Saturday, December 23, 2006

Ironically, the true victor has turned out to be Iran

* larisa in alternet:
"What is obvious now is that the removal of Rumsfeld was not a sign of a real commitment to change direction in Iraq. It was nothing more than yet another stalling tactic, which is why the news was delivered after the election, not before. The nomination of Robert Gates to Secretary of Defense appears also to be nothing but stagecraft to silence the angry public, because Gates, no matter his view, is still bound by the chain of command. If the leadership says "stall," then Gates can only stall or resign.
How many dead bodies will it take before Congress says that stalling for Godot is not feasible (always knowing of course, that it has never been ethical)? Or perhaps a better question to ask is to whom is this administration beholden and for whom has this entire travesty of foreign policy been devised? I believe that the intended winner was always meant to be the Saudi regime, not the US, nor the Iraqi people. Ironically, the true victor has turned out to be Iran, something that no doubt disturbs the house of Saud greatly.

If the Saudis are in fact the country for whom we are fighting a proxy war with Iraq, then it stands to reason we cannot leave until we neutralize the Iranian threat to our benefactors. Perhaps this is really why this administration is stalling. It has failed several times over to successfully launch a military attack on Iran. The WMD argument does not seem to be working as well this time around in frightening the US populace into yet another war. The anti-Israeli rhetoric and Holocaust denial, too, don’t seem to be budging the US masses into supporting an attack on Iran. So the Bush administration awaits the delivery trick that might work to quiet the House of Saud and keep them from delivering on their blackmail of a full US economic meltdown.

I know that there are some that believe Israel is guiding the US misadventure into hell, but Israel is a client state who does what it is told. I have never found a convincing argument that would explain how Israel, whose very survival turns on US backing, would have the power to lead America into total suicide. It is true that the most visible faces of a pro-war policy towards the Middle East are tied to Likud, but Israel too needs to protect the House of Saud, because it is America’s benefactor. It serves US interests well to play the Jews against the Muslims. Such machinations have been going on for centuries. But anyone who can see farther than the day to day perspective should be able to see that a fully destabilized Middle East does not benefit Israel, nor does a rise in terrorism benefit Israel. It is already in a precarious position and not much is needed for Israel’s full and total collapse when the Middle East fully descends into chaos. The only winner that could have been intended as a result of this mess in Iraq is the House of Saud. Unfortunately, with Iraq failed in such a way as to embolden Iran, the House of Saud will not let the US leave the power structure in such a condition.

While this is mainly my own belief, of course, if we assume that the Saudi regime is calling the shots, then it becomes clear that the US will not be able to leave Iraq until it attacks Iran. Not if the Saudi clan has anything to say about it. Perhaps this is why our beloved Vice President recently ran to the feet of the Crown Prince as soon as he was summoned -- that is, to assure the royal regime that the US will not abandon the House of Saud’s plans? Maybe, just maybe, this is what the US stalls for? Maybe, but if this is the case, then America has long since ceased being anything other than an oil junkie, holding on for dear life to the robes of its dealer."


noise said...

Very interesting article.

Anyone remember this? :)

Raw Story: And now we see that Iraq and Iran have just signed a military treaty. Is that what we wanted?

Wilson: Iran is the big winner in this.

Raw Story: Is the goal a fundamentalist military conglomerate? Is that what we wanted?

Wilson: Sitting right on the border of the Kuwait and eastern Saudi oil fields...

Raw Story: Right, if that is what we wanted…

Wilson: Then we have achieved it.

I would point to Juhasz's book (The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time) which suggests that US corporate interests trumped stability. Add in Cheney's own early 90's comments about the problems with an occupation and it suggests that Iran as the winner wasn't a surprise.

Maybe (in line with Rosen's piece) the real plan was so sinister that nobody could believe it. Look at two reasons for staying proposed by Bush:

1) Failed state that would be a hotbed for terrorists.

2) Extremists would control the oil.

These are now possible because of the cynical and unrealistic occupation policy.

The question is what were the real intentions of the Bush administration? I know we have excellent theories that have pinned down likely motives but we don't what the plans are for longterm policies in the region.

What we know is pretty damn sinister. Perhaps what we don't know is worse.

lukery said...

Noise - I'd forgotten about that quote by wilson - thanks!

btw - i strongly recommend not using google's blogsearch. if you want to find anything on this site just type in "wot is" and the quote.

eg " "wot is" "if that is what we wanted" " - and you'll find what you are after :-)

Perhaps what we don't know is worse.
i have no doubt