Iran’s Rejection of Washington Consensus Main Reason behind US Pressures: Analyst

“The objective of these officials is to continue to carry out a longstanding plan that was developed in the 1990s by the leadership of the neoconservative movement which has controlled US foreign policy in the Middle East for decades. The plan has always been to eliminate independent nations in the region that refuse to be incorporated into the Washington Consensus that was developed at the end of the Cold War. The idea behind the Washington Consensus is that the United States should be the de facto world government that rules on a unipolar basis, and that nations that refuse to be incorporated into the American empire should be subjugated or destroyed,” Keith Preston, the chief editor and director of attackthesystem.com, told the Tasnim news agency in an interview.

Keith Preston was born in Lynchburg, Virginia, United States. He received degrees in Religious Studies, History, and Sociology from Virginia Commonwealth University. He is the founder and director of American Revolutionary Vanguard and the chief editor of AttacktheSystem.Com. He has also been a contributor to LewRockwell.Com, Antiwar.Com, Anti-State.Com,Taki’s Magazine, Radix Journal, and AlternativeRight.Com . He is the author of six books, and was awarded the 2008 Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize by the United Kingdom’s Libertarian Alliance. Keith has been a featured speaker at conferences of the National Policy Institute, H. L. Mencken Club, and Anarchapulco. He has been interviewed on numerous radio programs and internet broadcasts, and appeared as a guest analyst on Russia Today, Press TV and the BBC.

The following is the full text of the interview.

Tasnim: Late Sunday night, the White House made an announcement that the USS Abraham Lincoln and a bomber task force were being deployed in response to unspecified "troubling and escalatory indications and warnings." What is your take on the deployment?

Preston: It would appear that officials in the Trump administration are attempting to create a scenario that could be used as pretext for initiating a military attack on Iran. The vagueness of the statements that have been issued by the administration indicates that claims of any actually existing threat being posed by Iran are dubious. A similar situation occurred in 1964 when two supposed confrontations between a US naval destroyer and North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin were used as a pretext for the subsequent American invasion of South Vietnam and the eventual attacks on North Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Years later, it was revealed that the American naval vessel had actually fired first on the North Vietnamese boats during the first confrontation, and that the second confrontation had been entirely fabricated. However, these incidents were the catalyst that led the US Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which authorized military action in Vietnam, and led to America’s direct military involvement in Southeast Asia for the subsequent eight years. Incredibly, the officials in the Trump administration appear to be trying to recreate the scenario that led to the Vietnam War.

Tasnim: A statement from National Security Adviser John Bolton said the deployments were intended "to send a clear and unmistakable message to Iran that any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force." Why do you think Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the Israeli PM are pushing the US into a war with Iran?

Preston: The objective of these officials is to continue to carry out a longstanding plan that was developed in the 1990s by the leadership of the neoconservative movement which has controlled US foreign policy in the Middle East for decades. The plan has always been to eliminate independent nations in the region that refuse to be incorporated into the Washington Consensus that was developed at the end of the Cold War. The idea behind the Washington Consensus is that the United States should be the de facto world government that rules on a unipolar basis, and that nations that refuse to be incorporated into the American empire should be subjugated or destroyed. In addition to the process of empire-building, American foreign policy in the Middle East is motivated by a desire to control the energy and other natural resources of the region such as petroleum, natural gas, and minerals. Maintaining high profit margins for America’s armaments industries is also a motivation, and nations such as Israel and Saudi Arabia are major export markets for US arms, with arms sales to these countries being underwritten by American taxpayers. The interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia, both of which are nations that exercise considerable influence over US foreign policy, are also involved. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia, along with the nations of the (Persian) Gulf Cooperation Council, wish to eliminate nations in the region that they regard as rivals, and which are barriers to their own expansionist objectives. The current belligerence toward Iran is a continuation of the policies that led to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, as well as ongoing US military involvement in various South Asian and African nations. In fact, a parallel situation is occurring at the present time in Venezuela in Latin America. The Western axis within global capitalism and its allies seek universal global domination, and nations that wish to pursue their own course are considered a threat to Western imperial hegemony.

Tasnim: The deployment of the warship was reportedly based on claims of a possible attack on US forces stationed in the region. So far, there is little detail from the Americans of the alleged Iranian actions that have prompted this warning nor of the specific US deployments underway. It seems that the Trump administration is looking for pretexts to wage war. How do you see this? What is the goal of the administration?

Preston: If any actual attacks on US forces had occurred, the administration would have certainly revealed that such attacks had taken place. US officials are simply fabricating claims concerning supposed actions taken by Iran in order to escalate hostilities toward Iran. The administration may be trying to provoke a hostile action by Iran, or inflame public opinion in the United States against Iran. Whether the US actually intends to wage war against Iran remains to be seen. However, it is clear that the US wants to force regime change in Iran by means of economic sanctions, political pressure, and military threats. US officials such as Bolton and Pompeo are certainly not adverse to a war with Iran. Bolton has been agitating for a US-Iran war for years. However, they may be concerned about the political feasibility of such an action.

Tasnim: Many critics of the administration fear a developing drumbeat towards a conflict which, they fear, could erupt either by accident or by design. Iranian state and military officials have repeatedly stressed that Iran will never start a war and it will only defend itself. What are your thoughts on this?

Preston: I certainly do not think Iran will start a war with the US. Iran would have little if anything to gain from such an action and much to lose. Clearly, if a war between the two nations starts, it will be at the initiative of the US. An aggressive action against Iran by the United States would be very consistent with the foreign policy objectives the US has pursued for decades. Once again, the only constraint on the actions of US officials is the political and military feasibility of such an action. Military aggression by the US against Iran would be very unpopular from the perspective of world opinion, and probably within the domestic US as well. It would also be very costly from an economic and military perspective. However, such considerations did not prevent the 2003 Iraq War from occurring, and it may not prevent a war with Iran from taking place. Yet a war between the US and Iran would ultimately be disastrous for all parties involved as the previous US-initiated wars have been.