Bola Bolawole examines the US–Iran conflict, arguing that global power politics often override morality and international law
Leo Tolstoy, Russian writer and thinker (1828 -1910) and author of “A Confession”, was famously quoted as saying that “Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.” In like manner, wrong does not cease to be wrong because the strong says it is not; neither does right cease to be right because the weak lacks the capacity to enforce it!
The debate between politics and morality which I first came across in my Philosophy and Political Theory classes in the university is as old as humanity itself.
Are they two parallel lines that never meet? Is there any truth in the saying that politics is a dirty game and those who cannot stand the heat should not venture near the fire-place? But as some thinkers have also posited, is there a place for morality in politics; nay, in all human endeavours? Should good morals, as some have described it, be the underpinning of all human endeavours?
Also read: Linc Edochie issues stark warning over pro-Iran protests
In his advice to the prince, Niccolo Machiavelli, the Italian defender of political machinations, posits that the end justifies the means. In other words, once you achieve your goal or end, how you do so – fair or foul – becomes justified! But should morality define this end or goal in the first place?
Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian military strategist, describes war as politics continued by other means. That is to say, when diplomacy or peaceful means fails, nations or men resort to war to achieve the same goals that peaceful means had failed to deliver. Hard power is military prowess while soft power refers to diplomacy, influence and economic capacity.
Power relations and national interest being the pivots on which relations between nations revolve in the international political system, it has been said that the strong will always have their way while the weak will suffer their fate.
Hence, weak nations struggle to become strong (e.g. Iran’s determination to join the elite nuclear-nation club) or form alliances with the strong (e.g. NATO, BRICS) to protect their interests. Conversely, strong nations enforce their will, riding roughshod over international law and morality.
“Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”, posits Lord Acton. Nothing demonstrates this better than our unipolar world where the United States of America imposes its will while the best anyone else can do is simply whimper!
“Make America Great Again” MAGA is the rallying cry of US President Donald Trump. The one way he seeks to achieve this is on the back of other countries and peoples. And what does it matter! The mantra is, “My country, right or wrong!”, as the United States Navy Officer, Stephen Decatur, once posited!
The consequence, however, is the realignment of forces, which threatens to re-shape the international political system more profoundly than any that we have witnessed since the end of the Thirty Years’ War in Europe and the resultant Treaty of Westphalia of 1648.
Nations, as posited by former British Prime Minister Lord Palmerson, have no permanent friends or enemies but permanent interests. When old or long-standing allies act inimically against those interests, what next?
The United States will be well advised to consult its 1776 Declaration of Independence! Whenever anyone – friend or foe – acts destructively of another’s core interests, it is “To your tents, O Israel”!
In a speech on March 8, 1983, the then US President Ronald Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.” That empire collapsed in 1991, leaving only its rump, Russia. In his 2002 State of the Union address, US President George W. Bush also described Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the “axis of evil.” Today, however, the shoe, many will say, appears to be on the other foot! We shall soon come to that!
Strong nations usually conceal their real reasons for maltreating weaker nations. My hunch is because, whether or not this is admitted openly, they understand that there is a place for morals in behaviour, even on the international scene.
Now, compare the reasons given by President Trump for the rendition of the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro (for drug trafficking) and the bombardment of Iran (to destroy its nuclear weapons programme) with those given by a prominent member of Trump’s Republican Party:
“Senator Lindsey Graham has described the ongoing conflict in the Middle East as ‘a good investment.’
“The US will control almost a third of the world’s oil and reap record profits if it succeeds in toppling the Iranian government, hawkish Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (has) told Fox News… Graham made his comments as global oil prices surged past $100 per barrel, a rise that President Donald Trump dismissed as ‘a very small price to pay’ for the US-Israeli war against Iran, which was launched on February 28.
“Graham described the cost of the attacks on Iran as the ‘best money ever spent’, and argued that the war was meant to prevent the country from developing nuclear weapons something Iran has long denied, insisting that its nuclear program is peaceful.
“‘When this regime goes down, we’re going to have a new Middle East, we are going to make a ton of money. Nobody will threaten the Strait of Hormuz again’, Graham said. He added that the US would install a ‘friendly’ government in Tehran.
