THE world marked the fifth anniversary of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq this week. Five years of bloody strife and conflict have left a fairly stable and prosperous country in ruins.
It has not only seen its industrial and economic infrastructure destroyed, the country may have lost nearly three quarters of a million people in the invasion and ensuing sectarian and ethnic strife. To this must be added the tragic death of four thousand Americans and nearly three trillion dollars going waste in a futile venture.
And yet none of the Bush administration’s charges against Iraq have been proven, nor has any of America’s stated objectives been achieved. If anything, Iraq has become a global centre of terrorism while the world’s sole superpower stands isolated, its moral authority at rock bottom even in countries that are the recipients of American largesse.
Not surprisingly, an overwhelming majority of Americans are counting the days before Bush fades into history, such has been their disappointment with his policies both domestic and foreign. For the rest of the world, Bush has already overstayed his welcome. To them he has come to epitomise all that is ugly about his great country.
But no setback is enough to make Bush pause in his messianic zeal for implementing the neocon agenda. He not only continues to defend the war but warns that a withdrawal would hand victory to the terrorists. He even asserted that the war was “worth it” in spite of “the loss of life and treasure”. Sadly, Senator McCain, his party’s presidential candidate, too believes that withdrawal of US troops from Iraq “could hand over victory to the Al Qaeda”. Senator Clinton has, however, come out strongly against continued occupation, while Senator Obama has opposed this adventure from day one.
There is, however, growing concern that notwithstanding its disastrous Iraq adventure, the Bush administration’s insatiable appetite for foreign adventures, especially those driven by ideological considerations, appear not to have been satisfied. It is in this context that political analysts continue to view with growing trepidation the openly articulated US desire to oust the Islamic regime from Iran.
This it has done on two fronts. First, by pushing for tough UNSC sanctions that would cripple Iran’s economy, on the charge that it was pursuing a nuclear weapons programme; and second, by promoting chaos in Iran by providing monetary and material assistance to anti-regime elements.
Yet the Iranians have gone about their business with a remarkable degree of skill and aplomb. It appears that nothing upsets them or shakes their determination to consolidate the gains of the revolution. The past week, while Iraq was observing the fifth anniversary of the US invasion, Iran went through elections to the Majlis, the country’s parliament.
Although relations with the US were not an issue, the western media had turned it into a referendum on President Ahmadinejad who is viewed by them as virulently anti-American. In reality, the Bush policies have made it impossible for any Iranian politician to advocate normalisation with Washington.
Some six years ago, Bush had warned that he would “not wait on events, while dangers gather” and “not stand by as peril draws closer and closer”. In his recent State of the Union address, Bush denounced Iran for “funding and training militia groups in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon and backing Hamas’ efforts to undermine peace in the Holy Land”. And ominously, he warned, “Know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops.”
Bush also decided to undertake a tour of the Middle East, ostensibly to promote a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Instead he sought to convince the Gulf rulers that their main worry should be the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran to their sovereignty and survival “before it is too late”.
Washington was also upset when Iran decided to start its own oil bourse, known as the Kish bourse, bypassing London’s IPF and New York’s Nymex, both of which are effectively controlled by Washington. The Kish bourse is intended to eventually sell crude oil to the international market in euros rather than dollars. By opening its own bourse, Iran became the first Opec producer to move away from the dollar, an action likely to hurt the American economy.
In such a situation it would be a massive mistake for the US to contemplate an attack on Iran, but such is the Bush administration’s hostility towards Tehran that analysts remain apprehensive about Washington’s intentions. This is disappointing given that the country’s major intelligence agencies, in their National Intelligence Estimate, concluded that Iran was not building nuclear weapons.
Nevertheless, the fact that the Centcom chief, Admiral William Fallon, was constrained to speak out publicly of his fears and then offered to resign, rather than stay on and see his country attack Iran, should make us take notice of the continuing danger.
The lobbying for war remains strong. Norman Podhoretz, one of the fathers of the neoconservative movement, in a recent article cast doubt on the NIE and argued in favour of an immediate attack, claiming that “in 2008 Iran can still be stopped from getting the bomb and millions of lives can be saved”. There are, however, others pointing to the fallacy of US policies that have already unwittingly aided Iran’s drive for regional influence — by ousting two of Tehran’s implacable foes, Saddam and the Taliban.
Prior to the Iraq war, conservative American politician Pat Buchanan had warned that the US had “started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before. The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.”
It is truly tragic that the Bush administration has not only failed to treat Iran with the respect it deserves as an ancient civilisation that is also a major regional power, but has maintained a policy of hostility towards it all these years. Is it psychological or political, or a combination of both? Washington appears not to have forgotten the shock of seeing its loyal ally, the Shah of Iran, being hounded out of the country nor the humiliation of seeing its diplomats being kept as hostages.
Veteran British journalist Robert Fisk recently pointed out that there were currently 22 times as many western troops in the Muslim world as there were during the crusades and asks why the Americans and the British are there. Is it for oil, or democracy, or defence of Israel or for fear of weapons of mass destruction or the fear of Islam? He then foresees the US ‘losing’ Afghanistan and Pakistan, just as it has lost Iraq.
He warns: “It is our presence, our power, our arrogance, our refusal to learn from history and our terror of Islam that is leading us into an abyss. And until we learn to leave these Muslim people alone, our catastrophe in the Middle East will only become graver. There is no connection between Islam and terror. But there is a connection between our occupation of Muslim lands and terror.”
Courtesy: Daily Dawn, 27/3/2008
Loading ...
Recent Comments