[A-List] Bush's Last Throw against Iran

["Yoshie Furuhashi" <critical.montages@xxxxxxxxx>]

By far my favorite observer on Iranian affairs. -- Yoshie

<http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA10Ak03.html>
<http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA10Ak04.html>
10 January 2008
Bush's last throw against Iran
By M K Bhadrakumar

Playing around with the Persians can be risky - especially when the
endgame nears. US President George W Bush is learning this
civilizational truth. He could have learned from the Jimmy Carter
administration.

The similarity is striking. A beleaguered White House increasingly
looks irrelevant while the alienated country keenly searches for an
idea of leadership that can offer a clean break with the past. That
was also how the Carter administration looked 30 years ago.

What can a superpower do if someone "threatens" it? The Pentagon
warned on Monday that five small Iranian speedboats "threatened" a
powerful US fleet comprising one frigate, a destroyer and a cruiser in
the Strait of Hormuz by coming within 500 meters of them. It warned of
"provocative actions that could lead to a dangerous incident in the
future". Tehran calmly shrugged it off, "That is something normal that
takes place every now and then for each party, and it is settled after
identification of the two parties."

Surely, the US can attack Iran in retribution. That is always the
prerogative of a superpower in a unipolar world. That will also be
fully in accord with the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive
war. The influential Israeli lobby in Washington would even ensure a
bipartisan consensus, despite the divisiveness and acrimony in US
politics in an election year.

Russian missiles for Iran

But there is a rider. A war against Iran may not be an option for
long. Moscow has begun hinting that Russia's S-300 missiles are being
dispatched to Iran. There is much constructive ambiguity over the
subject in both Moscow and Tehran, which leaves Washington nervous and
guessing. The medium-range S-300 surface-to-air missiles, together
with the short-range Tor-M1 systems supplied by Moscow to Tehran
earlier, would help counter any attempt by the Bush administration to
bully Iran. To quote the Russian daily Izvestiya, "Iran will be
Moscow's trump card in its drive against the third stage of US missile
defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic."

President Vladimir Putin's "asymmetrical response" could drill a hole
right through Bush's Middle Eastern policy bucket. The Tor-M1 is
equally effective against aircraft, cruise missiles and unmanned
aerial vehicles, but it is a close-battle weapon, the last defense
line that engages or eliminates targets that may get through the
S-300s. That is to say, Tor-M1 plus S-300 would for the first time
provide Iran a credible modern multi-echelon air defense system
covering any key strategic facility.

What does it add up to? The Bush administration is beginning to grasp
that it has no option but to negotiate with Iran. But a new danger is
that negotiations with Iran, too, may soon become a non-option.
Persians generally don't talk with people who are inconsequential.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said last week that at
the moment, relations with the US are of "no benefit to the Iranian
nation. The day such relations are of benefit, I will be the first one
to approve of that." He seems to be anticipating the post-Bush era.

US policy disintegrating

These geopolitical realities cannot be overlooked. Bush was due to set
out from Washington on Wednesday on his Middle East tour - Israel,
Palestine, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi
Arabia and Egypt - virtually with empty hands. The gamble looks
desperate, even for a congenital gambler. Distrust of US regional
policy in the Persian Gulf region has extended even to Kuwait, which
hosts about 15,000 US troops and which served as the launch pad for
the Iraq invasion in 2003. Bush has two objectives in his Middle East
mission - weigh in on the faltering post-Annapolis Palestinian-Israeli
peace process of last November and seek support for US concerns about
Iran.

But Annapolis' pledge to end "bloodshed, suffering and decades of
conflict" is caught up in the swirl of escalating violence and
dwindling optimism in the Palestinian territories. The perception in
the region is that Bush's blatantly pro-Israeli vision altogether
clouds his judgement. His sincerity of purpose is held in doubt.
Writing in the moderate Beirut newspaper Daily Star, one of the Middle
East's respected opinion makers, Rami Khouri, says, "With all due
respect, President Bush might do the region and the entire world a
favor by staying home - if he plans to visit the Middle East for
speeding up the same American policy of blindly supporting Israel,
sending arms and money to Arab authoritarian regimes, opposing
mainstream Islamist groups that enjoy widespread Arab popular
legitimacy, ignoring realistic democratic transitions, and actively
pressuring governments and movements that defy the United States."

When a liberal voice like Khouri quivers with indignation and passion,
the mood in the region becomes very obvious. In a nutshell, Arabs view
Bush's world as a political rodeo, which is good only for
entertainment. Not only has the Bush administration's attempt to
weaken Hamas in Palestine failed, but also Egypt refuses to heed US
bidding and cooperate with Israel in muzzling Hamas.

And Hamas remains defiant. with its chief Khalid Meshaal saying on
Monday in a speech in Damascus, "No Arab country has asked Hamas to
give up on the current situation in Gaza ... Hamas will resist until
the last Israeli soldier leaves Palestinian soil. This is a strategic
choice. Resistance will continue - no one can stop it."