“’Venezuela and Iran have 31% of the world’s oil reserves. We’re going to have a partnership with 31% of the known reserves. This is China’s nightmare. This is a good investment’, Graham said.”
So, war becomes a legitimate weapon that serves the United States’ economic interests. Loss of life becomes collateral damage. Dislocation of the world’s economy and misery brought upon the innocent worldwide becomes “a very small price to pay!”
But whether they act immorally and illegally or not, nations still try to justify their actions; hence, the United States’ seat of power, the White House, has reportedly released a long list of atrocities committed by Iran as sponsors of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism all over the world.
It is hard to defend Iran. Its Shia Islamic fundamentalism tilts towards violent Islamic propagation all over the world. Apart from its eternal foe, Israel, moderate Islamic states are also repulsive to Iran’s Shittes. But in the die-hard commitment to the propagation of Islam, Iran is not alone.
All Islamic states vote a percentage of their resources to propagate Islam all over the world. And most times, radical, violent means are not exempted.
On the other hand, the internet also has, perhaps, a longer list of depositions, assassinations and attempted assassinations of world leaders and notable figures by the United States. Examples: Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran (1953), Jacob Arbenz, Guatemala (1954), Salvador Allende, Chile (1973), Saddam Hussein, Iraq (2003), Manuel Noriega, Panama (1989); not forgetting Patrice Lumumba, the Congo, (1961), Ngo Dinh Diem, Vietnam (1963), Rafael Trujillo, the Dominican Republic (1961). Not to also forget Grenada (1983), Afghanistan (2001), Prime Minister Maurice Bishop (2006).
The list is endless! What of Osama bin Laden (2011), Muammar Gaddafi (2011) and the hundreds of assassination attempts targeted at the Cuban leader, Fidel Castro!
So, this can as well be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The United States of America, the Jewish State of Israel, and radical Islamic nations and groups all over the world are the troublers of our peace.
The nuclear-power nations that are insistent on Iran not acquiring nuclear weapons want to keep it perpetually subjugated.
A nuclear-armed Iran will change the power equation in the Middle East. Iran that is insistent on acquiring the nukes wants to liberate itself, stand on equal footing with Israel and stop being the whipping boy in its never-ending conflicts with Israel and the West.
Iran has paid a huge price in its resolve to stand up to Israel and the United States. Will it say “Enough is now enough” and back down? Conversely, will it forge ahead until victory is achieved or the Iranian nation is completely annihilated? Time will tell!
FEEDBACK
On FCCPC and air travel for the poor
Electricity, water, good roads, etc. are not for the poor! What is for the poor in this country? We are gullible, covetous, and have been brainwashed! Poverty remains the major cause of all this nonsense! Our traditional religion remains the best! The Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Brazilians are excelling in the world because they have refused to be brainwashed by the Roman Catholics and Arabs! – Prince Samuel Ade-Akanbi.
Air travel was for the poor in the past. Without rich parents but armed with the Ondo State bursary award under the Adekunle Ajasin government in Ondo state, I first traveled by plane to Kano.
Also read: Dangote fertiliser demand surges amid Iran–Israel conflict
I was in the second year of a three-year Mass Communication degree program at the University of Lagos. That was in 1981. I was 22 years old.
Upon graduation, and in the course of fulfilling my NYSC, I again took a Nigerian Airways flight to Enugu. In those days, you did not need to be rich to enjoy traveling by air.
While phones were for the rich then, air travel was not beyond the reach of the poor. I think the narrative between phones and air travel has flipped in Nigeria.
Telephone is now for the poor while air travel is strictly the preserve of the rich! – Dr. Wole Agunbiade.
* Former editor of PUNCH newspapers, Chairman of its Editorial Board and Deputy Editor-in-chief, BOLAWOLE was also the Managing Director/Editor-in-chief of The Westerner news magazine.
He writes the ON THE LORD’S DAY column in the Sunday Tribune and TREASURES column in New Telegraph newspaper on Wednesdays. He is also a public affairs analyst on radio and television.
