Dubya's legacy of Peace (?!)

In late 2006 George W. Bush made headlines in Israeli newspapers by publicly stating that he "would understand" if Israel launched attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. It didn't get major play in US media outlets at the time, but hardliners (on both sides) in the Midde East took notice. Even though Condolleeza Rice tried to downplay the comment, Bush's words were interpreted by some as a not-so-subtle approval of opening up a third front on the "War on Terror" (or was that "Axis of Evil"?). Speculation suggested that Bush would "go along" with an initiation of aggression in a preemptive strike to degrade Iran's ability to become a regional power. Obviously it didn't do much for US diplomacy with the Mullahs.

There were some in America that were perversely satisfied with the president's "hardline stance". Many on the Christian Right applauded their hero's willingness to encourage Armageddon. Zionists on the North American continent may have been a bit more circumspect about communicating their pleasure, but the signs indicated their favorable reaction. Certain civilian "thinkers" in the Defense Department licked their lips in anticipation. The war drums beat a trance-like rhythm that made forward momentum almost unavoidable. Yet bad news from the Iraqi front seemed to dampen the spirit, if only among the general population. Soon after the expression of "understanding", the political landscape changed through that year's election.

Now fast-forward to this past Fall, and the presidential contest between Barack Obama and John McCain. The Fourth Estate finally started doing its job, empowered somehow by Tina Fey and Katie Couric. The subject of possible strikes against Iran became an actual issue that inspired actual questions in an actual debate. Obama expressed his willingness to sit down and talk with the actual leadership of Iran (HINT: he wasn't talking about Ahmadinejad). For this he was mercilessly attacked by both his opponent and the Rightwing echo chamber. Meanwhile he wasn't getting much support from within his own party. No political figure wanted to risk alienating an important constituency capable of helping finance a successful campaign.

While YouTube footage of McCain's version of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann" continued to circulate among the discontents, NPR aired an interview between Terry Gross and Robert Baer. I happened to tune in that day and had all my assumptions about power politics in the Middle East challenged. So when McCain tried to batter Obama for his advocacy of "sitting down with our enemies", I paid very close attention. I tried to sort through the bullshit and figure out exactly what the candidates believed about the "threat" of Iran and the structure of influence in the Muslim world. I became acutely afraid that Bush would give the green light to Israel, and a conflagration would erupt. I slept fitfully until I distracted myself with other concerns.

Fortunately for Western civilization, we made it through one alluring window of opportunity for an Israeli raid on Iran. We still have a major issue to confront, but I feel better about our foreign policy direction. However, there's another piece of information that I have to absorb now. This week NPR and NYT are reporting that George W. Bush refused an Israeli request for "bunker busters" that they intended to drop on Iran. I find it ironic that the single greatest possible chance that Bush has for a positive legacy is the result of an inaction. The only way he could have topped that was not to run for the office in the first place. Our outgoing leader is fond of saying that history will be his judge, but I'd like to suggest that he's wrong... the consequences of his actions will stretch well into the future.

Bush and His Legacy: Incursions Into Syria.

As the election draws ever near, the words "October Surprise" linger on the periphery of the national consciousness. Of course, as the days pass by, the prospect of a game-changing external event becomes increasingly attractive to McCain supporters. Obviously those who back the frontrunner look upon that possibility with dread. While too transparent a move by the current president will draw widespread suspicions of a desire to change the outcome at the polls, subtle actions can have an effect that last a lot longer. Such is the case with George W. Bush's decision to cross the Iraqi-Syrian border to mount an attack on "foreign insurgents" who support opposition to the American occupation.

On Monday, the US military used helicopters and a small team of special forces soldiers to assault a "senior Al Qaeda operative" named Abu Ghadiyah. Apparently the operation was successful. Ghadiyah, who has been suspected of funnelling fighters, cash and weapons into Iraq, was reportedly killed. The Mosul native was thought to be an imprtant aide of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in 2006. Seven other people also died during the raid on the village of Sukkariyeh, a mere five miles from the Iraqi border. Witnesses at the scene report that two additional men were taken into custody, and spirited away by air. Obviously this operation did nothing to further ongoing relations between the Syrian, Iraqi and American governments.

