The Hyper-Imperialist Paradigm
Part 4 of four-part series
by B.J. Sabri
When Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet State, described “imperialism” as “the highest stage of capitalism”, he did not expect that his Communist model would succumb, in the end to that same capitalism he coherently refuted; and that his revolutionary Russia would re-join the imperialist club as if history did not occur. However, the analytical descriptive conclusion that Lenin gave to imperialism is never outdated in its contextual theorization or praxis; it only needs an update, as economic factors alone are no longer sufficient to drive the imperialist enterprise forward. The updated version should read “Hyper-imperialism is the highest stage of supremacist ideology of capitalistic globalization, biblical zeal, and Zionism.” Further, hyper-imperialism, albeit global in nature, is mostly American in its practical procedures and way of implementation, and Zionist in its ideological outlook and justificatory platform.
For globalization and pertinent supremacist ideology to succeed, the epicenter of world financial powers and banking institutions (the US controls most of them) must be able to decide on nations’ limits of sovereignty, amount of debt and interest rate, their economic models, their relations with international financial capital, and the trend of their socio-economic development. The union between the forces of globalization, military concerns, and builders of expansive hyper-imperialist ideology is a fundamental tool to create, direct, distribute, and to coalesce all rationales required for the acceptance of the hyper-imperialist enterprise.
For biblical zeal to succeed, the arms of globalization must be strong, weaponized, and capable to extend a predetermined theological pattern along the econo-ideological pattern that, in this case, functions as a protector, facilitator, and promoter. According to this askew view, an expansionist power can impose, as a byproduct, its theological pattern as well. The ideological premise behind this un-original assumption (evangelization during the mercantilist era followed the same line of thinking) is that a superior military power is, by pretended inevitability, also a depository of superior theological power. Example of this: Billy Graham announced his readiness to commence the evangelization of Iraq! Aside from this, other extremist American biblical factions with Zionist inclination want to see the history of the Middle East as chapters from biblical mythology and metaphysical divination that their time is upon us.
For Zionism to succeed the ideological premises are more complex. The most important among these is that a movement that chose history as a legitimizing alibi negates history! In the geographical context (the Middle East) where the West implanted Zionism, negation of history is not feasible without erasing forces and societies that oppose its illegitimate establishment. To annul its sense of regional isolation and historical incongruity, Zionism, in collusion with the West, opted for military confrontation as a means to create forced acceptance, thus assert its identity and existence. However, since negation of history in an actual living context is materially impossible, Israel, if it does not repudiate Zionism, will be in perpetual wars with others, and its triumphs are only transient in nature and durability. Ending Zionism is not equal to ending Israel. Israel’s most logical historical choice is to abolish its anti-historical ideology thus allowing the region to live in peace. (During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, European papers published a caricature of Menachem Begin, pounding on his desk and exclaiming, “now that we convinced them that we exist, we have to convince them that they do not exist!”)
In its international context, Zionism depends on two elements: 1) relentless falsification of Middle East and world histories, and 2) control on political nerve centers of world power to influence their reaction to it. Once the Middle East is subdued, Zionism will no longer confine itself to its regional sphere. From this perspective, the functional existence of Israel is not a separate sub-field from the specific context of western colonialism or imperialism and their long-term objectives. It is the main field. As the rise of Israel in the Middle East is the product of huge Western investment, the connubiality between Zionism and Western imperialism’s objectives was a response to a future strategic necessity by the West for an ally to counter the rise of Arab nationalism that owns oil but fights for emancipation from Western domination.
Again, in historical context, the emergence of Israel as a regional superpower and as an undeclared world nuclear power, together with its control of US foreign policy has produced a contract. While the US is required to fight all Israel’s adversaries, Israel is required to pave the way for the US imperialistic expansion in the region. (Thomas Friedman of the New York Times once reported that should Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel ask Senator Joseph Lieberman to jump, the latter would reply how high.)
Consequently, with the effective demilitarization of Egypt consequent to its peace with Israel, the military occupation of the Arabic peninsula, the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, Israel has become de facto the sole military, political and economic arbiter of the Middle East. How is it possible that a country that is 8,500 square miles, has no natural resources, and with a population of five million people, mostly immigrants, become a military superpower? How is it possible that Israel became a nuclear power in the first place? The answer is simple. The rise of Israel is due to free western money, free western technology, free American military hardware, free ammunitions, loan guaranties, indemnifications, blackmail for reparations, and miscellaneous. Israel, therefore, is a pure western, in particular American, econo-military enterprise; which after it attained enough colonialist-imperialistic maturity is now on the move to build its own Zionist empire.
