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

[Michael Hudson <michael.hudson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I love it. I think Iran should claim that the missiles are intended for
purely defensive purposes, to defend itself against a prospective possible
attack from the Czech Republic or Poland.
    Michael Hudson


On 1/11/08 6:47 AM, "Yoshie Furuhashi" <critical.montages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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/>