« Native Americans: Their Story Chapter 2, Part 1
Wanted: Scientists To Undermine UN Report On Global Warming »
The Mideast: Bush Plays With Dynamite
We have come to understand that George W. Bush neither listens to reason nor learns from experience. Still, it is difficult to understand what purpose the president’s bullying of Iran serves other than to appeal to the withered prune formerly known as his political base.
I want to be clear: Iranian President Ahmadinejad and his Awful Ayatollahs are meddling in Iraq and their actions are a threat to regional stability. There is no question that their intentions are malevolent. But the actions of the Bush administration are a much greater threat and there is a palpable feeling aboard in the land that the president is willing to risk starting another war to score political points.
What other reason can there be? Even the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, presented to the president yesterday, doesn’t focus on Iran or the insurgency that it backs, instead noting that things are likely to get much worse because of Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence. (Click here for more on that.)
Remember that ghastly story a couple of weeks ago about five American soldiers being killed defending a government compound in Karbala against insurgents dressed like U.S. soldiers? And that Iran was to blame?
It turned out that the story was a fabrication. Four of the five troopers had been abducted and shot execution style. Meanwhile, Fox News now reports that our good friends the Iraqis were behind the attack and two senior Iraqi commanders, one of them an intelligence officer, were involved in planning it.
Not to worry, the White House will reach into its frayed neocon kit bag and find some other pretext to ratchet up the blame game against Iran. The administration just doesn’t want us to know what it claims to know. This explains why it has again postponed offering details of its charges of Iranian meddling inside Iraq. Don’t hold your breath wanting for this one.
The New York Times notes in an editorial:
“In what passes for grand strategy in this administration, the president’s aides say he is betting that bloodying Iranian forces in Iraq, and raising the threat of a wider confrontation, will weaken Tehran’s regional standing and force its leaders to rethink their nuclear ambitions. Never mind that Mr. Bush’s last big idea — that imposing democracy on Iraq would weaken Iran’s authoritarians — has had the opposite effect.”
What is all the more dismaying about this dismal state of affairs (in which Condoleezza Rice, that most dismal secretary of state, is playing a starring role) is that the White House refuses to consider any kind of diplomatic approach.
I once believed that a way to defeat the Islamic jihad against the West would be to kill the Muslim word with kindness. I’m not talking about sending Karen Hughes to Mideast capitals to lecture kindergarten classes, but rather an effort to reach out to Muslims and show them that the U.S. is no longer the saber-rattling colonial power that their forebears loathed for good reason.
Boy was I naive! As Zbigniew Brzezinski stated in testimony yesterday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
“The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America’s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America’s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.
” . . . Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.
When George Bush ran for president, he asserted that he was a uniter. As the last six years have shown, he is a divider. And a misunderestimater in thinking that driving the wedge between Iran and America ever deeper will somehow make Iraq, the Middle East and world safer, let alone win new friends on the Arab Street.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
24 Responses to “The Mideast: Bush Plays With Dynamite”
It’s not often I read a blog post and think,”Wow, that hit the nail on the head.” But, you’ve done exactly that.
wjr:
Thank you for the kind words, but I take no pleasure in having done so. This is very scary stuff.
Shaun,
This is a tough call. While a majority of Americans now believe the Iraq war is wrong, the story Bush and his administration are spinning is a compelling one. If indeed there are Iranian agents in Iraq helping to arm, train and direct insurgents in their attacks against US troops, most Americans would say, yes, take them out. And if the army knows where arms used against them are coming from, take those out too.
Hard as it is to imagine the media allowing themselves to be manipulated into tacitly supporting the administrations assertions without question a second time, its harder still to envisage a situation where Joe Public will deny the president the right to protect our troops from attacks emanating from Iran.
truflo:
I am in complete agreement. And if Amir Taheri is to be believed in Marc’s post above, then there may indeed be a climb-down from the branch that Iran has wiggled out onto. Wouldn’t it be nice if the U.S. did some climbing down of its own and actually entered into talks with Iran, even if it initially was through a third party?
Where I engage in all of this is the fact (and I know how much some TMV readers need facts; eh, Gray?) that the Law of Unintended Consequences has not been repealed. And try it might, even Bush’s imperial presidency cannot avoid the consequences of that law.
