he decided to forcibly annex Kuwait.” Then he adds, “When it comes to military force, the United States can, and will, act alone, but diplomacy depends on a united front.”

As Traub knows very well, the U.S. is a leading outlaw state, totally unconstrained by international law, and says so. It just invaded Iraq, even though that's a radical violation of the U.N. Charter.

If he knows that, why doesn't he write it in the article?

If he wrote it in the article, he wouldn't be writing in The New York Times. There is a certain discipline that you have to meet. In kind of a well-run society, you don't say things you know; you say things that are required for service to power. We can go back.
Speaking of outlaw states, the U.S. is the only state in the world to have rejected a World Court decision. It used to have some company, Albania and Libya, but they've now accepted them. So the U.S. now stands alone in rejecting a World Court decision on the matter of international terrorism or, if we want to be literal, aggression.

That was the case of Nicaragua in 1986.

It's not usually noticed that technically U.S. actions against Nicaragua would fall under the definition of aggression, the one that was given by the chief counsel, Robert Jackson, at Nuremberg. If you take a look at the wording, it explicitly includes what the U.S. was doing against Nicaragua, in fact what it was doing against Cuba, but certainly the invasion of Iraq. There is not any question. Furthermore, we can run through the list, but it's hard to find any state that compares with the U.S. as an outlaw state. And it says so proudly. Anticipatory self-defense is a complete violation of the basic principles of international law. Condoleezza Rice has been pretty frank about it. She says that international jurisdiction is not appropriate for the U.S.

Tell the story of the Emperor Alexander and his encounter with a pirate on the open seas.

I don't know if it happened, but the story is that the pirate was brought to Alexander and Alexander asked him, “How dare you molest the seas with your piracy?” The pirate answered, according to the account, “How dare you molest the world? I have a small ship, so they call me a pirate. You have a great navy, so they call you an emperor. But you're molesting the world. I'm doing almost nothing by comparison.” Yes, that's the way it works. The emperor is allowed to molest the world, the pirate is a major criminal. Again, the world doesn't see it that way.

Eighteen Pakistani civilians were killed in a U.S. missile attack on Pakistan in early January 2006. The New York Times, in an editorial commented, “Those strikes were legitimately aimed at top fugitive leaders of al-Qaeda.”

That's because The New York Times agrees, and always has, that the U.S. should be an outlaw state. That's not surprising. You could have read the same thing in the Iraqi press, I suppose. Yes, the U.S. should be an outlaw state. It has the right to use violence where it chooses, no matter what happens. If we hit the wrong people, we'll say, “Sorry, we hit the wrong people.” But, yes, there should be no limits on the right of the U.S. to use force.

The Times and other such liberal outlets are exercised about surveillance and snooping and invasions of privacy that are going on. But that concern for law does not seem to extend to the international arena.

That's not quite true. They're very concerned, just like James Traub, with violations of international law when some enemy does it. So the policy is completely consistent. It should never be called a double standard. It's a single standard. You subordinate yourself to power. That's the single standard. Surveillance is bothersome to people in power. They don't like it. CEOs don't want to have their e-mails read by Big Brother. So, yes, they're kind of annoyed with surveillance. On the other hand, a gross violation of international law, what the Nuremberg tribunal called the supreme international crime, that carries with it all the accumulated evil that follows, namely, for example, the invasion of Iraq, that's just fine. There is an interesting, important book which, naturally, isn't reviewed, by two international law specialists, Howard Friel and Richard Falk—

Record of the Paper.

—which happens to focus on The New York Times but only because of its importance. The rest of the press is the same. So they focus on The New York Times and its attitude toward international law. And they point out that, yes—I think they cover about 40 years—the practice has been consistent. If an enemy can be accused of violating international law, a huge outrage, a bunch of posturing and so on. But when the U.S. does it, it didn't happen. So they point out, just to take one example, that in the, I think, 70 editorials and opinion pieces prior to the invasion of Iraq, the words “U.N. Charter” and “international law” never appeared. That's typical of the state of a journal that believes the U.S. should be an outlaw state. So you can't criticize them. They're very consistent. They're consistent in supporting the right of the powerful, with whom they are associated, to carry out any crimes they want.

A report in late January in the L.A. Times entitled “57% Back a Hit on Iran if Defiance Persists,” shows that support for military action against Iran has increased over the last year even though public sentiment is running against the war in Iraq. Is that a paradox?

