Naval
Encounter Highlights Tensions Stoked By Bush Trip To Middle East
By
Peter Symonds
08 January,
2008
WSWS.org
An
incident in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday involving US warships and
small, high-speed Iranian craft has served to heighten tensions in the
Gulf on the eve of President Bush’s departure for his first extended
trip to the Middle East. The Iranian foreign ministry downplayed the
encounter as “a normal issue” that “happens every
now and then for both sides”, but the Pentagon and White House
did the opposite, claiming that the Iranian actions had been provocative
and dangerous.
The only
details have been provided by the US. Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, commander
of the US Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain, told the media that five Iranian
boats had approached three US warships at high speed as they passed
through the Strait of Hormuz some three miles outside Iranian waters.
A radio message warned that the US warships would shortly explode as
two of the Iranian craft came within 500 metres of the USS Ingraham
and dropped white box-like objects in its path. The US warships increased
their “onboard readiness” but no shots were fired and the
Ingraham passed safely. The entire incident was over in less than 30
minutes.
A series
of high-level US warnings have followed. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman
described the moves, allegedly involving the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
(IRG), as a “reckless and dangerous and potentially hostile act”.
In a separate statement, White House national security spokesman Gordon
Johndroe declared: “We urge the Iranians to refrain from such
provocative actions that could lead to a dangerous incident in the future.”
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates declared the incident to be “troubling”
and “a matter of real concern”.
All these
pronouncements have to be taken with a large grain of salt. While there
are no independent accounts of what took place, it certainly cannot
be ruled out that the encounter was deliberately provoked by the US
navy, rather than the IRG vessels, with the intention of inflaming tensions
as Bush arrives in the region tomorrow. Washington has a long history
of staging such provocations, including for the purpose of creating
the pretext for war. In 1964, for instance, the Johnson administration
manufactured the notorious “Gulf of Tonkin incident” that
provided the justification for escalating the US military intervention
in Vietnam.
An examination
of Bush’s trip to the Middle East makes clear that Washington
has far more to gain by highlighting the “Iranian danger”
than Tehran has in risking a potentially disastrous military confrontation.
The US president has repeatedly declared in the past few days that one
of the purposes of the seven-day tour is to warn of the threat posed
by Iran. He told Al Arabiya TV last week: “I view the Iranian
regime as a danger. Part of the trip is to tell people, yes, we’re
engaged to help you [against Iran], if you want our help, to enhance
security.”
Nominally,
the focus of Bush’s tour is to advance the decision taken at the
Annapolis summit in November to secure a comprehensive treaty between
Israel and the Palestinian Authority by the end of the year. The US
president is to spend the first three days of the trip in Israel and
the West Bank in discussions with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. No
one, however, expects any major breakthroughs in this fanciful project.
Indeed, in the lead up to Bush’s arrival, the Israeli military
has been engaged in repressive actions, including a large-scale, three-day
operation in the West Bank town of Nablus, no doubt to underscore Israeli
demands that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas dismantle “terrorist
organisations”.
The subtext
of the Annapolis summit was to ensure the support of “moderate”
Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, for the US administration’s
plans to intensify hostilities—both economic and military—against
Iran. Over the past year, Washington has sought to capitalise on concerns
in “Sunni” Arab capitals over the growing influence of “Shiite”
Iran following the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of
Tehran’s main regional rival—the regime of Saddam Hussein.
The US campaign has been accompanied by escalating demands for UN sanctions
and economic and military threats against Iran over its alleged nuclear
weapons programs, support for anti-US insurgents in Iraq and backing
for “terrorist” organisations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon
and Hamas in the Palestinian territories.
The White
House plans suffered a significant setback shortly after the Annapolis
summit when 16 US intelligence agencies issued a long-delayed National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, which concluded that Tehran had
ended any nuclear weapons program in 2003. By puncturing the Bush administration’s
often sensational but unsubstantiated claims about the Iranian nuclear
threat, the NIE undermined a potential pretext for a confrontation against
Iran, on which Israel and other US allies had based their own calculations.
Regional responses
Bush’s
trip to the Middle East is aimed at shoring up US alliances in the region,
above all by resurrecting the “Iranian threat”. Last Friday
he told the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot: “Part of the reason
I’m going to the Middle East is to make abundantly clear to nations
in that part of the world that we view Iran as a threat, and that the
[NIE] in no way lessens that threat, but in fact clarifies the threat.”
It is no
accident that Bush’s remarks are directed to Israel, whose leaders
have been bitterly critical of the NIE. The Israeli political and military
establishment, which regards Iran as its main regional rival, has repeatedly
sought assurances that the Bush administration would “deal with”
Tehran before leading office. Senior ministers have warned that Israel
would take military action of its own to disable the “threat”
posed by Iran’s nuclear facilities.
