whiteheadian reflections on a possible nuclear strike on iran...
by John B. Cobb, Jr.

I wrote the piece below a few days ago on the basis of responsible reports about U.S. plans.  My main point was to speak of the need to think through fundamental alternatives to a foreign policy based on force and move our nation toward one based on persuasion.  I do not want to withdraw any of that.  However, my sources for believing an aerial attack is imminent may themselves be victims of a campaign of disinformation intended to pressure Iran rather than having accurate information about administration plans (see this article: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA27Ak01.html). No one outside the administration can know.  According to another responsible source, Gareth Porter, any attack on nuclear facilities in Iran is more likely to be carried out by commandos than by aerial bombing. I regret having contributed to a campaign of disinformation, if that is, indeed, what I did. 

A cursory examination of the media, functioning in part as the propaganda organ for the administration, makes it clear that we Americans are being prepared to accept a military attack on Iran. It has long been "known" that Iran is part of "the axis of evil." Recently there has been extensive publicity about the outrageous statements of its leaders with respect to Israel and the Holocaust. And the likelihood has been emphasized that its nuclear facilities are designed not only for civilian electrical power but also for building bombs. We understand that many efforts have been made to negotiate on the latter point, but that Iran is obdurate. Since the Pentagon has contingency plans for many types of action, there is no reason to doubt that such plans are in place for at attack on Iran . It is possible that the existence of such plans is used as a threat to back up diplomacy. But there are also indications that our administration may prefer a military solution, one that wipes out all Iranian nuclear capability, rather than a diplomatic solution, which would leave open the possibility of Iran eventually having nuclear capability. Years ago Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear plant. A similar strike against multiple facilities in Iran , by either Israeli or U.S. planes, is a plausible scenario. 

Indications are that this will take place with little public warning, so that any protests will come after the "war" is over. Also, it seems that the administration has cleared this plan with its allies, so that national governments will be silent or supportive. There will be no advance discussion in the United Nations. If there are few American casualties and no ground troops are committed, it is likely that the attack will cause little public outrage in the United States and Europe . The Middle East is, of course, another matter. Recently the word is out that such a strike is definitely planned for February or March. It is also reported that we will make use of tactical nuclear weapons. If this were discussed publicly in advance, there would probably be considerable opposition. But once the deed has been done, and if nuclear fallout is as limited as is hoped, opposition will likely be muted, and the way will have been cleared for continued use of tactical nuclear weapons in the future. The advocates of Pax Americana or American Empire will have made a great advance. 

It is possible, of course, that the consequences for the United States will be dramatic and dire, in which case we may expect protests after the fact. It is certainly likely that oil supplies will become scarce and the price of gasoline will rise sharply. It is possible that Russia and China will react harshly, and China , especially, has the capacity to damage us severely. Should nuclear fallout be much greater than anticipated, there will certainly be an outcry about the use of nuclear weapons. Being a Whiteheadian gives me no special ability to predict any of these things, but it does provide a point of view for evaluating this kind of foreign policy in itself, apart from unpredictable negative consequences. 

One premise of this policy, clearly articulated in official government documents, is that the United States should have global hegemony so as to maintain peace and order everywhere. Its responsibility is to prevent any power from arising that can threaten America 's unique role. This role authorizes its use of methods (preemptive attacks) and weapons (nuclear) that are otherwise forbidden, at least to any country not cooperating with it. The United States will use the United Nations when possible, but it will not be bound by any international body or agreements if these interfere with pursuit of its imperial goals. A second premise is that the primary means of achieving this global control is unilateral military force. The United States engages in occasional acts of generosity, but it makes no serious use of its economic resources to alleviate poverty and suffering around the world. It does not try to reduce the oppression and economic injustice that evoke violent resistance and terrorism. It has done little to secure a genuine homeland for Palestinians. Most of its charity over the years has been closely tied to geopolitical considerations. Winning hearts by actually reducing human misery plays a small role in geopolitical thinking. 

As recently as World War II and its immediate aftermath, some of America 's global leadership was of a moral character. Deserved or not, its image in much of the world was that of the leading example of democracy and a beacon of hope to the oppressed and poor. Today, only fragments of this positive image remain. Peoples of the world now understand that the United States aims to be the ruler of a global empire. Some expect that it will be less tyrannous than most imperial powers, but others are no longer so sanguine. We should acknowledge that at a deep level the United States has always been an imperialistic power. It conquered the native peoples, treating them as badly as any empire has treated its subjects. It declared and exercised hegemony over Latin America in ways that had nothing to do with the welfare of its people. Hence it may be more accurate to see current policy as a continuation of a long tradition rather than as an appalling novelty. 

Nevertheless, as one who has lived through World War II, the reconciliation between France and Germany that allowed for the emergence of a unified Europe that is no longer a threat to world peace, the reconstruction of Europe and Japan, the breakup of the European Empires, and the creation of new international institutions, I know that this is not the whole story. I am one of many who perceive a profound devolution in American culture and in its role in the world. Whereas earlier the American people saw themselves as building a society that won the admiration of the world, we have become a nation that enforces its will militarily. The dominance of "persuasion" in our society and self-understanding has given way to the dominance of "force." The dream, supported by public opinion, of American leadership of the world toward freedom and cooperation, has been replaced by the assumption that we must control the whole world by threatening, and often exercising, overwhelming military force. The idealization of "shock and awe" symbolizes this change. A Whiteheadian cannot avoid distress. Defeating this Republican administration at the polls and replacing it with Democrats will make little difference in this regard. No alternative vision of global affairs has come from the Democrats. Being less unpopular globally, if elected, a Democratic administration may be even more successful in advancing American hegemony. 

What can we do besides complain and protest? However deeply we feel violated, the answer is: very little in the short run. We cannot deter a nuclear attack on Iran or the continuation of present imperial policy in the short-term future. We can hardly argue convincingly for a different policy. The past actions of our government and others have boxed us into a situation in which there are few choices, all bad. There is real danger that those who share our deep distress over current events despair. There is danger that we join them in that despair. 

Despair can be avoided, however, if we see alternative possibilities in the longer term that are worth working for. Those of us who follow Whitehead in wanting a world in which the role of force is reduced and that of persuasion increased bear responsibility. We are called to articulate a different vision of how the world could be ordered. This vision should be capable of capturing not only hearts but also minds. It needs to be worked out with some care and detail in a way that takes full account of the realities we all recognize as characterizing human beings both as individuals and as collectives. It is important to show plausible ways in which the transition from what is now taking place to this other world could occur. And if such a vision is to make a real difference, we will have to find ways to keep this alternative possibility before the public so that current events can be appraised in its light. 

The process community is far too small and marginal to accomplish all this alone. But it is my opinion that we may have a crucial role to play. Unlike most American thinkers at this time, we have a coherent vision. Also, collectively, we have spelled out some of the implications of this vision in many fields. A good deal has been done, and is being done, from a process perspective in the political field. A beginning has been made in the field of global affairs as well. We can do more. 

We know, of course, that our work may have no effect on the course of world affairs. But surprising things happen. Sometimes those in positions of influence feel the need for new ways of thinking. If those new ideas are available, such leaders may find them. 
In the past decade thoughtful Chinese have been seeking an alternative to the "modernization" that has been the central commitment of the government. This modernization runs roughshod over traditional Chinese culture and over the environment as well. It leads to value-free education in a culture that is placing money-making at the center. It separates science and technology from humanistic concerns. Influential Chinese in a variety of positions discovered Griffin 's "constructive postmodernism" and, through that, the philosophy of Whitehead. They have found both the philosophy and its relevance in several fields suggestive of new approaches to education and new governmental policies. Suddenly, Whitehead plays a role in China vastly greater than anywhere else in the world. I cite this astonishing breakthrough to say that we cannot judge the value of our work by its current neglect in our own society. American society may change. Should an attack on Iran have extensively negative consequences for the United States, such change might come soon. There may be revulsion toward our role as global policemen and rulers. The relevance of Whiteheadian ideas may become apparent to many who have ignored them. The American people urgently need to be inspired by a different vision of their role in the world. We can work to ensure that such a vision, however neglected, is available when the time comes that it could strike fire.