The program was revived in the 1980's, evidently during the brutal Iran-Iraq border war. This was the war, remember, when President Reagan vigorously supported Saddam Hussein of Iraq, providing weapons (including, I personally believe, seed stock for anthrax) and American military "observers" because Reagan rightly believed it would be a disaster if the ancient line between Sunni Arabs and Shiite Iranians were breached, thus permitting Iran under the Ayatollahs to end up dominating not only Iran's oil fields, but also Iraq's vast southern oil fields with its own Shiite population, putting Iran on the very borders of Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province with its huge oil reserves, whose residents are also overwhelmingly Shiite- radical, anti-Western Iran would then have been well on the way to controlling most of the world's oil.
When Bush I initiated the First Gulf War in 1991 to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and thus protect the Saudi oil fields as well, his rationale was much like that of Reagan but with a twist. Reversing the earlier pro-Saddam foreign policy, Bush I encouraged the Basra or southern area Shiite Arabs to rebel against Saddam (as he also did the Kurds in the north). Unfortunately, when they did, he went fishing and ignored their pleas for American help, so they were slaughtered by Saddam. They naturally remember the betrayal to this day. (It seems Bush I went AWOL to fish, Bush II goes AWOL to cut brush).
BUSH II'S MISADVENTURE
Enter Bush II and his determined invasion of Iraq in 2003 based on neo-conservative arguments that getting rid of Saddam would allow the creation of a flourishing (very capitalist) democracy, thus transforming the Middle East and incidentally securing Iraq's oil fields for Western oil companies. Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz was positive that the United States could safely rely on Iraq's downtrodden Shiites rather than Saddam's Sunnis to create this democracy. The idea was that, by empowering the Iraqi Shiites, Iran's Shiite Ayatollahs would be undermined despite their common, shared version of Islam because Iraq's Shia were, after all Arabs, not Persians.
Therefore, Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) disbanded Saddam's Sunni-dominated Army and Saddam's Baathist organization which had administered the country- and put into power members of the SCIRI (Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, later re-named simply the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, or SIIC) which had in fact been founded at Ayatollah Khoumeni's direction in Teheran in 1982. The Badr Organization is their militia, and it dominates Basra in the south, among other areas, where it battles the Mahdi Army of the virulently anti-American Shia leader Moqtada-al-Sadr for control. The Badr has thoroughly infiltrated the Iraqi national police force, which is regarded as so violent and treacherous it's been suggested it should be disbanded.
Thus, Bush has empowered and armed exactly the Iran-oriented portion of the Iraqi population, doing for Iran what Khoumeni's armies could not achieve in the 1980's- the gods must be laughing.
The Iraqi Shia, after centuries of discrimination, may be generally Arab but they identify more closely with their fellow Shia in Iran than with their Iraqi Sunni neighbors---- Ayatollah Sistani, the most important Iraqi Shia cleric, who supported the new Iraqi Constitution and those famous purple-fingered elections is actually an Iranian citizen.
Tellingly, since 2003 the "Shiite-led Iraqi government has concluded several economic, political, and military agreements with Iran," and Maliki, the leader, seems to run off to Teheran regularly. According to Galbraith, while the American ambassador to Iraq was closely involved in drafting that Constitution, the Iranians quietly blocked provisions they did not like, and worked to give the pro-Iranian Shiites as much power as possible. While both America and Iran therefore seek a strong central government in Baghdad, thanks to the Kurds' opposition neither have succeeded in establishing it.
BUSH'S GRAND PLAN FOR IRAN
The two goals Bush has announced with regard to Iran are: 1) regime change, abolishing theocracy in favor of democracy and 2) preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. American efforts at destabilizing the Ahmadinejad regime, their playing footsie with various exiled Iranian groups like the son of the former Shah, Iranian Kurdish separatists, and violent groups like the MEK (Mujahideen-e-Khalq) currently in Iraq but of Iranian extraction---- which has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. Department of State no less---- all have angered moderate Iranians and, in any case, none is a "plausible agent for regime change." In fact, the Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji criticizes Ahmadinejad and the United States, writing that "US policy over the past 50 years has consistently been to the detriment of the proponents of freedom and democracy in Iran." Galbraith describes Bush's efforts at regime change as "feckless."
Then there is the unfortunate fact that the rest of the world, having seen the innumerable lies about Iraq's WMD's and Bush's mismanagement of his invasion-occupation, simply do not trust what he says about Iran and nuclear weapons. Bush has two choices: bomb the Iranian nuclear program to a halt, with unknown results and many unknown unintended bad consequences, including the probable launching of highly accurate Iranian missiles against American targets in Iraq. Or, try a diplomatic solution, which would also mesh with Bush's newly announced third goal of getting Iran to cooperate in calming the insurgency in Iraq.
LOST OPPORTUNITIES
Incredibly, in 2003, right after "Mission Accomplished" by Bush in Iraq, Iran "sent a proposal through the Swiss ambassador in Teheran to the United States," offering to freeze their nuclear program "in exchange for an end to US hostility," with guarantees of transparency and cooperation with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). Not only that, the Iranians offered to support "the establishment of democratic institutions and a non-religious government" in Iraq; and, in addition, promised full cooperation against terrorists including "above-all al-Qaeda," and to end to Iranian support for Hamas, in exchange for removing Iran from the "axis of evil," settlement of the Iranian claim for reparations from Iraq (which had, after all, lost the 1980's war with Iran), and being given access to peaceful nuclear technology.
