World Scientific Development in 2010

"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society."
- Albert Einstein, May 1949

Scientific and technological advancement have always been the throttle for human knowledge creation and social development. According to a report in the New Scientist, nations in the Third World are beginning to crack the supremacy of Europe and America in the field of modern science and technology--- yet another ominous sign of decline in the Global North.

Out of all of the world's regions, only "North American scientific output has grown 'considerably slower' than the world as a whole." Europe was able to avoid this through greater cross-collaboration with Asia. For its part, "Asia is becoming the world leader in science". And, in the midst of a public relations campaign to isolate Iran as a Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship, Iran is showing the fastest rate of scientific development of any country in the world.

One great way to measure the trajectory of any society in the 21st century is by its ability to make significant advances in the sciences. The U.S. is beginning to lag behind, which is not good for a global economy largely dependent on the American political-economic system to prosper. However, the problem of scientific advancement in America is part of a much larger political, social, and ecological crisis. These crises can be summarized as the crisis of private capital that I discussed in my last post, and one of the great scientists of all time Albert Einstein argued in this famous piece.

Iran's Nuclear Program for Dummies

The rhetoric is heating up over Iran's controversial nuclear program. Israel, the United States and European Union believe that Iran is secretly attempting to build a nuclear bomb. Iran maintains that they have never attempted to build a nuclear bomb and at only 20 percent uranium enrichment do not have the capacity to create one; a nuclear bomb takes around 90 percent enrichment. Israel, the arch rival of Iran in the middle-east, has indicated eagerness to setback Iran's nuclear capabilities through strategic aerial bombings. The U.S. on the other hand can not afford the opening of another war front in addition to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. An Israeli strike would lead to a complex Iranian response and the U.S. would be forced to intervene. To avoid this potentiality the U.S. and Europe are proposing another round of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran as punishment for their disobedience.

Iran is the only muslim country in the middle-east today which opposes the U.S. wars and occupations in the region. Although in the past Iran has been bitter enemies with Sunni extremist organizations like Al-Qaeda, it maintains the true intentions behind the current U.S. occupations are to increase political hegemony and military control. Other Arab muslim countries on the other hand, have tacitly supported U.S. objectives in the middle-east and the stalemate in occupied Palestine. The U.S. is working to isolate Iran by supplying billions of dollars in military aid and other payments to the Arab regimes. Ironically, most of these countries are governed by authoritarian regimes that are responsible for serious violations of basic civil liberties and human rights themselves.

All of the countries which are proposing sanctions against Iran have nuclear weapons; and, one(America) is the only country to have dropped them on actual people. The problem therefore is not nuclear weapons or enrichment of uranium but political power. If the U.S. can leverage the threat of a nuclear armed Iran to weaken its position in the region, America will have won a huge strategic victory over the only opposing government in the middle-east. Iran on the other hand, surrounded on every side by permanent U.S. bases and proxy governments, can not afford to allow this marginalization to take place. Israel is waiting for U.N. sanctions to fall through so that it may take direct military action its self with guaranteed American support. The nuclear saga is proving once again that "politics is war without bloodshed". But when the stakes are as high as they are in the middle-east, bloodshed is never beyond the realm of immediate possibilities.

The most important thing for intelligent observers in the weeks ahead is not to become so blind with patriotism or bleeding heart liberalism to allow themselves to be manipulated as most were before the Iraq War. Iran is no different than any other State in that it is narrowly seeking its own self-interests, but that does not mean it wants to build a nuclear bomb and destroy Israel or America. Realize the attempts to demonize the Islamic Republic of Iran through comparisons to Nazi Germany are totally based on propaganda, not reliable information. And the fact that Iran is historically guilty for human rights violations is the rule rather than the exception for all State powers including America. This time around we can break through the bipolar, good v.s. evil garbage and appreciate the complexity of geo-politics before the war breaks out.

U.S. Defense Spending and the Battle of Ideas

"History has shown that where the Great Powers cannot colonize, they balkanize. This is what they did to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and this is what they have done and are doing in Africa. If we allow ourselves to be balkanized, we shall be re-colonized and be picked off one after the other...."-Kwame Nkrumah

My mother says in a verbal debate the one who throws the first punch has conceded the argument to the other side. At the bequest of the "invisible government", the Obama administration wants to increase war spending to record highs and has made clear that America has given up trying to persuade the world to accept its role as the supreme hegemon and instead has chosen to impose its self.

The overwhelming reliance on violence by the American government is obviously a response to declining ideological legitimacy around the world. The recession has eroded the mythology of neo-liberal economics. The attempts by the U.S. to impose its version of liberal democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan are extremely unpopular and along with the Israeli occupation of Palestine are radicalizing millions of young muslims in opposition. In Latin America a legion of left-wing political and social movements are directly challenging the historical dominance of the U.S. The American government finds its self increasingly marginalized, supporting a right-wing coup regime in Honduras and ignoring human rights violations against the poor in Colombia. Accordingly, the U.S.-lead "War on Drugs" in Latin America has been almost as tragic a failure there as in the ghettos of the U.S.