No, it's not a paradox. In fact, there are figures and polls that look like paradoxes. So, for example, take Iraq. I've forgotten the exact numbers, but a fairly large percentage, maybe two-thirds of the population, thinks it would have been wrong to invade Iraq if it had no weapons of mass destruction; and, even if it had an intention to do so, it would have been wrong to invade. On the other hand, about half thought it was right to invade Iraq even though the fact that they had no weapons of mass destruction has been officially conceded long before and the public knows it. That looks like a direct contradiction. But the director of the institute that runs the polls, the Program on International Policy Attitudes which is the major one under Steven Kull, pointed out that it's not really a contradiction. People still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, even though it's been officially conceded that they don't.
What does that mean? He didn't go into it, but what it means is that the government, media propaganda campaign was extremely effective in instilling fear. People think they're defending themselves. Even if it's already been conceded that the threat was not there, and maybe concocted, the fear still remains. And it's the same with Iran. If you read enough of those articles you cited, you will think we're in mortal danger if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. What danger are we in, even if Iran does get a nuclear weapon? They're not going to use it except as a deterrent. If there were even an indication that they were planning to use it, the country would be vaporized. So it's there for a deterrent. But people can be frightened by massive propaganda. It's not a surprise.
Take a classic example, Germany. It was the most civilized country in the world, the leader in the sciences, the arts, the Weimar Republic. Within two or three years it had been turned into a country of raving maniacs by extensive propaganda, which, incidentally, was explicitly borrowed from Anglo-American commercial propaganda. And it worked. It frightened Germans. They thought they were defending themselves against the Jews, against the Bolsheviks. And you know what happened next. It can be done. And it was done to an extent in the U.S. as well, by very effective propaganda.
You're seeing it again today. So, for example, just do a media search and find out how often it has even been mentioned that when Iran began enriching uranium again, it was after the Europeans had rejected their side of the bargain, namely, to provide firm guarantees on security issues. Which is no trivial matter. That means guarantees that Iran will not be attacked. Of course, when you back down, you expect them to back down. Ask if that has been mentioned once in the media in the U.S. anywhere. It's not that the press doesn't know it. Of course they know it. At least, if they read the international business press, they know it. For example, in mid-January there was a very good article about it by Selig Harrison in the Financial Times, the leading business paper of the world. You think they didn't read it at The New York Times news desk or editorial board? Sure they read it. But that's not the kind of thing you report. I don't have the facilities to do a search, but I'd be willing to bet that that's not even been mentioned in the U.S.

Or that Iran is virtually surrounded by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Persian Gulf.

If that were mentioned, which it may be, it's because we're defending ourselves, just like Hitler was defending himself against the Jews.

Has anyone ever done research on the real cost of oil to the U.S. when you factor in Pentagon spending, the ground troops, the naval and air bases in the Middle East, the stockpiles of WMDs and conventional weapons?

I know of only one attempt to do it. It was by Alfred Cavallo, an energy consultant. He did a study—I don't want to quote the figures from memory, but it was something like—if you count in the military, it accounts for 30% of the price of oil. But it's not a correct calculation. Military spending and bases may be costly to the American taxpayer, but policy is not designed for the benefit of the population, it's designed for the benefit of power sectors. And for them it's useful to dominate the world, by force if necessary. And also don't forget that Pentagon spending, though it's a cost to the taxpayer, is profit for the corporations. It depends what you think the country is. If you think the country is its population, yes, it's a big cost. If you think the country is the people who own the country, no, it's a gain.
I should say, the same is true of other things, like a lot of concern about the enormous U.S. trade deficit. How we are going to deal with it? Economists tear their hair out. It’s a catastrophe. If you assume that the U.S. consists of its people, yes, there is a trade deficit. On the other hand, if you assume that the U.S. consists of the people who own the country, which is more reasonable, the trade deficit goes way down. Then, for example, if Dell is exporting computers from China to the U.S., it would be considered U.S. exports, not U.S. imports. And it is from the point of view of the Dell management. If you count imports and exports that way, it's pretty rational. Then the trade deficit shoots way down. You can read about that in The Wall Street Journal. It's not a big secret. The business world understands it. And they don't say it, of course, but they act and The New York Times acts and the government acts as if the country is the people who own it. And that's not surprising. They're part of the people who own it, so why shouldn't they look at it that way? And simply ask yourself, how many pages are there in the press devoted to business affairs and how many are devoted to labor? Most of the people in the country are labor, not owners of stock. The ownership of stock is very highly concentrated: the top 1% owns maybe half of it and most people own essentially nothing. But the stock market and business affairs are a huge issue. Labor affairs, you don't even have a reporter covering it. That expresses the same comprehension of what the country is.