Iran is meddling in Iraq. But it is meddling because of a botched occupation that opened the door to every swinging dick with an attitude.
As big a mess as Bush may have made of things, I too would support him if he made the case that bearing down on Teheran militarily was necessary. But he would have to make the case in a forthright and convincing manner, and that runs against the grain of the last six years.
IRAN is driving a wedge with its genocidal threats and its drive toward nuclear development that will enable it to carry out its threat. Also Iran causing problems and destabilizing Iraq and its support of hamas and hezbollah, and its destabilization of Lebanon through hezbollah. Honestly I just don’t understand the mindset of the left. To their way of thinking it isn’t terrorists and terrorist regimes who are to blame for the troubles in the world, but rather they believe it is those of us who want to put a stop to them. So the problem in their eyes is not that Iran wants nukes, the problem is the Bush administration who wants to prevent them from acquiring nukes.
Laura:
First of all, don’t lump me in with the Cindy Sheehan crowd.
Second of all, I take it that America’s vile behavior is okay to someone like yourself because of Iran’s vile behavior. Or were you absent from school the day that they taught civility?
I do know you were absent when the U.S. looked the other way as Israel and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons. That’s okay with you, right?
What makes you so sure that this isn’t already happening? I’m not sure if you could call them third party talks, exactly, but what about the EU/Iran negotiations? It seems to me that we learned exactly where Tehran stood through those talks, and I’d venture to guess that Tehran learned exactly where the US stood as well.
And I think the mistake many are making is to assume that the lack of direct talks means that there is no diplomacy going on behind the scenes. I could be wrong, of course, but I see signs of Bush being willing to sit down with Tehran if the conditions are right; the signs I note include the replacement of Rumsfeld with Gates (whose much more amenable to diplomatic solutions) and the fact that neither Baker nor Kissinger would criticize Bush’s plans. It seems to me that there’s more here than meets the eye; that maybe they know that Bush is planning to engage Iran and Syria but only after he gains enough leverage for those efforts to be fruitful.
I think Bush may be following Kissenger’s advice. Kissenger told him never negotiate out of weakness. Rice has been garnering support from the Sunni neighbors against Iran’s influence. Together with the presence of the aircraft carrier, the announcement that we are hunting Iranian operatives inside Iraq and efforts to isolate them financially, they are working to curtail Iran’s power in the region. I agree that it is a dangerous way to go, but am hoping that Bush is not trying to provoke Iran into war, but merely trying to improve our own position before upcoming deadlines set for the Iranians to return to the table on their nuclear development. If they can be pressured into backing down, we will avoid war with Iran and derail their nuclear program.
That’s exactly the way I read it, Kim.
The number one Iranian opertive is Aytollah al-Sistani. He is a Persian. The major Shia parties (Dawa Scrir) formed in Iran and fought against Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war. The Iranians have been in Iraq for years, why are we hyperventalting about it now? The Iranians have been involved in Iraq for atleast thirty years. It is because of this that Bush 41 left the Shia to be slaughtered after GWI.
They’ve been involved, but not in control, Rudi.
CS Please show how they are in control. Please link to some honest debate on Iranian control. GB41 stopped at the border because of Iranian influence. His idiot savant son is making it easy for them to go from influence to control.
I’m not saying that they are in control, Rudi; I’m saying that if we pull out now we’ll leave the door open for them. I completely agree with your point about GB41 and GB43, I’m just in favor of trying to salvage the mistakes of GB43. GB41 left Saddam to counter Iran’s influence; who will we leave there now?
Nobody. Why? Because GB43 thought democracy was the solution to all the world ills. It’s like asking how to get American influence out of Canada.
Lets face it, to remove the influence of Iran from the majority of iraqi citizens would take at least a generation. The current Shia majority grew up with friends, family and spiritual leaders, inside Iran. We would need to clamp down harder than Sadam did for 20 years to change that, and somehow make them love us for it. Only then could a democratic Iraq counter Iran’s influence.
Also, to put in place another Secular Dictator would be impossible right now. If you think international outrage is bad now, imagine what would happen if we tried to simple hand pick an Iraqi leader who would rule with the iron fist needed to control the Shia.
Suddenly I seem to be a lot more pessimistic about the long term chances of Iraq. I think this battle is lost and its time to retreat and regroup.
