Reshaping U.S.-Iranian Relations
Obama's Foreign Policy for Iran Will Strengthen U.S. Imperialism
Nov 7, 2008
As the Bush Administration has confronted Iran with hostility, threats, and sanctions, the liberal elites have acknowledged that potential global competitors could increase their influence with Iran as U.S. corporations remain outside the loop. The liberal elites that compose the Obama Administration maintain the same imperialist objectives of neoconservatives, as they themselves wish to further strengthen the U.S Empire and recognize that Iran is an important geopolitical battleground.
To examine the potentially different policy of the Obama administration towards Iran, one must first understand the elite institutions that shape the foreign relations of the United States. Propositions made by the ruling elite of America's most prominent think tank institutions never tend to question outright goals or objectives of U.S. foreign policy. They are notoriously pragmatic and tactical, only debating the means to achieve U.S. dominance in the face of global competitors. Most of these intellectual doctrines and papers are never read by the vast majority of the population and are thus more upfront and blunt than the thirty second sound bites reported on the corporate media.
Many liberal elite think-tanks have clearly stated the benefits of an “alternative policy” towards Iran, covering their pragmatism behind a cloak of pacifism. This “alternative policy” doesn’t include just economic relations but a policy through which diplomacy is merely a more efficient tool than sanctions and bombings to obtain a corporate monopoly over Iran’s hydrocarbon development.
Iran and Competing Global Superpowers
The New Foundation for America is a proto-type liberal think-tank headed by multinational corporate execs and foreign policy advisors who have spent successive presidential administrations building the U.S. Empire. In October 2008, they released a report expressing concern that the U.S. policy of isolating Iran from European penetration has only left it open for Russia, China, and other non-Western companies to "take the lead in helping Tehran develop its hydrocarbon resources."
The report acknowledges that Iran has become an essential geopolitical power-player and a continuance of the current policy would not benefit the regional interests of the United States. It concludes that a new policy of engagement with Iran, rather than confrontation, will give U.S. corporations a vast amount of control over the development of its hydrocarbons sector. This strategic move would prove to be a significant upper-hand for the U.S. against competing global superpowers.
Brzezinski and the Foreign Policy of the Obama Administration
Zbigniew Brzezinski is the leader of this pragmatic school of thought. Brzesinksi is currently the key foreign policy advisor of the Obama Administration and will undoubtedly adopt more diplomatic means to ensure that the U.S. will once again take control of the Middle East. Brzezinski was the co-chairman of a Council of Foreign Relations report which proposed alternative strategies that the U.S. could adopt in approaching Iran. He essentially ensured that U.S. policy will make dramatic changes to U.S.-Iranian relations as a necessary means to U.S. global power.
This report concludes that some form of pact should be made between the two nations equivalent to the 1972 Shangai Communique that stabilized U.S. and Chinese relations. Interestingly enough, the stability of U.S. and Chinese relations meant China was forced to “liberalize its markets,” in other words, to increase the penetration of U.S. capital and weaken protections for its own population.
The conservative leaders of Iran have been interested in liberalizing their economy for an influx of foreign investment. If the U.S. takes the prerogative and resorts to cooperative diplomatic measures, it could take a strong role in the development of Iran’s hydrocarbon sector.
The Obama Administration will undoubtedly move towards this liberal strategy of corporate imperialism. Unfortunately, the sounds of starvation as U.S. companies extract oil wealth vital for public development won’t be as noisy as bombs dropping from U.S. fighter jets. We can reasonably expect that the protestors won’t be so noisy either.
 |
