The terrorist event of September 11, 2001, which ignited the anger and pity of the people of the world, forced the leaders of the United States to create new opportunities from the implemented threat and to implement the plans that they had prepared for a long time regarding their hegemony over the world under the names of the New World Order, the Greater Middle East, and democratization. While the it is clear for the leaders of the White House that the abovementioned event was not the work of any government or group that is supported by a government and that Al-Qa'ida and its leaders are not known to any government as much as they are known to the United States, and no government has supported them and created them, the U.S. president spoke about a declaration of war against the United States and the start of the Crusades, and while accusing certain countries, including Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, said: "Anyone who is not with the United States in this war is certainly with the terrorists." The U.S. president even disregarded the United Nations and its legal institutions and placed the United States in a position above them, such that at the start of the military occupation of Iraq, despite accepting Resolution 1441 by Saddam and the frequent announcements by Hans Blix regarding the absence of any resolution or permission issued by the United Nations for military interference in Iraq, Bush announced: "The United Nations has 24 hours to issue permission to invade Iraq. Otherwise, we will attempt to take steps to reform the United Nations. We must go back and see how the United Nations can be changed into a better institution in the 21st century."
The American political leaders, disregarding the outlook of the world regarding their suspicious positions, tried to redefine the national security of the United States and with black and white boundaries engaged in openly threatening a number of other countries, including the Arab countries, especially Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, and Libya, such that even the sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf also imagined that they were included in the American plans for democratization and the Greater Middle East.
Even though the United States tried by pointing an accusatory finger at some countries to make the potential and imagined enemy to some extent visible and actual, and even though in this case it made a mistake and was not in the company of its allies, it confessed to the absence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But the fact is not that the existence of a threat against the United States is true. Today no country has the power to compete with and confront the United States in the area of nuclear weapons, ballistic and intercontinental missiles. But the September 11 incident showed to what extent the United States is unsafe and vulnerable from within. The issue of anthrax also showed that the United States, like Japan, is incapable in the face of any biological, radiological, or chemical attack. Since the production of such weapons does not cost very much and does not require a launching pad, and they even do not require very advanced technology, and their manufacture does not require extensive and complex factories and installations, the identification and capture of these small, unknown, and ultranational enemies for the United States is not easily possible. In the same way, not only can the consequences of such destructive actions not be calculated, measured, prevented, and traced, but also they cannot be compensated easily. By the same measure, no government, not even the United States, can prepare for preventing and fighting such threats alone.
Moreover, the United States cannot by accusing and slandering countries such as Iran, which has itself been the victim of terrorist crimes (the murder of the Iranian diplomats in Afghanistan by the Taliban and Al-Qa'ida forces), gain their cooperation in fighting terrorism and other challenges that have been created against the national security of the United States and stem from the kind of outlook for interpretation of the United States of U.S. national security and its relationship to international security and the security of other countries. In other words, the United States considers its national security as separate from the security of other countries, whereas in the globalized world today, security is a general issue, and if it exists it exists for everyone, and the security of everyone is equal to the security of others and vice versa, an outlook that at the present time does not have any importance in the United States, especially among its political leaders.