To illustrate the Zionist-American collusion for war against Iraq, a valid example is the following passage from a report (Clear Break: A New Strategy for Secure the Realm. July 8, 1996) prepared for Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel by a group of American Zionists lead by two of the architects of the last aggression against Iraq, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith (When Netanyahu addressed a joint session of the US Congress on July 10, 1996, he based his speech on Perle’s report):
“… Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.” 
The US and the West have had a long experience in executing military occupation projects; indeed, all of what an occupation needs to continue, are planning, military helicopters, and the will to kill in case of a anti-colonial revolt. In the Iraqi example, the US is executing its “democratic” hyper-colonialist project along the following directions: 1) Legitimizing US occupation; 2) Control of oil and economic mechanisms; 3) Interim authority and American control; and 4) Fuzzy Americo-cracy [Iraqi democracy project].
After the US devastation of Iraq, the killing of thousands of civilians, and the immense damage inflicted on the psychological sanity of the Iraqis, who will etch America’s premeditated hyper-terrorism on their permanent collective memory, what will the US do to make its occupation an accepted fact?
A question: what were the legitimate means that the colonists and the government of the United States used to force the Native Nations out of their ancestral lands and confine them in large concentration camps called reservations? Answer: none; except force, specifically lethal force. The violent enforcer of the transfer is not concerned with legitimacy or ethical considerations, but rather with establishing precedents that can take a life of their own. In the colonialist code of conduct, ethical considerations are for the weak to observe; stronger nations follow a different path. How could this happen? The answer is simple: superior military force that fears no retaliation, but can easily afford a modest loss or damage, can impose any solution. How is the US applying this simple finding in Iraq?
After the aggression, as Iraq is lying in ruin and near social collapse, and as operation “Iraqi Freedom” changed to operation “Iraqi Occupation”, the US turned its attention to implement the hyper-imperialist agenda. Consequent to this, the US/UK moved quickly to introduce other foreign troops, declared they are occupying powers, and through an unparalleled imperialistic bargain obtained the UNSC recognition of accomplished facts. How could it be possible that the world acknowledge such a conquest? Very easy, the world is composed of five mafia-like council members: one is a hyper-imperialist mastodon that rules everything; the second is a spent imperialist power still pretending greatness, the other three are pure nothingness pretending importance.
Australian prime minister John Howard touched the nadir of the imperialist legalistic theorizations when he declared that it is now redundant to discuss the illegality of the war against Iraq, as the war happened! If this is the case, then if A were to kill B, it is therefore redundant to call it murder thus sending A to trial because the event happened! In real history time-lines, if what Howard opined is historical criterion, then Britain and France should not have declared war against Germany, after Hitler occupied Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland! Since the occupation happened, it was, hence, useless to discuss its legality. Was Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait legal because it happened? Consequently, why should the world accept Iraq’s occupation because it happened? Colin Powel joins the foray by declaring in Rumsfeldian lingo “what passed is in the past”.
The epitome of legitimizing the US open-ended occupation and Iraq’s subtle conversion to a colony cannot find more confirmation than in resolution 1483. With its implicit declaration that the US and the UK are in effect occupying powers, and with a limited advisory role given to the UN, none of the 24 articles of the resolution specifies the nature, duration, function, and perspectives of the occupation. In short, the US is not putting its occupation of Iraq up for discussion. Despite the uninspiring language of resolution 1483 used to describe the possible future of an Iraq under US control, there is not even a faint mention of its oil wealth and all strategic implications associated with it. The only thing that the hyper-imperialist are concerned with is the export and sale of oil under prevailing international market practices (Articles # 18 and 20).
Hyper-imperialism is extremely astute, although it always pretends meekness. Let me explain, to perpetuate its stranglehold on Iraq, the US, who entered Baghdad without a fight, and who cannot prove that Iraq has WMD, continues to play the game of Iraq’s threat. A paragraph in the preamble reads “[T]he situation in Iraq, although improved, continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security”. If this is the case, Iraq’s threat, even after the US reduced it to a shadow of itself, is like Einstein’s universe: endless and expanding! Do Germany, France, China, and Russia believe in the US/UK propagandistic trash? Of course not; but inter-imperialist solidarity, ethical hypocrisy, and congenital pusillanimity make those countries an auxiliary force for a dicast dedicated to the execution of its imperialist agenda.
