Iran-Contra Revisited
The New Yorker published a long article (five pages) by Seymour Hersh yesterday. Although it might take you all an incredible 20-30 minutes to read, I’d encourage everyone to read it nonetheless: it’s very informative, very interesting, and very shocking. Hersh explains how the Bush administration is involved in something quite similar to Iran-Contra.
America’s (and Israel’s) number-one enemy isn’t Osama Bin Laden anymore. It’s Iran. America fears Iran’s influence in the region – Bush et al. are afraid that America’s interests will be jeopardized. As a result, they have decided that Iran must be stopped against virtually all cost.
(I will, for the first time, use the “read more” feature: click on the link to read my entire TMV post on this)
This has resulted in a program, co-designed by former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. prince Bandar, designed to limit Iran’s and Shia influence in the region on the one hand, and empowering Sunnis on the other. These Sunni terrorist organizations, then, have to take on Shia organizations.
Now, we have to remember that most U.S. casualties in Iraq, are not caused by Shiite terrorists, but by Sunnis. Besides that, of course, it’s also quite relevant to realize that Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization.
One of the major mistakes of U.S. policy throughout the years has been that it has supported extremists (and dictators) when doing so appeared to be in its own best (short term) interest. Seemingly, people never learn from history because those exact policies, empowering extremists, dictators, etc., have had disastrous long term results. Without American funding / equipment there would be no Al Qaeda, or at least not in its present shape. And do we have to remind ourselves of the relationship between the U.S. and Saddam Hussein way-back-when?
Empowering extremists might be in one’s short term interest, but it’s never in one’s long term interest.
Hersh also writes that John Negroponte decided to accept the position as Deputy Secretary of State because of Iran-Contra-2. Crooks and Liars has a video up of Wolf Blitzer interviewing Sy Hersh about his article in The New Yorker.
Hersh also said that Iran Contra Revisited wasn’t Negroponte’s only problem: he was also considered to be “too ethical”.
As becomes clear from Hersh’s article, Saudi Arabia fears Iran tremendously and is prepared to do whatever is necessary to limit Iran’s influence in the region. Well, not whatever is necessary: Saudi Arabia opposes using force against Iran. A Saudi source told Hersh:
“We have two nightmares: for Iran to acquire the bomb and for the United States to attack Iran. I’d rather the Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America does it, we will be blamed.�
Iran should be stopped, yes, but destroying one monster by creating a new one isn’t a long-term solution. Sunni extremists cannot, despite what the Saudis think about it, be controlled for long. Once they’re in power, once they have a lot of influence, they’ll turn against America instantly.
There is no Congressional control, money is being spent (without approval) on covert operations, the U.S. is fighting enemies by (indirectly) empowering (future) natural enemies, the entire region is torn apart by sectarian… lets call it competition —- what a mess.
Also read:
Libby Spencer at The Impolitic who writes:
Granted at the moment, this is as usual based on unnamed sources but taken within historical context of the runup to Iraq, Americans should be taking this news very seriously and consider whether we’re in more danger from Iran or from a White House that is so willing to again gamble our future on half-baked strategies in order to save face for the president.
Americans need to read up. This is getting very confusing for your average citizen, even for those who follow these things. The players are planning on the run to solidify turf, coupling with anything but the usual suspects, as they play with regional dynamite. It’s one thing to want to move players around when enjoying a game of Risk, ala Dick Cheney. It’s quite another to do it by throwing Israel and the Saudis together while Iraq is on boil.
So here is where we stand today. Iraq is in play, with the Saudis freaked out about ethnic cleansing and a Shia crescent, while the U.S. ratchets up tensions with Iran, who is linked in a swath of power from Iran to Lebanon, with Israel getting more nervous by the day and the Saudis offering up all the cash they’ve got to make certain that the Shia power is balanced with Sunni force, actually dipping their diplomatic toes into a relationship with Israel, all the while the United States agitates the situation, even though our influence in the region has plummeted, giving the Shia and the Iranians a leg up. Got that? …and that’s only the short version.
Pamela Leavey at The Democratic Daily who emphasizes that Hersh’s article is a must read.
Kevin Hayden at The American Street:
As it stands now, if the world turned the post- 9/11 Bush question around and asked him if he was ‘with or against’ the terrorists, the only honest answer he could give is ‘both.’
And therein lies both a moral and strategic disaster in the making.
At this point, I feel there’s only one way left for the country to clear itself from the ambiguity, dishonesty and potential for blowback. Bush and Cheney must be impeached for giving aid and comfort to too many enemies to count.
The Xsociate at State of the Day.
