The Fateful Triangle – Iran, Israel and the United States.

The title of this blog is borrowed from a book written by Noam Chomsky, with the same title. In Noam Chomsky’s book “A Fateful Triangle”, the subject was the relationship between the Israelis, Palestinians, and the United States. I, however, in this short blog would like to discuss the “fateful triangle” involving Iran, Israel and the United States.

My aim is to underline the fact that behind all the animosity, distrust and sometimes hatred that the respective governments express for each other, they do equally benefit politically via these same antagonistic policies.

First and foremost, a bit of background and history is needed. You see, after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, and the return of Ayatollah Khomeini to Iran, a new anti-US and anti-Israeli foreign policy was immediately adopted. In so doing, the very fundamental political policies were drawn to give Iran an “independence” from imperial powers. The other main point of the foreign policy was Iran’s firm allegiance to the Palestinian cause.

This political stance established by the newborn Islamic Republic of Iran, seemingly did threaten Israeli and American interests, just by its mere existence. And of course, after radical Islamist students overtook the US embassy in Tehran, the theoretical threat had become a matter of fact.

The strained relations between the US and Iran is well documented and volatile, while the war of words between Israel and Iran does not lack any less fervour. It is however interesting to note that although it may not be on purpose, both the Israelis and the Iranians are benefiting politically from their sideshow war with one another.

The Iranians clearly use the “Zionist threat”, mainly to unite Muslims, but more importantly, to maintain a rallying cry and simultaneously crush internal political descent. To understand the Iranian regime, one must understand how an oppressive theocracy remains in power for roughly thirty-five years. It would not be possible if it did not have any foreign enemies. The Islamic regime has two metaphorical oxygen tanks. One is labelled Israel, and the other is labelled “Death to America”. Without a rallying cry, and enemies to blame for economic and social injustices at home and abroad, it would be difficult to maintain unity and convince your people that “they’re out to get us”.

Israel, on the other hand, seems to be doing the same thing but in a different way. The Israelis after all do gain from the “Iranian threat”, consistently labeling Iran’s government as “the greatest threat to world peace” and to the peace process. But what is not admitted is that Iran’s existence does allow for the Israelis to push forward with controversial policies in the occupied lands. It is also a fact that labeling a country like Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism would allow Israel to defy several UN condemnations, construct new properties on occupied territories, and continue implementing policies to the detriment of the Palestinians.

Without Iran’s Islamic regime in power, and all of its propaganda (ex. former Pres. Ahmadinejad’s claim that Israel must be “wiped off the map”), it would be difficult for Israel, from a public relations stand point to claim its mantra that it ” has a right to defend itself”. If theoretically there was no group named Hezbollah, and no Islamist government in Iran, one could argue that Israel would be in a tough position (meaning, they would likely have to concede land) in peace talks with the Palestinians.

Whether or not the Iranian and Israeli foreign policies are purposely designed to deceive and ironically benefit each other and put the wool over our eyes (including the Palestinians), is up for debate. But the existence of Iran for the Israelis is certainly a political gift and plenty for them to work with. Israel’s goal is to maintain an image of not as an aggressor but of an small Jewish state mainly concerned with defending itself. Iran’s foreign policy is surprisingly similar, insofar as it claims to have merely “defensive” military policies. The only difference is that Iran has much more political gain with the existence of Israel than it would like to admit.

Nearly all political opposition parties and notable individuals who were later deemed “threats to national security” have nearly all been charged as spies for Mossad, the Israeli spy agency, and of course the CIA. The fascinating part about this story is how the United States of America fits into this equation. The USA actually plays an intricate role in maintaining things in order so that the two countries don’t go “off script” so to speak.

The American governments through the years have tried to use very extreme elements of radical ideologies in Marxism and Islamism, to keep the Middle Eastern countries from becoming ideologically united. A moderate government in Iran does not favour the US, along with any other country in the Muslim world. You see, moderate governments bring pragmatism, and try to hold aside ideology for the sake of “national interest”, just like we see in most democratic governments around the world. But in a region where the world’s most primary and valued resource is buried, pragmatic governments would only use that resource (oil), to modernize their countries and that doesn’t bode well for the West.

So, for those of you who are always asking: “why is their always war in the Middle East?” and “why are we there?”, the reason is simple: the Middle Eastern countries naturally hold sway over Western countries and can use the oil prices as leverage, but can only bow down to Western pressure, if there is consistent conflict, war, war drumming, and threats.

