Altered States

Various factions of philosophers, mathematicians and science fiction writers have toyed with the notion that there may be multiple “realities” that co-exist, and that have authenticity for those persons who inhabit each separate reality. Whether labeled as a “parallel universe” or “altered state” each alternative reality has its own set of intrinsic rules and system integrity. The theoretical problems arise when these alternative realities intersect. These theoretical intersections result in substantial harm to one of the worlds or both. The damage would arise because the physical nature of the different “beings” in one reality is anathema or toxic to beings in the other, or because the norms, values and rules of behavior in one system of reality seriously conflicts with those of the other.

Politics is frequently viewed as a world of “unreality” where fiction is a stock in trade and facts are "optional.” But recent Bush Administration activities call into question whether these officials are indeed operating in some kind of parallel reality that not only fails to recognize facts we view as proven, but operates under a different set of rules and values that are dangerous and destructive to our known existence.

Consider three different reports recently announced that are intertwined. The first is a report based upon a consensus of oil industry and global market experts indicating that a number of current major oil exporting nations may become net importers of petroleum within the next decade or two. This trend and shift is a result of increasing domestic demand for oil and petroleum products and rapid growth and development within these oil producing nations. One country included in the list of countries likely to significantly reduce its export of oil and potentially become a net importer is Iran.

The second report is the most recent National Intelligence Assessment that advises that Iran abandoned its program for development of nuclear weapons more than four years ago. The timing and impact of this report is significant in the face of the persistent Bush Administration drumbeat over the past year or more calling for aggressive confrontation and making overt threats of military attacks against Iran to force that country to halt its nuclear weapons program. [A program Iran had previously abandoned]

The third report comes in the past week, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates visited the Middle East and made bellicose pronouncements urging the Gulf States to join with the US in pressuring Iran to abandon its drive to obtain nuclear weapons. The Gulf States rejected the Gates proposal and chided the US for its hypocrisy and diplomatic ineptitude. The Gulf Cooperation Council pointed out that the confirmed intelligence report by US experts indicates that Iran dropped its nuclear weapons program years ago. Thus, Gates was at best seriously overstating the “threat” from Iran to the stability of the region. In addition, they pointed out the hypocrisy in the US refusal to acknowledge that Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons was an equal or greater threat to regional stability.

While it may be impossible to state with certainty what the Iranian government “thinks” or harbors in its heart of hearts, there is an established value and principle of American democracy that one should not be punished for his thoughts, only for his actions. The notion that the US or any other country has a right to demand that Iran explain its future intentions regarding the possible development of a weapons program or risk threatened unilateral military attack by the US is not only senseless but antithetical to the norms and values upon which our known existence operates. Under no set of circumstances would the US government accede to such a demand. Such arrogance is not only politically unwise, but risks provoking a military conflagration that could precipitate World War III.

A reasonable person would question whether it is unreasonable policy for Iran to take current steps to enrich uranium for domestic energy production in the face of increasing internal demand for oil. Some might even suggest that such moves to produce nuclear energy would be wise domestic policy. That policy could actually be more beneficial to the US than threatening. After all, the US consumes 25% of the world’s current oil production and shows no signs of curbing its appetite in any significant way. Indeed, the Bush Administration and the GOP faithful have resisted all meaningful attempts to force a reduction in US oil consumption through new laws or genuine enforcement of existing regulations. The less oil that Iran consumes domestically, the less it will be required to reduce its level of oil exports.

Why then would the Bush Administration ignore obvious facts, reject logic that most of us would consider inescapable, and instead choose to provoke a confrontation that could result in a global war? May we not at least consider that George W. Bush is operating in an alternative or parallel universe in which his rules, norms and values are distinctly and dangerously at odds with those that we consider to be bedrock? As we look backward, the evidence is manifest. Bush supported torture when the entire civilized international community rejects it. The Bush Administration used chemical weapons against civilians in Fallujah when international human rights principles condemn the practice. The Bush Administration vetoed legislation to provide medical coverage to the poorest children in the US because he deemed %35 Billion over seven years to be too expensive. At the same time, his Administration demands the funding, without limits, to expend more than $8 Billion each month to continue the US occupation in Iraq. The list goes on and on, but the evidence of a fundamental difference in values and concept of reality is all but overwhelming.

Our failure to acknowledge this dysfunction and the dangers involved may be like a person refusing to see a doctor despite all the symptoms of a very serious illness. The risk is that the internal damage from the ravages of the deleterious infection may become so serious and irreversible that the “patient” [the world as we know it] may never be able to recover.