In this article, considering what was mentioned above, initially we will briefly address the concept of security and national security. Then, we will examine the national security of the United States and the nature and the types of threats that challenge it, and we will analyze the source and the center of the threats. Finally, will answer the question of whether essentially there are countries that are a source of threats to the national security of the United States. If the answer is in the negative, what are the sources of the national security threat for the United States? Finally and in conclusion, we will offer some recommendations. The U.S. Security Threats
"The United States that from the discovery of the American continent in 1492 until the Declaration of Independence in 1776 was at the stage of building the nation for three centuries, and in those three centuries it pursued equality and freedom." The hard struggle of the people of that country for independence from British domination, the struggle to eradicate slavery, and the struggle against European colonialists are a part of their historical identity. "In the early 19th century with the coming to power of James Monroe, the United States, while emphasizing the exit of the European colonialists from the Western Hemisphere, expressed its support for the countries of the American continent to gain independence from the colonialists." In this doctrine (the Monroe Doctrine), the U.S. thesis for Americans became the top issue in the U.S. foreign policy, and as a result the United States grew for a century and a half, made its economy thrive, and in various areas gained significant superiority in the world. But the leaders of that country gradually and after World War II, with such slogans as "The Russians are coming," "the Communist threat," and so on, offered an extensive and inclusive definition of U.S. national interests and security, which became the main criterion for U.S. actions throughout the world and which had in mind the continental and global expansion of that country, which was mainly justified within the framework of blocking the influence of or preventing Soviet expansionism. With the Truman Doctrine and the declaration of support for the governments of the world against the destructive actions of the Communists, this expansionism increased. The Eisenhower Doctrine was a continuation, strengthening, and completion of the past expansionism. With the Kennedy and Nixon Doctrines, the military treaties, nuclear weapons, intercontinental missiles, and suppression of independence-seeking and freedom movements became widespread, while arms competition with the Soviet Union was approaching its height. Parallel to such expansionism, the concept of U.S. national security, or in other words, the interpretation of the Americans of their own national security and interests, became more expansive. During the Carter administration, the Rapid Response Forces were prepared for military interference in the farthest points in the world, anywhere that the United States felt threatened, and in this way the more aggressive policy of the United States became clearer. While increasing military support for dictatorial regimes and allies of the United States and expanding the activities of the Rapid Response Forces, Reagan set out to institutionalize the absolute superiority of the United States in all areas, including his plans for Star Wars, which was discussed at the threshold of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and is sometimes regarded as the factor in the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Until that time, the United States was trying to carry out all its military and political actions against other countries within the framework of international treaties and institutions, especially the United Nations and the Security Council, but with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the bipolar system based on competition between the two superpowers, the U.S. process of unilateralism began. From that time, certain international challenges were created that, as claimed by the United States, threatened the national security of that country. Before we mention these challenges, we must understand the American society and its priorities. The American society is in fact the same developed and liberal capitalist society located on the American continent that is the symbol of Western economy, culture, and civilization. The characteristics of this society can be enumerated as follows:
1. In the economic dimension, private ownership;
2. In the political dimension, "democratic" government;
3. In the ideological dimension, liberalism;
4. In terms of personal philosophy, individualism;
5. Fighting terrorism;
6. Observing human rights;
7. Teamwork and absence of isolationism.
These priorities in the American society comprise the goals and instruments for achieving its goal, and every factor that is in conflict with one of these goals is considered to be a threat to the national security of the United States. On this basis, terrorism, religious and national fundamentalism, immigration, and any sort of civil war can threaten the national security of the United States. From the perspective of the United States, since any threat is global, it requires global a response, but at the same time, the final interpretation of terrorism and any sort of other threat is offered by the United States itself. The most important threats from the perspective of the United States are:
1. The Military Forces of the Great Powers
Even though since the Cold War the United States has always been worried about Russia's long-range missiles with nuclear warheads, that country itself knows very well that Russia at the present time is not in a condition to engage in such attacks or be considered a threat to the United States in this respect. The assessment of the rivals' strategies also in this connection at the present time does not seem futile, because other powers in this connection neither have the ability to compete with the United States nor would spend money on such costs under the international situation of peace.
In the meantime, of course, the United States, by declaring the implementation of the missile defense plan, has provoked the sensitivity of Russia and even the European countries, such that the majority of these countries have opposed this plan by the United States. Moreover, with the expansion of NATO toward the borders of Russia and the start of a new round of surrounding that country, Russia has been forced to implement certain defense preparations, which include the renovation and testing of all sorts of ground, air, and sea missiles. Speaking openly about signing strategic treaties with China and India and the rebuilding of some of the relations of the former Soviet Union with other countries, including Vietnam; not implementing the agreement with the United States regarding the sale of arms; and insisting on nuclear cooperation with Iran, which has placed Bush in a difficult situation, can be examined in this connection. Certain political and security events such as the arrest of Robert Phillip, a senior member of the FBI, on the charge of spying for Russia since 15 years ago, while he has had 27 years of service at the highest security levels of the United States, have also escalated the security concerns of the United States. As we said, the priorities of the United States act as the chain of goals and instruments, in the sense that the United States, while worrying about the growth of arms among other countries, including conventional and unconventional weapons, does not believe in any restriction and regulations for itself and takes advantage of the military instrument against others without any restrictions.
2. Terrorism
Terror means great fear and horror, extraordinary horror that occurs as the result of violent actions and bloodshed to achieve political goals by particular individuals, parties, and groups, and the goal of which is to create fear and horror, and to display the courage, credibility, and steadfastness of the perpetrators and weaken the morale of the other side.