How does that relate Iran, Israel and the US together? Well, between these respective governments there is a mutual understanding that their lack of relations and threats of war serve to benefit them more than any relations at all (at least formally).

To reiterate, Iran benefits by rallying the Muslim world (mainly Shia) with populist policies, quashing descent and keeping its people in a constant state of fear. Israel, on the other hand benefits from Iran’s policies, with its continued occupation, and increasing construction of new settlements and occasional bombardments of occupied lands under the pretext that it “has right to defend itself”. And finally, the US benefits with both Iran and Israel threatening each other and putting fear into the eyes of their neighbours, particularly Iran, making the small Arab “sheikhdoms” ask for more US military aid, and simultaneously letting the chaos and war dispel any chance of unity among Middle Eastern countries to challenge Western economic policies.

It happened once in 1973, the US vowed it would not happen again, and it hasn’t.

In short, Iran will not be bombed, Israel will not be wiped off the map, and the US needs both countries’ regimes to exist to achieve its immediate goals in the Middle East.

Why Is There A Debate On Legalizing Prostitution in Canada?

• Questions of debate/discussion to analyze
o Through what lens is the government viewing this matter?
 Is it through a moral/ethical lens?
 Or is it through a “free market” capitalist viewpoint?
 Or is it a stance unrelated to either of the aforementioned reasons, and more to do with the basic principles of Liberalism?
o Why is the government, or more importantly the Supreme Court, now considering a different stance concerning the validity and legality of sex trade?

Reconsidering the Sex-Trade

I found it interesting and a bit surprising when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the validity of the ban on prostitution. It is fascinating for many reasons and breeds much discussion for or against its merits for legalization. It indeed shows how far along we have come in secular society to decide based on logic and thought-provoking arguments to come to this consensus in our Liberal democracy in Canada. What we can take from this is that our constitution in Canada is not set in stone and untouchable, and this progressive attitude has always been refreshing to see and witness in this country. However, we should also be aware of the reasons for this change in thought and the ideological influences that have led us to reconsider the legality of some controversial issues such as prostitution.

The Canadian system of government is of course founded on the basic principles of Liberalism and the undeniable rights we guarantee to all citizens regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. We are blessed with right to a fair trial and equality before the law afforded to all, citizen or not. Our freedoms, like any other matter have limits. We are cognizant that we are free to speak, to act, to protest, and express ourselves as long as we do not harm others. This “harm principle”, first introduced by Liberal thinker John Stuart Mill in his book titled “On Liberty”, explains this notion that we are free as long as we do not impede the freedoms of others, through physical or psychological abuse.

If I may ask our government the following question, I would be delighted if I received a response. That is, if our basic principles of democracy are arguably, a calibration of the works of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, among others, then why have we not adopted a more liberal approach to prostitution in the past? These thinkers had a relatively similar argument that a government’s role in the private lives of its citizens should be minimalistic. Thus, why have these recent reconsiderations of the legality of the sex-trade (which clearly do not “harm others” if supervised by authorities under strict regulation) not come sooner? One could argue that the role of religion was all too present in the public and private lives of citizens, which is now arguably much less apparent in modern society.

But to simplify the matter and our ability to debate the legality of prostitution to the undermined role of religion would be a mistake. Religions in secular society are strong and influential in the lives of those who choose to live under its guidance. Faith is still prevalent, but of course, its role in making or influencing political decisions has been diminished to minimal influence. So, how can we account for the sudden change of heart by the Supreme Court of Canada? Is it based on simply a Liberal account on the right of a sex-worker to sell his or her body for pay? This last sentence and change of terms helps those making the case for the legalization of prostitution because its wording frames the matter quite differently.

The legalization of prostitution now not only becomes a matter of individual liberty, but also grants merits for “worker’s rights”. It is now not a matter of not just a liberal juxtaposition, but one that introduces a capitalist “free market” ideology and the undeniable right for all to use their bodies to sell their “labour” for pay. This “Lockean” terminology makes it increasingly difficult for the courts to uphold the current laws and easy to question its validity. Labour is a man or woman’s use of his or her skills either physically or otherwise to receive pay in exchange. In our capitalist society, once we accept that our need to labour is a consequence of the fact that as individuals, we too are commodities, then we can see why in a “free market” society it would be difficult to sanction against a prostitute’s right to use his or her body for commercial use.