Meshaal revealed that Hamas turned down a European proposal for a
meeting with "Zionists who are our enemies". Hamas isn't alone in
thinking of Bush's visit to the region as nothing more than an attempt
to enhance his image before he quits the White House. Fatah and the
Islamic Jihad remain equally skeptical. Opinion polls show that almost
two thirds of Palestinians (and three fourths of Israelis) doubt
Bush's capacity to influence events in the Palestinian territories.

Bush targets Iran

But where people misjudge is that the real purpose of Bush's visit to
the region lies elsewhere. His principal aim is to keep the heat on
Iran. Bush admitted that in his talks in the region, he would focus on
containing the "hostile aspirations" of Iran. He told the Israeli
newspaper Yediot Ahnronot, "Part of the reason I'm going to the Middle
East is to make it abundantly clear to nations in that part of the
world that we view Iran as a threat, and that the National
Intelligence Estimate [NIE] in no way lessens that threat, but in fact
clarifies that threat."

At the first halt of his tour on Thursday - Israel - Bush will
certainly have a receptive audience. Israel hopes to hear Bush's
assurance that the NIE released late last year changes nothing in the
direction of US policy toward Iran, even though it concluded that Iran
is no longer pursuing a nuclear-weapons program.

But Israel also knows that's an assurance Bush is no longer competent
to give, as the Iran problem has become a medium-term issue. Indeed,
there are voices within the Israeli security and foreign-policy
community who think it would not be a bad thing if Washington opened a
direct channel to Tehran. Then again, there is the perennial sense of
uneasiness that once the US and Iran get going, they will leave Israel
out in the cold.

Having said that, the Bush administration is ratcheting up rhetoric
against Iran. No doubt, the Strait of Hormuz incident comes in very
handy. Whether Washington orchestrated the incident, we will never
know. But the incident most certainly makes out a neat case for the
massive arms deals worth US$20 billion that Washington is offering
pro-Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf.

It corroborates US Defense Secretary Robert Gates' recent call for the
establishment of an "air and missile defense umbrella" over Persian
Gulf states to deter missile attacks by Iran. (It is immaterial
whether the real US target is Iran, or Russia.)The Pentagon announced
last month proposed sales of Patriot missile defense and early warning
systems to the UAE and Kuwait worth more than $10 billion. The
Pentagon also notified the US Congress of a sale to Saudi Arabia of
upgraded airborne warning and control systems worth $400 million.

The Persian Gulf is skeptical

Arms purchases are always an interesting affair for Arab rulers,
especially in such roaring times when oil sells for US$100 a barrel.
However, it is an entirely different thing that they do not believe in
Bush's rhetoric about Iran's "aggressive ambitions". Al-Hayat, the
Saudi-owned newspaper published from London, commented on Bush's
rhetoric: "This language is rendering the US's regional allies
confused about the real policies of Washington ... Washington is
speaking in dual tone, with US military officials commending the
Iranian role in minimizing the threat to the forces in Iraq, and the
CIA at the same time highlighting the danger posed by Iran's alleged
nuclear program."

Arab League secretary general Abu Moussa posed a tricky question to
the Washington Post: "As long as they [Iran] have no nuclear program
... why should we isolate Iran? Why punish Iran now?" Clearly,
Washington's plan for creating an anti-Iran alliance of "pro-West"
Arab states in the Persian Gulf region - raison d'etre of the
Annapolis conference - has conclusively disintegrated.

Not only that, Arab regimes are working out their own accommodation
with Tehran. Iran, on its part, has sustained the active momentum of
its diplomacy with its Persian Gulf neighbors. Thus, Tehran has done a
smart thing by scheduling for the weekend the visit of the chief of
the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, precisely
when Bush touches down in the Persian Gulf. From all accounts, the
Iranians plan a red-carpet welcome for ElBaradei, including a meeting
with Khamenei.

Again, Iran is swiftly building on the positive climate generated by
the invitation to Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad to attend the
Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Doha on December 2 and by the
friendly gesture by Saudi King Abdullah to invite him to attend the
hajj in Mecca. Tehran has reached out to Cairo in a major initiative
to repair the ties with Egypt, which were disrupted during the Iranian
revolution in 1979. In a path-breaking visit to Cairo last week,
Khamenei's representative to the National Security Council, Ali
Larijani, offered a resumption of diplomatic relations, as well as
cooperation in the nuclear field.

>From Cairo, Larijani proceeded to Damascus, where he met Hamas chief
Khaled Meshaal, the secretary general of the Islamic Jihad, Ramadhan
Abdullah Shalah, and top officials of the Lebanese Amal and Hezbollah
movements. Later, talking to newsmen in Damascus, Larijani likened
Bush's recent threats against Iran to the "cries of worried aged women
who create a commotion to cover up their fears".

The soft-spoken Iranian intellectual seldom uses such colorful
language. He was obviously making a harsh point. The purpose of
Larijani's visit to Damascus was clear. Tehran wants to express
solidarity with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's rejection of the
American (and French) overtures aimed at persuading Damascus to cease
its ties with Hezbollah and Hamas and to distance itself from Tehran.
Iran is simply delighted that the Syrian leadership "rejected this
barter, preferring the 'hell' of its relationship with Iran and the
preservation of its interests in Lebanon to the 'paradise' of an
opening to America", to quote al-Hayat.

Khamenei praises Ahmadinejad

Meanwhile, Tehran remains firm on the Palestinian issue and Lebanon,
confident in the knowledge that its alliance with Damascus is intact,
and, more important, that its stance is in tune with the overwhelming
public opinion in the region. Indeed, Helena Cobban, the shrewd
contributing editor of the Boston Review, posed a couple of questions
in her blog: "Did the leaders of all these countries transmit warm and
hearty invitations to the US president that he couldn't turn down? Or,
did Washington propose these visits, and the Arab rulers involved
found they had no way to squirm out of their duties as US satraps in
the region?"

Also, in the immediate run-up to Bush's arrival in the region,
Khamenei made it abundantly clear in a series of speeches that he
solidly endorses the policies of Ahmadinejad. Khamenei was signaling
to Washington. Last Thursday, in one of his most significant
foreign-policy speeches in the recent period, Khamenei went to the
extent of chastising anyone who propagated that US hostility toward
Iran was a reaction to Ahmadinejad's firebrand statements. "Its [US]
enmity is with the principles of the Iranian nation and it has been
there since the beginning of the Iranian revolution," Khamenei
insisted.

He admonished any "moderates" within Iran who would want a halt to
Iran's uranium enrichment activities so as to placate the West.
Khamenei warned, "Some people are challenging the system and the
government over this and, acting in concert with the enemy, they
attempt to create despondency. The nation should be watchful about
such [Western] infiltration." (Interestingly, in a debate televised
live on December 16, prior to his departure for the hajj pilgrimage,
Ahmadinejad warned that at an "appropriate time" he would disclose
some "untold stories" about the nuclear issue, which, he said, was one
of Iran's "toughest battles", more momentous than the nationalization
of the country's oil industry.)

Again, in another speech, Khamenei pointed out that the Ahmadinejad
government's "sense of responsibility" and its "self-belief" is the
sure guarantee of the country's progress. He praised the government
for observing "justice" and "perseverance and self-belief" in
advancing the goals of the Iranian revolution. Khamenei said
Ahmadinejad has "successfully carried out development projects and
helped remove the problems of the people as well as honorably
proceeding with the goals and values of the Iranian revolution", and
this despite US propaganda aimed at "weakening national resolve and
forcing the people to backtrack from their legitimate rights".

Bush's last gamble

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad remains focused on his domestic priorities. He
just announced that Iran's budget for the coming fiscal year will make
a whopping 30% increase in allocations for development plans.
Addressing the Majlis (Parliament) on Tuesday, he announced
legislation for disbursing a part of Iran's oil revenue for the first
time directly to the common people - in fulfillment of his major
election pledge.

Evidently, Tehran is keeping cool nerves. It factors a real
possibility that the Bush administration is capable of resorting to
something irrational out of sheer desperation. It is conscious of the
growing sense of frustration in the White House. In his recent
speeches, Khamenei warned that Iran shouldn't lower its guard since it
is still passing through a "crisis period". But then, he added, the
situation at present could only be as sensitive as numerous past
occasions since the Iranian revolution, which the regime successfully
overcame. He referred to Washington's encouragement of Saddam Hussein
for launching the eight-year war in the 1980s and the numerous US
conspiracies since then against the Iranian regime.

All in all, the Bush administration finds itself entrapped. The
Iranian regime has proven to be a tough nut for it to crack. All the
talk about dissensions within the Iranian regime spilling over in lava
form has turned out to be whistling in the wind.

The leitmotif of Bush's high-profile tour of the Middle East is
unmistakably Iran. But Washington's Iran policy lies in tatters and it
has no choice but to ratchet up anti-Iran rhetoric, though it realizes
there are no takers in the Middle East for such rhetoric of fire and
brimstone. The danger now is that Tehran may choose to hunker down and
prefer to deal with the next US administration.

Tehran once heeded back-channel pleas from Ronald Reagan's campaign
managers not to negotiate the hostage crisis with the Carter
administration in its final months in the White House so that Reagan
could claim the credit for the denouement. Bush is certainly better
placed than Carter insofar as presidential hopefuls such as Barack
Obama and Mike Huckabee would never do such a Reaganite thing on him.

Actually, the danger to the Bush legacy comes from faraway places.
Continued delay in constructively engaging Iran will only open the
gateway wider for the international community to encroach into a
region that until four years ago used to be the exclusive strategic
preserve of the US. China is already wading deep into the region, and
Russia too. The S-300 missiles from Russia are a sign that US
dominance of the Middle East is in serious jeopardy.

M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign
Service for over 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador
to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and to Turkey (1998-2001).
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>