Syria-Iran

satanmcnugget

Well-known member
do you think they will? or are they overextended in the region??

Thursday, October 14, 2004
Bush v. Kerry: The Persian Gulf Empire and Perpetual War

The visions for the American future laid out by George W. Bush and John Kerry differ starkly on matters of war and peace, and the shape of American power in the Middle East.

Bush has put enormous resources into the Iraq war compared to those he has committed to fighting al-Qaeda. Kerry pledges to concentrate on stamping out al-Qaeda. The American public has a clear choice between a continued US push into the Middle East, with bases and very likely further wars, and between a calmer, more patient foreign policy that makes room to address the problem of practically fighting terrorism.

As Barbara Slavin of USA Today noted after the first debate, Kerry differs strongly from Bush on the issue of a long-term US military presence in Iraq:



' Kerry charges that the war has further alienated other Muslim countries and diverted the United States from its main target, the al-Qaeda network. In the debate Sept. 30, Kerry said Bush sent the wrong signals to Iraqis and other countries in the region by establishing 14 military bases in Iraq that appear to be permanent.

"I will make a flat statement," Kerry said. "The United States has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq. Our goal ... would be to get all of the troops out of there with the minimal amount you need for training and logistics ... to sustain the peace." '


If elected, that is, Kerry might not be able to bring the troops home immediately, in order to avoid chaos. But he is willing to say up front that he will bring them home in relatively short order.

In contrast, if he is reelected, Bush will almost certainly attempt to retain bases in Iraq, and to ensure a long-term US military presence in that country on the analogy of Japan, Korea and Germany. If elections can be held in Iraq and if the political crisis there subsides, he will be in a position to draw down troops eventually to about a division (say 20,000 men). The Pentagon already speaks of 12 enduring bases in Iraq.

Unlike John Kerry, Bush has never even talked about having US forces leave altogether when security returns. The US under Bush will likely be a permanent Persian Gulf Power, succeeding the Portuguese, Safavid, Ottoman, and British Empires in that role. At the moment, the US lacks a big permanent land base in the region, though it has a de facto naval base in Bahrain and an air base in Qatar. These are small countries that can host only small facilities. With 12 enduring bases in Iraq, the US posture in the Gulf becomes dominant for perhaps the entire twenty-first century. Being an Iraq power would bring the US into permanent and active diplomatic and military contact with Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran. In all likelihood, the Bush path of Iraq bases leads inexorably toward further US military conflict in the region.

The dark cloud over this scenario is that in recent polls the Iraqi public evinces no enthusiasm for a long-term US military presence in their country (between 44% and 56% want the US out now, and 80% are opposed to the US troops remaining in the long term). If Iraqi democracy starts to look incompatible with Bush's bases, and he has to choose between them, might he not be tempted to send parliament home and put in a strong man?

In the second debate, Bush said,


It is naive and dangerous to take a policy that he suggested the other day, which is to have bilateral relations with North Korea. Remember, he's the person who's accusing me of not acting multilaterally. He now wants to take the six-party talks we have -- China, North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Japan and the United States -- and undermine them by having bilateral talks.

That's what President Clinton did. He had bilateral talks with the North Koreans. And guess what happened?

He [Kim Jong-Il] didn't honor the agreement. He was enriching uranium. That is a bad policy. Of course, we're paying attention to these. It's a great question about Iran. That's why in my speech to the Congress I said: There's an Axis of Evil, Iraq, Iran and North Korea, and we're paying attention to it. And we're making progress.



I read this remark as an indication that Bush would continue to address North Korea through multi-lateral diplomacy (essentially acquiescing in its nuclear weapons program, since it is too late to do anything about it except appeal to Pyongyang to be reasonable).

But Bush pairs Iraq and Iran toward the end, suggesting to me that he intends to overthrow the ayatollahs in Tehran just as he overthrew Saddam. Certainly, as Tom Barry argues in In These Times, there are strong voices in the Bush administration that desperately want to go on to Tehran. I disagree with those who say Bush's military is too overstretched for that option. Given these constraints, they could always attempt to foment a coup, as the US did against the elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, in 1953. Of course, a coup could go wrong, reqauiring a military follow-up. It is also not impossible that Iraq will go well enough in the medium term to allow a draw-down there, freeing troops for use in Iran.

As Joshua Landis has cogently argued, there are also strong voices in the administration urging military action against Syria. [See also his column on Thursday]. Aside from the threat of more social turmoil, there is no obvious reason for Bush to leave Damascus alone. An attack on Damascus would make both the Turkish and the Israeli hawks happy. Syria's only patron is Iran, which could do little about it except foment guerrilla resistance. Europe and Russia would complain, but would do nothing. The one brake on such a move might be Egypt and the Arab League, which don't hate Bashar al-Asad the way they hated Saddam and may finally find ways diplomatically to intervene with Washington to stop the Bush demarche.

