This is a good summary of a point of view of the US that is common in many countries. THere is not much info on the author except that he was an ambassador. It doesn't say from where or to where. The ambassador seems to have a very optomistic view of Iran's intentions re nuclear power. You would think an ambassador would know enough not to take a forthright statement by a government as gospel truth! This is from the site Kashmir Watch.
America’s hegemonic designs
By Ghayoor Ahmed
THE United States has always gone out of its way to emphasise that it loves world peace and that it has been assiduously striving towards this end. However, this claim does not stand up to scrutiny. In its misguided pursuit of supremacy, the US has conducted more than 160 wars and other military adventures.
America’s desire for political and military hegemony, its obsessive drive for control of oil and expansion of military bases around the world and meddling in other countries’ internal affairs indicate that acquisitiveness rather than national security interests is the key feature of its foreign policy. In other words, the sole aim of US foreign policy is attainment of economic aggrandisement.
The US desire for political and military hegemony is incompatible with international law and the UN charter that guarantee the sovereignty of all states regardless of their size, political, military and economic strength. It is true that the US has reached the zenith of power and is capable of bending other nations to its will.
However, it must also realise that the strength of powerful nations never remains constant owing to global competition and the shifting of global political, military and economic balances. Only a leader with political acumen and a sense of history can understand this. Such a leader will always desist from harbouring imperialist ambitions.
There is no reason to doubt that the US invasion of Afghanistan, in the wake of 9/11, was motivated by self-interest and not to end terrorism there as was its stated objective. There is convincing evidence that the oil reserves in the Caspian sea area were an important motivational factor to gain control of Afghanistan.
It may be mentioned that a few days before September 11 the US Energy Information Administration documented Afghanistan’s strategic geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian sea. It is also important to note that as a result of its occupation of Afghanistan, the US now has new military bases in Central Asia.
Soon after its occupation of Afghanistan, the US also invaded Iraq. It contended that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction notwithstanding the fact that UN inspectors had found no evidence to this effect. The US case was so unconvincing that the UN Security Council, normally supportive of US policy, did not give its approval to invade Iraq. Public opinion, all over the world, was also overwhelmingly opposed to the US attack on Iraq and held big protest rallies in different countries against it. The Bush administration’s claim that Iraq was a threat to world peace apparently did not carry conviction.
It is clear that US policy on Iraq, camouflaged in the rhetoric of lofty ideals, was not motivated by concern for weapons of mass destruction or liberating the people of that country from a tyrannical ruler. Iraq’s oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia. By occupying Iraq, the US could establish a secure alternative to Saudi oil which, it is believed, is depleting. Moreover, Iraq is also strategically located and by establishing a strong presence in that country the United States also aimed to expand its sphere of influence in the region.
The people of Iraq who had initially greeted the US forces as liberators have put up a strong resistance against their continued presence in their country. But the US is not willing to withdraw its forces from Iraq without attaining its geopolitical and economic interests there.
If it does so after suffering heavy losses, it feels irreparable damage will be inflicted on its standing in the world. Irrefutable evidence is also available to the effect that, contrary to the US public being in favour of the territorial integrity of Iraq, Washington is actually fanning the flames of religious and ethnic differences only to prolong its stay in that country to promote its objectives.
The US, as well as other nations bent upon dominating other countries, must learn a lesson from contemporary international realpolitik and refrain from using military might against other states. The use of force by a military giant against a weaker nation cannot prevent its people from struggling for their complete independence from foreign domination irrespective of the price they may have to pay to attain it.
Bush’s plan for political reform in the Middle East was a strategic move aimed at installing more friendly regimes there with a view to achieving his country’s long-term imperialistic designs in the region through peaceful means instead of invoking the doctrine of preemption that has proved disastrous in Iraq. It may be mentioned that the Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, have rejected the imposition of reform from outside the Arab world.
Some political observers believe that the fundamental premise of US policy on Iran is also the same. It has, therefore, deliberately adopted an aggressive posture towards its nuclear programme although there is little to suggest that Iran plans to make nuclear weapons. There could also be no room for doubting Iran’s motives after its unequivocal commitment that its nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes and is in conformity with the safety regulations of the IAEA.
The former commander of the US Central Command, General John Abizaid, recently said that even with the continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the biggest threat in the global war on terrorism is posed by extremists in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. However, he tends to ignore that America’s increasingly partisan involvement with Israel and its occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq have given rise to militancy in a number of Muslim countries.
Unless the Americans accept this unpalatable truth and set about addressing the underlying issues that cause resentment towards them, they cannot win the war against terrorism, despite possessing unrivalled resources and military might.
It is now established beyond a shadow of doubt that the US States intends to use its unrivalled military power to manage the global order consistent with its national interests and also to assert its status as a unipolar power without any competitor. However, its lust for world domination and its resources pose a serious threat to the international community.
There is global opposition to Washington’s desire to impose its hegemony over the rest of the world. In the coming days, the US may face resistance to its imperialistic designs, particularly from other world powers, that are equally keen on asserting themselves to promote their own national interests.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Posted on 16 Jun 2007 by Webmaster