On the whole, creating extraordinary fear, which is for the purpose of forcing the other side to accept a certain issue or for the purpose of punishing the other side, is called terror, and supporting or engaging in such and idea and action is called terrorism. Terror is usually carried out by individuals or groups that do not have the equal ability in resources for confrontation in a conflict, and for this reason it is carried out secretly and by surprise and is evaluated to be contrary to human customs. At the same time, those who fight to defend their independence, sovereignty, and legitimate freedoms and those who fight against colonialism and subjugation and the plunder of their resources and interests cannot be called terrorists. It is here that the interpretation of terrorism by the United States belongs to one faction, and the interpretation of the rest of the world to the opposite faction.
The unequal battle of the defenseless Palestinians against the regime of Israel, the unequal battle of the Lebanese against the Zionist occupation, and the battle of the Iraqis against the occupation of their country by the United States are called terrorist actions. Since the Palestinians, the Lebanese, and the Iraqis do not have equal conditions, they have to fight secretly and unconventionally. But the United States calls the terrorist actions of Israel against others defense. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the bipolar system and in facing terrorism, the United States has faced numerous problems. Among these problems the financial independence and security of the terrorists and consequently their independence from governments can be mentioned. While in the past the terrorists often because of lack of widespread relationship with the people did not have the extensive support of the people, today they have these resources. Not only do they have access to the necessary financial resources, but also throughout the world they are placed in high positions to gain information, revenues, and prestige.
They have employed the Internet and electronic technology, and they have acquired the ability to access many of the data, security, and military banks, while the United States is continuing to acquire important information regarding intercontinental missiles of the rival powers such as Russia and China and is continuing to pursue the implementation of the missile defense shield plan.
The terrorists have acquired the ability to gain access to viruses and microbes stockpiled in the biological, chemical, and radiological arsenals. According to information that is available to the United States, hundreds of tons of deadly plague, chicken pox, anthrax, tularemia, and brusolosis elements are stockpiled in Russia that the terrorists can access because of the security problems in keeping them and the economic problems of Russian scientists (who sometimes live on monthly salaries of less than $50). These weapons are cheap, light, untraceable, and easily transported. The United States, instead of cooperating with the governments of the world and taking steps in the process of mutual cooperation to eradicate terrorism, without having any appropriate strategy in this connection, merely puts pressure on governments to identify the opponents of the U.S. interests and deliver them to the United States. By itself alone, the United States cannot destroy the factors and the main causes of the phenomenon of terrorism, and therefore terrorism will continue to exist, and those who are hopeless are easily absorbed by terrorist organizations. To eradicate terrorism, therefore, poverty, injustice, and other social inequalities must be eliminated, because this type of fight will result in the escalation, strengthening, and continuation of terrorism.
It must be said that anyone who becomes desperate will engage in action, and it is natural for human beings to rise to defend their rights and interests in the face of any kind of aggression. Terrorism will, therefore, remain, and its methods and strategies at the present time are neither predictable nor preventable, and subsequently its consequences can neither be controlled nor neutralized.
The terrorists also with network attacks can go to war against great governments, for example, attacking the computer and electronic networks or the basic infrastructure of cities such as energy (similar to the electricity blackout throughout the United States). By making use of electronic technology and the Internet, they can infiltrate the financial, security, and safety networks of the cities and disable them or create disruption in their operations. By making use of the safety and security blind spots, they can infiltrate and force everything out of control. Especially since the American society is an open society, it is diverse and dynamic and is quite spread out, the terrorists can contaminate the agricultural products on the outskirts of the cities on which the Americans rely. They can contaminate the water of the rivers, the climate of the athletic stadiums, the clubs, and other places where Americans gather with anthrax, plague, and pox, or by exploding small radioactive bombs create tragedy in such places. The Americans have made 100,000 Iraqis barren and cancerous with the radioactive bullets. Why should they not expect revenge, and why should they expect of the country of Akinania (as transliterated) to prevent the retaliatory actions that they called terrorist actions?
3. Rogue Nations
Rebellion and unruliness of governments are among the concepts of which only the American variety is current, and only governments are outlaws that act against the interests of the United States or do not submit to its wishes. The blacklist of the United States at the age of the Cold War regarding rogue nations was usually from among non-Western and Communist countries. But after the Cold War, it has been a list of independent countries (such as Iran and North Korea) or those that have been the subject of U.S. hatred later (such as Iraq during the time of Saddam).
