No War for Saudi Oil!

by MEL GURTOV

Even if US intelligence decisively shows that some of the drones and cruise missiles used in the attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil fields originated in Iran, a decision to go to war with Iran would be inexcusable and insupportable.

For one thing, such a decision would not serve US national interests; it would be based on Saudi oil supplies and oil prices—a war for oil, pure and simple.

Second, the attack would be a logical (some would say, predictable) retaliation for many months of US-supported Saudi air attacks on the Yemeni rebels that have caused tens of thousands of deaths, widespread malnutrition, and a health crisis—crimes against humanity according to many observers.

Third, the very idea that the US should go to war in support of a criminal Saudi regime is outrageous. The government of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman is responsible for the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the coddling of the 9/11 terrorists, and consistent violations of the human rights of Saudi women and political opponents.

Fourth, the full backdrop to this war threat must include Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran and the ensuing Bolton-Pompeo strategy of “maximum pressure” on Iran designed to provoke regime change. Ever since, Iran’s leaders have been looking for ways to fight back against a US policy that has caused considerable economic damage, but without directly hitting US targets. Now, for the second time in a few months, Trump says “we” are “locked and loaded,” on the pretense of retaliation rather than as a follow-up to US economic warfare. In a word, responsibility for this crisis rests most directly on the Trump administration’s rejection of diplomacy in favor of sanctions and threats.

The US has no obligation to go to war for the sake of Saudi oil or in defense of Saudi territory. Nor is there a legal basis for doing so: Saudi Arabia is not an ally, and any decision for war, or other military action, requires Congressional approval. If Trump decides on war, it will be to curry favor with his and Jared Kushner’s dear friend, the crown prince, and satisfy the warmongering Israeli leadership—all despite the Pentagon’s reported advice against war. US military leaders well understandthe dimensions of disaster war with Iran would create.

Trump may well back away from his latest threat, as he often does, perhaps motivated this time by election concerns. He must still be held to account, for his every action contributes to tension in the Middle East and does nothing to restrain Saudi Arabia in its Yemen war or provide incentives to Iran to negotiate.

Mel Gurtov is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University, Editor-in-Chief of Asian Perspective, an international affairs quarterly and blogs at In the Human Interest.

Our Racist President

by MEL GURTOV

“Donald Trump lost the election because he veered so far off course from what it means to be a decent person, to be a leader, and to be an American. He interpreted his 2016 victory as a mandate to act like the bullying, vindictive business tycoon he had always been, forever in denial about his actual popularity and the extent of support for his manner of governing, notably his reliance on racism to advance the white nationalist cause. He thought America would embrace a tough talking demagogue who was going to clean house, alleviate middle-class grievances, and remake the world, none of which he accomplished and all of which he made worse. In his failures, however, he forced us to look in the mirror and see just how far the country needs to go in its noble experiment.”

The above is what I would like to write on November 4, 2020. The most important theme that Democratic candidates at all levels, moderate and progressive alike, should emphasize is that Donald Trump is and always has been hostile to traditional American values. Far from seeking to make America great, he has degraded and divided the country, notably with blatant appeals to anti-immigrant sentiments, attacks on non-white officeholders, and rejection of the values of multiculturalism and diversity. The depths of his influence as a racist may be gauged not merely by the support he receives from certain whites but also, and more conspicuously, by the indifference to his racism of the Republican Party establishment.

A Quinnipiac University poll finds that 51 percent of Americans believe Trump is a racist. Yet the New York Times reports that Democrats are uncertain how to respond to Trump’s race baiting and xenophobia. There shouldn’t be any uncertainty: Democrats should hold nothing back in portraying Trump as un-American, a man whose racism is not merely divisive but also informs many of his policy stances—for example, on law and the courts, the economy, education, foreign aid, and emergency assistance to US communities. If Trump is reelected America will be unrecognizable as a democracy open to all. How absurd that a president cannot be impeached for such an obviously “high crime and misdemeanor.”

Mel Gurtov is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University, Editor-in-Chief of Asian Perspective, an international affairs quarterly and blogs at In the Human Interest.

Baiting Iran

by MEL GURTOV

Ever since Donald Trump became president, regime change in Iran has been a prominent US aim. Trump began by backing out of the nuclear deal and imposing harsh sanctions, setting the stage for a confrontational policy. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton followed Trump’s lead, repeatedly denouncing Iran’s leadership, calling for Iranians to rise up against it, and issuing vague warnings of US punishment.

This US policy is absolutely inexcusable: It is aggressive and baseless, oblivious to diplomacy, and guaranteed to cause untold hardship and chaos for the people of the region.

I have argued a number of times that Iran, not North Korea, is Trump’s principal national security target. Trump’s extraordinary patience with Kim Jong-un, and willingness to go to two summits with him that have gotten nowhere, can be understood as having given him time to focus on “maximum pressure” on Iran. In his mind, the North Korea “threat” has been deterred; let South Korea deal with it. US interests in the Middle East are far more important anyway, and with Iran Trump has the firm backing of two “great friends”: Saudi Arabia’s criminal crown prince and Israel’s newly reelected prime minister, who is as much a militaristic far-right hawk as Bolton and Pompeo. If war broke out, the Saudis and Israelis would be expected to provide on-the-ground personnel, permitting the US to rely on air and naval power.

What Trump is now doing is baiting Iran with war talk and deployments of overwhelming military power. Bolton, well known for having wanted to attack Iran years ago, and defeated in his attempts to lure Trump into using force against Venezuela, is looking for a way to sucker Tehran into creating a “provocation” that would provide a pretext for a US “counterattack.” The public US position is not credible: “The president has been clear, the United States does not seek military conflict with Iran, and he is open to talks with Iranian leadership,” Garrett Marquis, a National Security Council spokesman, said Monday in an email. “However, Iran’s default option for 40 years has been violence, and we are ready to defend U.S. personnel and interests in the region.”

Talks, really? Trump “open to talks” after tearing up a negotiated deal with Iran that took many years to conclude—a deal that is working? Defend US personnel from what? Defend what interests, other than those of the Saudis and the Israelis who have been itching to eliminate the rule of Iran’s Shia clergy for decades? If there is a “default option,” it is the US preference under Trump for resolving international disputes by threats rather than engagement. The US Congress, the European Union, Russia, and China must act fast to isolate Trump and insist that their interests lie in continued trade with Iran and respect for its sovereignty.

Mel Gurtov is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University, Editor-in-Chief of Asian Perspective, an international affairs quarterly and blogs at In the Human Interest.