When Bush
lands in Israel tomorrow, the item on the top of the agenda, behind
closed doors at least, is going to be Iran, rather than a treaty with
the Palestinian Authority. Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian expatriate and
security analyst living in Israel, told the Washington Post on Monday:
“Iran, for Israel, is topic Number One. Most of the Israeli politicians
and population see Iran as a greater threat than Hamas. And the Israeli
government will be eager for Bush to show them that he is still committed
to stopping Iran.”
A comment
in the right-wing Jerusalem Post on Sunday was dismissive of Bush’s
reassurance on Saturday that the US would defend Israel from any Iranian
attack. “The fact that Bush is travelling here to show his support
and commitment to Israel and the region must not be minimised. The gesture
is significant and appreciated,” it stated. “But Bush himself
is a leader who presumably understands that it is the bottom line that
matters, and that line is a simple one: Will Iran be allowed to go nuclear
or not?”
The British-based
Times indicated that Israeli security officials intended to brief Bush
“on their latest intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program—and
how it could be destroyed”. Israeli intelligence, the report stated,
had “rock solid” evidence that Iran had restarted its nuclear
weapons program. “Ehud Barak, the defence minister, is said to
want to convince him [Bush] that an Israeli military strike against
uranium enrichment facilities in Iran would be feasible if diplomatic
efforts failed to halt nuclear operations,” it added.
The remainder
of Bush trip will be spent in the Persian Gulf—Kuwait, Bahrain,
the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where he will deliver a keynote address
in Abu Dhabi, and Saudi Arabia—with a final stop in Egypt to meet
President Hosni Mubarak. All these authoritarian Arab regimes, which
had expressed concerns about Iranian influence and the emerging “Shiite
crescent”, were part of Washington’s plans for an anti-Iranian
alliance. But in the wake of the NIE, the conclusion was reached that
the US would have to shelve any plans for a military attack on Iran.
In comments to the Washington Post, Arab League Secretary General Amr
Moussa summed up the reaction saying: “As long as they have no
nuclear program... why should we isolate Iran? Why punish Iran, now?”
Signs emerged
that the US allies were seeking their own accommodation with Tehran,
which in quick succession notched up a number of diplomatic advances.
In early December, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed a
meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which was formed in 1981 in
the midst of the Iran-Iraq war to counter Tehran. In another first for
an Iranian president, Saudi King Abdullah personally invited Ahmadinejad
to visit Mecca for the annual haj religious pilgrimage and later held
talks with him. Also last month, top Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani
visited Egypt, a country that has frozen its ties with Iran for 28 years,
and spoke of cooperation on nuclear programs and the resumption of diplomatic
relations.
At a press
conference convened last week by the US-based Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), analyst Jon Alterman pointed to the logic
behind these steps. “We like to think of ourselves as a constant
in the Gulf... [But] Iran is a constant. Iran is something that they
have been dealing with not for years or decades, but for millennia...
They are more reluctant to confront Iran. They are more interested in
trying to co-opt Iran, because their sense is that the United States
may come and go, but Iran will not come and go.”
At the same
briefing, longstanding CSIS analyst Anthony Cordesman highlighted the
growing influence in the Gulf of US rivals, particularly from Asia.
After noting concerns about Iran and the US occupation of Iraq, he explained:
“It is also a region which had oil at a low of $10.98 in 1998
and it went to over $100 a barrel this week. It is a region where the
primary customer isn’t Europe or the United States or the West;
it’s Asia. And not only [is] Asia the primary customer now; it’s
the primary customer that is going to steadily grow in terms of demand
and influence and money.”
Cordesman’s
remarks highlight the central aim of the Bush administration, and indeed
the American political establishment as a whole, which is to secure
US dominance in the key oil-rich region over its major rivals in Europe
and Asia, especially the emerging economic giant China. Washington has
nothing to offer the Gulf states economically. In fact, Bush is coming
cap in hand to seek their assistance in helping to bail out American
corporations hit by the current credit squeeze. Abu Dhabi’s investment
authority, flush with funds from high oil prices, recently promised
to put $7.5 billion to help prop up Citigroup Inc, still reeling from
the subprime crisis.
The US has
longstanding defence ties and huge US military bases in the Gulf states.
During his trip, Bush is expected to outline plans for closer security
ties with US allies and to consolidate $20 billion in arms deals that
were offered last year. But if these countries, all of which have considerable
economic clout, reach their own accommodation with Iran then the US
security offer will no longer have the same attraction and Washington
risks seeing its influence waning as other major powers seek a larger
stake in the region. The only lever that Washington retains is the military
one that it has recklessly wielded already to invade and occupy Afghanistan
and Iraq.
It is in
this context that the incident has taken place in the Strait of Hormuz,
just three days before Bush’s touchdown in the Middle East. If
it did not organise the naval affair, the Bush administration is certainly
seizing on it with both hands as it seeks to exploit the “Iranian
threat” to shore up its alliances in the region.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.