The United States has made use of all instruments and means against these countries. All of these countries have been accused of the widespread violation of human rights. They are all under serious economic embargo, and even third-party countries and companies that engage in transactions with these countries (more than $40 million in the case of Iran) are boycotted. They raise the customs tariffs in regard to items that are not boycotted. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund put pressure on them. In numerous instances including Panama, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, they are subject to open political and military interference, and it (the United States) creates true terrorism similar to what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. It considers the use of extensive force that is contrary to all standards and customs and the wishes of the international community its right. It restricts cultural products and scientific relationships among the academics and scientists and even prohibits exports of medicine and vital human needs to the hated countries. But at the same time, it wants the sincere cooperation of the same governments in eliminating the problems, for example in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence, first, the need of the United States for some of the regional powers and the so-called rogue nations shows that the United States is not able to control the world alone and must abandon unilateralism to protect its security and interests.
Second, these countries will not forever remain silent and motionless, and the world as well will give a deadline to the United States after which the governments will carry out the necessary actions to protect their collective and individual lives.
Third, considering what can be available today to the groups, and their availability to the governments is much simpler, and preventing such resources by the large powers, including the United States, is not possible, and tracing them, similar to radiological and nuclear weapons, is not possible. The United States cannot place the governments in a tight spot between life and death. Moreover, governments today have almost no problem in acquiring such weapons. For example, to attack the United States today, it is not necessary to have intercontinental and ballistic missiles. Even entering the United States is not necessary. Today, even military expedition by governments has lost its importance. A small boat at sea can launch cruise missiles with chemical, biological, and radiological material up to the depth of 1,000 km inside the United States. These missiles, of which nearly 80,000 are located in nearly 80 countries of the world and are manufactured at least by 18 countries in the world, are not quite out of reach of the terrorist groups, and having them is far easier for governments. According to the estimate of American engineers, governments can provide the launching pad for such missiles with a range of 1,000 km at a cost of $200,000 to $300,000. The technology for such missiles is not very complicated. The necessary resources to manufacture them are available to everyone. They have a high degree of flexibility, and because of the low level of flight, they cannot be traced by radar. This missile is light and can be transported easily. Hence, even after being traced, it cannot be attacked. It does not, therefore, seem wise (even out of desire, idealism, or wish)
(Paragraphing as published) for a country with such vulnerability to engage in unlimited attacks on the sovereignty and territory of another country while it has abandoned its own country without any guarantee (of safety). The report of the independent September 11 commission also indicates that the level of vulnerability of the United Stats has even increased compared to the level prior to the September 11 attack. What Al-Qa'ida has done in the United States, according to the existing films, has been carried out easily in the United States itself, and proving its passage through another country does not solve the problem of the United States. The Factor of Culture (Public Opinion and Religion)
After the Vietnam War, which had instigated the attention of world public opinion against the United States in the 1960s and 1970s, public opinion was never mobilized against the United States in this way as it was in the attack and occupation of Iraq on the international level. Continuous demonstrations that were carried out on a daily basis throughout Europe against the attack and occupation of Iraq have been unprecedented, and the worldwide protest against the occupation of Palestine and the suppression of the Palestinians has been in the same way unique. Some regard terrorism as the symbol of the extremist opposition of public opinion. But the moderate symbol of it also appeared in the recent opinion polls concerning general opposition to the United States, especially in Muslim countries. According to an opinion poll in Egypt (which has been benefiting from U.S. economic aid for 15 years), 93 percent of the people, and in Saudi Arabia 94 percent of the people oppose the United States. In other Muslim countries, as well, the evaluation is the same, more or less. Such opposition is mostly in connection with two important factors: First, opposition to the policies of the United States regarding the Middle East peace process and unconditional support for Israel and pressure on Palestinians, similar to what was done by Clinton in Camp David, which caused the widespread protest of the Palestinians, all Muslims, and all people of the Middle East and the world, and the United States in the course of it sacrificed the entire peace project for the interests of Israel. The second factor was the U.S. policy regarding Iraq, which faced both widespread protests of the people and also the opinion polls regarding the widespread opposition by the world. Bush announced his goal of occupying Iraq as the disarmament of Saddam and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. But he did not leave Iraq and showed that his goal was occupation. The United States was trying to celebrate its global hegemony by occupying Iraq and offering an American democratic model, and for this reason initially it did not accept the participation of United Nations, NATO, or the European Union as partners, but after facing the challenge of Iraq, it made a request to them. This shows the defeat of unilateralism and the unilateral domination of the United States over the world. In this way, and with the departure of the Spanish, Korean, and Philippine allied forces, the United States itself must also leave Iraq soon. The Factor of Religion
The Muslim people of Iraq, who with the promise of eliminating the oppression by Saddam initially did not display much resistance to the entry of the Americans into Iraq and the occupation of their country, on seeing the crimes of the occupiers, including what was revealed in the Abu Ghraib prison, intensified their resistance. The 70 percent Shiite population of Iraq, that has had a brilliant record in fighting colonialists under the leadership of Ayatollah Shirazi and the great scholars of the Najaf Seminary, will therefore not tolerate insulting the sacred beliefs of the Shiites and oppressing the Muslim people of Iraq. The United States has justified this issue as follows:
"The terrorists benefit from the charismatic power of their leaders.