Although the Bush administration will frame any aggression against Syria and Iran as a means of removing weapons of mass destruction (neither government has any), and as a way of spreading democracy, in fact it will be aimed at strengthening the US position as the Persian Gulf hegemon.

The Iraq war was never about an attempt to control Iraqi petroleum. Petroleum is fungible or freely exchangeable, and cannot be "controlled." Once pumped, it goes where the market wants it to go. But a plausible argument could be made that the Iraq war was in part about securing control of the Persian Gulf petroleum infrastructure (security, access to oil exploration and refining rights, distribution, and assurance that local powers could not disrupt supplies). Michael T. Klare at Tomdispatch.com makes a disturbing and extended argument about "Oil Wars and the American Military."

The likelihood that Bush can accomplish his military goals without a renewed draft seems to me close to zero, despite his protestations to the contrary. Thousands of young people will be involuntarily inducted into his crusade, and the US economy and society will be warped in favor of war industries.

Bush is a risk-taker in the high stakes game of global blackjack. His recklessness and aggressiveness could well turn the eastern marches of the Middle East into an active chain of political volcanoes. The bad news is that the last time we had this sort of adventurer in the White House, it was Ronald Reagan. He and his administration helped create what became al-Qaeda to fight the Soviets, setting up the conditions for the blow-back of September 11. If Bush gets back in, can we really be sure the chickens of his Middle East policy won't eventually come home to roost?

http://www.juancole.com/2004_10_01_juancole_archive.html#109772926023211740
 

craner

Beast of Burden
In with the bombs, shadows, tombs.

There won’t be any US military action in Iran. For an expert on Shi’ite politics, and for somebody who dissects US motives with such apparent authority, Juan Cole sounds shrill and silly – but, hmm, maybe there’s a reason for that.

Nobody in the Bush Administration really doubts that the US have the military power – in terms of hardware at least – to smash the Ayatollah’s Islamic Republic. But very few in the Bush Administration seriously believe that such pre-emptive action is viable. Politically viable, that is. Take <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200410050930.asp">Michael Ledeen</a>, superhawk on Iran. He’s been calling for decisive action against the Ayatollahs since before 9/11. Even he doesn’t see the need for military intervention or pre-emption. He criticizes the Bush Administration not for failing to bomb Tehran and murder all the crazy mullahs, but for failing to properly engage with the strong and vocal reformist movement, which happens to be, for the most part, the world’s most inspiring.

That’s the strongest card the US have, but Administrations treat all reform movements with extreme caution (unlike dictatorships). The Bush administration is notable for the fact that it includes those who want stronger (and more visible) support for the Iranian reformists, like Wolfowitz.

There won’t be military interventions in Syria or Iran because those who favour such options are the ones who pushed regime change in Iraq, and they’ve lost all their political capitol and credibility. The realists are, once again, ascendant. I’d be amazed if they decided to hit Damascus or Tehran. (Unless Iran gets at all close to making a nuclear bomb, in which case Israel and the US would both, at the very least, consider pre-emption. I’d be quite happy with that.)

I wonder if Kerry has any idea how high the stakes are.
 

DigitalDjigit

Honky Tonk Woman
Isn't the problem with US-Iran relations the fact that Iran hates Israel while US is very close to Israel. So by extension Iran hates US (aside from any other beef they may have). I am not sure on the reformer's opinions on Israel. I do not think the Bush administration or anyone else would choose to support Iran if it meant abandoning Israel.
 

satanmcnugget

Well-known member
Unless Iran gets at all close to making a nuclear bomb, in which case Israel and the US would both, at the very least, consider pre-emption. I’d be quite happy with that.)

not clear here, Oliver....are you saying you'd be happy with the US and Israel considering a preemptive strike, or happy if they actually carried it out in the event of Iran achieving nuke capability?

if the latter, that is a very provacative stance...personally, i find it difficult to formulate a stance...nuke proliferation scares the shit out of me...the idea that only the western/european powers shld have some sort of monopoly on nukes also scares the shit out of me...could you elaborate a bit?
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Both Israel and the US would be delinquent to simply allow Iran to proceed unchecked without any threat of censure: it directly threatens key interests in both cases. Plus the lives of cities, including Tehran. A pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would probably, in the end, save the city from total destruction. But I’m not saying that I’d be happy with the US or Israel raining missiles down on Iranian cities as some sort of apocalyptic pre-emption mission.