From what US authorities say, Syria is currently the only direction from which foreign support for the Iraqi resistance has been arriving (an odd assertion given the repeated accusations that Iran has been supporting the insurgency). They claim that such activities could only continue with the full knowledge of Syrian intelligence. Interior Minister Bassam Abdel Majeed denies such charges. Syrian leaders point out that they have their own difficulties with Baathist Sunni extremists, and are loathe to provoke enmity by backing "terrorists". But while Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem characterized the American operation as an act of "criminal and terrorist aggression", military retaliation is not expected.

What consequences could arise from this raid? Well, for one thing, some observers say that it will make Iran assume a more oppositional attitude toward cooperation between Baghdad and Washington. It may increase their hostility to an Iraqi-US Status of Forces Agreement that they believe gives American troops "free rein to stage military operations wherever and whenever they deem necessary, without consulting the Iraqi government." Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hassan Qashqavi said "We actually condemn any attack which violates national sovereignty of countries and leads to the killing of innocent people. Such invasions are unacceptable". Meanwhile a spokesman for Nouri al-Maliki's government says that Iraq rejects the raid, even if the US claims it was legitimate.

Any agreement between the Bush Administration and the Iraqis could be forestalled by what much of the Middle East perceives as an aggressive action. The Iraqi Parliament is increasingly giving signals that there must be substantial change in the Status of Forces Agreement before it approves it. While it may make perfect sense for Bush to strike out against perceived enemies in the waning days of his presidency, his choices may indeed make his successor's job much more difficult come January. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) is calling for a united Middle Eastern response to the strike, and suggesting that Bush intends to boost McCain in his election campaign. We can only wait and see how this develops.

The Worst Endorsement of All.

In 2004, a couple of weeks before the presidential election, John Kerry was edging ahead in the national polls. It looked for a moment like he might be able to unseat the sitting president, who was coming under continuous fire over his decision to invade and occupy Iraq. But then the unthinkable happened and the race tipped in Bush's favor. A "new" video appeared featuring the figure that was then still the national bogeyman- Osama bin Laden. The historical narrative says that this interruption in US politics made voters reconsider their decisions by reminding them of Bush's "War on Terror". I'm not completely sure I buy that (I think the Swift-boating had just as much to do with Kerry's defeat), but John Kerry himself blames the video release for his loss.

There is some reason to believe that the concerted efforts of Bush supporters working to tie Kerry to the terrorists had an effect on the 2004 election outcome. Shortly before November of that year, Republican stalwart Orrin Hatch memorably claimed that the terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry." Speaker of the House Denny Hastert reinforced those sentiments: "I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, [but] I would think they would be more apt to go [for] somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops." Even the Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage chimed in with his assertion that Iraqi "terrorists" were "trying to influence the election against President Bush."

Naturally bloggers followed the example of their elected officials and provided an echo chamber for these scandalous accusations. Back then a young Bush spokesman (and disciple of Karl Rove) named Steve Schmidt seemed to encourage such attacks: "Those statements speak to the great concern many people have about John Kerry's consistent vacillation under political pressure on the most significant issues the nation faces with regard to the war on terror." It's ironic that Steve Schmidt (now John McCain's chief campaign strategist) has been going back to the well, and using similar tactics to tie his latest opponent to terrorism. In fact that is what his entire focus has been over the last few weeks, with his repeated references to Bil Ayers.

Once again amateur online pundits are following Schmidt's lead, and they are employing the most divisive rhetoric imaginable. They have been quick to report the words of President Ahmadinejad, Hamas and Muammar Qaddafi, seeking to tie Obama to "terrorism". But interestingly, they have been notably quiet about the most recent endorsement coming from actual terrorists. It turns out that Al Qaeda is supporting McCain for president. The McCain campaign has been tripping all over itself, trying to distance themselves from this particular nod. The most awkward rationalization they've developed so far is that Al Qaeda is using "reverse psychology" to affect American electoral politics. One has to wonder why they didn't come up with that when Hamas made its "endorsement".

Of course I'm getting a bit of amusement watching this story play out. There are many US security experts that remain unsurprised about Al Qaeda's pick. Some have been expecting the terrorists to "vote" before the election by executing a high-profile attack, which would likely flip the polls in favor of McCain. It's really pretty obvious (to those that are actually well-informed) why Al Qaeda would prefer the pro-war GOP (neocon) rule, because that party consistently plays into its hands by destabilizing the Middle East with its aggressive and ham-handed foreign policy. Al Qaeda* is made up of Sunni Muslims who would be threatened by Obama's strategy of negotiating with Shi'ites such as those who rule Iran. They would much rather see Israel (or the US Armed Forces) bomb that nation with McCain's support.