In the course of the past two decades, the percentage of reliance of terrorists on religion has reached from 3 percent to 50 percent." And then they do not consider this reliance on religion to be specific to the region and the Middle East, because they reason that attacking the Metro in Japan with sarin gas and the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City have also had religious roots. In the same way, the United States believes that attacking the World Trade Center also was not motivated by religion (see the reference to the attack by the Al-Qa'ida forces on September 11, 2001). It say that with religious motivation the masses can be easily mobilized, but it does not point out that no religion endorses oppression, no religion denies justice, but all religions strive for spreading justice, equality, and morality, and fighting injustice in action and theory is what they emphasize. The independent September 11 commission of the U.S. Congress also states: "For defeating that ideological system from which Al-Qa'ida and other extremist groups in the Islamic world gain inspiration, there should be a coordinated effort.... Ending and destroying the world network of Al-Qa'ida is not enough; rather, examining all the fundamental issues that cause the infiltration and continuation of Al-Qa'ida is a vital issue." In this report there is also a point worthy of contemplation, and that is the attention of the Western sources to the young Muslims, their welfare, education, health, and living condition, with the goal of calming and taming them and preventing them from fighting Western interests. Conclusion
Considering the definition that was offered of security, even though there is no sense of peace and stability in the people of the United States, at least at the present time, no feeling, thinking, and imagining of a war by any government against the United States seems rational, and if there are secondary factors that result in this supposition by the people of the United States, its root causes must be found. But as far as it concerns the U.S. government (according to Barry Buzan, who considers the threat only to the government), at least the United States is facing four types of threat: by the large governments, rogue nations, terrorism, and public opinion and religion. As was said, the threat by the large governments does not fit in the definition that exists regarding the present situation of the international system, since, first, the main factors for the appearance and resorting to terrorism, according to sociologists, psychologists, and even American officials and the report of the independent September 11 commission, stems from unilateralism, a biased outlook, a selective and partial approach regarding the sources of violence in the international system, and also the direct use of force, torture, disrespect, and insulting the nations by the United States, and the responsibility for it is directly that of that country which at least is not deserving of the claim of the leadership of the international system. Second, the United States has had a hand in establishing some of these groups, strengthening them, and financially backing them (Al-Qa'ida and the Taliban). Third, fighting this type of terrorism, especially because of its complexity, lack of control, and untraceable nature, especially in today's globalized world, is only possible with the cooperation of all governments. In this connection and under the auspices of the cooperation of the governments, and not threatening them with resorting to violence, militarism, and weapons of mass destruction, (these governments are) extremely disgusted by such words, especially when there is no threat. But in regard to religion and public opinion, it must be said that the United States, which itself has fought for freedom and the freedom of religion for several centuries and considers public opinion and the vote of the public the basis of the legitimacy of (democratic) government and starts wars to establish it, how can it regard itself as having the right to rise against the accepted international values? This all shows that the United States has to go along with the world for the security of its own country, because this world for thousands of reasons is not a world that can be submissive and controlled.
Source: Negah
(Description of Source: Tehran Siyasat-e Ruz in Persian -- conservative Tehran daily published by 'Ali Yusefpur, a member of the Islamic Revolution Devotees' Society (Jam'iyat-e Isagaran-e Enqelab-e Eslami)
Translated from the original by WNC.
toolkit.dialog.com/intranet/cgi/present?STYLE=739318018&PRESENT=DB=985,AN=198901E-mail this article