Bush’s
Plan For Iraq
And The Middle East
By Abid Mustafa
13 February, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Over
the past few months, the Bush administration in the backdrop of the
Iraq Study Group’s (ISG) report has announced its plan for Iraq—apart
from the Presidents refusal to formally engage Iran and Syria—
the plan broadly concurs with the recommendation laid out by the ISG.
Furthermore, the US has mobilised its surrogates in Egypt, Syria, Saudi
Arabia, Iran, Iraq and the gulf countries to implement this plan and
prepare the ground for the emergence of a new middle east. What follows
is a brief summary of what America is planning to achieve in Palestine,
Iraq and Iran.
Palestine.
The present US effort undertaken
by US Secretary of State Dr. Rice to kick start the peace process between
the Palestinians and the Israelis—as envisioned by the ISG—is
for now, a mere symbolic gesture.
Olmert’s government
is deeply unpopular and is engulfed in numerous scandals. It is unlikely
that Olmert will survive. Fresh elections will have to be scheduled
to form a new Israeli government—likely to be a coalition government—this
will delay the implementation of the road map. Despite Olmert’s
obvious weakness, his government like its predecessor has sanctioned
the construction of fresh settlements in West Bank— a move intended
to foil the US attempts to re-start the peace process. The proposal
elucidated by Israel’s Foreign Minister to advance negotiations
between Palestinians and Israelis, which includes psuedo final status
termed ‘political horizon’ is meaningless unless Israel
puts a halt to fresh settlement activity and stops the excavation of
Al-Aqsa mosque. The tactic of supporting the peace-process and then
simultaneously undermining it to provoke the Palestinians into violence
is an indelible feature of Israeli politics.
On the Palestinian front,
the US under Israeli pressure refused to negotiate with Hamas and instead
favoured Abbas to form a new unity government. It must be remembered
that it was Abbas’s government which Israel systematically destroyed,
and left the door ajar for Hamas to fill the political void and emerge
victorious in the parliamentary election held last year. Olmert then
proceeded to exploit Hamas’s militant credentials and its repudiation
of Israel to cut short Palestinian demands for peace and continued unilaterally
to redefine the road map.
Nevertheless, Israel’s
defeat in Lebanon destroyed Olmert’s plan and presented the US
with another opportunity to move the peace process forward. The US instructed
Abbas to form a new government and told Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria
to reign in Hamas and forge a unity government with Fatah. If the Mecca
agreement between Fatah and Hamas fails to hold —the likelihood
is very high—then America will want Abbas to convene fresh elections
to consolidate the power of his Fatah party. Already the US, Israel
and the EU have offered Abbas aid to augment his security forces in
order to offset Hamas. The tussle between Hamas and Fatah will present
Israel the pretext to unilaterally shape the peace process in the absence
of a viable Palestinian partner. When Hamas and Fatah are not squabbling
with one another, they will be busy retaliating against Israeli aggression
in the occupied territories. This cycle of violence will pervade much
of foreseeable future, stalling the quartet’s efforts to make
headway on the road map.
Even if the US succeeds in
forming unity governments in both Israel and Palestine, there is little
the Bush and the Republican Party can do to rejuvenate the road map.
With the 2008 US general elections looming, the Republican Party, as
well as the Democratic Party requires the Jewish lobby’s support
to get elected. The castigation of Jimmy Carter’s new book about
Palestine, demonstrates the power of the Jewish lobby over US foreign
policy in Palestine. This means that it will be 2009 before the US is
able to mount enough pressure to coerce Israel to make necessary compromises
with the Palestinians, and bring an end to the protracted dispute.
Iraq
America’s plan is to
carefully manage the disintegration of Iraq into three distinct entities
and retain almost 70,000 troops. These troops will be stationed in bases
scattered throughout Iraq and their function will be supplement future
wars against Turkey, Syria, Iran, Saudi-Arabia and the much feared Caliphate.
