The Freedom Doctrine

Following today’s attacks, I wanted to briefly go over some history of Israel, the US, Iran, the Freedom Doctrine, and warmongering. This is by no means a detailed history. We’ll only be skimming some details today. But I’ve been working on a long piece on US foreign policy for over a year now. When that comes out, hopefully this year, we’ll discuss the broader context.                                                                                                                                                             In 2002, President George W. Bush listed three countries in his State of the Union speech: Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. “These nations,” he said, “constitute an Axis of Evil.” Comparing them to the chief villains of World War II, the Axis Powers, wasn’t exactly subtle. But then again, Americans, let alone Texans, aren’t known for their subtlety. Iran and North Korea had long been on America’s shit-list for committing the sin of disobedience; they both had managed to banish US influence. In 1953, the US engineered a coup to overthrow the elected prime minister and install the son of Iran’s former dictator, the Shah, who had been installed by the British. The second Shah quickly consolidated power, not eager to be overthrown like his father, by banning the popular democratic opposition parties and arresting and executing its members. The regime’s secret police, the SAVAK, was trained and armed by the United States. Amnesty International’s Secretary General wrote that during the Shah’s rule, Iran had the “highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran.” Finally, in 1979, the Shah was defeated in a people’s revolution. Ayatollah Khomeini used that uprising as his ride to power, declaring it an Islamic revolution. Ever since, the notion that Iran poses a grave threat to the world has been a maniacal obsession of America and Israel (Saudi Arabia also doesn’t like Iran but for different reasons; because Iran isn’t a monarchy, the Saudi royals worry their legitimacy is undermined in the Muslim world). That obsession is maintained by a steady stream of propaganda on Western state television. The Iranians are regularly depicted as having some murderous drive for nuclear weapons, and a willingness to use them. Senate Leader Chuck Schumer casually refers to Tehran as a “terrorist government.” Other political figures are less kind. None of them will mention that Iran is a leading advocate for establishing a nuclear free zone in the region. They propose it every five years at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. It’s strongly supported by virtually the entire world—including the Gulf and Arab states, Europe, Japan, China, Russia, Turkey, and Canada. There’s only one holdout (technically two but I count them as one): The United States and its colony, Israel. Despite the fact that the Non-Proliferation Treaty is predicated on moving towards global disarmament, the United States unilaterally blocks this proposal in order to shield Israeli nuclear weapons. Obama’s deal with Iran to reduce sanctions in exchange for a moratorium on Iran’s nuclear program is often portrayed as a rebuke of Tel Aviv. But in actuality, Obama bent over backwards to protect Israeli nukes from UN inspection, by blocking the universally agreed upon remedy. Furthermore, when Western leaders malign Iranians as misanthropic annihilationists, it’s worth remembering that in the US proxy war against Iran, when Iraq used chemical weapons with Western assistance, instead of responding in kind, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a Fatwa forbidding the use of chemical warfare and weapons of mass destruction. I’m no fan of Ayatollah Khomeini, but his refusal to respond to that crime with similar depravity is a stark contrast to the nihilistic, murderous regime portrayed in the American press. It’s therefore almost unmentionable on US television (although, of course, it’s almost unmentionable that there are things unmentionable in their so-called Free Press).                                                                                                                                                             The Bush doctrine, otherwise called the Freedom Doctrine, is often exaggerated as a unique aberration to blame Bush and his cabinet for the Iraq War. In reality, whether the country is run by Democrats or Republicans, the world suffers under the permanent war machine of the United States. Over 800 of its military bases span the globe; a unique achievement in world history. Coups d’état, indiscriminate bombings, and military interventions scar the continents from Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East—even Europe. The Bush doctrine was not a meaningful deviation or escalation from this model, either before or after. It should be defined narrowly as an attempt to garner public support for overt regime-change through war. When the American public soured on the war in Vietnam, successive administrations had to rely on clandestine operations, often through proxies. Jimmy Carter’s support for the Mujahideen, for example, to destroy Afghanistan; or Reagan’s arming of the Contras to destroy Nicaragua. Following 9/11, Bush attempted to regain