SPEAKING FREELY Forget about war with Iran? By Leon Hadar
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say.
Please click hereif you are interested in contributing.
"Ding-dong, the witch is dead," cheerlead the proponents of the Conventional
Wisdom (CW) in the Beltway's reality-based community these days - the "witch"
being President Buscheney's plan to bomb Iran, which was supposed to be the
next chapter in the neo-conservative narrative.
Unfortunately, this CWers' (pronounced se-wers) don't-worry-be-happy spinning
is based not on reality but on a lot of wishful
thinking masquerading as a larger-than-life Realpolitik axiom, that is, the
realist "surge" in Washington is working!
On a macro-level, this realist faith has helped construct a fairy-tale-like
narrative in which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Pentagon chief
Robert Gates have mounted a courageous and effective bureaucratic and political
campaign against the neo-con remnants in the George W Bush administration now
that Rummy (Donald Rumsfeld) the matinee idol, Paul "Wolfie" Wolfowitz of
Arabia, "The f**ing stupidest guy on the face of earth," and the
man-with-the-bad-toupee who'd been given the pink slip.
We are being asked to believe that Gates, who, as the former chief spook once
upon a Cold War. had pressured the CIA's analytical division to exaggerate the
Soviet menace to fit the ideological perspective of Reagan's neo-cons, has been
transformed into President Bush's Elliot Richardson and that "Mushroom Cloud"
Condi's pair of black knee-high boots are going to walk all over her boss' Dick
Cheney.
How else would you explain the "dramatic" changes in the administration's
policies on North Korea (sending love letters to nutty Kim) and
Israel/Palestine (did we say A-N-N-A-P-O-L-I-S?), not to mention the "thaw" in
the relationship with those who were once bashed as Old Europe (Germany) and
Cheese-Eating-Monkeys (the French)?
According to the CWers these are all signs that the so, so Brilliant Condi and
Very Cool Bob have gained the upper-hand in the struggle over Bush's foreign
policy as Cheney has been forced to spend his time gushing over his
miracle-of-the-sperm-bank grandkid instead of, say, nuking someone somewhere or
doing regime-changes around the world.
And then there was of course the piece de resistance in the Realist Resurgence
- the historic bureaucratic coup d'etat in during which the Realists struck
back - and in the "key judgments" of their US National Intelligence Estimates
(NIE) that pulled the rug right out from under President Bushcheney's scheme to
fillet the New Hitler and the rest of the Holocaust Deniers in Tehran. Yep.
It's time for that proverbial collective sigh of relief, for some good old' shadenfroid
as we watch humiliated John Bolton doing his Churchill shtick as he accuses the
"appeasers" of perpetrating a new Munich in the name of Peace in Our time, etc.
But let's be a bit contrarian here. It is possible that what the CWers are
celebrating as strategic changes in Bush's foreign policy - suggesting that the
Dubya has decided to abandon his grand designs of Freedom Marching and
hegemonizing the Middle East - are really nothing more than tactical maneuvers
on the way towards a new age of Pax Americana here (Iraq), there (Iran) and
everywhere (watch out Russia and China!). After all, even builders of great
world empires - Napoleon and Hitler come to mind - had to suffer many tactical
setbacks and adjust to realities on their way to continental and global
domination. Not that we - God forbid! - are comparing mini W to the big H.
Instead, Bush's own Truman Narrative seems to project his fantastic mindset.
The War against Islamo-Fascism equals the War against Communism, and Bush like
Truman established the foundations for the grand American strategy in dealing
with a global menace.
From that perspective, the Rice-Gates-led so-called realist resurgence should
be seen for what it really is: taking one step backward so as to prepare for
racing full-speed forward. Hence, an overstretched US military cannot threaten
Pyongyang with war, especially after Kim Jong-il possessed the Bomb; so the
Bushies talk with him. Sort of. Try to make a deal. Perhaps. But notice that
American troops are still on the Korean Peninsula.
Meanwhile, Condi recognizes that she cannot "make" peace between Arabs and Jews
in the Holy Land and in any case, she doesn't want to pressure the Israelis.
But America needs to placate the (oil-producing) Saudis by "doing something".
So here we go with a photo-ops in Annapolis, Jerusalem and Ramallah that
produce a sense of "momentum" in the peace process, and make it possible to
maintain US influence in the region.
And then there has been the coming-to-power of more conservative figures in
Berlin and Paris who have been depicted by the CWers as "pro-American" (which
they aren't; they're pro-German and pro-French respectively) and who are
supposedly willing to support the Bush Administration's policies in the Mideast
as long, that is, as the Bushies don't mention the war (if you haven't notice:
there are no French or German troops in Iraq).
Which brings us back to Iran. Even before the release of the NIE report and at
a time when Rumsfeld and Bolton were still hanging around Washington it was
becoming clear that with all the mess in Mesopotamia, the Americans didn't have
the military resources to "do an Iraq" in Iran. Yes, there was some talk about
targeting Iran's nuclear installations if the diplomatic pressure on Tehran
would fail to force the ayatollahs to cry "uncle". And even before the coup
d'etat in Washington, many CWers were arguing that a limited US strike on
Iranian installations would be impractical (do we really know where they are?)
and costly (oil prices and anti-Americans in the Middle East would rise above
their current dangerous levels).
