Iran taking advantage of the neocons screw up of Iraq war.

[JohnyCanuck]

Mods, permission to reproduce in full for non-profit purposes granted by author.

Playing With Fire: the U.S., Iraq, Iran
Commentary No. 162, June 1, 2005
Fernand Braudel Center, Binghamton University

When you're a powerful country, it's hard not to play with fire. But the Bush regime has been particularly reckless. Take for example the triangle Iran, Iraq, the United States. The history is well-known. The first famous CIA intervention anywhere was in Iran, way back in 1953. At that time, Iran had a prime minister named Mohamed Mossadegh, a secular middle-class politician who had the audacity to nationalize Iranian oil. The shah went into exile. Great Britain and the U.S. were quite unhappy about this and they backed, indeed inspired, a military coup to arrest Mossadegh and restore the shah to his throne. From then on, the shah's Iran became a close ally of the United States. Shah Reza Pahlevi's regime was authoritarian and very repressive but this didn't bother the U.S. since he was a pillar of pro-U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Finally, the shah's regime was overthrown by a popular uprising in 1979 and the shah went into exile once again. This time the dominant forces turned out to be not secular nationalists but Islamic militants led by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. An Islamic republic was proclaimed. And within a year, Iranian militants seized the U.S. embassy and kept those they found there prisoners for 444 days. The U.S., needless to say, was quite unhappy once again. Iran proclaimed the U.S. the Great Satan, and the U.S. in turn now considered Iran a total enemy. President Carter's attempt to liberate the U.S. embassy prisoners by force turned out to be a fiasco. And President Reagan got them out only by making a secret deal, returning frozen Iranian assets for their release.

The U.S. decided the best way to handle the Iranians was to encourage the president of Iraq, one Saddam Hussein, to invade Iran, which he did in 1980. Iran is of course a largely Shia Muslim country. And Iraq has a very large number of Shia Muslims who however have been kept from participation in power by Sunni Arab politicians since Iraq's creation as a modern sovereign state. In 1983, Pres. Reagan sent one Donald Rumsfeld as a special envoy to meet Saddam Hussein, to encourage him in his war efforts, to offer him direct and indirect forms of assistance (including some elements of biological warfare), to remove Iraq from the U.S. list of states aiding terrorist groups, and in general to coddle Saddam. The Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years, was extremely costly to both sides in both casualties and money, and finally ended in exhaustion, with the troops back at the starting-point. It was a military truce, but of course the political enmity persisted.

Saddam Hussein, as we know, found it difficult to repay the debts he had contracted in order to conduct this war, especially Iraq's large debts to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. He decided to cancel the debts and satisfy long-standing nationalist claims in one fell swoop by invading Kuwait in 1990. Now at last the U.S. turned against Saddam Hussein, leading a U.N.-sanctioned coalition to oust Iraq from Kuwait with, among other things, the tacit support of Iran. The war ended with various kinds of double crosses. Saddam had sent much of his air force to Iran to keep it safe from U.S. bombing. After the war ended, Iran refused to return the planes. The Shia in Iraq rose up in rebellion against Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, but the U.S. refused to help them after the truce with Saddam, although the U.S. eventually did enforce a no-fly zone over Shia areas - too late, however, to prevent Saddam from his revenge on the Shia rebels.

Everyone was a bit unhappy with the de facto truce betwen 1991 and 2001. The neo-cons in the U.S. felt that the U.S. had been humiliated by the fact that Saddam remained in power. Saddam was unhappy because of a U.S.-led economic boycott and U.N.-decreed limitations on Iraq's sovereignty concerning the sale of oil. Iraqi Shia (and Kurds) were unhappy because Saddam was still in power, and the U.S. had let them down. And Iran was unhappy because Saddam was still in power, because the Iraqi Shia were still suffering, and because the U.S. was still too much a force in the region.

When September 11 occurred, the neo-cons seized the opportunity to get Bush to focus on a war on Iraq. As we know, the invasion would finally occur in 2003, resulting in the overthrow of Saddam. At the time, George W. Bush denounced the "axis of evil" - a trio of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. The U.S. had now decided to be against both the Iraqi and the Iranian regimes simultaneously, but to take on Iraq militarily first. It is quite clear that in 2003 the Bush regime considered it only a matter of time before the U.S. took on Iran.

What President Bush seemed to expect in 2003 is that the U.S. would be able to install, rather rapidly, a friendly regime in Iraq, and then proceed to force a showdown with Iran. What they did not expect was a quite powerful resistance movement in Iraq, one which they now seem unable to contain seriously. What they did not expect was effective political pressure from the Shia to hold early elections that would give the Shia a majority in the government. What they did not expect was that the U.S. military would be so overstretched that there is now no way the U.S. can seriously consider undertaking any kind of military action to change the regime in Iran.

And least of all did they expect that it would be Iran that would be in a position to be the great diplomatic victor of the U.S. invasion. Take what happened on May, 15, 2005. The U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, made an unannounced visit to Baghdad, during which she spent her brief time half scolding, half pleading with the new Iraqi government, and all this is public. She said that the Iraqis should try to be more "inclusive," the code word for making more space for Sunni Arabs in the government. She cautioned against "severe" de-Baathification, meaning the inclusion in power of at least some of those who supported Saddam Hussein. Presumably, Rice thinks this might undermine the resistance to U.S. occupation and make it possible to reduce U.S. troop commitment to Iraq (the better to use them against Iran?). Curious turnaround where the U.S. Secretary of State is pleading on behalf of at least some ex-Baathists. And, as far as one can tell, to half-deaf ears. The analyses of the present Iraqi government, or rather its priorities, seem to be different.

