The indispensible site Watching America has a must-read translation of an article from the Saudi Arabian newspaper Al-Riyadh that warns of an impending American conflict with Iran..and outlines how it’ll begin. Some key excerpts 4 U:
It is our perception that America – which is up to its ears in Iraq – has come to realize its mistakes in dissolving the former Iraqi army and security forces, and enabling an individual community [the Shiites] to become its tool for ruling Iraq. This allowed Iran to work its way deep into Iraq, opening new fronts of confrontation with Sunnis and Baathists, who oppose the occupation and being government by other communities.
The first open signs of an American collision with Iran will occur in Iraq, after the liquidation of the major [Shiite] militias and paramilitaries allied with them. This will expand the basis for animosity. But the scenarios that Bush’s team is painting are similar to those which led to the expulsion of Saddam from Kuwait and eventually ended his rule. That war was not because Saddam expanded Iraq by a few more miles (by occupying Kuwait), but was due to the fear that Kuwaiti oil – added to Iraq’s already vast oil resources – would have made Iraq the central power in the most dangerous region in the world.
AND:
If Iran is permitted to control the vast oil resources of southern Iraq – which adds an economic and geographic dimension to this crisis – and in addition to this, Tehran’s possesses nuclear weapons, even on a limited scale, then the entire Gulf region will be under threat of becoming a great oil reservoir for Iran. Thus the nuclear issue makes the present situation far more dangerous than it has hitherto been….
….And as we have already said, America’s interests rise above any partisan differences. For example, its unequivocal refusal to allow China to annex Taiwan is not because Taiwan constitutes an American military and strategic base; it is due rather to the fear of the “up and comingâ€? superpower [China] gaining Taiwan’s advanced technological and human capital. These fears are identical those that attended Saddam’s annexation of Kuwait, or Iran’s possible annexation of southern and middle areas of Iraq.
This means that a war against Iran could be imminent, and securing oil sources will be the major goal; not the sectarian or nationalistic goals that some might think, based on what is happening in the region right now. Even the issue of fighting terrorism is in synch with these goals.
Read the entire piece at Watching America…a site worth watching every day.
FOOTNOTE: Speculation about an impending conflict with Iran is rampant. And not just among the left. There is heightened questioning of adminsitration officials about Iran in the new Democratic-party controlled Congress. Cable talk shows routinely now feature talking heads predicting what’ll happen on Iran. Most say the “run up” to a presumed conflict is nearly a clone of how the stage was set by the administration before the Iraq war.
One key difference (if it happens) is that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan came right after 911. The U.S. invasion of Iraq did indeed go foward with bipartisan support, but many Democrats went along with it after a)arm twisting OR b)fearing they would be painted as unpatriotic by the GOP in upcoming elections OR c)deciding to give the President the benefit of the doubt.
Unless there’s a political shift, any invasion of Iran –even if the reasons are sound — would happen against the backdrop of an administration with quickly evaporating support. Few dispute Iran is highly dangerous; the adminsitration’s problem is its own credibility and its seeming rejection of the idea that Congress has the right to provide serious advise and consent.
But whatever correct concerns the administration may have about Tehran, any future conflict with Iran (no matter how small) will likely be undermined by the administration’s lack of credibility and by a growing perception in both parties that the administration considers Congress a bunch of bothersome political hacks, rather than another branch set up by the founding fathers to play a substantive role in national policies.
On the other hand, the Saudi paper is correct: in the end, there are broader national interests that trascend partisanship and jockeying for votes. If you had to rank the odds on some kind of military action against Iran (most likely this year) on a scale of one to 10 it’s starting to feel like an 8.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.