March 12, 2002	atimes.com

Front The intemperate rhetoric of George Bush By Ehsan Ahrari President George W Bush's depiction of Iran as part of the so-called "axis of evil" (along with Iraq and North Korea) during his State of the Union speech was both surprising and unanticipated. After all, despite the ongoing struggle between the Islamic hardliners and pragmatist groups in its domestic arena, Iran had demonstrated a remarkably positive attitude toward the United States's military campaign against the Taliban regime and the al-Qaeda terrorist group in Afghanistan. After the uprooting of the Taliban, Iran not only endorsed the Bonn meeting that resulted in the interim government of Hamid Karzai, but it also pledged financial assistance for Afghanistan. The success of its military campaign in Afghanistan has created a euphoria of high proportions in the United States. The battle cry in government circles in Washington runs along the lines of the following: "Today Afghanistan, tomorrow the world. Let's see, where should we conduct the next military campaign? Iraq, Somalia, or Yemen? What about Iran?" The nexus between the Taliban and al-Qaeda was accused of altering the regional political status quo "from Tajikistan to Chechnya, and even in the Xinjiang province of China" through insurgency. Osama bin Laden's alleged involvements in the blowing up of American embassies in East Africa and in the attempt to blow up the USS Cole were ample reasons for the Clinton administration to fire cruise missiles in Afghanistan in order to terminate bin Laden and destroy his "terrorist university". The September 11 attacks on US soil turned out to be the proverbial last straw. The US government not only went after bin Laden, but, in the process, eliminated Taliban rule from Afghanistan. Thus, President Bush could maintain the support of a loose "international coalition", which, in reality, included countries that supported his military campaign, as well as those that only acquiesced in it. But expanding the scope of this "war" against terrorism might not be that easy. Yes, taking military actions of major proportions against Iraq, Iran, or even North Korea might not be difficult, considering the awesome military prowess of the United States. However, the international community will not give even the lone superpower a blank check to carry out the military aspect of that "war" wherever it wishes. The evidence of that reality was apparent in the international response to suggestions of potential US military action against Iraq. Saddam Hussein has plenty of enemies, even in the Arab world. But no Arab country would side with the United States if it decided to attack Iraq. Some US newspapers are reporting that a number of Arab heads of states "privately" agree with the proposition of dismantling Saddam's regime through military action. Since there is no way to verify expressions of "private support", there remains a credibility gap between the public position of those leaders and what they are supposedly saying privately. Such a gap only underscores the type of political difficulties the Bush administration is likely to encounter in the coming months - not only in the Middle East, but also in other regions of the world, if it insists on expanding its military campaign to other countries. Some major European allies such as the UK and France have been critical of Bush's "axis of evil" phraseology, with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw labeling it a "piece of domestic electioneering". Russia did not opt for such a euphemistic explanation when its foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, "insisted that America's military action in Afghanistan must not be extended to other countries". But a lot of countries were surprised by Bush's strident rhetoric regarding Iran. Iran responded with the show of utter contempt and anger when thousands of Iranians hit the streets with the usual slogans of "Death to America". The saddest part of Iran's response to Bush's intemperate rhetoric was that young Iranians, for whom the hatred of the regime of "America's Shah" was only a matter of history, went through the ritual of learning to hate the United States themselves. Aside from his ill-considered shrill rhetoric (or ill-advised phrase-making), the fact remains that there is no "axis" that unites Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. These are three very different political systems - one is an Islamic state, which is evolving into an Islamic democracy; one is a secular, atheist dictatorship, and one is a Stalinist state. The common factor among them is their strong predilection for building sophisticated missiles and developing nuclear weapons, and their continued rejection of American hegemony in their respective neighborhoods. North Korea does not take part in any transnational terrorism, and neither does Iraq. Iran is a supporter of the Hezbollah of Lebanon. That organization is in a major fight with Israel, since Israel still occupies a small portion of their homeland, and for that same reason, Hezbollah supports the Islamist groups operating within Israel. But none of these groups may be described as part of a transnational terrorist network a la al-Qaeda. One wonders why Bush went to the extreme of labeling Iran part of an alliance of "evil"? If his use of the phrase "crusade" against terrorism before the initiation of the Afghan military campaign was an observation of a president who was pretty much uninformed about the historical baggage that that phrase carries in the Islamic world, his decision to use the phrase "axis of evil" to denigrate a country that calls itself "Islamic Republic" cannot be dismissed as yet another faux pas, or, as British Foreign Secretary charitably characterized, part of domestic electioneering. Bush's presidency is facing the uphill battle of making its insistence that America's "war" on terrorism is not against Islam credible in the Middle East. But his characterization of an Islamic Republic as an axis of evil will only reinforce the arguments of Islamist groups that, his insistence notwithstanding, America's war against terrorism in reality is war against Islam. It will be some time before George Bush will learn the hard lesson that an American president cannot afford to indulge himself in glib and simplistic phrasemaking without causing problems for America's strategic interests, especially in the Middle East, which remains a region where pax Americana continues to face serious challenges. Ehsan Ahrari PhD, is a Norfolk, Virginia, US-based strategic analyst. (Copyright 2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact ads@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

Front | China | Southeast Asia | Japan | Koreas | India/Pakistan | Central Asia/Russia | Oceania Business Briefs | Global Economy | Asian Crisis | Media/IT | Editorials | Letters | Search/Archive

back to the top ©2001 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd. Building B - 5th Floor, 102/1 Phra Arthit Road, Chanasangkhram, Bangkok 10200, Thailand