With its 200 billion barrels of probable reserves, of which 112 billion barrels are proven reserves, Iraq is the flashiest colonialist prize in the entire history of humanity. The nature of the hyper-imperialist expedition came immediately to the foreground, the moment when the US began the re-structuring of the Iraqi oil industry, even before the Iraqis had the chance to bury their dead. Indeed, by setting up an American-style oil corporation to replace the Iraqi National Petroleum Company, by appointing an American to chair it, one Iraqi vice-chairman, by choosing 15 non-Iraqi international advisors, and where all decisions on policy is made by this board, oil emerges as the single most important thing in the hyper-imperialist equation of war against Iraq. 
However, the most ambitious design of the colonialist-imperialist project is the Israeli connection to oil. Even before Iraq has a “transitional” government, before it has a representative government, before it decides its own fate, Iraq is required to recognize Israel and supply oil to it. It is obvious that a freely elected Iraqi government will definitely reject such a proposal under the current conditions of the Middle East, but an American imposed government may agree. The story of the war and occupation of Iraq, Israel, oil, and oil pipelines is one un-extricable yarn that one can deduce without indulging in too much analysis. The symbiotic linkage between the US hyper-imperialists, American Zionists, and Israel, where the US is acting as a subaltern entity necessary to implement Israel’s agenda is beyond refutation, and any diligent cross-examination can confirm this conclusion.
Ed Vuillamy reports on the Observer, April 12, 2003, “Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel are being studied between Washington, Tel Aviv, and potential future government figures in Baghdad”. He continues “…Now, its resurrection [pipeline] would transform economic power in the region, bringing revenue to the new US-dominated Iraq, cutting out Syria, and solving Israel’s energy crisis at a stroke”. He further adds “...The pipeline would cut Israel’s energy bill drastically by more than 25 percent” And finally he reports that “…One former CIA official said: “It has been a long dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel’s energy supply”. (Emphasis added) 
There is an adage in business management positing: “Any activity that extends beyond the time required to accomplish it is a liability”. By leaving an open-ended military presence, US War Secretary Rumsfeld reinforces two notions: 1) American occupation indeed is permanent for now, and 2) Iraqis or others cannot do anything about it. Consequently, the only valid way to expel the Americans from a national territory of a state is war against its emerging colonialist structures.
Rumsfeld, assures Iraqis that “Iraq belongs to them” and promised that US troops would not stay “one day longer” than was needed to establish a democratic government”. Rumsfeld in just a few words told the whole gospel of the hyper-imperialist theology. If Iraq belongs to Iraqis, then what is the US doing there? It is interesting to see how the Israeli hand is working in American occupied Iraq. L. Paul Bremer, a supporter of Israel and the current US ruler of Iraq is now talking about an “Iraq Authority” instead of provisional government; does this remind you of the concept of “Palestinian Authority” designed by Israel for the Palestinians?
Fuzzy Iraqi democracy project: Americo-cracy or democracy?
Hyper-imperialism, colonialism, and democracy projects for nations under military occupation are incompatible as freedom vs. slavery, contradictory as peace vs. war, and immiscible as fire vs. water. Only arrogant hyper-imperialists will attempt to mix them together. Further, in the US language of imperialism, the democracy alibi has been always a synonym with interventionist policies. For example, during the entire dictatorial rule of the Somoza dynasty (Garcia, Luis, and Anastasio) in Nicaragua (1937 – 1974), the US never spoke of democracy for Nicaraguans; when the Sandinistas took power, the cry for democracy erupted. Because talking about democracy is not the purpose of this writing, because democracy is not a separate issue of humanistic development of societies, and because no state is entitled to use the democracy idea as an interventionist alibi, I shall limit myself to a few polemic paragraphs about the US definition of democracy in relation to Iraq.
We do not have to go to Plato, Athens, Aristotle, and Alexis de Tocqueville to understand democracy. Because demo is people, and cracy is power; then where do you really find a country where the people rule? Is the notion of democracy an exclusive American heritage? Is the American model so seriously and intensely democratic, that the US wants to export it to Iraq in exchange for its oil reserves? Is the fate of democracy in the world a serious concern for the United States? To uncover contradictions in the discussion of the democracy principle, the following question is in order: although the US has achieved many positive results in the exercise of democracy on domestic levels only, what kind of a democracy is it anyway?
