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.

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...

The Middle Eastern City of the Future.

If leaders of the United Arab Emirates get their way, there will be a revolutionary new urban landscape built in the desert. Masdar City is only a theory now, but if its planned construction outside of Abu Dhabi actually occurs, then the United States could end up falling behind the Middle East in the new global energy paradigm. The word "masdar" means "the source" in Arabic, and considering the global commodity that has transformed this nation of city-states, observers should be stunned when they find out what will actually power the new development. Unlike the Sun Belt cities sprawling through the American Southwest, Masdar City is deliberately being constructed to be sustainable.

The goals of this project are formidable. First of all, there will be absolutely no cars. This proposition by itself is virtually heretical to modern society. The predominant mode of conveyance will be magnetic light rail. The city's energy will be derived mostly from solar and wind powers- sources to be found in great abundance in the dry climate of the region, and alongside the Gulf waters. Age-old wisdom and sensitivity to geography will be employed as well. Designers have imagined narrow streets whereby convective air forces will provide a natural type of "air conditioning". When all is said and done, Masdar City is to have absolutely no ecological footprint, since there will be no carbon emissions or other wastes. This would be remarkable, as the UAE currently produces five times as many carbon pollutants as the world average.

The official plans have set a target for 15,000 inhabitants by 2018. Apparently it is also expected to employ 50,000 workers on a regular basis, and may eventually expand to a population of 100 thousand. Obviously, in a city of any substantial size, energy is not the only problem. In a region with more energy than it can possibly use, water is a much more valuable premium. The planners of Masdar City expect to meet their needs with desalination technology that's been slowly evolving for decades. Meanwhile, palm and grove trees will profit from this inexhaustible supply, and yield biofuels (which the Emirates anticipate as a possible replacement for oil in the future). Crop production will be facilitated by the use of "gray water".

All of this activity will be monitored with a network of sensors and data miners. Academics and efficiency experts will have the chance to continuously re-evaluate their methods, and learn from the mistakes. The Masdar Institute of Science and Technology will be formed, and will work in conjunction with MIT to offer Masters and PhD programs. The real world expertise gleaned from the observation and management of a functionally sustainable city will help provide solutions to current energy and ecological problems throughout the world. Alongside with ambitious plans for carbon sequestration (CO2 Capture and storage), the UAE could well position itself as a global leader for generations to come.

Preparations for this model city mirror a similar project in another nation with a similarly brutal environmental record. China's proposed "zero-emission" city is called Dongtan, and will be located on an island at the mouth of the Yangtse River. Anyway- it's ironic that a Middle Eastern country that has so prospered from the world's dependence on oil can form a vision of foresight that includes a sustainable future once its key resource has run out. While the UAE invests its treasure in alternative energies, the United States wastes its own increasingly limited resources on wars to stabilize their access to "black gold". Even our former Cold War opponent Russia has embraced green technologies with a huge project at the heart of Moscow (using Japanese expertise). If we continue our current trajectory, we are doomed to increasing irrelevance.

Petraeus and the Phantom Report.

Today is the day that General David Petraeus will release his report on Iraq to Congress (and by extension, the American media). I'm sure that somewhere, somehow there is someone waiting in intense anticipation. Meanwhile much of the United States is experiencing Iraqi War fatigue. They simply don't want to hear anymore abut it. Others are so jaded and cynical at this point that they will view anything Petraeus says with skepticism. Count me as part of the latter group. There is already so much indication that this event is merely another flaccid step in a drawn out campaign of perception management.

Initially, after the media first heard that Petraeus would be reporting on the success of the "troop surge" policy, some political observers thought that an accurate depiction of the condtions in Iraq was possible. For some reason many would have been willing to invest their trust and confidence in the military leader in charge of the operations over there. Surely he wouldn't lie to the people. What would his motivation be for deceit? Then we found out that the White House itself was going to ghost-write the report and presentation. Now it appears that Petraeus isn't even expected to deliver a written report to the president. Any interest I had in following this particular thread in the story quickly evaporated. In retrospect I believe it was naive for anyone to think that we could get an accurate representation of what's happening on the ground from anyone involved in this misadventure.

When Bush first proposed an increase in troop levels, both the political opposition and the American people expressed their extreme wariness over the idea. But in a misguided effort to "go along to get along", the funding was passed for the "new strategy". We already know the administration's perspective on the efficacy of the move. They keep shoving Anbar Province in our faces, as if it were demonstrative of actual progress happening all over Iraq. Of course that is untrue- if a wave of stability were sweeping over the besieged nation, then surely we would have an entire list of places... instead of just one. No, the Iraqi government has not met the benchmarks that Dubya said he would hold them accountable for, and now there is talk of disbanding the entire Iraqi police contingent. There's even been low level whisperings of getting rid of Iraq's "democratically-elected" president. By now there were supposed to be 150,000 native security forces up and running in the country. Independent reports suggest that there are approximately 3000 well-trained men ready to do the job.

Not even Petraeus can make the claim that overall sectarian violence has been diminished by the surge. You won't hear him bragging about the condition of Baghdad. And there is no way he's going to say that we can start pulling American troops out. The most we could possibly expect would be 4000 troops out by December. That's a little more than 10% of the extra number we sent in a bit more than six months ago. But the intention of the Bush administration is especially problematic. The unspoken reality is that we can't maintain current troop levels after next spring. We just don't have the numbers. Are we going to institute a draft in a presidential election year?

There are in fact a lot of questions that will go unanswered this afternoon. Furthermore, there are too many questions not even being addressed by the media. We can start off with a simple one- "What the fuck is the point of any of this?" What is our objective ? A perpetual military presence? If not, then why are we even now constructing new permanent bases over there? Why are we doing that? Is it to protect the private corporations and military contractors that want to do business in Iraq? The American citizenry has every right to know the answer. But instead we are getting answers to questions that we never asked. I want to know what our longterm strategy is in the Middle East. I want to see a nationwide dialogue about the alternative directions we could take. Because the American people aren't getting anything out of the current policy. Because there are more terrorists for each day we stay in the region. Because we are handicapped by our reliance on fossil fuels from the Middle East. Because the Bush Administration is burdening us with an exorbitantly growing national debt. Just say it once without all the bullshit.