Tariq Ali suggests that unchallenged U.S. military power could lead to more aggression and war in order to mask its economic weakness.

It's possible. A dangerous predator, say, some lion on the march, can be dangerous, but a wounded beast is much more dangerous. Then it may act in ways which are unpredictable. Everyone knows that. The same is true in international affairs. The Bush administration has turned the U.S. into a monstrous attack instrument, but a wounded one. And that's a very threatening state of affairs. In fact, the Bush administration is quite consciously increasing the threat of nuclear terror against the U.S. It's increasing the threat of general terrorism in many, many ways. And it's conscious. Not because they want it, but because it just doesn't matter that much, it's a low priority.
Take the invasion of Iraq. It's perfectly well understood, and they learned from their own intelligence agencies and others, that the attack was likely to increase proliferation of weapons of mass destruction for deterrence and to increase terror. And so it did. In fact, it did so in unanticipated ways. It was expected that it would probably increase terror, as in fact it did, but what about weapons of mass destruction? You read that it was discovered by the official U.S. investigations. The Duelfer and Kay reports that Iraq didn't have the means to develop weapons of mass destruction. That's not exactly correct. It did. They were there: the ones that were provided to Saddam Hussein by Britain, the U.S., and others, as long as he was obeying orders. They were being dismantled but they were still there, under guard by U.N. inspectors.
The U.N. inspectors were kicked out. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the rest didn't think it was interesting to tell their troops to guard the sites, so they were systematically looted. The inspectors continued their work by satellite, and they reported that over 100 sites had been systematically looted, meaning not just somebody goes in and steals something, but carefully looted. And they described the equipment that was in them. It was high-precision machine tools and others that could be used to develop missiles and nuclear weapons, lethal biotoxins, that could be used for biological weapons. All that went somewhere. That's expanding the threat of weapons of mass destruction. We all hate to guess where it went, but you can make a guess. That's well beyond the threat to the U.S. that was anticipated from the invasion of Iraq.
I met a Jordanian journalist, who was part of a Swedish journalists association, who informed me that he was at the Jordanian-Iraqi border through this period. He said the border guards were reporting that one out of every eight trucks that was coming from Iraq into Jordan under the U.S. occupation was testing positive for radioactive materials. There is a name for this; in fact, Rumsfeld had a nice phrase for it. Stuff happens. Stuff happens. And it's not that they're trying to increase the threat to the U.S. It's just that it doesn't matter.

That can bewilder some people, because these are intelligent, smart people, educated at the best universities. Why would they pursue a policy that seems threaten their interests?

It's not. It's very good for their interests.  They have two fundamental interests. You have to be willfully blind not to see it. It's very simple administration policy. Policy one is stuff the pockets of your rich friends with as many dollars as possible. That's policy one. Policy two is get into a position where you can shake your fist at the world and they will do what you want them to do; intimidate the world by force. The invasion of Iraq achieved those aims. Nobody at Halliburton is complaining that they're going broke. In fact, the same companies that provided Iraq with the weapons are now being paid to what they call reconstruct Iraq, which means to rob the U.S. taxpayer blind. The amount of corruption and robbery under the occupation has just been colossal. So they're making out fine.
I think everyone assumed, that the invasion would be a walk-over. Iraq was completely defenseless. They knew it. They had already been bombing it for a year. We know that in detail.

“Spikes of activity.”

