Visit Oluseye's column >>

OLUSEYEHome Page

There has never been a time when liberal ideals were fully realized... Hayek, 1960.
Add To Watchlist
Articles Posted: 144; Links Seeded: 2179
Member Since: 3/2006Last Seen: 10/14/2009

Bush escalates the conflict-With Iran!

advertisement

The real news in Bush's speech last night was not his declaration, against all reason, that he will escalate his war in Iraq. The real news is that Bush is going to push on the fault lines with Iran and Syria. From the speech;

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity - and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

President Bush has a point. It is true that terrorists are coming into Iraq from Syria, including Al Qaeda operatives. You have to note that Mr. Bush does not say Syria is enabling terrorists to come into Iran. He used the word "allowing" which might be an exaggeration since Syria claims to have scaled up patrols on this mostly desert border. The US Military in November had also declared that there was no evidence that Syria was enabling terrorist movements into Iraq.

The claim against Iran is a bit more curious. It is also based on a basic truth. the truth is that there are many indicators that many of the Shiite Militias in Iraq are allied with Iran. What is curious is that these same militias are the backbone of the Al Mailiki government which Mr. Bush wants to send 21,500 more young blood to "aid". If you are going to demonise Iran for these activities you have to demonise its allies too, don't you. This is not to argue that Iran should support or not support militancy in Iraq. However, as we know Saudi Arabia is also aiding the Sunnis which are also attacking US troops.

It makes it seem like Mr. Bush has thrown the Syria-Iran angle into his "plan" for another reason. In the speech he also talked about working "with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region". It seems clear then that he is again resorting to the methods used for pushing America into war in Iraq. In the previous paragraph he talks about an intention to "(address) Syria and Iran". This was in the context of border policing and the movement of material to fighters in Iraq. In the next he ties it to nuclear weapons.

Some might say this is a legitimate game. Many have argued that the real threat from Iran is not that it will nuke Tel Aviv but that with nukes it will have leverage to spread its brand of Shia Islamism. In this sense, it is legitimate to try to connect the dots. The problem with this is that Iran is NOT responsible for the situation in Iraq. It is Mr. Bush who has put this festering sore in Iraq on the world.

If Iran did not have a nuclear enrichment programme, and was not supporting its kin in Iraq, Iraq will still very likely be a mess because , at risk of repeating cliches, the situation in Iraq is one of unresolved national questions. It requires political settlement. It is simply hypocritical to think that Iran will not act to help its kin in Iraq consolidate their power.

Mr. Bush created this terrible situation in which American troops are being hit, not just by attacks from Iranian supported militia but also those receiving aid from the Saudis who remain American allies.

President Bush seems to be making a Machiavellian play here. Since he is beleaguered in the Iranian front and completely bereft of popular support at home, he is attempting to rally support by ratcheting up the conflict with an enemy most people can identify against. This is where the deceit comes in. Iran and Iraq are not tied.

In case you were thinking that this was just rhetoric, you did not listen to the news this morning. Reuters is reporting that US forces have attacked the Iranian Consulate in Arbil, Northern Iraq. The Iranians reported this, and five Iranian officials were taken.

Military actions taken against the embassy of another nation could be an act of aggression. Attacking the embassy of any nation is virtually tantamount to attacking that nation. Has the military action against Iran started?

In December the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier group arrived in the Persian Gulf. The USS John C. Stennis strike group will deploy this month and will put an additional 5000 US sailors into the region. We are witnessing a surge which has until now been interpreted as a show of power. At this moment it could be interpreted that the US is going to take several military actions against Iran and Syria and the US is aiming to secure the Gulf in pre-emption of any Iranian plans to retaliate through Naval operations.

If this is true it would appear that the preliminary conditions for the full-scale attack of Iran are being set. Some analysts think that air assets could also be mobilised in short order. These could be used along the borders Iraq shares with Iran and Syria.

Given that US ground forces are reportedly stretched, it does not seem that major combat operations against Iran are about to begin. This scaling up of military might against Iran might well be a gambit to get the Iranians to attack. Someone called it an attempt to spark a Gulf of Tonkin incident.

It could also be creating an excuse to create a real military mission in Iraq where none exists. If the US goes after Iran, it is predictable that the Shiite militias in Iraq will scale up action against the US. This would probably create the conditions for mobilising popular and military support for scaling up US military presence in Iraq and create a real military mission where none exists now.

What is clear is that Mr. Bush has chosen to escalate the conflict with Iran. We can only watch and see what unfolds.

  • 22 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
10
8.8
4.7
{"commentId":469834,"authorDomain":"keld"}

He escalates the conflict in more than one way: US forces storm Iranian consulate:

    US forces have stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized five members of staff. The troops raided the building at about 0300 (0001GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials.
{"commentId":469834,"threadId":"67204","contentId":"515598","authorDomain":"keld"}
  • 4 votes
Reply#1 - Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:13 AM EST
{"commentId":469846,"authorDomain":"keld"}

Sorry, I didn't see you already had covered that.

{"commentId":469846,"threadId":"67204","contentId":"515598","authorDomain":"keld"}
  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:31 AM EST
Reply
{"commentId":469918,"authorDomain":"TomB1002067"}

Could be "Viet Nam 2.0"

In any event, Iran will have to be dealt with if we are really interested in finishing the job. And the corrupt Malaki Shiite government in Iraq overthrown (Yes, I know we allowed Malaki to gain power in the first place).

{"commentId":469918,"threadId":"67204","contentId":"515598","authorDomain":"TomB1002067"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#2 - Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:50 AM EST
{"commentId":471048,"authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}

Could be "Viet Nam 2.0"

Absolutely. And we couldn't have Vietnam redux without re-imagining the bombing of Cambodia, with updated special effects!

{"commentId":471048,"threadId":"67204","contentId":"515598","authorDomain":"PrimarySources"}
  • 1 vote
#2.1 - Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:17 PM EST
Reply
{"commentId":469927,"authorDomain":"acidreflux"}
Military actions taken against the embassy of another nation could be an act of aggression.

As is funding "freedom fighters" to shoot at the soldiers of another nation, to be perfectly fair. It's really hard to find any saints in this fight. I do agree with you that the mess over there is primarily a US caused problem, however.

{"commentId":469927,"threadId":"67204","contentId":"515598","authorDomain":"acidreflux"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#3 - Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:53 AM EST
{"commentId":469959,"authorDomain":"200MilesUp"}
As is funding "freedom fighters" to shoot at the soldiers of another nation

That's a tough one.

We know for example that the US has also been dallying with an Iranian terror group and also conducting operations against the Iranian government.

Supporting an armed group is not waging war, invading the territorial space of another nation is.

{"commentId":469959,"threadId":"67204","contentId":"515598","authorDomain":"200MilesUp"}
  • 5 votes
#3.1 - Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:29 AM EST
{"commentId":469965,"authorDomain":"200MilesUp"}
{"commentId":469965,"threadId":"67204","contentId":"515598","authorDomain":"200MilesUp"}
  • 4 votes
#3.2 - Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:33 AM EST
{"commentId":469996,"authorDomain":"acidreflux"}

Oluseye, which part of "it's hard to find saints on either side" did you miss?

{"commentId":469996,"threadId":"67204","contentId":"515598","authorDomain":"acidreflux"}
  • 3 votes
#3.3 - Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:55 AM EST
Reply
{"commentId":469982,"authorDomain":"ForestBrowne"}

it ll makes perfect political sense yes? If the administration draws in Iran and/or Syria we suddenly are the good guys again garnering the public support that's been wasting away for years. He also uses the navy which hasn't been hard pressed, to say the least, so he's not using forces already committed. Scary smart from the boys that could sell ice to the Eskimo's.

Nice article,

Forest

{"commentId":469982,"threadId":"67204","contentId":"515598","authorDomain":"ForestBrowne"}
  • 6 votes
Reply#4 - Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:42 AM EST
{"commentId":470065,"authorDomain":"danish"}

Excellent analysis, Oluseye. At least I would have to say so, since you pretty much describe how I see it. The inherent paradoxes in the Washington policy of favoring Sunni and antagonizing Iran while trying to pacify their allies (at least ideologically speaking) to establish a democracy where, eventually, the Shia strain of fundamentalism would dominate the picture, whether by force or through democratic means, makes the ideological stance indefensible. If you can't even explain it, you can't possibly defend it.

That leads to what was the conclusion to many of us in a series of debates on Newsvine in the early days of beta testing, that Iraq is just a bridgehead against Iran, and the primary target is oil resources, but more importantly protection of pipelines in the furthest regions of the Middle East. Look to I SPY's column for more detailed information about that. Right now Iran is locked in a pincer movement, ready for a large scale military operation. This course of actions has some prerequisites:

You have to paint a picture of imminent threat. It does not matter if it is later discovered or proved that such a threat did not exist. If necessary you must push for conflict, provoke and distress. UN sanctions and resolutions against Iran would be of great benefit. NATO involvement or a renewed Coalition would provide additional "legitimacy". In USA, however, you would have to find new creative methods to boost the troops. You need a larger budget, even more proactive recruiting, and to keep drafting "on the table".

Iran seems to think a show-down is inevitable, at least the Ahmadinejad wing. The neo-cons may be on a tactical retreat, but they are far from beat, and they are still exercising tremendous power, over both decision-makers, power-brokers, media corporations and public perception. Iran will work ceaselessly to raise a similar anti-Western and anti-Israeli sentiment in the Middle East and where ever conjunctures allow it. However strange it may occur, the distribution of power is, in a final analysis, evenly distributed (counting Jihadists, terrorism, etc.).

The cost of fighting this war would be tremendous to the West, and it would fundamentally change our way of life, perhaps beyond remedy. The raid against a sovereign nation - the soil of an embassy is by definition foreign ground - but it is most likely just one of a number of provocations Washington and Pentagon will employ to prompt Iran cause grounds for war. Bush is escalating, yes, but he is also further overstretching. It is breathtaking to imagine the level of adventurism and the tremendous risk for USA involved in this type of foreign policy.

Good night, and good luck!

{"commentId":470065,"threadId":"67204","contentId":"515598","authorDomain":"danish"}
  • 8 votes
Reply#5 - Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:44 AM EST
{"commentId":471609,"authorDomain":"driver"}

Bush seems to be looking for a way to justify an extended American military presence in Iraq/Middle East, contrary to American public opinion. The ISG recommended dialogue with Syria and Iran as part of an overall Iraqi strategy. Storming another nation's diplomatic property and seizing its citizens is definitely not a step in the right direction.

How can things improve in Iraq if this president continually provokes confrontation with Iran? Maybe Iran should be pursuing a "nuclear option" in order to defend itself against American aggression.

{"commentId":471609,"threadId":"67204","contentId":"515598","authorDomain":"driver"}
    #5.1 - Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:08 AM EST
    Reply
    {"commentId":471486,"authorDomain":"worldpresssecretary"}

    Claus... You are not nearly cynical enough :-) Bush needs to stay in Iraq because the USA HAS TO CONTROL the worlds oil supply or else it starts to implode. The longer he can delay that inevitable end to our experiment in fake democracy, the more money he and his fellow American nobles make.
    He does not want to win. He wants to stay right there... sitting on top of potentially the second largest oil reserves in the world, keeping them unproductive. If they are unproductive... his family and his buddies make trillions on elevated oil pricing. If they eventually are productive for American oil companies... his buddies make trillions on oil sales. Either way our president's oil baron friends win and we pay the bills later... they don't care. They will just be the blue bloods under the Chinese instead of the Anglos.
    He is not a dunce surrounded by poor military planners.
    He is a dunce surrounded by brilliant (but traitorous) stock pumping oil barons. God save us all from rich people who only care about money and power.
    If Iran helps them make money and stay in that wonderfully profitable position then Iran it will be.

    {"commentId":471486,"threadId":"67204","contentId":"515598","authorDomain":"worldpresssecretary"}
    • 1 vote
    Reply#6 - Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:42 PM EST
    {"commentId":471628,"authorDomain":"jimdent"}

    Lets not forget that Bush also said in his speech that he's sending Patriot missile batteries to our allies in the middle east. They are defensive weapons to counter incoming missiles. I can only assume that he has reason to believe that Iran will be firing off missiles at our allies. I wonder why?

    {"commentId":471628,"threadId":"67204","contentId":"515598","authorDomain":"jimdent"}
    • 1 vote
    Reply#7 - Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:27 AM EST
    {"commentId":471667,"authorDomain":"200MilesUp"}

    Well if the goal is to bait Iran to attack, it makes perfect sense.

    It also works politically because all hawks want him to be hawkish against Iran. It's deeply cynical.

    {"commentId":471667,"threadId":"67204","contentId":"515598","authorDomain":"200MilesUp"}
    • 1 vote
    #7.1 - Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:38 AM EST
    Reply
    {"canLink":false,"threadId":"67204","isPrivate":false}
    Leave a Comment:
    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
    {"threadId":"67204","contentId":"515598"}
    Start TrackingStart Tracking
    Stop TrackingStop Tracking