The reason I say all this is because appeasement on this issue smacks of Clinton, the 90s, and Pakistan. Remember how the Left criticized the US for essentially allowing Pakistan to conclude its nuclear bomb programme? The criticism still stands. It would also apply to Iran. Personally, I think an aggressive stance on this issue, from the US in particular, is necessary.

Iran is one of the crux states in the War on Terror. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the other two. That is why this is a real war, and a vast war.
 

satanmcnugget

Well-known member
i think the US is bound to respond aggressively anyway, whether it's called for or not...they almost HAVE to for the reasons you stated...i hear what you are saying on the Pakistani nuke program, and im not about to celebrate anytime a nation-state arms itself with nukes...im still uncomfortable with the idea that only the US or European powers have the right to a monopoly on nukes, though...if we are insane enough to allow one nation-state to have em, why not another? know what i mean?...i still find this one a tough call to make...world's gone crazy is the only definitive statement i can make :p
 

dominic

Beast of Burden
whether kerry or bush wins the election, i think it's likely that the US will have to confront Iran. the only question is whether the united states will have sufficient political capital to pull off this task. if the US cannot get the europeans to support a war against iran, then perhaps there'll be an israeli strike against iranian nuclear facilities, followed, if necessary, by a US military invasion . . . . just to clarify, i didn't support the bush invasion of iraq. however, i think the region is spiraling out of control and that iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons at all costs . . . . as for american acquiescence with regard to north korea's acquisition of nuclear capabilities, i think this is in-line with US interests in the far east, which is to keep korea divided and delay full-scale sino-japanese reapprochement
 

satanmcnugget

Well-known member
i dont think the US will even try for a full-scale war against Iran...more than likely a joint operation quick tactical strike with Israel...theyll prolly be in and out before anyone has time to be outraged
 

sufi

lala
I heard an interesting item somewhere a while back about Iran,

how they're well happy if saddam gets the boot, and well happy if the sunni fundy taliban get the boot, so are broadly having to support US invasions of the region, now, however, they're pretty much surrounded by the great satan

that's geopolitics for ya :D
 
B

be.jazz

Guest
dominic said:
i think the region is spiraling out of control and that iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons at all costs . . . .
If the region is "spiralling out of control," it's essentially because of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the US-led wars. How can more of the latter restore peace?

Surely, careful, long-term management by aiding the reformists (fat chance of that, given US history of favouring dictators over democrats/nationalists) and aiding the IAEA in carrying out its task is a better, cheaper and more stabilising solution than yet another war, long or short.
 
B

be.jazz

Guest
oliver craner said:
Well, Spengler is clearly reasoning from a position of insanity.

Whether or not Saddam Hussein actually intended or had the capacity to build nuclear weapons is of trifling weight in the strategic balance. Everyone is planning to build nuclear weapons. They involve 60-year-old technology no longer difficult to replicate. It hardly matters where one begins. "Kill the chicken, and let the monkey watch," as the Chinese say. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, the theocrats of Iran, the North Koreans and soon many other incalculable reprobates have or will have such plans. It hardly matters which one you attack first, so long as you attack one of them.
Is this not insanity? He casually ignores the fact that Libya never attacked anyone with their nuclear weapons and gave them up a few months ago. Also, he says that whether or not Saddam actually had or was building nuclear weapons is "trifling," glossing over the fact that this was a major reason for going to war.

Yeah, let's attack North Korea, why not? At least they actually *have* nuclear weapons. Then we can deal with Israel, right? That sounds facetious but is actually the logical extension of Spengler's ultra-Realist world of anarchy, fear and trustlessness. France has nuclear weapons, too! Won't they attack us with them one day? Pre-empt!

It's odd to claim that "The unpleasant truth is that war does have one useful function: it brings peace" while promoting perpetual war.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Yes, Spengler is insane.

He reminds me of Reza, a little. But Reza's in jail. In Iran.

Glad you enjoyed to article so much.
 

dominic

Beast of Burden
yes, i agree that the actions of the US have led, in the main, to the current chaotic situation in the Middle East. Even so, it is hardly in interests of the West, its ordinary citizens included, for Iran to develop a nuclear capacity. Accordingly, both a Bush and Kerry administration will likely have to conduct some kind of military operation against Iran . . . . US air bombing of Iraqi civilians may constitute terrorism, but so too do the actions of Hezbollah and other Tehran sponsored groups against Israel (to state the obvious). To put the matter as brutally as possible, just because "we" terrorize them, doesn't mean "we" should give them the leverage or capacity to terrorize us and our allies.
 
