A (Not So) Startling Accusation

President Carter's old National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is not someone known for his dovish inclinations regarding foreign policy.  In fact, he has publicly admitted that he advocated for CIA support of the mujaheddin before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and that such a policy was designed to prompt an invasion.  It was hoped that this would lead the Soviets into a Vietnam style quagmire, overstretch their military and ultimately lead to a humiliating defeat. 

So when Brezinski recently testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee one might be curious as to what he thinks the Bush administration is preparing for Iran:

Brzezinski told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam." Brzezinski predicts "some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a 'defensive' U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan." ( as quoted by Paul Craig Roberts)

I do not find Brezinski's suggestion all that surprising - a student of American history can think of lots of examples where a staged attack or useful accident are used to justify war (Gulf of Tonkin, "Remember the Maine").  What impresses me is that someone of Brezinski's insider status is suggesting that the current US government is looking for an excuse to expand the Iraq war into a larger regional conflict.  Clearly there is division within the foreign policy establishment (and the ruling elite in general) regarding what is happening today - even a traditional cold war hawk like Brezinski thinks the current path is suicidal. But will this make a difference? Will enough people believe that Bush & Company are going to fabricate a pretext for world war? And even if they know this is happening, will anyone stop it?

Jodi Dean has spent the last several months at icite arguing for the collapse of symbolic efficiency and its impact on political discourse.  She recently presented a paper on 9/11 conspiracy theories that directly addresses the issues raised by Brezinski's testimony.  Here is a former National Security Advisor who has gone on record suggesting that the US government will stage some sort of event, or falsely attribute a terrorist act, to Iran in order to justify war.  When someone outside official circles speculates in this manner, they are usually dismissed as "conspiracy nut jobs."  But Jodi correctly points out that what makes one a paranoid conspiracy theorist is not the simple assertion of a conspiracy - after all, the official version of 9/11 describes how a group of Islamic fundamentalists conspired to hijack four planes and crash them into buildings. But when an "outsider," a non-expert, posits a conspiracy contrary to mainstream commonsense, one that involves members of our own government, secretly implementing a covert operation, killing thousands of their own citizens, well this is beyond the pale.

But Zbigniew Brezinski is an insider, one who has been personally involved in planning black ops around the globe.  Does his assertion have more weight?  Is he a "conspiracy theorist" in the pejorative sense? This where Jodi's insight is really striking - by exposing the criminality that is inherent in US foreign policy, Brezinski seems to undermine the legitimacy of government. But with the decline in symbolic efficiency, who is one to believe?  Since most of us are skeptical of government pronouncements anyway, what impact does his revelation really have?  It either confirms our worst suspicions or others reject it as partisan demagoguery.  Irregardless, it becomes part of the background noise of the daily news cycle.

Jodi's suggestion is that the revelation of more facts, more information, does not get us out of the current impasse but actually prevents anything from changing.  She believes that "Breaking out of the trap of 9/11 will require shedding (traversing) our fantastic investments in simplicity, meaning, and righteousness...Even the accusation that the other side remains invested in them.  We can't treat - or condone the treatment of - 9/11 as something sacred, as a key turning point or event."

I generally agree with Jodi that 9/11 largely defines American politics across the spectrum.  And clearly the conditions for credibility across different discursive communities has largely eroded.  Bringing this insight to Brezinski's comments, it is not enough for an informed expert to publicly expose the current Junta's plans for destroying the middle east.  We must some how break out of this impasse.  But short of catastrophe, or economic collapse, I cannot imagine how that is going to happen.