If Iran never existed, another Iran-like nation would have to take its place so that the transformation policy could continue, for without it the American empire cannot justify its existence as currently constituted institutionally. Does the fact that US is pursuing transformation policy mean that Iran is a perfect state and that it does not violate human rights? Not at all the case, nor should we try to use one issue as distraction for the other; instead put both on the table for analysis. According to the UN as well as many governments and independent human rights organizations, including Israeli ones, Israel violates the human rights of the Palestinian people. Does the US adopt any punitive measures against Israel for violating human rights? Instead, the US obstructs any action in the UN, and, owing to the powerful Israeli lobby, it rewards Israel for violating human rights. What must one conclude given the blatant hypocrisy of US foreign policy?
When the Soviet Union was about to collapse, Georgy Arbatov, intermediary of the KGB and Politburo and an adviser to Gorbachev stated that Moscow was about to do something extremely horrible to the US, namely deprive it of a long-standing enemy. Having recognized that the USSR had lost the Cold, Arbatov asked what would the US do without an enemy to justify its quest toward a global integrative policy, a very question given the domestic institutional structure was inexorably linked to the expansionist integrative policy. Well, we now know what the US did; it found a new enemy in "Islamist terrorism", broadening the definition to include any Islamic organization or regime that dares to reject the US integrative policy, and dares to declare a multidimensional foreign policy, especially one that condemns Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. This too would be fine, except that the US has found ground for convergence with al-Qaeda in a number of countries where there have been popular uprisings, including Libya and Syria.
Has transformation policy reached its limits, especially now that China and Russia are part of the global market economy, and does this mean that the US must resort to military solutions to impose transformation policy? There are those who advocate that 'war means peace' and that the US must support war against Iran, or at least permit Israel to hit Iranian targets. War advocates pushing an agenda of hegemony and destruction I can understand if their position is rooted in tangible interests of weapons manufacturers waiting to profit, security/intelligence for hire, politicians who see tangible political benefits from advocating war, and from all 'for-hire' analysts whose job is to push war in return for a paycheck.
In all honesty, I cannot understand advocates of war on ideological grounds, so I have concluded that they are:
1. delusional, refusing to see all of the bad consequences for all parties concerned;
2. suffer from some form of psychosis, owing to bad experiences in childhood or as adults as a result of detrimental personal experiences, in which case a visit to a doctor may go a long way in improving the psyche;
3. suffer from lack of knowledge about the many complex issues surrounding consequences of war;
4. suffer from an absence of morality rooted in humane and humanist values;
5. enjoy playing the devil's advocate
6. any combination from the above.
Transformation policy is finished because it has run its course and it is now bankrupting the US owing to immense defense spending that comes from selling bonds to the Chinese, Japanese and Arabs. Enlightened policies abound, but they are waiting for enlightened politicians to implement them. Neither Obama nor Romney measure up, for they are both committed to the anachronistic Cold War transformation policy.