Whilst America controls the North and South of Iraq, it is the centre
of the country where the US lacks control and has struggled to co-opt
Sunni resistance fighters into a political process. Furthermore, the
Al-Sadr camp has also refused to endorse the dismemberment of Iraq and
poses a grave risk to US forces in Baghdad—Sadr City to be precise—
and Southern Iraq.
Bush’s troop surge
plan is intended to curb the activities of the Sunni resistance fighters,
the Mahdi army and other Shia tribes opposed to Iraq’s partition.
The US military is determined to counter the Mahdi army which has made
Sadr City a mainstay of its operations in Baghdad. The bastion of Sunni
resistance such as Haifa Street in Baghdad and the Anbar province have
been earmarked for a Fallujah type of assault. Politically, the US has
enlisted Syrian and Iranian assistance via back door channels to encourage
the Baathists and the Sadris to lay down arms in exchange for political
rewards. In this way, the Bush administration hopes to pacify the centre
and establish a strong foundation for the eventual dissolution of Iraq.
To help the US accomplish this feat, an international conference will
be convened where regional countries like Turkey, Syria, Iran, Jordan,
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will be given the responsibility to protect
US interests in the three new entities. Given the current magnitude
and intensity of the resistance, the probability of this plan bearing
fruit is remote. The US National Intelligence Estimate and the Council
of Foreign Relations hold similar views.
As a contingency the Bush
administration plans on withdrawing some of its troops and shifting
blame onto the Iraqi government for its failure to keep the unity of
Iraq intact. If such a scenario were to unfold, Iraq’s disintegration
would favour future US policy makers, but the Bush administration and
his Republican Party would lose the support of US voters in the US general
election. A far greater blow will be the erosion of America’s
credibility internationally among friends and foe alike.
The current opposition to
Bush’s troop surge plan in the US congress and the senate is non-binding
and has more to do with politicians repositioning themselves for the
forthcoming US general election in 2008. This also explains why the
Baker-Hamilton report set 2008 as the year to bring a significant proportion
of US troops home. The Republican Party wants to convey the impression
to US voters—in particular the staunch Republican constituencies—
that Bush’s plan worked and that the GOP is best placed to serve
the country beyond 2008.
None of this should be seen
as belittling America’s commitment to the Middle East. The announcement
by US defence secretary Gates that a further 92,000 troops are required
in the next five years underlines the fact that the US does not intend
to leave Iraq or the Middle East for the foreseeable future.
Iran
Bush’s refusal to publicly
engage Iran, his aggressive remarks against Iran in the State of the
Union address, the subsequent apprehension of Iranian diplomats by US
forces, the deployment of patriot batteries and the dispatch of an additional
aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf has increased speculation that
the US is about to launch an attack against Iran. Nonetheless, the Bush
administration has gone out of its way to reassure the world that America
has no plans to attack Iran. On 29/1/2007 Bush said, “I have no
intent upon going into Iran... I don't know how anybody can say, well,
protecting the troops means that we're going to invade Iran... we will
protect our interests in Iraq. That's what the American people expect
us to do…” On 9/2/07 Gates said, “I don't know how
many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and
I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran.”
Meanwhile, the Iranian Foreign
Ministry spokesman Seyed Mohammad Ali Hosseini on 28/1/07 revealed that
Iran had received an official letter from the US but refused to divulge
any details. Ostensibly, the Iranian government despite being publicly
derided by the Bush administration continues to promote US interests
in Iran, and neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq. The backlash against
Ahmadinejad by sections of the conservative leadership over his handling
of the nuclear issue is just one such example. In Iraq, Tehran continues
to extend support to the leader of SCIRI, ayatollah Hakim and the Badr
Brigade who have become the lynchpin of US plans for Southern Iraq.
In Afghanistan, Iran runs extensive reconstruction and training programmes
in Kabul, Herat and Kandahar. Thus far, Iran has successfully prevented
the Pushtun resistance from spreading to Northern Afghanistan. So how
does one interpret the mixed signals emanating from Washington over
Iran?