The waning influence of American ideological hegemony is being overcome by an anti-democratic attempt to force our "national interests" on the third world. This is the reason why in the first month of 2010, the U.S. has sold millions of dollars in weapons to Taiwan to threaten China, to authoritarian proxies in the middle-east and why the latest budget request from the Obama administration asked Congress to approve a record $708bn in defense spending for fiscal year 2011. The budget calls for a 3.4 per cent increase in the Pentagon's base budget to $549bn not including the occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The "national interests" the U.S. is seeking to achieve around the world clearly do not include the interests of poor and working-class families in America. At the same time the Obama administration spends a greater amount of money on so called defense than ever before, it has announced a spending freeze on all Federal social programs. The recession has hit many American states hard and massive budget cuts have eroded the minimal safety-nets which existed before the financial crisis. Meanwhile, the American people who need help the most are being forced to pay for endless war and occupation in foreign lands.

The U.S. is clearly loosing the battle of ideas on environmental protection, socio-economic justice, and committment to a multi-polar world. The only way to stop their irrational rampage for market access and influence is for a united global justice movement to challenge the militarization of social problems and propose real solutions to the crises which affect us all.

Making Sense of Iran: A Political Economy in Transition

The Islamic Republic of Iran shares many of the same problems facing other countries in the global South. The economy is largely underdeveloped, highly dependent on one export commodity, and the state is unable to meet many of the lingering demands of the population. These contradictions in the political economy of development in Iran serve as the backdrop of the ongoing nuclear debate, the controversial re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and relationship with the rest of the Muslim world.

The historical origins of Iran's current development process began before the Islamic regime existed. Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi was the Western-backed ruler of Iran whose legendary mis-management of Iranian society and economy led to the Iranian revolution of 1979. He was the last monarch of the House of Pahlavi of the Iranian monarchy. The shah of Iran initiated a series of economic and social reforms that modernized the country and set a new course for full integration into the world-economy.

But the shah also widened class-lines and sharply divided Iran into a dual society characterized by structural inequalities between the rich and poor. On the one hand were elites with close linkages with the oil industry and on the other religious clergy, rural masses, and the middle-class. This contradiction caused Iran to be dependent on oil exports and imports of expensive manufactured products. Iranians viewed the shah as largely corrupt and unable to provide basic services in education, health care and housing. The shah purchased billions of dollars in US arms building up a level of regional military might to control vital oil lifelines and exert influence in the region. Economically, the US used Iran as an economic proxy and supplier of a cheap flow of oil to the Western world. A US intelligence official once remarked,

"Iran in the 1970's was widely regarded as a significant regional if not global, power. The United States relied on it, implicitly if not explicitly, to ensure the security and stability of the Persian Gulf sector and the flow of oil from the region to the industrialized Western world on Japan, Europe, and the United States, as well as to lesser powers elsewhere."

The Iranian revolution of 1979 caused the once reliable proxy for Western influence in the middle-east to delink from the economic order, and carve out its own autonomous path toward industrialization. The revolution also sought to reverse the dual economy of the shah on behalf of the popular classes of the nation. The Iranian revolution and movement toward socio-economic transformation frightened many business professionals, technocrats and industrialists who fled to countries in the West. Many of these emigrants have been the source of external pressure on the Islamic Regime to reform.

Since coming to power though the Islamic regime has had to face perpetual economic crisis. The causes of the crisis varied from regional war, misdirected state priorities, and economic sabotage by the U.S. In the 20 years following the Iranian revolution, per capita income declined by 45 percent and inflation remained around 20 to 30 percent every year. Unemployment rose to as high as 20 percent as new entrants to the labor force could simply not find jobs in the heavily export-oriented domestic economy. As a result some 3 millions Iranians have emigrated to other countries. The rural to urban migration in Iran rapidly intensified as well with the capital city of Tehran growing from 4.5 million to 12 million people putting an enormous strain of public service delivery.

The Iranian government has continued to collect most of its non-tax revenues from exporting oil to consumer markets around the world. But despite attempts to diversify the economy, Iran has remained vulnerable to price shocks in the international petroleum market. The weakening of demand in wealthier industrialized nations during the current recession has further exposed Iran's dependency on oil to develop. Iran has failed to successfully raise oil production to collect greater state revenues. To raise production the Islamic Republic will need greater capital investment and intensive drilling technologies. In recent years, Iran has sough to improve relations with the European Union as a potential ally in the development of undercapitalized domestic petroleum.

Even with the economic crisis the Islamic regime was able to score some notable achievements of redistribution including public-spending for infrastructure development including roads, schools, and public libraries. Unlike the former shah, the Islamic regime also prioritized rural development extending running water and electricity to more than half of the villages. The regime successfully carried out a popular ambitious agrarian reform agenda confiscating half a million hectares of arable land to peasant farmers.

