World War III Is Here...Are We Noticing?

World War Three has begun. Pope Francis III recently spoke to an audience at the Redipuglia cemetery near Slovenia memorializing 100,000 Italian soldiers killed in battle in World War One. During his speech, he also warned that, "Humanity needs to weep, and this is the time to weep"....."Even today, after the second failure of another world war, perhaps one can speak of a third war, one fought peacemeal with crimes, massacres, destruction." [1]. Because of his position Pope Francis' message deserves more attention. His message though included no grand proclamations about World War Three being a present reality. Still it is here. Thus, no viral meme that spreads through all media outlets that permeates current discourse and enters into our consciousness is necessary. Too many fatal conflicts are currently raging of which many overlap, and feature their participants both concurrently supporting and opposing each other. No grand alliances whereby we clearly identify who sides with whom. Each escalation lays the foundation for further escalations. These escalations occur in a world seeing regime change used as a primary tool of foreign policy. Consequently, nations deemed worthy of regime change will deem themselves worthy of developing chemical and nuclear weapons. This vicious cycle is producing a choice between Pax Americana or World War III.

Participants project images of themselves as those reluctantly and regretfully entering war as a last resort to subdue an evil that mocks all diplomacy. Sovereign powers and stateless groups both alike continue to construct and recycle a common lexicon filled with slogans. These participants embody these slogans as demonstrated when Assad activates his military to crush his people who seek more freedom.

First, the U.S. media present an image of the Syrian military that smashes dissent. Next, Assad counters that he is exercising his obligation as a sovereign leader to defend his nation from foreign backed insurgents. So the same group of people are seen as "freedom fighters" and "foreign invaders." In the eyes of Senator John McCain the Free Syrian Army (FSA) are freedom fighters. [2]. But, others see the FSA as allies of al-Quaeda. Tomato...tomato.. Is there an empirical basis that enables our examining all evidence to discover their true identity? Not really because their identity is not a conclusion gleaned from assessing all facts, but is instead an identity projected onto them from those who possess different world views or ideologies. Or, put differently, we are dealing in a geopolitical world whose actors and groups are often brands whose name once effectively marketed registers desired effects into the public consciousness. (Hence Assad=sponsor of terrorism, while Erdogan and the House of Saud receive no such treatment by the U.S Congress and President).

The U.S. perpetually projects itself as a world power who paradoxically wages war for benevolent ends. They embody the "Just War Theory." For simplicity, I will call this paradoxical projection as the "Messianic Empire" or just ME. Therefore, upon their establishing this worldview of itself it provides a moral and political standard to judge all geopolitical and military actions undertaken by others. For instance, the U.S. has 6,000 nuclear warheads, while Iran still has zero. The former's arsenal serves only as a deterrent thereby silencing those who see such a disparity as hypocrisy. With that issued settled, the next question might be.... deterrent from what? From an evil regime that came to power in 1979 in Tehran of course.

ME's nuclear arsenal could never serve as a destructive force? Could it? One historical example shows that ME during the Korean War in 1951 considered using its arsenal for more than deterrence:

On April 5 the JCS ordered immediate atomic retaliation against Manchurian bases if large numbers of new troops came into fighting, or, it appears, if bombers were launched against American assets from there..........[3]

That same day Gordon Dean, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, began arrangements for transferring nine Mark IV nuclear capsules to the air force's 9th Bomb Group, the designated carrier of the weapons. General Bradley (JCS chairman) got Truman's approval for this transfer of the Mark IVs 'from AEC to military custody' on April 6, and the president signed on order to use them against Chinese and North Korean targets........The 9th Bomb Group deployed to Guam. 'In the confusion attendant upon General MacArhtur's removal," however, the order was never sent. The reasons were two: Truman had used this extraordinary crisis to get the JCS to approve MacArthur's removal (something Truman announced on April 11), and the Chinese did not escalate the war. So the bombs were not used. [4].   

This sequence of events cited above suggests atomic weapons providing just another option for waging war rather than their usage expediting our fall into eternal peril. The warring factions signed an armistice two years later on July 27, 1953. No battle fatigue slowed the benevolent reach of ME. Just a few days later during August 1953 ME swung into action in another part of the world, Iran.