Laura it would be smarter if you looked at a level higher than this:
China.
China:
They are the top U.S. Creditor
Their second largest arms supplier is Israel
They are one of the top arms suppliers to Iran and Saudi Arabia
I EXPECT AN ANSWER FROM YOU in light of these seemingly obvious facts.
I agree with you, Kevin H. While I am choosing to remain optimistic about our ability to pressure Iran, I am very pessimistic about our ability to control the situation on the ground in Iraq. That is why I’m opposing the surge. I do think we should concentrate on areas in Iraq like Anbar which are al queda strongholds, and strenghthen our forces in Afghanistan.
Part of diplomacy is HOW policies are phrased, not just deciding with whom and when to speak, a concept to which this administration has long been oblivious.
A belicose tone is perceived as a threat by the enemy, and it (Iran)is bound to react by stiffening its own position. I am less opposed to Bush’s actions of late than I’m opposed to the way he talks about them. Sure, Iran and Syria are making the situation in Iraq worse, but by persistently and emphatically singling them out for blame, nothing is accomplished but the elevation of overall tensions in the region. Should he talk about these countries? Sure. Should he talk about them constantly? Definitely not.
GB41 left Saddam to counter Iran’s influence; who will we leave there now?
Sadr may be the strongman who will take control of Iraq. For all of the MSM BS, Sadr is a nationalist who may be a advisery to Iran. Sciri and Dawa are Iranian puppets, Sadr is Iraq’s Huey Long.
Also as we mentioned on another thread, Bush never mentions the fact that the Jordanians and Saudis are helping to arm the Sunni insurgents.
LOL, good line, Rudi.
domajot: I agree, the rhetoric has been a problem.
Kevin, Kim, Rudi: I think the idea is though that the Iraqi govt will know that if it gets too close to Iran, then they’ll face pressure from the Sunni neighbors. And Kim, I would hope that Bush is saying something to SA and Jordan behind the scenes about their complicity in supporting the Sunni insurgents. I think it is somewhat normal to not publicly air grievances with your allies but to do so behind closed doors.
CS- Yes I agree that we shouldn’t publicly criticize our allies. But that doesn’t mean that I think Bush should be acting as though the Iranian agents are the only ones operating in Iraq. He seems to be using it as fodder to get US public opinion worked up about Iran. Most of the public probably isn’t even aware of any other country’s interference.
As I said before, I’m hoping he’s just increasing the pressure on them so they’ll back down, but no one really knows at this point. He’s playing with fire, and I don’t think there’s a whole lot of trust out there for his diplomatic ability right now. I also am aware that there are still people around him who are urging him to take the nukes out before the next president is elected. That is making me very nervous.
Got a mouse in your pocket, Shaun?
[...] I’ve written elsewhere that part of the reason is what I believe to be the central value commitments of moderate politics — pragmatism and balance. In order to be more than abstractions, these principles mandate eschewing the temptation to demonize or dismiss conservatives just because the current crop has been dismal. Some suggest that we should automatically reject everything conservative as a way of expressing contempt for the Bush administration. I think this puts the cart before the horse, elevating a conclusion about performance into an assumption about all possible futures, and thus foreclosing even the possibility of improvement while drawing permanent lines of political emnity. Pragmatism and balance require leaving open the possibility for improvements or new ideas and never, never making the error of assuming one side is actually incapable of ever seeing reason, learning, or having a good idea. Nonetheless, this doesn’t explain why I feel compelled to defend even current conservatives against the incoming barrage. [...]
[...] I’ve written elsewhere that part of the reason is what I believe to be the central value commitments of moderate politics — pragmatism and balance. In order to be more than abstractions, these principles mandate eschewing the temptation to demonize or dismiss conservatives just because the current crop has been dismal. Some suggest that we should automatically reject everything conservative as a way of expressing contempt for the Bush administration. I think this puts the cart before the horse, elevating a conclusion about past performance into an assumption about all possible futures, and thus foreclosing even the possibility of improvement while drawing permanent lines of political emnity. Pragmatism and balance require leaving open the possibility for improvements or new ideas and never, never making the error of assuming one side is actually incapable of ever seeing reason, learning, or having a good idea. Nonetheless, this doesn’t explain why I feel compelled to defend even current conservatives against the incoming barrage. [...]