In essence, the Bush administration
is trying to accommodate two opposite views that are competing to fashion
America’s relations with Iran. The Jewish lobby and the neoconservatives
are advocating punitive measures against Iran’s nuclear programme,
whereas the realists represented by the Baker-Hamilton study group are
in the favour of engaging Iran. The Baker-Hamilton group characterises
the body of opinion held by the US establishment that believes the Bush
administration has exceeded its mandate to the ‘Israel first’
agenda. It is evident that the Bush administration fearful of the upcoming
US general elections has succumb to some of the demands of the Jewish
lobby, hence a proportion of the suggestions outlined by the Iraq Study
Group have been deferred to be pursued via back-door diplomatic channels.
It is unprecedented for the
Jewish lobby to exercise so much influence on the US government through
the manipulation of the media, think tanks and the congress. He executive
director of the Jewish Institute for (Israeli) National Security Affairs
(JINSA), Thomas Neumann said a few months back: “The administration
today was stronger on Israel than any administration in my lifetime.”
Hilary Clinton felt the immediate power of the lobby when she was forced
to retract her statement about engagement with Iran. Nevertheless, it
must be stated hear that the Jewish lobby’s influences is restricted
to certain issues pertaining to Israel’s security and nothing
more.
With the UNSC set to review
Iran’s compliance of its demands to halt uranium enrichment later
this month, the struggle between the two camps has gained momentum.
At present, the realists have managed to reduce the chance of war with
Iran, and are manipulating the rhetoric and the military build-up to
coerce the Iranian leadership into implementing US demands. These demands
encompass Iran’s nuclear programme, and Iran’s involvement
in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon. These issues and will be discussed
publicly with Iran when it is suitable for the US to do so—ultimately
leading to the normalisation of relations between the two countries.
This also explains why the Iranian leadership minus Ahmadinejad is undertaking
actions that are in full agreement with US policy goals for the region
and beyond: America is using Iran to achieve the following:-
1) Stabilise Southern Iraq
and help the US accentuate the sectarian violence between Shias and
Sunnis.
2) Stabilise Northern and Western Afghanistan, and prevent the Pushtun
resistance from expanding its tentacles into these areas.
3) Stabilise Lebanon and reduce the influence of European powers by
using Hizbollah
4) Strike fear in the GCC countries about Shia Iran’s hegemonic
ambitions and tie them into a new security pact that places the security
of oil fields in American hands
5) Galvanise Sunni states to formalise relations with Israel
6) Use Iran’s nuclear threat to establish missile defence bases
in Poland and Czechoslovakia. In Eastern Europe, the Bush administration’s
aim is to shore up America’s ability to check Russian expansion
westward. On 9 Feb 2007, Secretary of Russian National Security Council
was critical of US plans and said that there was no rationale for basing
American antimissile radars and interceptors in former Soviet satellite
states that have now joined the NATO alliance
7) Perpetuate Shia-Sunni divisions across the region in preparation
for the emergence of a Shia Crescent.
Even if the Bush administration
decides to undertake military action against Iran, it will be limited
and designed to appease the ‘Israel first supporters’ as
well as preserve Iran’s capability to ensure that Tehran can accomplish
the above goals. Besides, military strikes will strengthen the Iranian
regime and enable it to fuel Shia uprisings across the Middle East—bringing
the US a step closer to its penultimate goal of placing the oil fields
of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries under Shia control.
The other goal is to use Iran as a bulwark against the future Caliphate.
Syria
Officially the Bush administration
depicts Syria as an international pariah state and eschews all forms
of public contact with Assad’s regime. The administration argues
that Syria’s support for Hizbollah and Palestinian militants,
its interference in Lebanon and its encouragement of militants in Iraq
is highly irresponsible and not conducive to regional peace and stability.
However, away from public scrutiny the US government wears a different
lens and views Syria as an important surrogate that is needed to reduce
insecurity in Iraq, and safeguard US interests in Lebanon and Israel.
