Alternative Insight

Iraq Gasps and Iran Coughs


After bringing Iraq close to destruction, President Bush is trying to rescue his Iraq policy from another: "We had to destroy them to save them" plan. Considering the lack of expertise of the Iraq security forces and the obvious divided loyalties of its components, it is incomprehensible how Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government can complement the United States 'surge' and severely contain the Iraq Civil War. Bush's final thrust is destined to be brutal, an all-out and no holds barred military push that takes no prisoners and reduces to dust anyone who gets in the way. The warning to Iran, disguised as preventing the Islamic Republic from supplying support to the insurgents, is actually a warning not to interfere with U.S. plans. The expected results: accusations that Iranian interference has prevented a resolution of the civil strife, diversion of United States resources to settle issues with Iran and, although not immediate, a renewed Civil War that brings Iraq to its last gasp.

The Fallacies
The lies, distortions, and fallacies never end. The proposition that "faulty intelligence" was responsible for the rash actions against Iraq is easily contradicted by the incredibilty of the intelligence. Testimonies from responsible government personnel certify that the Bush administration manipulated the intelligence and then tried to blame intelligence agencies for the faulty Iraq operation.

In an April 23, 2006 interview with CBS' 60 Minutes program, former CIA official Tyler Drumheller said: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy." Former Foreign Service officer Joseph C. Wilson 4th, in a New York Times op-ed, "What I Didn't Find in Africa,"July 6, 2003, described his pre-invasion fact-finding trip to Niger for certifying the transfer of "yellowcake" to Iraq, and concluded "there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired." Wilson accused the Bush administration of "exaggerating the Iraqi threat in order to justify war."

The latest fallacy has the Bush government ending the sectarian warfare by assisting the al-Maliki government to suddenly become neutral and fight all insurgents with equal ferocity. This maneuver can be temporarily effective, but is implausible in the long run for one simple reason; the root causes of the sectarian warfare, which are the unresolved antagonisms and political ambitions between the three major groups, that are exaggerated by the presence of foreign fighters, including those from the United States, are not being resolved. So, what can be the reasons for the 'surge?'

One reason is to shift the blame from the previous military and defense department officials who managed the conflict to newly appointed military leaders in CENTCOM and Iraq, to new Secretaries in the defense and state departments and also to the hapless Iraqi government. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice will have John Negroponte, the newly appointed Undersecretary of State, suffer the political heat from the perceived Iraq failure. Even President Bush has carelessly made himself (or has he been talked into making himself?) a "fall guy." After always insisting he followed the dictates of his civilian and military advisors in his decisions, he has suddenly revealed that he is the "decider" and like Harry Truman, "the buck stops here." Secretary Rumsfeld, General Abaziz, and Secretary Rice couldn't be more satisfied.

To show that lies and distortions always have an audience, and you can fool many of the people all the time, President Bush now has a new enemy and new reasons why the new enemy must be defeated, If Iraq is an example of defeat, then the new enemy must be destroyed. Bush, in an interview with National Public Radio, said: "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly." In a Jan.27 interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Iraq PM Maliki was non-committal concerning Iran.

BLITZER: Is Iran, your neighbor, providing money and arms to death squads inside Iraq, specifically Shiite death squads?

MALIKI (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Some reports are saying this. And we are investigating. And to confirm the credibility of these information, some of these reports say, but we have communication and exchange with the Iranians to know the truth and to have the efforts and to prevent this interference and the people who come into Iraq to prevent these attempts.

Shift to Jan. 31: According to CNN in BAGHDAD -- Iraq's prime minister said Wednesday he's sure Iran is behind some attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and he won't allow his country to be a battleground for the two nations.

Did al-Maliki say exactly what CNN claims? According to the video transcript, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, told CNN. "We do not want the American forces to take Iraq as a base to attack Iran ... we will not accept Iran using Iraq to attack American forces. But does this exist? It exists and I assure you it exists."

Note the ambiguity: Isn't Maliki only saying he doesn't want the Americans to take Iraq to eventually attack Iran or for Iran to use Iraq to eventually attack American forces or both? What exists - the thought, the possibility, or the actuality? His words are not clear. Until an Iraq government representative expresses concern with Iranian actions, should Bush be disturbed? He should be disturbed if he can definitely furnish proof that Iran is targeting U.S. forces. Ojo! Note that nothing has been said of the weapons that the insurgents have been using for many years. Are they from Saudi Arabia, Israel, maybe Russia, or Canada, or the U.S.A.? Tracing weapons to a nation doesn't mean the government of that nation has supplied the weapons. Arms dealers obtain weapons from all countries. Americans should be disturbed for Bush having allowed Iran to gain much influence in Iraq and Bush should be reproached for accusing Iran of extending its influence in Iraq after giving Iran the opportunity to do just that.

The hypocrisy of the accusations against Iran and Syria are evident.
The U.S. replacement of Saddam Hussein removed a formidable opponent to any Iranian ambitions. The push to democratization allowed a particular Shiite majority, those who most favor Iran, to gain control of Iraq. While U.S. military and construction efforts have been recently criticized by Iraq Prime Minister Maliki, Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qumi in an interview with The New York Times, claimed his government "was ready to offer Iraqi government forces training, equipment and advisers for 'the security fight,' and was prepared to assume major responsibility for the reconstruction of Iraq." Iran has pledged a one billion dollar financial aid package for Iraq, which includes construction of five industrial parks close to the Iranian border.

As for Syria, that confused nation has opened its borders to one million Iraqis made refugees by the aftermath of the U.S. invasion. While accusing these two "enemy" nations of nefarious actions, the U.S. refrains from criticizing Saudi Arabia, although the Saudi kingdom:

The Iraq situation will not be resolved until the U.S. is no longer guided by its self-made fallacies but by regional actualities.

The Actualities
Can the United States actually not have been aware that the fall of Saddam Hussein would unleash sectarian warfare in Iraq, and efforts at democratization could strengthen the sector of radical Shiites who want to bring Iraq closer to Iran? What else is new? Hasn't the usual result of U.S. foreign policies that endeavor to impose regime changes enabled an antagonist regime to take power? Note: Vietnam, Taliban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Union briefly in Somalia, present day Nicaragua, Haiti and most Latin regimes. The fore-mentioned actualities lead to another actuality; the U.S. could eventually lose access to Iraq's oil resources. And there is more.

The Shiites are not actually in insurrection; they exercise most control of the government and aren't in conflict with the Kurdish population. The minority Sunnis are in conflict with everyone: economic conflict with Kurds and Shiites, religious conflict with Shiites, social conflict with the government and cultural conflict with everyone. The vulnerable Sunnis are being forced to move from their established homes and are slowly being displaced as the economic force in Iraq. Sunnis who want to survive might consider a secondary role in Iraq's affairs. It's either move over, stop fighting or perish. The hastened death of Saddam Hussein signaled to the Sunnis that there rebellion has no leader.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is sending more troops to assist the Iraqi Shiite led government that obtains its power from elements supporting "death squads." Bush does not realize that only a miracle can save Iraq from being divided, can halt the civil war and can prevent the subjugation of the Sunni population. Strangely, that miracle might combine Syria and Iran in endeavors that can influence the sectarian parties to resolve their differences. Syria and Iran, both now realizing the consequences of sectarian warfare and territorial division, want a stable and united Iraq, in which no group persecutes others, no rebellion continues and Kurds don't gain independence.

Iraq's Last Gasp
All contestants find themselves in impossible situations.

The U.S. is in a "no-win" situation. If it stops the violence and withdraws troops, then Iran will be able to establish close ties with the new Iraq and increase its power. If the violence continues, the Middle East will be destabilized, the oil resources will be jeopardized, and terrorism will be strengthened.

Iran is in a "lose-lose situation." If the Islamic Republic tries to assist in ending the violence and establishes close ties with the new Iraq, the U.S. will brutally interfere to prevent an Iraq and Iran coalition. If the violence continues, Iran will have a troublesome nation at its border, and probably an unwarranted Kurdish Republic motivating Iran's Kurds into insurrection.

