Fright Night and the Polls.

Whoever decided that election day should be held in the first week of November had a very cynical sense of humor. If the prospect of change in the political realm isn't frightening enough for many people, the celebration of the darker side of life that occurs on the weekend before the polls open should help raise anxiety levels. I have always loved Halloween. The holiday is the one throwback to the wild Pagan festivals that history suggests were so much fun. From early childhood I have learned to expect the offering of either tricks or treats. There is the sense that anything is possible. The same dynamic applies to politics. Strong opinions abound, and some will find their hopes met, while others will find them thwarted.

So in the spirit of this special day, I'd like to ask the reader about what they fear most on this coming Tuesday. It should come as no surprise that voters all along the spectrum have plenty of nightmare scenarios to choose from. Obviously they range from the realistic to the perverse. For some reason this cycle has presented us with an inordinate amount of speculation regarding worst-case situations, regardless of who wins the presidency. From my biased position, I would suggest that the McCain campaign has worked harder to stoke fears on their side. Like it or not, he occupies the establishment position during this contest, and so he has been forced to paint his opposition as the manifestation of particularly scary change.

Some of the predictions emanating from the Far Right are so breathless that they seem absurd. I've seen and heard multiple accounts of how Barack Obama will change the United States into a Socialist Republic. He'll make rich people cede their wealth to welfare recipients, and no one will have any incentive to make money anymore. Among the Christian Right, a common sentiment is that the Senator from Illinois will reveal his secretly-held devotion to Islam and make Christianity illegal forever hereafter. The Christian Reformationist Dr. James Dobson (founder and leader of Focus on the Family) predicts "hardship," "persecution" and "suffering" for Christians if Obama becomes president.

Interestingly, religious leaders have also been enflaming the fears of Jews who are still undecided about who to vote for. They have made repeated attempts to link Obama to supposed "associates" who have been perceived as vehemently anti-Israel. No matter how many times the candidate has reasserted his support for our Middle Eastern ally, wingnuts like "Joe the (Tax-Dodging) Plumber" continue to issue grave and unfounded warnings. Obviously such tools of the Republican Party get their marching orders from the top. John McCain's fear-based politics have been intentionally crafted to bring out the very worst paranoid delusions in his followers. I could fill up at least a hundred posts with more examples.


Even if John McCain were to mount an increasingly unlikely comeback, some of his supporters fear a widespread uprising and riots among African-Americans. On the opposite side, McCain's detractors worry that the Arizona senator might die in office, leaving the nation in the hands of his singularly unqualified running mate. Others are afraid that he will signal his approval for Israeli air attacks on Iran, which would likely lead to World War III. My own horror involves McCain prevailing and giving an acceptance speech that culminates with him tearing his own leathery face off, only to reveal that he is actually George W. Bush. Finally, the only prospect of an Obama presidency that provokes my anxiety is the small minority that may wish him harm.

Robert Baer on NPR's Fresh Air, Part 3.

Note: Please read Parts 1 and 2 of this series before proceeding.

What would happen if, as John McCain and Sarah Palin have both advocated, Iran's nuclear facilities were bombed? Ex-CIA agent Robert Baer offers an unequivocal answer to that question- the Iranians would light the Persian Gulf and Saudi oil facilities on fire. Baer knows many of the old school Revolutionary Guard Iranian generals by name. He has learned about their collective temperament and understands their willingness to employ devastating tactics in order to protect their nation's territorial integrity. As Baer points out, these sober-minded men believe that the Persian Gulf has that name for a reason. Its rim consists of a population that is over 90% Sh'ite, and it will be defended at all costs.

If Israel launches air attacks (with or without American support) the Iranian government will almost certainly respond by shooting Silkworm missiles at every tanker in the Gulf, thus disrupting the international oil markets, causing an international Great Depression that will make the Wall Street crisis look like "a walk in the park", and setting off the first round of World War III. What sane politician would offer unconditional support for such a move? We do not have the financial resources, nor the will necessary to carry out such a massive operation for 30+ years. It shouldn't even be considered a realistic option. Yet we still hear the McCain/Palin ticket continually insist that they aren't willing to sit down with Iranian leaders, and that we can't "second-guess" the policies of our ally Israel.