Over the past two years the
US has been secretly orchestrating talks between Syria and Israel to
settle the matter of Golan Heights. The Israeli paper Ha'aretz said
the meetings, held in Europe, began in September 2004 initiated by the
Syrians. They involved Alon Liel, a former director general of Israel's
foreign ministry, Geoffrey Aronson of the Foundation for Middle East
Peace in Washington, and Ibrahim Suleiman, a Syrian businessman living
in Washington who is from the same Alawite sect as the Syrian president,
Bashar Assad. The paper further states that a document was drawn up
dated August 2005, covering security, water, borders and normalisation
of ties. It called for a demilitarised zone on the Golan Heights and
an early warning post on Mount Hermon operated by the US, with military
zones on each country's side. The paper also confirmed that US Vice
President Dick Cheney was kept abreast of the talks. President Assad
of Syria has even tried to convert the secret talks into a formal peace
process with Israel but has been rebuffed both by Tel Aviv and Washington.
In many ways the Bush administration’s approach mentioned above
echoes some of the recommendation put forward by the ISG. However, the
need for Jewish votes in 2008 has made it difficult for the Bush administration
to designate the talks the official status it deserves.
Over in Lebanon, the Syrian
presence directly contributed to the protection of US interests, since
the Taif agreement in 1989. Nevertheless, the insinuation of Syrian
officials in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri and the subsequent demands
by EU, Israelis and Lebanese politicians for Syria to withdraw its troops
presented fresh challenges to American interests in Lebanon. The EU
succeeded in Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon and in consultation
with the US imposed UN resolutions that stipulate the handover of senior
Syrian officials—many of them close to Assad—
to be tried by a tribunal under the auspices of the UN. Furthermore,
the resolutions demand cessation of support to Hizbollah and for Syria
to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty. These resolutions and the assassinations
of prominent politicians have deeply divided Lebanon into pro-American
and pro-EU camps. The Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and Speaker of
the Parliament Nabih Berry have repeatedly thwarted Fouad Siniora’s
attempts to cast parliamentary votes to legalise the jurisdiction of
the UN tribunal, whereas the mass demonstration by Hizbollah have sought
to embarrass Siniora’s government internationally. At present
the US is relying on Hizbollah, pro-US Lebanese politicians and Syria
to diminish the influence of Europe (Britain and France) in Lebanon.
It is unlikely for the US to completely relinquish Syria’s control
over Lebanon and its support for Hizbollah until some sort of compromise
is reached between the US and the EU that protects Assad’s regime
as well as US interests in Lebanon.
In Iraq, the public perception
is that Syria is encouraging Islamic fighters to cross over into Iraq
to undermine the authority of the Iraqi government. The reality is that
Syria has played an active role in infiltrating such Islamists and passing
on valuable intelligence to the US led coalition. Moreover, it is an
acknowledged fact that Syria enjoys limited influence over the Sunni
resistance fighters operating in Iraq— a point emphasised by the
ISG report. Syria does have some influence over the Baathists. And after
Saddam’s execution, Damascus is working hard to drive a wedge
between the Baathists and the Sunni militants who have offered material
assistance to Baathists in exchange for their support for Islam. Added
to this effort, the Syrians have restored full diplomatic relations
with Iraq after an absence of 24 years. So behind the scenes, Syria
has extended its cooperation to the US in many ways. The US has gradually
begun to engage Syria over the issue of Iraqi refugees and it is expected
that as the Bush plan in Iraq falters, the contact between the two countries
will expand to encompass most, if not all the issues.
For over fifty-years the
US has depended on the rulers and the resources of the Muslims world
to achieve its status as the world’s sole super power. Indeed
without the support of rulers and resources of the Muslim world, America
could not have won any of the gulf war or defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan
and won the cold war. Ironically, while America’s staunch allies
like Israel and Europe are putting out the knives for the US, the Muslims
rulers are pulling out all stops to preserve America’s hegemony
over the Muslim ummah. How long America’s primacy in the region
continues on life-support depends entirely upon how quickly the Muslim
world re-establishes the caliphate.
Abid Mustafa is a political commentator who specialises on Muslim affairs
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights