Thursday, April 9, 2015

The Reason Why Republicans Reject Peace and Hope Negotiating with Iran Will Fail

From left, Head of Mission of People's Republic of China to the European Union Hailong Wu, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarifat, an unidentified Russian official, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland on April 2, 2015. 
It’s hard to fathom why anyone of good conscious would find the framework agreement reached between Iran, Russia, China, France, Germany, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States, over Iran’s nuclear program and their alleged quest for nuclear weapons, not to be in our best interest and in the best interest of Israel and the Middle East.

Iran's President, Hassan Rouhani, vowed that Iran would abide by the terms of the agreement. “Some think that we must either fight the world or surrender to world powers. We say it is neither of those, there is a third way. We can have cooperation with the world.” Rouhani added, the agreement marked a step forward to changing Iran’s relationship with the world.

Yet, our Republican-led Congress vilifies President Obama for negotiating what holds a promise of being a peaceful outcome to a dangerous, difficult situation, if the tentative agreement leads to a binding comprehensive agreement with Iran. The alternatives are maintaining sanctions that have not worked, or even a worst-case scenario, war.

The reason is simple: peace is not profitable for the United States. Peace’s nemeses are those who make their livelihoods and fortunes from war. In fact, we are so dependent on military contractors in order to carry out our wars that we can no longer conduct military operations without contractors. So, there are great incentives for the war industry, the purveyors of war, the government, and the military to overstate national security threats.

Additionally, “The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.”

So to maintain a world in conflict is also vital to the intelligence and surveillance agencies and the industries that support them.

When you follow the money, it becomes obvious why Republicans and others who beat the war drums rather than  work toward peace hope negotiations fail. In fact, there are those in the Republican Party who are endorsing a law that would provide Congress a way to reject any Obama-brokered deal with Iran.

The Pentagon,  it would seem,  must seek missions in order to sustain the growth of the war industry to justify the military’s enormous size, to sustain its research and development, and deployment of sophisticated equipment and weapons, as well as to keep soldiers combat-ready.

Essentially, it’s the reason the United States will always find the money to fund innovative ways to destroy lives and kill people but not find the moral imperative or the money to solve problems at home.

Copyright © 2015 Horatio Green