The fact is that our current situation reflects the waning of the American Superpower. For better or for worse, the world recognizes that there is a fundamental shift occurring. The US dollar is flagging, and legislative efforts to avoid a complete economic collapse have not gone unnoticed by the rest of the globe. Yet our national politicians seem committed to a purported "War on Terror" that is steadily draining our resolve and treasure. Our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are becoming increasingly unpopular and untenable. Meanwhile Osama Bin Laden hasn't been heard from or seen in years. Robert Baer believes that he is dead, and suggests that the majority of his CIA colleagues agree with him.

Baer points out that fighting a war against an opponent whose leadership has been neutralized does not make any sense. Furthermore (like a growing proportion of the American citizenry) he is frustrated that there is no specific ultimate objective that would define victory in this amorphous conflict. The only final conclusion that seems consistent with reality is that we need a significant change in our longterm strategy. There is a growing awareness that the United States must dedicate itself to energy independence. We will not be able to afford this imperative if we continue to trick ourselves into believing that we can "democratize" the Middle East. Our goal must be to demilitarize that region.

I agree with Robert Baer's final conclusion. In order to preserve some relevance on the international stage, we must initiate a nationwide "Manhattan Project" to accelerate the development of sustainable alternative energy. In the meantime we may need to ensure that a steady supply of oil flows from the Middle East. No matter what McCain and Palin believe, this cannot be accomplished with a diplomacy relying on bombs and threat. We must sit down with the true power players, regardless of how we feel about them. That is the only way to avert the catastrophic path that the Bush Administration has placed us on. There is much more at stake here than Wall Street, federal taxation, corporate subsidies, and partial-birth abortions.

Robert Baer on NPR's Fresh Air, Part 2.

Note: Please read Part 1 of this series before proceeding.


It may sound strange to hear Robert Baer's characterization of the Iranian government as "maturing", especially given the inflammatory statements by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but he correctly points out the limited role the President actually plays in setting foreign policy. While the McCain/Palin ticket seems disproportionately obsessed with Ahmadinejad's rhetoric regarding the future of Isreal, they seem to be missing the point that it is cleric Ali Khamenei that is the actual Supreme Leader of Iran. Not only has Khamanei contradicted Ahmadinejad's anti-Israeli stance, but he has actually issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

This seems to support Baer's argument that Iran could represent a rational partner in forming a security accord in the Middle East. A major complication for cooperative action between Iran and the West involves the Palestinan question. Hezbollah takes its marching orders from Tehran, and this has been a constant source of enmity between Israel and Iran. Still, Baer says that Ali Khamenei has implied that he wants no more than the Palestinians want- self-rule in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. He further insists that the Iranians see Saudi Arabia as their main rival in the Midde East. The Emirates of that country represent the 1400-year legacy of Sunni repression of the Shi'ites. The Wahabi form of Islam is a particular anathema to the Iranian clerics.

Robert Baer agrees that the Sunni fundamentalists are manifestly more anarchic and unreliable than their Shia counterparts. He raises the question of Saudi involvement in the 9-11 attacks, and rightfully points out that the Saudis have never been held to account for the participation of more than 15 of their citizens. In calling for formal negotiations between the US and Iranian governments, Baer realizes that he risks alienating Saudi Arabia- a longtime ally of the Bush family and the neo-con wing of the Republican Party. But if we are truly interested in combating "Islamofascism" in the region, it is appropriate to trace its sources. The reality is that the hardline fudamentalist madrasas throughout the Muslim world are financed by Saudi oil profits.

So why should we continue our irrational stance of loyalty to the Saudi Royal Family? As Robert Baer asks, "Do we really care who pumps the oil?" Certainly we need a Middle Eastern supply of crude, but must we buy it from Saudi Arabia? Baer insists that Iran wants the United States as a partner in stabilizing the Middle East. While he admits that this is an awfully tough sell for the majority of America (especially in light of the vilification that has been heaped on that country during the last eight years), he is clear that the alternative is a 30-year war with the most significant military power in the region. Yet the development of nuclear weapons in Iran presents a serious obstacle to negotiations.

There is no doubt in Robert Baer's mind that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East should be avoided. But he doesn't think that the current US approach of threatening preemptive military action is pragamatic or wise. It's useful to speculate on what consequences such an aggresive policy could bring. VP candidate Sarah Palin was recently asked how a McCain Administration would react to Israel if that nation made air attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. She responded by saying that “We are friends with Israel, and I don’t think that we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.” This was almost undoubtedly a tacit approval of a prospective attack, and an eminently foolish position.

TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 3...