Cole in Salon.com: Bush's Anti-Iran Fatwa
My Salon.com column this week is now available:
"The danger of Bush's anti-Iran fatwa":
The president's decision to use force against Iranian "agents" inside Iraq could snare innocent pilgrims, and raises the risk of open warfare.
Excerpt:
' George W. Bush last week announced that American troops in Iraq were henceforth authorized to "kill or capture" any Iranian intelligence agents they discovered in Iraq. The announcement came on the heels of his pledge in the State of the Union address to bring another aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf, a move that clearly targeted Iran. A prominent Iranian parliamentarian responded to Bush's threat by saying, "Such an order is a clear terrorist act and against all internationally acknowledged norms." Iraq's deputy prime minister, meanwhile, put a pox on both Iran and the U.S. for conducting their geopolitical battle on Iraqi soil. '
Read the whole thing.
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/30/2007 06:33:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
6 Comments:
"As Washington grows weaker in Iraq, it is concerned that Iran not pick up the pieces and establish hegemony over its smaller neighbor. The Bush administration may also be casting about for some issue that will galvanize the American public and give it a pretext to expand its presence in Iraq despite how badly the war has gone."
I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis and conclusion except for one point. I don't think Iran needs or wants to establish hegemony over Iraq; it need only act as partner and friend, which is exactly the path it appears to be pursuing, and there's a naturalness to the process the US under any administration is powerless to stop short of annihilating both countries.
It's no great mystery to me that Bush's big push, his escalation is aimed squarely at the Sunni resistance; at encouraging rifts in the Shiite bloc possibly leading to the downfall of the al-Maliki government, and at securing lines of communication in a thus splintered Shiite south and Baghdad/Diyala provinces all preparatory to an attack on Iran.
The Mahdi armny however seems to have thrown a monkey wrench into the Rube Goldberg machine that Bush styles a "strategy"...
William Lind explains:
Thus far, we have been willing to play the Shi'ites' game. Their challenge now is to make sure we continue to do so as Bush's "big push" in Baghdad unfolds. Originally, they wanted U.S. forces to control access to Baghdad, cutting the Sunnis' lines of communication and reinforcement, while the Shi'ite militias carried on their successful campaign of ethnic cleansing. With Bush insisting American forces work in Baghdad, the Shi'ites came up with an alternate plan, one we have seemingly accepted: the Americans will drive out the Sunni insurgents, leaving Sunni neighborhoods defenseless. As the American troops move on, they will be replaced by Iraqi soldiers and police, mostly Shi'ite militiamen, who will ethnically cleanse the area of Sunnis, just as in plan A. Again, the Americans will have fulfilled their allotted function, fighting the Sunnis on behalf of the Shi'ites.
Aren't Hessians great?
William Lind
As crazy as it seems, Bush is doubling down. It is clear that he is going to go into Iran (via carrier based airstrikes against Natanz plus). Now they are rolling out all the signature Iraq tactics from amplifying the threat of a paper tiger through escalation and provocation. No doubt in a few weeks Cheney will be talking mushroom clouds again and trumpeting the bomb the mullahs for democracy argument. Congress has to establish a firm line in the sand. Attack Iran without proof and face impeachment. Americans wake up. Where is one shred of proof that Iran is within ten years of developing nuclear weapons.
Isn't it obvious that Bush is trying to start a war with Iran? It seems he's calculated that the only path to "victory" in Iraq is war with Iran, and he's proceeding smoothly on a course to ramp up hostilities.
Will the Congress have the spine to stop him? Unfortunately no.
I don't understand how Russians and Chinese fit in this picture. Russians declared unlimited defence support to Iran only few weeks ago. Chinese made a demonstration of shooting a satellite a week ago. If US attacks Iran it seems pretty sure thing to me that it will escalate out of control. We know what that means. A global nuclear war.
It could be that US is planning a retreat behind the smoke screen of threats. This is a well known tactic.
Kissinger sounds pretty councilliatory in his recent communication;
"At some point, Iraq has to be restored to the international community, and other countries must be prepared to share responsibilities for regional peace."
The article;
http://www.khaleejtimes.com:80/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2007/January/opinion_January62.xml§ion=opinion&col
Let's face it, practically speaking, any such authorization gets translated on the ground as "kill any Iranian you see within Iraq's borders." This could get very ugly...
Post a Comment
<< Home