Other than it being an evil regime controlled by maniacally, maddened mullahs who sponsor terrorism, disable social media, suppress crowd-sourced flash mobs, declare fatwahs against Salman Rushdie, etc, could Iran ever have a non-genocidal inducing basis for conducting nuclear research? Before you attempt to answer that question, first reorient your brain so that its not conditioned to evaluate such matters through the ME filter.

Declassified U.S. government documents confirm, despite President Eisenhower's denials, that both they and England executed a coup that overthrew Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh. [5]. This coup certainly influences Tehran's thinking about its relations with the U.S. today.

This historical wound inflicted upon them and their achieving special status as a member of the "Axis of Evil" likely serve as two factors motivating Iran to pursue development of nukes. Or, are those two factors simply lame excuses peddled to stir the Doves' consciences who through their search for "root causes" of conflicts only add foolish credence to a rhetoric of appeasement?

Maybe the coup that overthrew a democratically elected leader is a policy failure and an injustice, but still rests on a flimsy basis with which to consider a necessity to develop nuclear weapons. After all if as Gloria Steinem who informed us once that President Clinton was entitled to "one free grope," shouldn't the empire he once served as the face of deserve one free regime change mishap?  Before the ME conditioned mind gets bored being accused of belonging to the Great Satan, we should look at other factors that may explain Iran's pursuit of nuclear power.

President Obama in his much anticipated speech (well at least anticipated by the mainstream media and the NPR crowd) in 2009 to the "Muslim world" appeared to have extended an olive branch by greeting them with a "Assalaamu alaykum." [6]. This greeting earned him some applause. His subsequent remarks at first suggested he was motivated by more than his simply extending a minimum courtesy. He acknowledged the U.S. overthrowing in 1953 of Iran's democratically elected leader:

"In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iran government. [7]."

If Obama were truly sincere about demonstrating his understanding of historical roots of the acrimonious relations between the U.S. and Iran, he should have acknowledged another tragedy that likely scars the Iranian psyche today as it surely continues to scar the health of the victims who survived chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war 1980-88. He made no such acknowledgement though. Perhaps he felt his historic speech would lose too much rhetorical flourish if he articulated one more mea culpa.

Realpolitick demands nations resort to expedient measures that in retrospect seem morally objectionable. The U.S. "supported" Suddam Hussein, the man responsible for the 9/11 attack, during the Iran-Iraq War 1980-88. The geopolitical chessboard should be familiar to everyone, but one event during this war is relevant to this discussion of seeking to understand Iran's pursuit of nuclear power. Western media coverage of the state of the negotiations between Iran and whatever body is involved at that particular moment (U.S. or IAEA or E3 comprised of the U.K., France, and Germany) ignores that chemical weapons were used against Iran from 1980-88:

The official toll was 20,000 killed, 7,000 of whom died instantly, with at least 100,000 people 'severely injured' by the nerve agents sarin and soman as well as the blistering agent mustard gas. Even 20 years after the war's end, 55,000 people were still being treated for their illnesses apparently from chemical weapons. [8].

This tragedy serves as a meaningless historical footnote to too many western policymakers and media outlets. ME neglects to consider other factors that also likely encourage Iran's nuclear development project. One such factor is Iran's need to diversify its energy base to reduce its dependence on oil and natural gas.

During 2013 Iran's oil production stagnated thereby raising concerns because:

If Iran's oil production remains stagnant at its current level of 3.5 million barrels per day (bbl/d) while domestic oil consumption grows at a modest annual rate of 5%, then it will cease to be a net oil exporter within the next 15 years. [9].

International sanctions imposed upon Iran because of its nuclear program contribute to this stagnation of production, which resulted in a drastic reduction in export revenue:

According the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Iran's oil and natural gas export revenue was $118 billion in the 2011/2012 fiscal year (ending March 20, 2012). In the 2012/2013 fiscal year, oil and natural gas export revenue dropped by 47% to $63 billion. The IMF estimates that Iran's oil and natural gas export revenue fell again in the 2013/2014 fiscal year by 11% to $56 billion. [10].