the impunity that had allowed Kennedy and Johnson to invade Vietnam and burn it to the ground with imperial ruthlessness. While the Iraq War brought the ruinous, apocalyptic violence characteristic of empires into the homes and communities of Iraqis, the Americans had different reasons to be upset. It was supposed to be a quick in-and-out war, there was even talk of invading Iran after Iraq was settled. But the Americans could not hold Iraq. Furthermore, the main excuse used to launch the invasion was now exposed as the fraud everyone already knew it was. There’s a reason that Tom Ricks’ book about the US point of view in the war is called Fiasco. In the 2008 Election, Americans would get to choose between a supporter of Bush’s Freedom Doctrine and a critic. Republican candidate John McCain supported the warpath with jubilant enthusiasm. At one of his rallies he sang a parody of “Barbara Ann” by the Beach Boys, replacing the lyrics with “Bomb Iran.” His opponent, Barack Obama, ran against the Freedom Doctrine—although many mistook him for a critic of war and imperialism broadly. Obama objected only to the brass-fronted nature of military invasions; he though the subtle, clandestine ways were better suited for the Empire. Obama’s victory was nevertheless a clear repudiation by the voters of the Bush doctrine. The first person to cautiously attempt to revive it was Mitt Romney in 2012. He argued during the debate with Obama that regime change in Iran was necessary. In the end, Romney didn’t fare much better than McCain. Then, in 2016, the Democratic Party managers nominated Hillary Clinton for president, over the strong objections from Democratic voters. While she didn’t run explicitly in favor of regime change, her opponent did run against it. And she was easily portrayed, accurately, as a hawkish imperial kleptocrat. A close friend of the notorious war criminal Henry Kissinger, Clinton was deeply involved in the invasion and assassination of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. Following Gaddafi’s assassination, Clinton was filmed celebrating his death: “We came, we saw, he’s dead!” she giddily exclaimed. Trump, meanwhile, won the Republican nomination by eviscerating Jeb Bush (George’s brother). “They lied,” Trump fumed on the debate stage, “they said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none!” By this point, the Freedom Doctrine was dead and buried. Of course the bombings around the world continued—and in fact expanded—but no longer under the bizarre guise of democracy-promoting carpet bombing operations. The next person that would attempt to revive the Freedom Doctrine was a Democrat: Kamala Harris. Throughout her campaign, she proudly touted the endorsement of Dick Cheney—Bush’s vice president and a chief architect of the Freedom Doctrine—and campaigned alongside his daughter, Liz Cheney. Additionally, in her rallies, speeches, and interviews, Harris kept focusing on two countries: Iran and North Korea, the two remaining members of the “Axis of Evil.” In her DNC speech she set a hawkish tone, vowing to “ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world!” A line she would repeat during her debate with Trump. She also made sure to add her condemnation of “tyrants and dictators like Kim Jong-Un.” Likewise, in her 60 Minutes interview, she said that “Iran has American blood on their hands” and that preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons was among her “highest priorities.” The Democrats hoped that people would be swayed to vote for a brazenly pro-war candidate; something they hadn’t done since 2004. That hope turned out to be futile. Trump, despite his savagery being well-documented during his first term, still campaigned as the peace candidate. “Kamala is campaigning with Muslim-hating warmonger, Liz Cheney, who wants to invade practically every Muslim country on the planet. And let me tell you the Muslims of our country, they see it, and they know it,” Trump said during a Michigan rally. “Her father was responsible for invading the Middle East, killing millions of Arabs—millions—and this is the one that Kamala is campaigning with.” On Twitter he posted: “We are building the biggest and broadest coalition in American Political History. This includes record-breaking numbers of Arab and Muslim Voters in Michigan who want PEACE. They know Kamala and her warmonger Cabinet will invade the Middle East, get millions of Muslims killed, and start World War III. VOTE TRUMP, AND BRING BACK PEACE!” One person explained why they voted for Trump over Harris: “He speaks of war as something that is bad.” But even as Trump’s assault on the American working-class started, Democrats could not let go of the Freedom Doctrine. When Trump suddenly froze all federal spending, and Elon Musk was stealing everyone’s data like he was in a heist movie, the only thing Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries was interested in discussing was Iran. Boasting at a pro-Israel conference that “Iran is at one of its weakest points in decades,” he stressed that “We can’t take our foot off the gas pedal until Iran is brought to its knees—for the good of the world.” Earlier this month, the Trump administration said it was willing to make a deal with Iran. (In his first term, Trump destroyed Obama’s nuclear deal on Israel’s behalf.) This prompted action from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who had broken with his party earlier to support the Republicans’ spending bill, to denounce Trump. “When it comes to negotiating with the terrorist government of Iran, Trump’s all over the lot,” Schumer said. “One day he sounds tough, the next day he’s backing off. And now, all of a sudden we find out that [Steve] Witkoff and [Marco] Rubio are negotiating a secret side-deal with Iran. What kind of bull is this? They’re gonna sound tough in public, and then have a side deal that lets Iran get away with everything? That’s outrageous!” Apparently Chuck Schumer is more than happy to vote for Republican legislation, but thinks Trump is not hostile enough toward Iran. Today, Chuck Schumer must be pleased. He recently said, “My job is to keep the left pro-Israel.” Israel and the United States have been trying to provoke Iran into a war for decades now. To Israel, destroying Iran has been it’s most desired geopolitical goal. Last year, without provocation, Israel bombed the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria—a gross violation of international law; but then again, so is committing genocide, and the West doesn’t mind that either. Iran asked the United Nations to condemn Israel for bombing its embassy. If they failed to do so, the delegates said, Iran would be forced to respond. The United States vetoed the UN condemnation. That led to a small and telegraphed shot- across-the-bow response from Iran. Nothing more than a show of force, not designed to hurt but rather to warn. Then, Israel assassinated Hamas’ chief negotiator in Tehran. Which led to another mild show of force. Today, early in the morning, Israel launched the biggest attack on Iran since the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. They called it “Operation Rising Lion.” Over 100 targets were struck by hundreds of US-made bombs, flown by 200 US-made warplanes. Besides killing children and adult civilians, the Israelis killed the chief of staff of the armed forces, Major General Mohammad Bagheri, the second-highest official after the Ayatollah; General Hossein Salami, commander in chief of Iran’s primary military force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Core, or IRGC; and the deputy commander in chief of the military, General Gholamali Rashid. They also killed at least six academics who studied nuclear science. Netanyahu, prime minister of a Hebrew-speaking country that just attacked an Arabic-speaking country, held a press conference following the attacks in English. “Our actions,” he said, “will make the world a much safer place.” Journalist Dorsa Jabbari reported from Iran: I   think   there’s   a   lot   of   shock   at   the   moment,   and   anger.   There’s   fear   as   well   about what’s coming, because it’s not clear when this will end and how this will end. I   think   people   were   very   much   caught   off   guard.   The   civilian   population   has been   hearing   rhetoric   from   Iran   and   Israel   back   and   forth   for   decades,   and   until now, they have not seen anything like this since the Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988. These   scenes   are   very   new   to   the   new   generation   in   Iran.   It’s   something   they’ve never seen before and something they thought they’d never see. Trump wrote on Truth Social that Iran should acquiesce and bend over, or else “I told them it would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told, that the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come—And they know how to use it.” Adding: Certain   Iranian   hardliner’s   spoke   bravely,   but   they   didn’t   know   what   was   about   to happen.   They   are   all   DEAD   now,   and   it   will   only   get   worse!   There   has   already   been great   death   and   destruction,   but   there   is   still   more   time   to   make   this   slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran   must   make   a   deal,   before   there   is   nothing   left,   and   save   what   was   once known   as   the   Iranian   Empire.   No   more   death,   no   more   destruction,   JUST   DO   IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. God Bless You All! German Chancellor Friedrich Merz gave the predictable response. He supported Israel’s right “to defend its existence” by bombing Iran and possibly starting World War III. When the European markets opened, shares were down, except for energy stocks and European arms manufacturers: Shell and BP’s value went up 1.9 percent, Dassault Aviation increased by 1.3 and Leonardo by 2.3 percent. As ever, war is good business. Israeli political commentator Ori Goldberg told Al Jazeera: “I would say that the single biggest factor has to do with an attempt to divert global attention away from what Israel is doing in Gaza. … This is an attempt to convince the world that all is well despite Gaza. … This is Netanyahu, the final attack of despair, trying to show that all is well.” Where this goes from here, I don’t know. But I have to stop typing because my fingers hurt. Would you be horrified if I ended this in classic Iranian style? “Death to Israel!”? Probably.