President Bush accuses Iran and Syria of continuing to support terrorism. He has warned that the US may have to take action against them. It is one of his strongest threats against them to date. He is in bullish mood, it seems.
Or is he?
There is, as we all know, nothing new in his menacing mutterings toward them. They, along with North Korea, were the focus of his notorious “axis of evil” speech two years ago. Since the Iraq war ended, his administration has on several occasions accused both of harboring terrorists. They also accuse Syria of sheltering former members of Saddam Hussein’s regime, and Iran of planning to develop nuclear weapons. There has, however, been a pattern to this. After a thunder roll of allegations, Washington goes quiet and attention moves elsewhere. This latest rumble looks very much the same.
WMD are on many people’s minds — both the failure to discover them in Iraq and the dangers posed by North Korea, where intentions are not in question; in the Far East, Pyongyang’s nuclear plans are the issue of the moment.
So why then does Bush ignore the very real threat from North Korea? Why does he concentrate his verbal firepower instead on the two other members of his axis of evil? And why does he do it knowing full well that he has no intention of attacking either Syria or Iran? No one takes the threat seriously — least of all when it is made at a joint press conference with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. It is a bluff.
Bush is trying to manipulate public opinion. He wants to divert American attention from increasing difficulties in Iraq, hoping that warnings of continued dangers in the region will keep public opinion united behind the need to hang on in Iraq until things are sorted out there. Also, with the warning coming just days before he meets with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, there is a deliberate message for the Middle East and for the Israelis in particular. He wants them to feel that there is nothing to fear from the peace process, that the US will stand firm against terrorism. As such, it is also a warning to the Palestinians not to allow the return of suicide bombings. In the US, the president’s words are being interpreted as demonstrating his commitment to the peace process. Such commitment is welcome, as are efforts to ensure that the Israelis remain on board. Unfortunately, in the Middle East, his words convey a different and very negative impression — that the US is in bellicose mood, with Muslim states a target. It does nothing to inspire confidence. Washington needs to consider its language and its audiences far more carefully.