Which they kept secret, because Blair and Bush and the guys around them hate democracy so much that you must not allow the population to know what you're doing. But they were doing it. And we now know about it, some of it at least. So Iraq was defenseless. They should have been able to walk in. Certainly the easiest military occupation in history. They managed to turn it into a catastrophe. But it looked as though they would easily be able to control Iraq, which means gaining control of the second largest hydrocarbon reserves in the world and significantly increasing their domination of Middle East oil production. That would provide, as Zbigniew Brzezinski put it, the U.S. with “critical leverage” over its major rivals, Europe and the Asian industrial system.
Those are policies that go back to right after the Second World War. As George Kennan said, We don't need Middle East oil, we don't even want it, but controlling it gives the U.S. “veto power” over others.  If you have your hand on the spigot, you can determine what they will do. We just saw an illustration of this when Russia turned off the spigot to the Ukraine and Europe was facing an energy crisis. Nobody expects them to do that, but just the poised fist is a very good instrument of control. So it's a rational policy.
If it happens to be threatening to the American population, it's not a priority. That's not who they're working for. When they cut taxes for the rich, is that for the benefit of the population? Read this morning's headlines. If they concealed the fact that the levees had broken in New Orleans for two days, is that in order to help the population? It's just not a priority.

The new Bush budget includes big increases in spending on the military and domestic security and cuts in social programs.

It just follows from the two simple principles: enrich your rich friends as much as possible, increase your power over the world. And somebody else will take care of the rest. If you have to cut Medicaid for the poor, well, who cares about them? There are almost 40 million people going hungry, don't have money to buy food. Does that matter? They're not influential, so who cares what happens to them?

The owners of the economy and the managers of the state, have children, grandchildren. Certainly in the areas you're describing of increasing military threats, they're putting their own lives and the lives of their families in peril. Again, it doesn't seem logical.

Here you have to distinguish between people in their human existence and their institutional role. A corporate executive or an official in the Pentagon may be the nicest guy in the world, takes care of his children, plays with them, cares about them. But in an institutional role he may act in such a way as to endanger their lives. So it takes a corporate executive.  After all, they have legal obligations. Their legal obligation is to maximize profit and market share. They're not allowed to do anything else. It would, in fact, be a violation of corporate law. That's their legal obligation, part of the institutional role. And that goes across the board.
Just go back to this case I mentioned to you right here at MIT back in the late 1970s about providing Iran with the means to develop nuclear energy. The students were overwhelmingly opposed. There was a referendum. The faculty approved it by approximately 80%. The faculty are just the students of a couple years ago. So what happened in between? Did they get smarter or something? No. They shifted their institutional role. When you're a student, you're relatively free. That's the freest time of your life. You're out of parental control, more or less, you don't have to worry about providing for a family. You're free to think and act. When you're a faculty member, you're part of the institution. You support institutional priorities. And the same people who were students a couple years before took exactly the opposite position from the students after they had shifted the institutional role. That's very common. It doesn't mean that their personalities have changed. It has nothing to do with that.
And that's why you find euphoria in business circles over the election of a president whose policies grossly oppose their own values. That's demonstrable. CEOs have what are called liberal values: they don’t have any objection to gay rights, they want abortion rights, so on and so forth. On the so-called cultural issues, they're kind of like college faculty. On the other hand, if you read the business press the day after the election, there was euphoria in boardrooms. Why? Because this government is going to give a free run to business. And if it turns out that that destroys the lives of our grandchildren, well, it's not our institutional role to worry about that. As a person I may, but not when my task is to maximize power and profit.

With the deaths of Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King and the birthday of Martin Luther King in January, there were lots of retrospectives on the civil rights movement. Bob Herbert, in a column in The New York Times, says, “We've honored Dr. King, but we've never listened to him.” King himself in his April 4, 1967, Riverside Church speech, said, “Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war.”