Iraq is in a default situation. It is a broken nation that is no longer in control of its destiny. A Brookings institution report, Things Fall Apart: Containing the Spillover from an Iraq, Saban Center Analysis, Number 11, January 2007 concludes that "ending an all-out civil war would require a force of 450,000 - three times the present US deployment even after the 21,500 "surge." If Brookings is correct, then the U.S. cannot stop the Civil War. Since the U.S. won't permit Iran to step in and prove successful where the U.S. has been a failure, Iraq is doomed to perpetual Civil War until one party dominates and others get exhausted. Iraq is in its last gasp.

The United States in its invasion of Iraq has succeeded in devastating an ancient civilization, elevating Iran to a regional power, and trading the persecution of the Al-Dawa Shiites by the Baathist government for persecution of Baathist Sunnis by the Al-Dawa government. It's not clear which persecution has been worse. Although the statistics are not available, the numbers of killed and injured, made refugees, displaced from their homes and terrorized seem greater now than at any time in Iraq's modern history. It is rarely mentioned that the last years of Saddam Hussein's reign featured little persecution and almost no violence. Other considerations: Al-Dawa leader Nouri al-Maliki was able to leave Iraq alive. Baathist leader Saddam Hussein has stayed in Iraq and is not alive. The present government's intelligence and security agencies, similar to those in the Hussein era, have been involved in torture and killings of opponents. Is the present Iraq government much different than Hussein's government?

Originally portrayed as the route to stabilizing the Middle East, the Iraq adventure is de-stabilizing the world. The Shia line from Iran, through Iraq and to the Hezbollah in Lebanon, all have common enemies - the U.S. and Israel - and will reinforce one another. Syria and Jordan, both with secular Sunni populations, and which are unsettled by Sunni refugees, one million in Syria and 750,000 in Jordan according to the UN High Commissioner on refugees, will feel threatened by a Shiite Iran closely tied to Iraq and Lebanon. Nations that feel threatened by Iraq and Iran will become more conciliatory to the U.S. and Israel and might seek their protection. The U.S. might bow out and let Israel proceed in its own plans. Israel might be the biggest victor in this calamitous and haunting adventure.

Note: The above paragraph (and some other portions of this article) first appeared Jan. 7, 2007 in an article on Counter Currents web site. That article was written by the author of this article and is titled: Bush?s Solution To Iraq ? No Mystery.

Orly Halpern, a free lance correspondent, in an article that appeared in the Jewish Daily Forward, writes of a late January 2007 strategy meeting at Herziliya, Israel. At that meeting, Israeli leaders sensed that Sunni nations might be fearful of Iran's growing influence and find it worthwhile to pursue peace with Israel.

Israeli Leaders Push for Diplomacy With Sunni Arabs, Orly Halpern, Jewish Daily Forward, Jan 26, 2007

At the same time, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Vice Premier Shimon Peres, and Defense Minister Amir Peretz argued last week at the prestigious Herziliya Conference that Iran could be contained through a combination of deterrence and coalition building with moderate Arab states. Livni added that the ?best Israeli interest? right now is to negotiate with the moderate Palestinian leadership. General Amos Gilad, who heads the political-military bureau of the Defense Ministry, noted the growing discomfort in many Arab states regarding Iran?s nuclear ambitions. Gilad said Israel should do ?everything it can? to strengthen the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, reach out to Syria to get it to ?change sides,? and to ?strengthen every possible contact with Egypt, the Saudis and of course the Jordanians.?

The final analysis of this degrading situation indicates a pattern. Iraq is almost destroyed. Iran is predicted to follow a similar fate. If Iran falls can Lebanon and Syria survive? In Africa, Sudan, a nation that the U.S. claims is committing genocide, is constantly pressured from rebellions and attempts at breaking it up. None of these nations, despite the propaganda, have ever posed any substantial threat to the United States or its interests and none of them can pose a threat at any time without being immediately destroyed. Nevertheless, their destructions will not enable their citizens to live a "better life" and will jeopardize U.S. pursuit of oil reserves and aggravate the energy crisis. So, why is the U.S. antagonistic to these nations? What drives inane and counter-productive United States foreign policies that has made Iraq gasp and is now making Iran cough?

alternativeinsight
february , 2007

HOME PAGE     MAIN PAGE
 
alternativeinsight@earthlink.net
Mailbox