Also, U.S. Senator Mike Crapo, Ranking Member of the Senate Banking Committee (which is responsible for reviewing and introducing sanctions legislation in the Senate) acknowledged the effect of  current sanctions still in effect against Iran:

Also, since that time, 50% of Iran's crude oil exports and over 7 % of its petrochemical exports have declined-nearly $5 billion a month in lost revenue to the Government of Iran. The impact of sanctions on Iran's economy is significant. Due to lost energy revenues, its relative isolation from the world's financial system, and its own variety of economic mismanagement, Iran is running its largest budget deficit in nearly 15 years. The value of the Rial, Iran's currency, has declined by more than two-thirds, and Iran puts its on rate of inflation at 31%, while others maintain it is double that in real terms [11].

Senator Crapo's comments above are revealing because he is considered a "moderate" with respect to determining how punitive sanctions imposed on Iran must be. About six months later on December 19, 2013 27 U.S. Senators introduced legislation calling for additional sanctions to be imposed on Iran. [12] This proposed legislation is referred to as S.1881-Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013. Senator Crapos demonstrated his moderate stance by signing, along with 9 other Senators, a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on December 18, 2013 stating they believe additional sanctions proposed in the aforementioned Senate Bill would:

play into the hands of those who are most eager to see negotiations fail [13]

As of this entry, 59 Senators have cosponsored this Bill. A "moderate" position here are those who only support imposing existing sanctions against Iran, whereas, presumably, a more hawkish position asserts both enforcing current sanctions resulting from prior legislation and imposing additional sanctions as those included in the language of the S.1881. This polarity of "moderate" and "extreme/hawk" positions only differs in degree not in kind. Both groups support punishing Iran. The only point of contention between them is determining how much punishment to inflict upon Iran.

ME extends its influence to choke Iran's economy to punish it for its nuclear development. This punishment imposed on Iran did not result from their violating the "Safeguards" provisions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that serves as the primary jurisdiction overseeing nations' nuclear projects of its members who possess no nuclear weapons. Gareth Porter points out in his study of the Iranian nuclear weapons program Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story Of The Iran Nuclear Scare that many U.S. claims that Iran violated the IAEA's "Safeguard Provisions" were exposed upon critical scrutiny to be mostly political posturing. ME could claim that the IAEA's jurisdiction lacks sufficient reach to analyze accurately the scope and depth of Iran's project to expand beyond possessing nuclear technology to developing actual nuclear warheads. But, if ME believes expediency demands its defying the IAEA, then it could also consider the corollary and weigh the historical and geopolitical factors encouraging Iran to develop its nuclear program. Instead, ME cynically engages in cognitive dissonance by focusing its efforts on delegitimizing the Tehran regime.

ME faces a formidable challenge because the most internationally well known hybrid Islamic/secular movement called Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) opposing the Iranian regime is an organization brandishing a stellar resume any democratic reformist would embrace. For instance, members of this organization participated in the seizing of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, and "argued against the early release of American hostages," according to a U.S. State Department report released in 2011 [14]. Its long list of chicanery earned it a spot on the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations beginning in 1997. But the U.S. State Department recognized MEK's rehabilitation thereby resulting in their removal from this list. [15]. Prior to their being removed from that infamous List, the George W. Bush administration began covertly supporting MEK [16]. These actions taken to the behest of MEK obviously reminds Iran that they remain a constant target for regime change. This cognitive dissonance incurred from the U.S. support of a former "terrorist" organization whose actions include targeted assassinations of Iranian officials and scientists (not to mention american citizens and military servicemen) [17] must certainly motivate the regime in Tehran to continue developing nuclear technology as a deterrent from regime change. ME prefers to ignore motivating factors like this because it likely reserves the right to establish and/or impose the conditions by which any regime, including Iran's, maintains its legitimacy.

Nobody likes a bully. An empire's hubris has its limits. John McCain's melodic parody featuring his singing "bomb..bomb...bomb...bomb...bomb Iran" to an audience in 2007 should remind us to heed a lesson stated more poetically after Germany invaded Poland on September 01, 1939:

Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return [18].

This lesson Auden's speaks of is lost on Senator McCain. His interjecting comic relief into such a critical discussion shows an example how empires foster the belief of exercising power with impunity. This belief that empires reach a state of impunity can create the psychopathic god. Peace by a reasonable definition is achieved through consent not coercion. Psychopathic gods (such as McCain, Lindsey Graham, Dick Cheney, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland just to name a few) see peace as the result of everyone else's unconditional acquiescence. These names will fade into obscurity, but the agenda they promote will create another tragedy for the commons whom they see as various forms of "collateral damage." History books in the future somewhere will define ME's efforts to achieve their self-serving condition of peace as WWIII. Any conflict with Iran may not appear to be a likely cause of WWIII, but who would have predicted just over 100 years ago that the small and subordinate land of Serbia would hold the spark that once fully ignited would start WWI? While Iran shows one flash point or prelude to WWIII, other conflicts are to some degree interconnected geopolitically to Iran. ME's executing regime changes in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and its continued efforts to effect regime change in Syria, reveal a fatal pattern. The logic of this pattern suggests that ME will attempt more overt regime changes in Iran. I hope by some miracle ME forsakes its own logic; thus, at that point my quoting Auden proves to be just a pedantic citation.

1. "Pope Francis warns on piecemeal 'World War III.' September 13, 2014. BBC News Europe. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29190890
2. Meyssan, Thierry. "John McCain, Conductor of the 'Arab Spring' and the Caliph." Voltairenet.org. August 18, 2014.
3. Cumings, Bruce. The Korean War: A History. Modern Library Edition. 2010. New York. Kindle Version.loc 2394 of 4360
4. Cummings. loc 2394 to 2402 of 4360.
5. Byrne, Malcolm. "CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup: Documents Provide Details on Mosaddeq Overthrow and Its Aftermath." The National Security Archive. posted 08/19/13. http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/
6. U.S. President Obama speech:  "Remarks by the President on a new Beginning" at Cairo University, June 04, 2009. m.whitehouse.gov/blog/.../transcripts
7. Ibid.
8. Porter, Gareth. Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. Just World Books. Charlottesville, Virginia. 2014. Kindle Version. loc 904 of 6968
9. http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/Irans-Looming-Energy-Crisis.html
10. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Country Analysis Brief: Iran. 07/21/2014. p.2 http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=ir
11. Mike Crapo. News Release: Ranking Member Crapo Statement at Banking Committee Hearing on Iran Sanctions. June 04, 2013. http://www.crapo.senate.gov/media/newsreleases/release_full.cfm?id=342975
12. Davenport, Kelsey. "New iran Bill Sanctions Introduced." Arms Control Association. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2014_01-02/New-Iran-Sanctions-Bill-Introduced. accessed Nov 01, 2014.
13. Ibid.
14.Masters, Johnathan. Council on Foreign Relations."Backgrounders: Mujahhadeen-e-Khalq (MEK)" July 28, 2014. http://www.cfr.org/iran/mujahadeen-e-khalq-mek/p9158
15. Office of Spokesperson. Media Note. U.S. Department of State. "Delisting of the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq" September 28, 2012. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/09/198443.htm
16. Cartalucci, Tony. "American-Killing Terror Cult: U.S. Delists Mujahedeen-e-Khalq. Continuity of Agenda: Neo-cons and Obama adminisration Sponsor Global Terror Against Iran. Global Research. September 22, 2012. http://www.globalresearch.ca/american-killing-terror-cult-us-delists-mujahedeen-e-khalq-mek/5305673
17. Cartalucci, Tony. "U.S. Implausibly Denies Role in Israeli Terror Squads." Land Destroyer Report. http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/02/us-implausibly-denies-role-in-israeli.html February 10, 2012.
18. Auden, W.H. "September 1, 1939." The Collected Poetry of W.H. Auden. Random House. New York. 1945. p.57.