August 24, 2006
Bush Totally Responsible for Mideast Disarray*
In my previous posting - Bush Responsible for Mideast Disarray
- I compared Bush's foolish war in Iraq to a Frankenstein creation because it not only made Iran the bully in the region, it gave them the opportunity to act like one.But as it always is with this extremely ignorant and incompetent White House, it's even worse then it appears. Bush just didn't create a Frankenstein monster; he built the laboratory that put him together.
I'll explain, but first a little history.
Current Iranian President/troublemaker Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has only been in office for a year. He was preceded by Mohammad Khatami, a moderate, who came to power in 1997.
For the past decade young Iranians had been demanding more political, social, and economic freedoms and elected Khatami for that reason.
Some reforms were implemented and Iran was becoming more westernized. But it wasn't enough. Making matters worse, the economy was "stagnant" and Khatami wasn't standing up to the "trampling of civil liberties."
His Presidency was failing because he couldn't buck "the system." And this left the Iranian youth disillusioned and angry.
It was during this time that Bush "built" Frankenstein's "lab."
In 2003 Tehran wanted to open talks with Washington after more then twenty years of estrangement - here and here.
They wanted sanctions lifted and relations with the United States normalized so Iran could integrate themselves into the "global economic order."
Sounds like Khatami, in a last ditch effort to save his Presidency and maybe his country, wanted to bring trade and foreign investment to Iran (even Fox News saw what was going on, saw that the Iranian people were sympathetic to the 9/11 attacks, and saw that they wanted the United States to help them move forward).
Talk about hitting the jackpot! This is exactly what the west has been waiting for!
To gain entry into the "globalized world," Iran was not only willing to hand over three to six high level al-Qaeda terrorists they had in custody, but were also open to the "possibility of cutting off support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad and converting Hezbollah into a purely socio-political organization."
Cha-ching!
In return, they wanted the US military to take out the Mujahedin el Khalq (MEK), an anti-Iranian rebel group, although Iran was willing to compromise (this would have shown the Arab world that America doesn't differentiate between "terrorist" organizations, regardless of whose side they are on).
Iran assisted us in our war against the Taliban in Afghanistan so channels were already open. And with the Arab world thinking Bush's invasion of Iraq was a "crusade" against Muslims, this offer couldn't have come at a better time.
But most important, the deal had the "blessing" of all the "major political players in the Iranian regime, including the 'Supreme Leader,' Ayatollah Ali Khomeini," who was "the system" Khatami was referring to.
Who could ask for anything more?
Dick Cheney. On Bush's behalf, he sabotaged the talks and fired the offer back into Iran's face as if it were buckshot. No deal.
Apparently, Bush and Cheney wanted to keep the MEK around in the event they needed their help if (and when), they (foolishly) called for "regime change" in Iran (not for one minute taking into consideration what "regime change" would cost in blood, money and future consequences or the fact that "regime change" wouldn't have been necessary had they cut a deal with Iran).
So after helping us in Afghanistan, Bush responded to Iran's bold offer by giving them the finger. The Iranians, Khomeini especially, must have been incredulous and thought there really was an arrogant, bellicose madman in the White House.
So just like the United States re-elected Bush in 2004 to stand up to terrorists, and just like Israel elected a "hardliner" in Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 to stand up to Yasir Arafat and the suicide bombers, Iran - with the younger generation sitting out the election and Khomeini and the clerics holding enormous clout - elected Ahmadinejad in 2005, an arrogant, bellicose madman in his own right, to stand up to George Bush.
And the rest is history.
Imagine if the Bush administration greeted this extended hand in kind. Imagine if the Bush administration treated this extraordinary offer with the consideration it deserved. Imagine if the Bush administration realized what was going on in Iran at the time, politically, emotionally and socially. Imagine if the Bush administration had the intellect, creativity and imagination to work around any "deal breakers." Imagine if the Bush administration wasn't full of bullies who think the only way to deal with the "axis of evil" is through confrontation, regardless of how progressive one of their leaders are.Imagine if the Bush administration could think, period.
But wait, there's more (with this White House there always is)!
This wasn't the first time a terrorist state reached out to George Bush.
According to Sy Hersh
In my previous posting - Bush Responsible for Mideast Disarray - I compared Bush's foolish war in Iraq to a Frankenstein creation because it not only made Iran the bully in the region, it gave them the opportunity to act like one.
But as it always is with this extremely ignorant and incompetent White House, it's even worse then it appears. Bush just didn't create a Frankenstein monster; he built the laboratory that put him together.
I'll explain, but first a little history.
Current Iranian President/troublemaker Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has only been in office for a year. He was preceded by Mohammad Khatami, a moderate, who came to power in 1997.
