One-Finger Salute

What Next for the US in the Middle East?

The Bush administration recently sent a communique to the Israeli government regarding its war against Iraq and plans for the future. This transmission stated that

...the United States is operating with strong resolution to neutralize the Iraqi threat to Israel. After the war, the message continued, the United States will deal with other radical regimes in the region - not necessarily by military means - to moderate their activities and fight terrorism. These current and future U.S. operations will also serve Israel, the American administration says, but have caused tensions between the United States and the Arab world. Israel, the American message says, must play its part to help ease these tensions by taking action with regard to settlements in the territories.

This message raises several important points regarding the United States' policy in the Middle East. First, it should help put an end to the often ugly denials that Israel fit at all into the American decision to attack Iraq. Before the war began, Israel's leadership could hardly contain its eagerness to see the US invade and in fact publicly urged the Bush administration not to delay. There was a strong will in the administration to accommodate Israel on this matter. As is well known by now, several high-ranking administration officials authored a 1996 study, "A Clean Break", in which they clearly stated their desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein to help strengthen Israel's regional dominance. This message is official confirmation that commentators who connected Israel's strategic interests and the American administration's willingness to secure these interests were correct.

Second, it is another indication that the US attack on Iraq is only the beginning of a long-term hands-on project in the Middle East. The "radical regimes" in question are Iran and Syria, two countries that have been on Israel's hit list for a long time. Since it became clear last year that the US was serious about invading Iraq, Israel has stepped up its propaganda campaign against its enemies. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last year demanded that the "international community" (i.e., the US) take steps to deal with Iran immediately after finishing with Iraq. In February of this year, Sharon told visiting US congressional members that Iran, Syria, and Libya should be disarmed after Iraq.

Prior to this current war, the US began indicating that it would also target Iran and Syria at some point. Undersecretary John Bolton told the Israeli government in February that the US would turn its attention to Iran and Syria after Iraq. Now that the war is under way, these warnings are becoming more frequent and pointed. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld accused Syria of assisting Iraq by sending, of all things, night-vision goggles and stated that it would be held "accountable". Secretary of State Powell, in a speech to the America Israel Political Affairs Committee, warned both Syria and Iran against "interfering" with the US war against Iraq and demanded that they cease support for "terrorist" groups such as Hezbollah.

How does the US intend to "deal" with Syria and Iran? Powell has stated that the US does not plan to attack either country - oddly similar to what he said one year ago about Iraq. In any event, the military option does not appear to be immediate as long as the Iraqis continue fighting. What other avenues are open to the US? The most promising non-military course of action is economic pressure. But it seems unlikely at this point that the US would or could do anything through the UN, such as apply sanctions, although such a cynical and hypocritical move at the world body would not be out of line with standard US policy. It might, possibly in conjunction with other "coalition of the willing" members, attempt to institute some kind of embargo against the two countries. However, such a plan would likely find very little international support. Or, the US could be considering the military option, despite Powell's pronouncement, in which case it would proceed in the same manner it did against Iraq - making threats and demands, concocting doomsday scenarios, publicizing all kinds of real and imagined evils committed by the two countries, and using falsified and fradulent "evidence" to whip up public support for its project. It is unclear at this point what exactly the US will do; it is entirely conceivable that the Bush administration itself has no idea. But what seems certain is that the US will actively work to destabilize and pressure the current governments in Syria and Iran, using the newly pacified and subservient Iraq for its base of operations.

Third, the communique indicates that the US wants Israel to help it fix its dismal image in the Arab countries by easing up on the illegal settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories. But Israel is not likely to accommodate the US on this matter. The so-called "road map", which calls for a settlement freeze, has been the focus of much talk recently, especially by the eternally hopeful British PM Tony Blair, who has sunk a lot of political capital into seeing it put on the table. National Security Advisor Rice has stated that the "road map" is non-negotiable. But already, Israel's lobbyists have begun mobilizing members of Congress to sabotage the plan. In addition, the administration has said that it will not attempt to "impose" it on the Israelis - a decision which translates to a green light to Sharon to continue expanding the settlements and carrying out the slow-and-steady apartheid project against the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

In conclusion, I will engage in some speculation. Based on the indications presented above of short-to-mid range US policy in the Middle East, the following projections may be offered, listed in order of decreasing likelihood. These possibilities, of course, assume a successful outcome to the current war (from the American administration's point of view) and a reasonable amount of time for some kind of transition to a quasi-civilian rule:

• Israel, freed from even the remote pressure of Iraq, maintains the status quo in the occupied Palestinian territories. Occasional noises are made of the need to resume "peace" talks, while in the meantime the Israeli government continues construction on the "apartheid wall" and forcibly resettles Palestinians in several towns and cities on the West Bank;
• Iraq becomes the third Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel. Small-scale urban guerilla activities against the occupying American forces begin taking place;
• Syria and Iran enter into a mutual aid pact aimed at fending off a US attack against one or both of them;
• The US continues its "war against terror" by attacking Syria and/or Iran;
• The new Iraqi government privatizes its oil industry; Iraq withdraws from OPEC, dealing the organization a crippling blow.

What comes next is anyone's guess. The worst case scenario involves a US attack against either Syria or Iran. If one of these countries is attacked, the other will be compelled to help defend the other against the US. Israel would be unlikely to stand aside if the Americans are fighting both the Syrians and the Iranians; Turkey might become involved as well at some point. If Israel enters the conflict against Syria, it will be difficult for the pro-American Arab countries of Egypt and Jordan not to assist Syria. Then matters would be dangerous.

It would not take very much for the situation to reach this point.

Democracy? Sorry, We Meant Capitalism

Less than 2 weeks into the United States' war against Iraq and with no clear end in sight, the Bush administration is already handing out fat contracts for the reconstruction of the country's cities, industrial installations, and other infrastructure now being blown to bits. Thanks to over a decade of American policy - the crippling sanctions and now this war - there will be quite a bit to rebuild.

It is odd that these contracts have been handed out even before the magnitude of the rebuilding project is clear. What's the rush? Tenders for large-scale construction projects usually take some time to prepare and normally require that bidding companies actually know the details of the work they are supposed to carry out. When and under what conditions were these tenders drawn up? And if the whole bidding process could be carried out so quickly, why not just have waited until the end of hostilities?

It is also odd that the Iraqi people, who are supposed to enjoy "democracy" after the fall of the dictator Saddam Hussein, will apparently have no say in who will be rebuilding their country or how it will be rebuilt. A funny introduction to a political system supposedly based on the rule of the people. I'm sure that all of these so-called liberals who are supporting this war for the "democratic" benefits it will bring the Iraqi people will be quite capable of filtering this bit of information out. But it's plausible to say that this is an early indication of the kind of "democracy" the the Iraqis can expect the US to bring them.

It is also odd that only American companies were invited to bid on these contracts. Aren't there some 40 countries in this "coalition of the willing"? The British are apparently furious they are being cut out, since their troops are also fighting and dying with the Americans. I'm sure that Nicaragua and Latvia, other stalwarts of this historic coalition, aren't too pleased, either.

But perhaps I am being too cynical - after all, Dick Cheney's company Halliburton is out of the running for the largest contract handed out so far, a $600 million project to build roads, hospitals, schools, and other such civilian infrastructure. Well, my prediction below was off the mark. But perhaps cynicism is called for after all - all of the corporations invited to bid enjoy close ties with the Bush regime and were major donors to his election campaign.

Cronyism? Corruption? Double-dealing? Lack of accountability and public input? Welcome to democracy, Iraq.