B

be.jazz

Guest
dominic said:
it is hardly in interests of the West, its ordinary citizens included, for Iran to develop a nuclear capacity. Accordingly, both a Bush and Kerry administration will likely have to conduct some kind of military operation against Iran . . . .
Since when is military intervention the only way to dismantle a nuclear programme? Obviously, it is the only way to dismantle one that doesn't exist, but, again, Libya gave up its weapons without having been blown to bits.

US air bombing of Iraqi civilians may constitute terrorism, but so too do the actions of Hezbollah and other Tehran sponsored groups against Israel (to state the obvious). To put the matter as brutally as possible, just because "we" terrorize them, doesn't mean "we" should give them the leverage or capacity to terrorize us and our allies.
Nuclear disarmement and terrorism are two separate issues. I don't understand the second sentence.
 

dominic

Beast of Burden
i think the issues are distinct only on paper. the real issue is fear/security, which brings the two together . . . . unless i'm sadly mistaken, hasn't iran been the leading state sponsor of terrorism since the revolution in 79? . . . . and even if the fear is irrational and not in keeping with the actual threat, are there not many in israel and the united states who fear that iran would supply its agents with nuclear devices to use in a terrorist operation against israeli/american civilians???? that is, the very same fear that bush exploited in attempting to justify the invasion of iraq (that saddam would arm osama w/ wmd) seems to have a much firmer basis in reality with respect to a nuclear iran arming hezbollah and other groups -- so goes the argument from fear (self-preservation) . . . . as for the coldly rational, geostrategic argument, there's no way the united states would abide by a nuclear state in the persian gulf. again, it is not at all clear that a nuclear north korea is contrary to u.s. interests in the far east. but a nuclear iran would pose a direct challenge to u.s. primacy in the persian gulf (where the ultimate rival is an increasingly oil-hungry china) . . . . finally, although i cannot easily account for libya having abandoned its nuclear program (perhaps a lack of national wealth combined with limited progress in acquiring nuclear capability, as well as khadaffi's own idiosyncratic development as a thinker), i doubt that the iranians could be persuaded to abandon their nuclear program, were such program near fruition. a nuclear iran would be a major player in the middle east, if not the world stage. an oil power and a nuclear power, a highly populated state, with a rich civilization dating back thousands of years . . . . indeed, acquiring a nuclear capacity is so clearly in the long-term interests of iran, that i cannot imagine even reformist elements in iran would be amenable to abandoning an advanced program. avoiding a u.n.-imposed sanctions regime could only be in the short-term interests of iran, the very short term. further, i doubt that most countries would be willing to participate in a sanctions regime against iran, given the debacle that was made of iraq . . . . so, that leaves only military options, or the threat of military force. and the best option would appear to be strikes against suspected nuclear sites by israeli special ops. and if this fails, probably u.s. incursions, if not full-scale invasion
 
Last edited:

dominic

Beast of Burden
it's a very tricky equation. on the one side, if iran achieved weapon-grade nuclear capacity and announced as much to the world, the level of fear/anxiety in the united states and israel would skyrocket, markets would destabilize, and so forth. on the other hand, perhaps "mutually assured destruction" is just the kind of logic to restore sanity to the middle east, at least among states . . . . again, what throws everything off is the american/israeli fear that islamic radicals are in no way deterred by the prospect of such destruction. so, the real question is how reasonable the fear that the iranian state, or elements thereof, would supply a terrorist group with a nuclear device. and the other question is how reasonable is it to believe that iran could be persuaded to abandon its nuclear ambitions, when the achievement of those ambitions (coupled with its oil wealth) would make it a major player (and afford it substantial freedom from the dictates of other countries)
 

dominic

Beast of Burden
i should of course add that my use of the phrase "at all costs" was foolish. certain costs would prove too high . . . . but the goal is not necessarily "peace" in the middle east. were peace the answer, war would not be on the table . . . . now that the region is out of control (thanks in large part to the US invasion and the Israel/Palestine conflict, but let's not forget radical Islam and the complicated nature of Iraqi nationalist resistance), the goal (for US policymakers and most American, if not European, citizens) is to ensure that the US remains on top relative to other powers . . . . also, i think that a Kerry administration would attempt to persuade Iran to abandon its program, and attempt to get the Europeans on board with a sanctions regime, should talks fail. And while I think all such efforts would likely fail, this is hardly an argument for not making the efforts in the first place. Process is everything in matters of legitimacy . . . . also, although I think it something of a pipe-dream to believe that reformist elements will, first, come to power in Iraq, and, second, proceed to abandon the country's nuclear program, it is worth noting that certain people in the Bush admistration, see Wolfowitz, cling to the same hope
 
Last edited:

craner

Beast of Burden
Dominic's quite right, I think. Here are the things to worry about in the near future: the collapse of the House of Saud; the assasination of Musharraf; an Iranian nuclear bomb.
 
Top