Two days later, the Foreign Minister of Iran, Kamal Khazzeri, arrived for a far more successful four-day visit. He was greeted at the airport by Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, himself a Sunni and a Kurd, who broke into fluent Farsi. After three days, Iraq and Iran signed an agreement to end hostilities between them, in which the new Iraqi government agreed with Iran that the Iraq-Iran war was initiated by Saddam Hussein. The two countries renewed criticisms of Israel. If Bush thinks the new Iraqi government is going to join the U.S. in a crusade against Iran, that other member of the "axis of evil," he clearly has another think coming.

Relations between Iraq and Iran have now become normal, en route to becoming friendly. This is not what the neo-cons had envisaged when they launched the drive for a U.S.-led "democratization" of the Middle East. When the U.S. forces leave Iraq (probably sooner rather than later), Iran will still be around, and (thanks to the U.S.) stronger than ever.

(Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text, publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at [e-mail]; fax: [phone].)

These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.

[leveymg]

1. Did Iran win the Second US-Iraq War?

At this point, it is clear that both the US and Iraq have come out the losers. Who does that leave to reap the rewards?

Initially, it looked like Israel was going to be the big winner, manipulating its slow-witted Big Uncle to get rid of Saddam at no cost to itself. Until recent weeks, it even appeared likely that BushCo was going to be prodded into taking it a giant step further, and we would we pushed into bombing Iranian nuclear and missile sites or, at least, enabling the Israel Air Force to do that. Somehow, the prospects of that, and the risk of a general Middle East war, seem to be receding.

What causes me to say that the rush toward war appears to have slowed? For one, the fact that those most directly involved in the OSP-AIPAC scandal and prosecutions are all Iran specialists. With the recent indictment of Larry Franklin (Feith's Iran desk officer) and moves toward prosecution of AIPAC's Iran expert,and the sudden flight back home of their handler at the Israeli Embassy (also an Iran specialist), the FBI seems to have rolled up the principal operational officers in the neocon Iran war party.

Another is the stiff resistance which the Bolton nomination has met in the Senate, and the fact that it is also opposed by some very powerful figures in the Administration, the Pentagon, and the intelligence community. Bolton has been one of the loudest voices in the lead up to hostilities with Iran over its alledged nuclear weapons program. It was thought that he would lead the charge at the UN later this month. Instead, Bolton has had the door closed on his face by nervous Senators, and there seems to be an eerie lull in the campaign to sanction Tehran.

Then, last week, the Europeans on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) agreed to continue talks with Iran over its nascent fuel enrichment program, rather than referring the matter to the UN Security Council for sanctions, as had been threatened.

Finally, unlike last year, George W. Bush did not show up in person to applaud Ariel Sharon's performance at the annual AIPAC pep rally at the Washington Convention Center last weekend. In fact, after the two met at the Crawford ranch a couple weeks ago, both Ariel and W emerged looking like they had drained each other's blood. This was in marked contrast to the sprightly prance through the Texas bluebells that Bush took just a few days later with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.

There is no doubt that Iran is emerging stronger and more secure in itself and its neighborhood after the BushCo neocons and Likud so overplayed their hands in Iraq. There will be hell to pay for their strategic blunder, and it appears that the next round of blood-letting may be within the corridors of power in Washington and Jerusalem, rather than along the Coast of the Persian Gulf.

:bounce:

[JohnyCanuck]

2. Thanks for that analysis levymg

Do you have a link for that or were these your thoughts on the matter? I wonder if this apparent roadblock that the Iraqi resistance has thrown up to what might have been a planned US ground attack on Iran and the shutting down of AIPAC/neocon influence might make the Bush idiot more inclined to stage a bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, just in an effort to show that in spite of the US being bogged down in Iraq, Iran still can't afford to mess with the US of A.

Some analysts still see a bombing attack on Iran as a likely possibility.

From Michel Chossudovsky:

Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran

<snip>

Ritter's observation concerning an impending military operation should nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample evidence that a major military operation is in preparation:

1) several high profile military exercises have been conducted in recent months, involving military deployment and the testing of weapons systems.

2) military planning meetings have been held between the various parties involved. There has been a shuttle of military and government officials between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.

3) A significant change in the military command structure in Israel has occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.

4) Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the international level with a view to securing areas of military cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation directed against Iran.

5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been stepped up.

6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to intervene in Iran has been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran constitutes a threat to peace and global security.

Of course the way Chossudovsky sees it the planned for bombing attacks on Iran are very much a US/Israeli joint venture. If the AIPAC/Neocon axis of influence has been diminished by the recent AIPAC spy arrests and Israeli influence on the Bushbot is waning maybe the plans described by Chossudovsky for a joint US/Israeli attack on Iran might be on hold as well.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html

[leveymg]

3. Just my latest $.02 worth.

I've been tracking this topic closely since last year when I had a couple articles published on Sharon's buildup toward an attack on Iran. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=6342

Things seem to have quieted down a lot since Sharon met with W 3-4 weeks ago. Let's hope this isn't just the calm before the Sufa (Hebrew, storm).