You see that anywhere you look. It's obviously true in the U.S. Was the U.S. at war at that time, in 1967? He was assuming it was. And in a sense it was. It was a war in the same sense that Iraq was at war when it invaded Kuwait. The U.S. was at war when it invaded South Vietnam, which is much worse. But it's an odd sense of being at war. The U.S. was attacking another country. In fact, it was attacking all of Indochina. The U.S. was not being attacked by anybody. So what's the war? It's just plain, outright aggression. However, the American people were frightened.
Take, say, Lyndon Johnson, who was a man of the people pretty much. He expressed concerns which undoubtedly were pretty wide. You remember the way he described it, undoubtedly straight from his heart. He said something like, There are 150 million of us and 3 billion of them. If might makes right, they'll “sweep over” us “and take what we have.” So we have to stop them in Vietnam.  I'm sure he meant it, just like he meant years earlier his comment that “without superior air power,” we'll be “prey to any yellow dwarf with a pocket knife.” That's expressing attitudes which are deeply held and go way back in American history.
There is a very interesting study of popular culture in the United States by Bruce Franklin. He's a literary theorist at Rutgers. He wrote a very good book about it called War Stories. He traces strains in popular literature going back to the colonial period. And there is a strain in the kind of literature he points out that, say, Harry Truman was reading when he was growing up, a strain very widely read in popular magazines and so on—you now see it in television and movies—which runs that the U.S. is under terrific threat by some horrendous enemy and at the last moment it's miraculously saved by a superhero or a superweapon, and somehow we survive. That's the theme.
He also points out that the enemy that's attacking us is typically one that we are destroying. So the enemy that's attacking us is American Indians or blacks or Chinese. “You think those are laundries, but that's part of their insidious effort to take over the country.” This goes right across the board. Jack London, one of the leading progressive writers, wrote around 1910 about how we should wipe out the Chinese by bacteriological warfare because otherwise they're going to destroy us. That's a strain that goes way back. It's psychologically understandable. When you're crushing everybody in sight, there is reason to be afraid that maybe something will happen to you. So, yes, there is a streak of fear that runs through the culture, and Lyndon Johnson was expressing it. In that sense we were at war, a war of defense. It was presented as a war of defense and so interpreted by much of the population.

In early February, the 35-nation Board of Governors of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency voted to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program. There is a possibility of sanctions being imposed on Iran.

There is not a possibility. The U.S. has had sanctions on Iran ever since they disobeyed orders.

Right, but in terms of U.N.-imposed sanctions à la Iraq.

They're called U.N. sanctions on Iraq, but that's just propaganda. They were U.S. sanctions administered through the U.N. because the U.N. is afraid to stand up to the U.S. But everybody who has paid attention knows there is virtually no support for those sanctions outside of the U.S. and Britain. They're called U.N. sanctions because then it sounds as if somebody else is doing it. They were U.S. sanctions which were devastating the society. And if the U.N., under the U.S. fist, passes some kind of sanctions, which, frankly, I think is questionable,  they will be U.S. sanctions again. Do you know anybody else in the world aside from the U.S. and Britain who are in favor of the sanctions? The Europeans aren't. They want to invest in Iran. They had to pull out—they didn’t have to, they did pull out of many of the corporations, pulled out of investment. And they explained why. You can read it in The Wall Street Journal. They said, “We just don't want to offend the U.S. It's too dangerous.”  International affairs is very much like the Mafia. You don't offend the don. It’s dangerous. Especially if the don is wounded. You never know what he's going to do.

But Iran has a weapon to fight back with in terms of putting the choke on its oil supply, and that would have a potentially deleterious effect on the global economy. It's the fourth largest producer of oil in the world.

I'm not sitting in meetings of Pentagon planners, but I think they would like that, because that would give them an excuse to bomb Iran. It might even give them an excuse to invade. If you look at the geography, Iranian oil is concentrated in the Gulf area, which happens to be substantially Arab Shiite. I'm no military expert, but I'm sure it's within the military capacity of the U.S. to occupy that area and to open up the Gulf. And if Iran tried to close it, and they might very well do that, who knows what it would lead to? Maybe we would blow Iraq up and blow the world up. But it's not a calculation. Any more than they care that they are compelling Russia and China to sharply increase their offensive military forces aimed at the U.S., to put their missiles on hair-trigger alert, which strategic analysts just call an accident waiting to happen. Not leftists, incidentally. Former Senator Sam Nunn, a serious and respectable conservative, who has been in the lead in efforts to cut back on the threat of nuclear war, warned recently that we may be developing an Armageddon of our own making. Maybe. But if you're a planner, that doesn't matter much. So, yes, if Iran did try to choke off the Gulf of Hormuz, the Pentagon planners might be delighted and take that as an excuse to prove that we not only have to bomb Iran and kill its people and so on but also occupy its oil-producing areas.
We have already done it during the Iran-Iraq war. U.S. support for Iraq was so strong that the U.S. essentially patrolled the Gulf. And just in order to make Iran understand it, a U.S. destroyer shot down an Iranian airliner in Iranian commercial air space, killing 290 people. George Bush I was then president and thought that was great. Iranians might not have liked it.