How did Bush react? With scorn and contempt, even criticizing the Swiss for transmitting the offer. Despite this arrogant refusal, there is a possibility the 2003 paper can still be used as a starting point for serious negotiations with Iran. Of course, the Iranian position is now much, much stronger, and they no longer believe that America, with its military stretched thin and bogged down in Iraq, poses as much of a threat as in 2003, but the United States does have bargaining chips of its own. While we talk, there will be time for more moderate Iranians to "assert themselves." Some have already made a comeback in recent democratic elections (yes, Iran is running genuine elections, and is not a completely totalitarian state, just theocratic). It is worth remembering that, even if Iran did achieve an atomic bomb, Ahmadinejad would not have his finger on the button. The top religious leaders in Iran still have final say; indeed, the 2003 proposal would not have been sent without their connivance and approval.
In my opinion, the miscalculations and bone-headed decisions by the Bush administration extend throughout the Middle East, possibly because at the beginning the neo-cons and Bush dismissed the guidance of professionals and experts, and did not even know the difference between Sunni and Shiite. Bush's fixation on being a "wartime president," and the frightening dedication of his evangelical base to bringing on Armaggedon have consistently engendered decisions detached from reality and policies based on fantasies about "Islamofascism." In his speech to the UN on 25 September Bush clung to his vision of democratic states throughout the Middle East: "...a transformed Middle East would benefit the entire world by undermining the ideologies that export violence."
Will this Administration blindly stumble further into the morass of foolish decisions, or will it finally get down to basics and deal with Iran?
If Zbigniew Brzezinski, Francis Fukuyama, John Mearsheimer, and even former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami can praise Parsi's book, Amb. Galbraith must be working with solid material in his review.
I am increasingly finding each day's "news" to be unreadable and unwatchable. The demonizing of Iran has begun, as forecast by NYU Prof. Barnett Rubin. Here is a link to a posting that Rubin made on this very topic on Sunday. (Rubin is much respected and often quoted by Juan Cole, whose Informed Comment site is my favorite first-stop web page for news and analysis on Iraq and Iran.)
At least Sen. Webb put up a principled fight this afternoon on Cheney's sly Lieberman-Kyl amendment to pave the way for "Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream" to attack Iran. Why cannot more senators and congressmen look two or three moves ahead to reflect on the catastrophe that would result from launching a "preemptive war" on Iran?
All of this is very vulnerable to the reportedly accurate Iranian mid-range missles. This has been publicly remarked upon by Iranian flag officers every time Bush rattles his saber. It would be quite possible for us basically to LOSE OUR ARMY to a counter strike by the Iranians if provoked by an attack on their country. Our Teutonburg Forest. Our Adrianople. Our Napoleonic march to Moscow.
What damfool leadership.
I think there's probably a chance though that the U.S. might be left in the lurch though -- as happened in 2003 when part of our Iraq invasion force was stuck in the Mediterranean because of the Bush administration wasn't able to secure cooperation from Turkey.
A logical Iranian response to U.S. strikes would be to try to cut U.S. supply lines leading up from the Gulf through the Basra area. If the Brits are still sitting near Basra when the U.S. launches an attack on Iran, they would in effect be a sort of Fulda Gap sacrificial "tripwire." They would be swiftly overrun (or compelled to surrender) by Iranian forces assisted by local Shia allies. Bushco likely reasons that after such a disaster the British sense of national honor would compel PM Gordon Brown to fall in lock-step behind the new U.S. military adventure in the region.
So if Gordon Brown bows to public pressure in the UK and withdraws all British forces from the Basra area as early as next month, he will be sending a signal that the UK wants nothing to do with yet another war and unpredictable aftermath in the region. Such a withdrawal would also throw a complicating wrench in Cheney's preferred schedule for launching strikes on Iran, for U.S. ground troops would first need to be diverted to the Basra area.
If this president were to exercise military power unilaterally, or in coordination with Israel, it's safe to say that the pendulum would swing against the U.S. -- it would turn us, and not Iran, into a pariah state.
I don't think people who talk about "bombing Iran now" appreciate exactly what that means for this generation or the ones to follow -- especially when you factor in the foreign debt that we have assumed in executing just the Iraq War, or the impact of an invasion on global oil markets.
A future president may be able to exercise the military lever against Iran with a greater degree of credibility and legitimacy. This president has squandered his credibility on Iraq.
But what if the leader is wrong about the key challenge? What if he misreads reality and goes haring off in a completely wrong direction, dragging his country after him, making that country vulnerable in every respect to that which is the real challenge? Well, we are about to find out, aren't we.
Here's a telling sign. I was at the Dover NASCAR race last weekend and NASCAR venders were selling Bush shirts that said, "Dumb and Dumber". THIS SAYS A TON. Those races are basically GOP conventions. The GOP knows he's like poison for the country. God save us from this sick man!!!!
What concerns me is the Republican stable of presidential candidates, who generally pretend they are either Reagan or an even more macho version of John Wayne than Bush pretends to be... they would simply continue the methods and ideology of the present authoritarian regime. And why are most of the Republicans on the Hill still in lockstep with Bush, supporting his every utterance? This represents a frightening totalitarian kind of party discipline that rivals that of the old Communists, and is just as ridiculously detached from reality.
In any case, it puts the rest of the more rational citizens in a real bind: how to put Bush under some sort of control. I am not even sure that cutting off the money would work: he is so arrogant and headstrong, he would simply transfer funds within the executive branch to maintain his way
Pelosi (and Senator Reid) have been caving and stumbling ever since, starting with the clumsy fumble in passing the "Protect America Act."
It would not surprise me if the Bush/Cheney/Addington White House has assembled a thick dossier on every significant political adversary. At crunch time a juicy item or two from the dossier can be mentioned to exert leverage as needed: "Now if you'll just play along and not put up too much of a fight on this issue (or these issues), we'll do our best to make sure that these embarrassing mistakes that you and your husband have made will not be made public."
Speculation? Sure. But this is how these malevolent creatures operate.