Sat, 14 Jun 2008 03:10:08
Noam Chomsky believes that everything the Bush administration has done has turned into a catastrophe, calling war on Iran a wild gamble.
When interviewed by Press TV about the possibility of a US-led attack Iran the world renowned US foreign policy analyst said, “It is conceivable that they would be willing to enter a wild gamble and to see what happens. Remember that everything Bush administration has done almost without an exception has turned into a catastrophe for the interests they represent.”
“US intelligence seems to oppose it. The US military opposes it. The Americans and surely the whole world oppose it,” he said while acknowledging his own doubts if the Bush administration would be swayed by those pressures.
“People like DicK Cheney are unpredictable,” he said in the live Friday interview.
About Iran’s nuclear talks with the IAEA, he said, “The right solution to this problem is to declare a nuclear weapons’ free zone in the entire region which would include Iran, Israel, American forces deployed there and so on. About three quarters of Americans favor it and I think that’s the right idea.”
About the controversial US long-term security treaty with Iraq which stipulates American investors are to be given concessions denied others to Iraq’s resources, he said, “That’s brazen imperialism, saying we invaded you so that we could control your country, and so that our corporations can have privileged access to your resources.”
Brazen imperialism in the Middle East
Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:05:51
The following is Press TV’s exclusive full-length interview with American linguist, philosopher, political activist, author and MIT professor Avram Noam Chomsky:
Press TV: How do you characterize this so-called security treaty between Washington and Baghdad?
Chomsky: The security arrangement was in fact declared last November. There was a declaration from the White House, presumably a Bush-Maliki declaration, but had nothing to do with the Congress or Parliament or any other official institution. It called for an indefinite long-term US military presence in Iraq and that could include the huge air bases that are now being built around Iraq. The US is building what’s called an embassy but it’s unlike any embassy in the world. Its essentially a city inside a city. These are all declared intentions to retain a permanent dominant presence in Iraq.
The declaration also, a little to my surprise, had a rather brazen statement about exploiting the resources of Iraq. It said that the economy of Iraq, which means its oil resources, must be open to foreign investment, privileging American investors. That’s pretty brazen. Now that’s brazen imperialism saying we invaded you so that we can control your country; and so that our corporations can have privileged access to your resources.
It was not at all clear that any Iraqi was ever going to accept this and in the steps that had followed as there was an attempt to sort of formulate it, more precisely, there have been predictably increasing objections.
Different formulations and so on but without going through the details leading to prime minister al-Maliki’s recent comment that you quoted.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.