* According to Al Qaeda ideology, the four biggest "enemies of Islam" are Israel, America, Heretics, and the Shia. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (former leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq) called Shi'ites "the most evil of mankind . . . the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom". It reminds me of the charges the Republicans have leveled against the Democrats lately.

Robert Baer on NPR's Fresh Air, Part 3.

Note: Please read Parts 1 and 2 of this series before proceeding.

What would happen if, as John McCain and Sarah Palin have both advocated, Iran's nuclear facilities were bombed? Ex-CIA agent Robert Baer offers an unequivocal answer to that question- the Iranians would light the Persian Gulf and Saudi oil facilities on fire. Baer knows many of the old school Revolutionary Guard Iranian generals by name. He has learned about their collective temperament and understands their willingness to employ devastating tactics in order to protect their nation's territorial integrity. As Baer points out, these sober-minded men believe that the Persian Gulf has that name for a reason. Its rim consists of a population that is over 90% Sh'ite, and it will be defended at all costs.

If Israel launches air attacks (with or without American support) the Iranian government will almost certainly respond by shooting Silkworm missiles at every tanker in the Gulf, thus disrupting the international oil markets, causing an international Great Depression that will make the Wall Street crisis look like "a walk in the park", and setting off the first round of World War III. What sane politician would offer unconditional support for such a move? We do not have the financial resources, nor the will necessary to carry out such a massive operation for 30+ years. It shouldn't even be considered a realistic option. Yet we still hear the McCain/Palin ticket continually insist that they aren't willing to sit down with Iranian leaders, and that we can't "second-guess" the policies of our ally Israel.

The fact is that our current situation reflects the waning of the American Superpower. For better or for worse, the world recognizes that there is a fundamental shift occurring. The US dollar is flagging, and legislative efforts to avoid a complete economic collapse have not gone unnoticed by the rest of the globe. Yet our national politicians seem committed to a purported "War on Terror" that is steadily draining our resolve and treasure. Our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are becoming increasingly unpopular and untenable. Meanwhile Osama Bin Laden hasn't been heard from or seen in years. Robert Baer believes that he is dead, and suggests that the majority of his CIA colleagues agree with him.

Baer points out that fighting a war against an opponent whose leadership has been neutralized does not make any sense. Furthermore (like a growing proportion of the American citizenry) he is frustrated that there is no specific ultimate objective that would define victory in this amorphous conflict. The only final conclusion that seems consistent with reality is that we need a significant change in our longterm strategy. There is a growing awareness that the United States must dedicate itself to energy independence. We will not be able to afford this imperative if we continue to trick ourselves into believing that we can "democratize" the Middle East. Our goal must be to demilitarize that region.

I agree with Robert Baer's final conclusion. In order to preserve some relevance on the international stage, we must initiate a nationwide "Manhattan Project" to accelerate the development of sustainable alternative energy. In the meantime we may need to ensure that a steady supply of oil flows from the Middle East. No matter what McCain and Palin believe, this cannot be accomplished with a diplomacy relying on bombs and threat. We must sit down with the true power players, regardless of how we feel about them. That is the only way to avert the catastrophic path that the Bush Administration has placed us on. There is much more at stake here than Wall Street, federal taxation, corporate subsidies, and partial-birth abortions.

Robert Baer on NPR's Fresh Air, Part 2.

Note: Please read Part 1 of this series before proceeding.


It may sound strange to hear Robert Baer's characterization of the Iranian government as "maturing", especially given the inflammatory statements by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but he correctly points out the limited role the President actually plays in setting foreign policy. While the McCain/Palin ticket seems disproportionately obsessed with Ahmadinejad's rhetoric regarding the future of Isreal, they seem to be missing the point that it is cleric Ali Khamenei that is the actual Supreme Leader of Iran. Not only has Khamanei contradicted Ahmadinejad's anti-Israeli stance, but he has actually issued a fatwa against the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

This seems to support Baer's argument that Iran could represent a rational partner in forming a security accord in the Middle East. A major complication for cooperative action between Iran and the West involves the Palestinan question. Hezbollah takes its marching orders from Tehran, and this has been a constant source of enmity between Israel and Iran. Still, Baer says that Ali Khamenei has implied that he wants no more than the Palestinians want- self-rule in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. He further insists that the Iranians see Saudi Arabia as their main rival in the Midde East. The Emirates of that country represent the 1400-year legacy of Sunni repression of the Shi'ites. The Wahabi form of Islam is a particular anathema to the Iranian clerics.

Robert Baer agrees that the Sunni fundamentalists are manifestly more anarchic and unreliable than their Shia counterparts. He raises the question of Saudi involvement in the 9-11 attacks, and rightfully points out that the Saudis have never been held to account for the participation of more than 15 of their citizens. In calling for formal negotiations between the US and Iranian governments, Baer realizes that he risks alienating Saudi Arabia- a longtime ally of the Bush family and the neo-con wing of the Republican Party. But if we are truly interested in combating "Islamofascism" in the region, it is appropriate to trace its sources. The reality is that the hardline fudamentalist madrasas throughout the Muslim world are financed by Saudi oil profits.

So why should we continue our irrational stance of loyalty to the Saudi Royal Family? As Robert Baer asks, "Do we really care who pumps the oil?" Certainly we need a Middle Eastern supply of crude, but must we buy it from Saudi Arabia? Baer insists that Iran wants the United States as a partner in stabilizing the Middle East. While he admits that this is an awfully tough sell for the majority of America (especially in light of the vilification that has been heaped on that country during the last eight years), he is clear that the alternative is a 30-year war with the most significant military power in the region. Yet the development of nuclear weapons in Iran presents a serious obstacle to negotiations.

There is no doubt in Robert Baer's mind that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East should be avoided. But he doesn't think that the current US approach of threatening preemptive military action is pragamatic or wise. It's useful to speculate on what consequences such an aggresive policy could bring. VP candidate Sarah Palin was recently asked how a McCain Administration would react to Israel if that nation made air attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. She responded by saying that “We are friends with Israel, and I don’t think that we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.” This was almost undoubtedly a tacit approval of a prospective attack, and an eminently foolish position.

TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 3...

Robert Baer on NPR's Fresh Air, Part 1.

Note: This post is the first in a series of three...

Last Thursday I heard an interview on NPR's Fresh Air with Terry Gross that jarred me outside of the narrowing spectrum of presidential politics. Gross was interviewing former CIA agent Robert Baer, who has 21 years of experience working in the volatile Middle Eastern region. Baer was on air to promote his new book about Iran, which is entitled The Devil We Know. He shared some incredible and disturbing insights about this growing Shia nation that made me re-evaluate my thoughts about world politics and the United States' involvement in the Middle East. Like most of my fellow citizens, I rely heavily on media sources that have a diminishing journalistic presence abroad. This means that my understanding is limited to "conventional wisdom".

Baer's central message regarding Iran is decidedly different from what you are likely to hear about this key player in Bush's "Axis of Evil". It is his contention that this age-old Persian nation is actually the most stable and powerful player in the Middle East today. As a result, he believes that the trajectory of our involvement with this quintessential "rogue nation" will lead to one of two outcomes- either we will open negotiations with Iran, or we will find ourselves in a 30-year war with them. It should be clear to anyone with a sane assessment of our economic prospects that only one of these options remains viable. Iran can marshall a million soldiers for the battlefield immediately, and we are already pushed against our limits.

Of all powers in the Middle East, it is Iran that has most benefitted from our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his Sunni contingent represented the most significant check on Persian power. The US attack on Hussein led to a democratically elected body that is overwhelmingly composed of Shi'ites.. The situation on the ground currently favors the Shia majority in Iraq, and Baghdad is now dominated by leaders of that sect. The New York Times reported in August that the Iraqi national government is in the process of rooting out the leaders of the Sunni Awakening, an organization that has been cooperating with the American military to quash violence in the Anbar Province. Meanwhile Iran has been instrumental in getting Shia militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr to stand down in the face of the Bush Administration's surge.

As far as Baer is concerned, Southern Iraq is already being managed by Tehran. He likens Iraq's relationship to Iran to that beteween Canada and the United States. Former Iraqi president, and current consultant to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is now a major player in the Iraqi oil market. Eventually, the Iranian leadership would like to see the United States leave Iraq peacefully, and cede its stabilization efforts to Iran. To that end Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been working with the American authorities to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. When this occurs, all pretense of Iraqi self-government will be called into question. But Baer insists that this doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing.

The main objective of Iran is indeed to consolidate its influence over Iraq and to reign unchallenged over the Persian Gulf. Baer is not denying Iranian imperial ambitions. But he is questioning the ramifications of its growing regional power. While the consensus in the US seems to be that we should stop Iran at all costs, Baer suggests that we might be better off exploring a partnership instead. His decades-long observation of Iran leads him to believe that the nation may be a better associate in the Middle East than current US-ally Saudi Arabia. Indeed he makes the point that the Iranian extremists he has met are actually much more rational than their Saudi counterparts. And he is impressed by the maturing worldview of the Iranian leaders.

... TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 2...

War with Iran? Coming soon.

Nowadays it's not at all difficult to find something in the news to scare you. Recently it's that ever-intensifying drumbeat prodding our troops toward Iran. A year ago it was virtually unthinkable (to me) that Bush could garner support for a pre-emptive invasion on yet antother country. But alas, certain media outlets are starting to sound out the possibility. One of the things that makes this oh-so-possible is the strength of pro-Israel lobby (led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). Our main "ally" in the region is blatant in their desire to see us bomb the hell out of the next nation in the "Axis of Evil". Anything that destabilizes their biggest military threat is welcome, as far as they are concerned.

Perhaps the most disconcerting prospect for an executive branch push-to-war is the potential appointment of Joe Lieberman (Senator from Connecticut) to the Attorney General's office. If you've been following his political carreer since he was the running mate of Al Gore in the 2000 presidential campaign, you might actually think that his loss would be a mixed blessing for the Democrats. It is true that Lieberman has largely fallen out-of-touch with his former party mates, and has assumed the role of flack for Bush and Co. Unfortunately, Ned Lamont was unable to beat out the incumbent in the midterm general elections- so for the meantime the Democrats have formed an uneasy truce with Lieberman. The Senator still throws in with the boys-in-blue. But that could soon change.

As you are no doubt aware, the Democrats hold the majority in the Senate by a tally of 51-49. That means that if Lieberman were to accept Dubya's offer to officially join the dark side, the Republicans would regain control. Why is that? Because the governor of Connecticut (a Republican) would appoint a successor. Representation in the Senate would then be technically tied, but Dick Cheney would tip the scale over to the GOP. Would Lieberman do it? It's difficult to say. He is vocal about his desire to expand the war in the Middle East. His complete submission to the aims of AIPAC provides an additional glimpse into his true allegiances. Will he be content to sit on the sidelines and add his voice from Congress in support of the President? Or will he be seduced into the Bush Cabinet? We'll likely find out soon.

In the meantime we are going to be forced to listen to claims of WMDs and support for terrorists. The rhetoric is going to sound awfully familiar to what we heard in 2002. Some are going to naturally wonder how we ended up in the exact same place after spending hundreds of billions of dollars in a misguided war in Iraq. But there will also be an accompanying spike in "patriotic" support for Bush. We will once again be informed that we can disagree with politics, but we have to "support the troops". What's so ironic is that this admonishment does exactly what Ann Coulter always accuses the Democrats of doing- it hides policy behind unassailable frontmen. If we have to "support the troops", then how can we possibly hold Bush and the GOP responsible for their arguably criminal foreign policy? They have made valid criticism of their actions seem disloyal, and insensitive to the dangers of good old American boys who are willing to make the "ultimate sacrifice". The only check the Congress has on our warmongering President is to eliminate funding for the war. So what are "our representatives" supposed to do?

Take a good look at any of these new adverts sponsored by "Freedom's Watch". They are literally rolling out mutilated vets of the Iraqi War in order to elicit your sympathy, and make you less critical of their message and aims. Who are these folks? They are the neo-cons and other rightwing nuts that brought us into the mess in Iraq. They are the spiritual brothers of FoxNews, the American Enterprise Institute, The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, Commentary, etc. Their methods involve invoking the age-old shadows of invisible enemies to inspire the type of fear that will allow them to advance their agenda without having to answer for their activities. They get their talking points straight from Dick Cheney, and they have indelible connections to the defense industry. Is it any wonder that they are working to foment World War III?