Most recently the administration of President Ahmadinijad has generated support from many due to his populist distributional policies within Iran. In response to energy shortages, Ahmadinejad began rationing fuel, and increasing state subsidies for items like sugar and cooking oil. During the first-term President Ahmadinejad, the Iranian government also radically increased the amount of public spending on construction. All of the increased spending kept the economy from total collapse but never tackled the profound level of dependency on oil and created a high level of inflation. Both of these problems are root concerns of the liberal opposition movement.

Reformist rivals of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saw the last two presidential election cycles as opportunities to reverse the past statist economic policies of the government. These opponents had expected the Islamic regime to phase out public subsidies and liberalize the Iranian economy for the first time since the 1979 revolution. The president before Ahmadinejad, Muhammad Khatami was supported by the disaffected urban middle-classes, college educated professionals and labor movement who were looking for a change of course. The reformers were distraught at the landslide run-off election which elected Ahmadinejad in 2005. President Ahmadinejad's support from some ultra-conservative Iranian political parties and the poor led to a resounding mandate and presented a major setback to the reformist movement. The recent 2009 elections were seen as fraudulent by the reformists who looked forward to regaining their momentum.

Despite the television images of political repression of protests there is some support within the Islamic regime for liberal change. The reformist movement in Iran also consists of high-level clerics and many of their aims were supported by the Supreme Leader himself. In 2006, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered the government to sell 80 percent of all state-owned enterprises in order to increase economic efficiency. Most clerics in Iran actually favor the conventional capitalist model of economic development. They widely support privatization of state-industries, and the development of the private sector.

However, others view such economic liberalization as an attack against the fundamental character of the Islamic revolution. These so called "hardliners" believe that maintaining tight economic control is essential to the political and social continuity of the Islamic regime. Like President Ahmadinejad, they favor central-planning, state industries, national self-reliance and a development agenda that includes poverty eradication, land redistribution, and employment in line with the objectives of the 1979 revolution.

The reformists have explicitly opposed the allocation of scarce resources to support militant Islamist forces throughout the middle-east. Groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine have all been sponsored by the Islamic regime in Iran. One of the most influential moves by Iran to support such groups was the creation of the infamous al-Quds force, a highly specialized unit of Iran's military which organizes, trains, and finances Islamic revolutionary movements. The United States military has waged a series of intense counter-operations in order to neutralize key leaders within the organization and slow-down their operations.

The al-Quds Day – literally Jerusalem Day – was created by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini,at the founding of the Islamic regime, and is commemorated on the last Friday of Ramadan in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for national liberation. During the last weeks events the "Green Movement" of reformists marched through the streets chanting "Not Gaza, Not Lebanon. We are ready to die for Iran," in a direct challenge to the purpose of the gathering its self. There have been previous chants of "Death to Russia" by the reformists as well indicating a deep suspicion of the strategically close relationship between Russia and Iran. The reformists would rather see the Islamic regime focus on domestic economic and political reform than seeking to play spoiler to US hegemony in the middle-east. Many reformists believe that Iran's counter-hegemonical posture has isolated it economically and are convinced that a softening of the country's posture in the eyes of the US could help the economy.

The evolving political saga in Iran signals an intensification of a debate surrounding the nation's distributional policies. The reformists major aim was not to overthrow the Islamic regime, nor to challenge its fundamental structure. Rather the reform movement is mostly seeking to liberalize the political economy of Iran, improve ties with the United States and end financial support for resistance movements in the middle-east. The response of the Islamic regime to these internal pressures for reform will likely define Iran's development path moving forward. In the final analysis, the success or failure at which the Iranian government manages the national economy could be the most important determiner of the country's future.

Think-Again: The Iranian Election Was NOT "Stolen"

Disclaimer: I am virulently on the political left, which would make me ideologically opposed to the vast majority of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's policies (except for his attempts at redistributing Iran's oil wealth to the rural poor). Nevertheless, the facts are the facts, and it is extremely dangerous and tacky for the "independent" press to fabricate lies in order to gain an intended result in an election.

There were no shortage of news commentaries about the supposedly "stolen" presidential elections in Iran. I was a little bit suspicious of how anyone could begin saying the election was rigged with no evidence, within minutes of when the official results were announced. An article today from the Washington Post actually confirms my suspicions. Before the elections, presidential incumbent candidate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was expected to win by a wider margin than he finished with.

Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.

What actually happened is that upper-middle class groups in Iran screamed the loudest and the western media believed the hype without conducting any independent research. The supposed "new media" internet revolution by opposition candidate supporters was nothing more than a story-book example class privilege.

Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups....

The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians.

Yet again, the mainstream media and now even so called "new media" like the Huffington Post, interfere in other nation's democracies, telling lies, or distorting the truth. The Iranian election is a most obvious case.