Howard Zinn in his essay The Problem is Civil Disobedience, says, “Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience,” of people behaving and taking orders and not questioning. Talk about that and resistance.

We don't have to undertake armed resistance. He's quite right. In fact, the press that you were reading at the beginning is a perfect example of it. That's obedience to power and authority. The suppression of the critical facts about the potential confrontation with Iran is just obedience to authority. And we can run through such a long list that it's not worth going through it. It's obedience and subordination to power that's the major problem, not just here but everywhere. It's much more important here because the state is so powerful, so it matters more here than in Luxembourg. But, yes, it's the same problem.
How do you confront it? We have models as to how to confront it. First of all, we have plenty of them in our own history. We have them also in the hemisphere. For example, Bolivia and Haiti had democratic elections of a kind that we can't even conceive of. Take, say, Bolivia. Were the candidates both rich guys who went to Yale and joined Skull and Bones and can run with the same programs because they're supported by the same corporations? No. They elected someone from their own ranks. That's democracy. It half happened in Haiti. If Aristide had not been expelled from the Caribbean by the U.S., it's very likely that he would have won the election. They act in ways which enable them to participate in the democratic system. Here, we don't. That's real obedience. The kind of, if you like, disobedience that's needed is to recreate a functioning democracy. It's not a very radical idea.

Evo Morales's victory in Bolivia in December 2005 marks the first time an indigenous person has been elected to lead a country in Latin America.

It's particularly striking in Bolivia because there is an indigenous majority. And that's another thing you can be sure that's deeply concerning the Pentagon and civilian planners, that not only is Latin America falling out of control but for the first time the indigenous populations are entering the political arena, and they're substantial. In Bolivia it happens to be a majority, but they're substantial in Peru and Ecuador, also big energy producers. They're even calling for an Indian nation. And they want control of their own resources. In fact, some of them don't even want those resources developed. They'd rather have their own lives, not have their society and culture destroyed so that people can sit in traffic jams in New York. All of this is a big threat to the U.S. And it's democracy. It's democracy functioning in ways which by now we have agreed not to let happen here.
But that's an agreement. We don't have to accept that. There have been plenty of times in the past when popular forces in the U.S. have caused great change. Take Martin Luther King. It wasn't him alone. He would be the first to tell you. It was a big popular movement, which did make substantial achievements. It's kind of interesting to look at King's legacy. He’s greatly honored for having opposed racist sheriffs in Alabama and you heard all about that on Martin Luther King Day and the glorious rhetoric.  What happened when he turned his attention to the problem of poverty and war?  Then he was condemned. He kind of lost his marbles, doesn’t know what he’s doing.  The last couple years of his life he was mostly condemned. What was he doing when he was assassinated? He was supporting a strike of sanitation workers in Memphis and he was planning a poor people’s march on Washington. He wasn’t praised for that. Any more than he was praised for his rather tepid, delayed opposition to the Vietnam War.  In fact, he was bitterly criticized for it:  he’s losing his direction. He doesn’t   know what he's doing anymore. That, as usual, fits the single standard. The editors at The New York Times have nothing against denouncing racist sheriffs in Alabama. They think that's fine. What about letting the sanitation workers have decent wages or letting poor people participate in the political and economic system? Huh-uh. That's something quite different. Now you're overstepping the line.
The same simple principles, not obscure. This isn't quantum physics. There are complexities and details. You have to learn a lot of get the data right, but the basic principles are so transparent, it takes a major effort not to perceive them.

(Due to time constraints some portions of the interview were not included in the national broadcast. Those portions are included in this transcript.)

Other Noam Chomsky AR programs –
Washington's Messianic Mission
Democracy & U.S. Foreign Policy
War Crimes & Imperial Fantasies.
The Doctrine of the Change of Course
On Imperialism
U.S. Grand Strategy: Global Rule by Force
Iraq: A Test Case of Imperial Violence
Collateral Language: War & Propaganda
Propaganda & Control of the Public Mind

The Chomsky books “Imperial Ambitions” and “Propaganda & the Public Mind” are available from AR.

For information about obtaining CDs, MP3, cassettes or transcripts of this or other programs, please contact:
David Barsamian
Alternative Radio
P.O. Box 551
Boulder, CO 80306-0551
(800) 444-1977
[email protected]
www.alternativeradio.org
©2006