It could be argued that the spooks in Washington just provided the Bushies with
an excuse not to do what they had already decided not to do (which explains why
some conspiracy theorists have suggested that the Bushies were the driving
force behind the decision to release the NIE report). But consider the
following: Does anyone really think that President Bush would like to read the
following Wikipedia entry 10 years from now:
George Walker Bush (born
July 6, 1946) was the 43rd US president. His decision to invade Iraq and oust
Saddam Hussein resulted in the disintegration of Iraq and in the emergence of
its neighbor and rival Iran as the main military power in the Persian Gulf,
turning the Shi'ite-headed regime in Baghdad as well as the Shi'ite-led groups
in Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East into political satellites of
Tehran. The invasion of Iraq accelerated Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear
military capability (which it did in 2009 immediately after President Barack
Obama entered the White House), posing a major threat to US allies in the
Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Western strategic and economic
interests in the oil-rich region.
In short, President Bush proved to be Iran's most faithful ally. Indeed,
President Bush recognizes that the mess he has made in Iraq, combined with the
rising power of radical Shi'ite forces there, has played into the hands of the
Iranians.
That, together with the failure of Israel to deal a military blow to the
Hezbollah in Lebanon has helped shift the balance of power in the Persian Gulf
toward Iran and its Shi'ite allies in the Middle East, in a way that threatens
the interests of key regional US allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Hence the
current status quo is only making Iran more assertive, inducing it to continue
its nuclear programs, and threatening the "legacy" of President Bush (see the
above Wikipedia entry). That means that the Bushies are hoping that they'll be
able to "do something" that would change the status quo, and remove that smirk
from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At the minimum, Bush wants to be
recalled as someone who "kicked some ass" in the Persian Gulf before leaving
office.
That doesn't mean an all-out war with Iran or even an attack on its suspected
nuclear installations. If you followed the recent bizarre encounter between the
US Navy and the Iranians in the straits of Hormuz, you get an idea of the
opportunities that are opened to the Bushies if and when they decide to
orchestrate or exploit a crisis in the Persian Gulf that could lead to an
American retaliation against an Iranian "provocation".
That kind of opportunistic approach is not different from the way the Bush
Administration took advantage of September 11 to mobilize public support for
going to war against Iraq. Just change the nationality of the 15 sailors who
were seized by the Iranians in March last year, imagine that they would have
been Americans and not British and you here we are watching CNN's Wolf Blitzer
reporting on "Day 15: American Held Hostage" ("We have an exclusive interview
with the mother of Sergeant Brittany Steele ... " and before you know it,
Congressional and public pressure builds-up and US troops are storming into a
headquarters of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
And it's possible that a "provocation" could turn to be a (real) provocation if
and when elements in the Iranian leadership who are looking forward towards a
military confrontation with the US would make sure that Iranian forces do take
military action against the forces of the Great Satan.
Iran will hold parliamentary elections on March 14, 2008, and you don't have to
be an expert in Iranian politics to figure out that the political parties
associated with President Ahmadinejad who has been under attack at home for his
mismanagement of the country's economy could benefit politically from rising
tensions with between Tehran and Washington.
Interestingly enough, it's not inconceivable that by early March the Iranian
political calendar will intersect with the American one, when we'll probably
know by then who the Democrats and the Republicans have nominated as their
presidential candidate. And you don't have to be an expert on American politics
to figure out that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama would be in a
position to challenge President Bush's decision to retaliate against Iran. Mix
American nationalism aimed at long-time adversary, Revolutionary Iran, the
threat of Islamo-Fascism and the support for Israel and the role of its
American friends in US electoral politics, and you understand why Obama or
Hillary won't allow themselves to sound less hawkish than John McCain or Mitt
Romney.
And apropos Israel. It's an open secret that Israel's leaders have been alarmed
by the effect that the NIE report had on Washington and they clearly are
concerned that the Bush Administration and Congress may lack the will to
confront Tehran over the nuclear military program which, they insist, is alive
and well. So if you're in the shoes of the Israeli prime minister, you will
probably conclude that Israel has a narrow window of opportunity extending
until the end of 2008 - before Bushcheney, Likud's best friend in Washington,
leaves office - to take military action against Iran.
Realistically speaking, the Israelis will not attack Iran without at least an
American "yellow light" (and we'll learn about that in Bob Woodward's next
anthology of White House memos and conversations). And there is no doubt that
the CW in most world capitals - certainly in Tehran and the rest of the Middle
East - will be that Iran was attacked by Israel and the US. Expect Obama and
McCain, Clinton and Romney in the midst of a heated election campaign to stand
squarely behind the Israelis in their confrontation with Iran, ensuring that
Bush's successor at the White House will be forced into a multi-front war in
the Middle East that could involve Israel and Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.
If these scenarios sound improbable - like terrorist flying planes into the
World Trade Center or the United States invading Iraq - it's probably a failure
of imagination on your part. Contrary to the narrative promoted by the CWers,
the realists have not won the policy war in Washington and Bushcheney and its
neoconservative minions continue to have the upper hand in setting US foreign
policy agenda. We're still watching and taking part in the Bush Show - and we
shouldn't be surprised to find out sometime this year that the witch is not
dead.
Leon Hadar is a research fellow with the Cato Institute.
(Copyright 2008 Leon Hadar.)
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say.
Please click hereif you are interested in contributing.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