The most salient features of the American democracy are: 1) Affluent corporations buy the politicians through donations. 2) Two identical parties exclude all competitions. 3) A half to two thirds of its voters lost interest in voting. 4) Popular vote does not count, thus leaving the undemocratic Electoral College to decide the outcome of vote. 5) Voters are not enlightened on issues. 6) People do not frame the issues. 7) Television frames the issues and directs the taste but not the reasoning of voters. 8) Voters’ role ends immediately after they voted. 9) The whole election contest is reduced to two presidential debates where contenders memorize their lines, and where moderators ask pre-agreed questions. 10) Voters have no checks and balances on foreign policy issues or even domestic issues, unless it is on a micro-level (town level). 11) Only rich people or people supported by the rich can run for the presidency. 12) Party bosses in control of the electoral process select candidates, and the voters have the right to select one of them.
Based on the preceding paragraph, I would like to propose a polemical question: which is better, a dictatorial democracy, or democratic dictatorship? In debating the democracy principle, the absurdity of this proposition is no less absurd than the following gem of US political thinkers. Kenneth Arrow, an American economist, has pushed the notion of freedom of choice in the US democracy to a comatose end when he theorized that more than two choices would produce a stalemate in voters! Arrow’s postulation cannot survive a critical examination: if the reasonable choice is C, but you ask the voters to choose only between A and B, which are not reasonable, then although C is the right choice, it is not among the choices offered! The discussions on American democracy becomes more intriguing and tortuous when political scientists postulate “constructive apathy” which holds that activism by the people subverts and destabilize democracy, thus only the elites can discern democracy requirements! What happened to participatory democracy!
Further, are voting and the freedom to vote democracy? The answer is no, as voting is only one part of the democracy ideal. In addition, a Hobson’s choice democracy like the current US, is a system where the contenders offer very similar choices, and you have the freedom to choose between them. This is how US ideologues define democracy and how they want the Iraqis to understand it: the freedom to vote on agents paid and chosen by Washington, thus sanctioning American occupation, directly or by proxy of its Iraqi agents. After the design of Iraq’s future according to US will is completed, the US will declare that the “Iraqi people have spoken.” A true Iraqi democracy will expel the US out of Iraq immediately; therefore, it is doubtful that the US would allow an Iraqi democracy to take root. In the meanwhile, imperialists and Zionists will toy with idea of democracy expecting the Iraqis to buy its superficial meaning!
Now, which democracy model is the US preparing for Iraq: direct, representative, Swiss, Danish, Islamic, tribal, Arabic, utopian, Martian, dollarcracy, Musharaffist, Afghani, Lilliputian, Haitian, Romanian, Russian, or Iraqi Americo-cracy (US-imposed democracy model)?
At this stage, hyper-imperialism is winning. History, however, is much more complicated than one passing episode. Despite all their weapons, all the cities they destroyed and will destroy, and all the innocent people they murdered and will murder, hyper-imperialists will loose the battle in the intricate possibilities of history.
While history is the sum of objective human dilemmas, where the primordial necessity is physical survival and continuity, hyper-imperialists like to think of it as a subjective game of poker. History, instead, is a game of a different nature where two symbolic forces dominate. The first force is the game of chess, where the number of variants starting at the sixth move is so staggering that outcomes are open to surprises never expected before. Can hyper-imperialists foresee what forces of history are waiting at the beginning of the moves after the sixth? The second is a game of logic: sorites paradox, where the predicate is the imperialistic conquest of nations: after they conquer one country, after they conquer two countries, after they conquer three countries, where are they going to draw the line? Resolution: Hyper-imperialism as a unidirectional force of history will not draw any line; other multidirectional forces of history will.
In the end, on the rimless boundaries of humanity, colonialistic hyper-imperialism and free progress have no dialectical affinity or functional interchangeability. They are neither cognate in historical finality nor connate in their existential rationality; and in the ongoing conflict between imperialistic slavery and human emancipation, they are two separate, antagonistic, and centrifugal forces that are not apt for coexistence, conciliation, cohabitation, or pacification.
B. J. Sabri is an Iraqi-American peace-activist. Email: email@example.com
 Source, www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm