When it comes to the political maneuvers in the Middle East, nothing is what it seems. Politicians spout, the media duly pens its headlines accordingly, and most of us imagine that we understand the game with every word from on high gospel. In fact, the reverse is usually true.
Take the current contretemps between the US and Iran, for instance. What is it that both sides actually want?
Given Iran has been America’s enemy No. 1 since the 1979 revolution, and in light of the bloody occupation of Iran’s neighbor, it is fair to say that Tehran is seeking security. In this case, it’s very likely that it has embarked on a nuclear weapons program. It only has to look at nuclear-armed North Korea to see how protected that country is from US threats. Whether we like it or not, a country that possesses a nuclear deterrent is pretty much left alone.
Now what does the US want? It says it wants Iran to desist enriching uranium and is prepared to use a stick approach, leaving the carrots to the permanent five UN Security Council members plus Germany, who recently met in Vienna to agree on a joint strategy. However, Washington refuses to heed Iran’s demand for guarantees that it won’t be attacked.
In actuality, the White House wants regime change in Iran, and it is spending millions to foment revolution and support opposition groups. Even if the Iranian government toed the “international community” line over its nuclear program, Washington still wouldn’t be content. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is already saying Iran is the biggest terrorist backer.
However, Washington must appear reasonable for the sake of its allies’ sensibilities, especially those of Russia and China, and this is why it pretends to go along with a “package of rewards”, devised by six world powers, in return for Iran’s compliance.
So, the Bush administration is obliged to go through the motions of diplomacy when according to investigative reporter Seymour Hersh and various Washington insiders, it is champing at the bit to attack.
US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and the neocon US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton are currently playing “good cop-bad cop”. “We are very satisfied by the results of today’s meetings in Vienna. We consider them a step forward in our quest to deny Iran nuclear weapons capability,” said Burns.
Contrast this with the warning put out by Bolton, who told Neil Cavuto of Fox News that unilateral military action against Iran was “on the table”, adding, “This is put up or shut up time for Iran.”
On the face of it, this dangerous situation could be easily resolved if the US and Iran sat around the table with one another and played nice. Iran has called for just that but Washington has put forward a slew of preconditions before it will embark on face-to-face talks — conditions that it knows Tehran cannot accept. Why is that? Does the US really want another war while it is bogged down in Iraq and public support for that war is waning by the week?
Could there be other factors at play unrelated to the Iranian nuclear program — factors that aren’t high up on the radar screen?
Now that Israel’s foe Saddam is out of the way, there is only one major obstacle to its security and that is Iran, which supplies money and arms to the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah and also to various Palestinian militant groups.
Israel has long been calling for the US to deal with Iran. Israeli spokespersons have warned that Israel could decide to take the lead if Washington chickens out. “Why now?” you might ask. In this regard, we must look at a connected but separate game of political Poker.
Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, is out to unilaterally delineate Israel’s permanent borders, which would leave the Palestinians stateless and without access to Jerusalem or the Jordan Valley.
But first, he has had to seek the approval of the White House, which can’t be given until Olmert also goes through the motions of talking peace with the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Once again, these are talks that are set up to fail. Israel will simply say that Abbas cannot control his own people due to a Hamas-led government and point out that rockets are still being fired from Gaza.
Then, I predict, that George W. Bush will “reluctantly” give his blessing to Olmert’s proposals, as, after all, Hamas still refuses to acknowledge Israel’s existence and won’t hand over its weapons. The Palestinian dream of a viable state with Jerusalem as its capital will not evaporate and we are probably looking at a third intifadah.
However, if Iran is defanged and its money and weapons largesse cut off at the source, Israel could take its desired course with relative impunity.
It will not have to give back the Golan Heights to Syria. It will not have to return the Shiba Farms Area to Lebanon and, more importantly, it will not have to withdraw to its 1967 borders or dismantle major blocks of colonies on Palestinian land.
Still think this is all about Iranian nukes? Remember Iraq and think again!
