DAR AL HARB - U.S.A.: A PROFESSOR 'DECODES' WHAT PRESIDENT BUSH IS REALLY SAYING

Decoding Bush: 'Iran, you're next?
by Prof. CHRISTOPHER VASILLOPULOS

A noted neocon and unabashed war hawk, Richard Perle told a journalist that a short message could be delivered to other hostile regimes in the Middle East, 'You're next.'

To neocons Iraq was merely a target of opportunity, the easiest victory in a series of invasions that would culminate in Iran. The most disturbing and by far the most important element of President Bush's January 10th speech was that it foreshadowed an attack on Iran. He did not say so in so many words. Nonetheless, in my view, a decoding of his remarks reveals a desire to punish Iran and some Arab nations for obstructing American efforts in Iraq.

Decoding' All verbal communications involve a process of coding and decoding. Thoughts are coded into words, which have already coded sounds into meanings. When heard, these words need to be decoded to be meaningful to the hearer. When applied to the simplest speech acts, the process is nearly instantaneous, automatic and unnoticed. In more complicated speech, the process becomes more arduous and evident. When politicians speak, the decoding process becomes difficult and sometimes impossible because the words are not meant to convey meaning or because the words contain contradictory ideas. In America, for example, candidates often promise to increase spending on popular programs and reduce taxes at the same time. This obvious contradiction is not meant to convey a coherent idea on taxes or programs. Its purpose it to say, 'I am like you. I want to eat my cake and have it not be eaten at the same time.'

President Bush's speech pushed the difficulties of decoding to the limit. The literal or surface content of the speech was a restatement of a four-year-old failed policy, with a shift in some tactics. Calling such modest changes a new policy or strategy does not make it so. He is 'staying the course,' by 'augmenting' it, in the words of Condoleezza Rice. He is saying, 'I understand the American public wants change, but victory will only come by sticking to his policy with modest amendments.' I do not believe the White House thinks that Americans will buy into this sleight of hand. Therefore, in my view, the speech has another purpose.

To ascertain this purpose it is necessary to consider what the speech did not mention:

(1) there was no admission of the lies that were to justify the invasion of Iraq;

(2) there was no citation of the mistakes that were made in the prosecution of the war;

(3) there was no acknowledgment of the woefully inadequate projections of what the war would cost in terms of blood and treasure;

(3) there was no admission that America has no support in the world, other than Israel;

(4) there was no mention of the Iraq Study Group's recommendation of a major diplomatic effort involving among others, Syria, Iran, Turkey and Russia;

(5) there was no mention of the de facto Kurdish state in northern Iraq, proof that Iraq is already dismembered;

(6) there was no acknowledgement that this Kurdish state, with the help of Israel, is arming and training the Kuridstan Workers' Party (PKK);

(7) there was no mention of the large Israeli nuclear arsenal, which by its solitary presence destabilizes the strategic balance in the Middle East.

The speech did say, in addition to the restatement of 'stay the course,' that those nations who are aiding the insurgency are in danger of retaliatory military action. To buttress this threat, a carrier group has been dispatched to the Persian Gulf. In view of this action and by the next day's attack on an Iranian Consulate in north Iraq, I believe Bush's speech reveals its decoded meaning. 'Iran, you're next.' Of course, I can't be certain. Consider, however, the following:

(1) for many neocons, whose influence in the White House and the Pentagon has been brilliantly catalogued in Woodward's 'State of Denial,' Iran has always been a more important adversary than Iraq, as has been Syria and Egypt. Iraq was attacked because it promised an easy victory, which would whet America's appetite for the invasion of Syria or Iran.

(2) Iran has a nuclear uranium enrichment program, although it is probably years away from a credible nuclear weapons system.

(3) President Ahmadinejad's anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric has aggravated the White House and the Pentagon.

None of these points, nor all of them together, justifies war on Iran, at least not to the satisfaction of a war-weary world. Yet it should be remembered that there was less rationale for the Iraq war, except that Iraq was considered too weak to resist. There is virtually no support in Congress for an Iranian war, except by those members whose views are inextricable from Zionist adherence to Israel. Nevertheless, the desire of the Bush administration, its neocon supporters, in and out of government, the Israeli and Jewish lobbies regarding Iran is all too clear. Iran is a threat to Israel and must be dealt with sooner or later. That this position entails an absurdity in terms of the proven logic of nuclear deterrence does not matter. Israeli nuclear weapons are stabilizing and a basis for peace. Any other nuclear weapons in the Middle East are destabilizing and a basis for war.

...

I am not sure if I found the right professor, but here is one (by the same name) at:

Eastern Connecticut State University


Pertinent Links:

1) Decoding Bush: 'Iran, you're next?