For the past decade young Iranians had been demanding more political, social, and economic freedoms and elected Khatami for that reason.
Some reforms were implemented and Iran was becoming more westernized. But it wasn't enough. Making matters worse, the economy was "stagnant" and Khatami wasn't standing up to the "trampling of civil liberties."
His Presidency was failing because he couldn't buck "the system." And this left the Iranian youth disillusioned and angry.
It was during this time that Bush "built" Frankenstein's "lab."
In 2003 Tehran wanted to open talks with Washington after more then twenty years of estrangement - here and here.
They wanted sanctions lifted and relations with the United States normalized so Iran could integrate themselves into the "global economic order."
Sounds like Khatami, in a last ditch effort to save his Presidency and maybe his country, wanted to bring trade and foreign investment to Iran (even Fox News saw what was going on, saw that the Iranian people were sympathetic to the 9/11 attacks, and saw that they wanted the United States to help them move forward).
Talk about hitting the jackpot! This is exactly what the west has been waiting for!
To gain entry into the "globalized world," Iran was not only willing to hand over three to six high level al-Qaeda terrorists they had in custody, but were also open to the "possibility of cutting off support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad and converting Hezbollah into a purely socio-political organization."
Cha-ching!
In return, they wanted the US military to take out the Mujahedin el Khalq (MEK), an anti-Iranian rebel group, although Iran was willing to compromise (this would have shown the Arab world that America doesn't differentiate between "terrorist" organizations, regardless of whose side they are on).
Iran assisted us in our war against the Taliban in Afghanistan so channels were already open. And with the Arab world thinking Bush's invasion of Iraq was a "crusade" against Muslims, this offer couldn't have come at a better time.
But most important, the deal had the "blessing" of all the "major political players in the Iranian regime, including the 'Supreme Leader,' Ayatollah Ali Khomeini," who was "the system" Khatami was referring to.
Who could ask for anything more?
Dick Cheney. On Bush's behalf, he sabotaged the talks and fired the offer back into Iran's face as if it were buckshot. No deal.
Apparently, Bush and Cheney wanted to keep the MEK around in the event they needed their help if (and when), they (foolishly) called for "regime change" in Iran (not for one minute taking into consideration what "regime change" would cost in blood, money and future consequences or the fact that "regime change" wouldn't have been necessary had they cut a deal with Iran).
So after helping us in Afghanistan, Bush responded to Iran's bold offer by giving them the finger. The Iranians, Khomeini especially, must have been incredulous and thought there really was an arrogant, bellicose madman in the White House.
So just like the United States re-elected Bush in 2004 to stand up to terrorists, and just like Israel elected a "hardliner" in Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 to stand up to Yasir Arafat and the suicide bombers, Iran - with the younger generation sitting out the election and Khomeini and the clerics holding enormous clout - elected Ahmadinejad in 2005, an arrogant, bellicose madman in his own right, to stand up to George Bush.
And the rest is history.
Imagine if the Bush administration greeted this extended hand in kind. Imagine if the Bush administration treated this extraordinary offer with the consideration it deserved. Imagine if the Bush administration realized what was going on in Iran at the time, politically, emotionally and socially. Imagine if the Bush administration had the intellect, creativity and imagination to work around any "deal breakers." Imagine if the Bush administration wasn't full of bullies who think the only way to deal with the "axis of evil" is through confrontation, regardless of how progressive one of their leaders are.Imagine if the Bush administration could think, period.
But wait, there's more (with this White House there always is)!
This wasn't the first time a terrorist state reached out to George Bush.
According to Sy Hersh, Syria was looking to open talks with the United States in 2002 because they also wanted to "improve relations" and "remove themselves from the state sponsors of terrorism list."
Syria was on our side in the fight against al-Qaeda as well. So to grease the skids, they not only provided the CIA with an "outpouring" of information on the terrorist group responsible for 9/11, but also handed over intelligence that "thwarted" an attack at a US Navy Headquarters in Bahrain.
Damascus was serious.
Granted, it wouldn't have been an easy deal to hammer out. Syria wanted the Golan Heights on the table and they were supportive to the "Palestinian resistance" ("suicide bombers" to you and me).
And although he had only been in office for two years, Syrian President Bashar Assad - like his father, President Hafez Assad - already had reputation for being extremely difficult to deal with.
There was also concern that he didn't exactly have full control of his country.
But when Assad feels like talking, and when Syria is giving us their help vis-a-vis al-Qaeda - even if it's through "back channels" which Assad probably preferred - the White House should do everything possible to cut a deal (if I have to explain why, then the Republican Party deserves you).
But because they wanted to keep their options open in regards to "regime change" in Damascus as well - and the Pentagon (i.e. Don Rumsfeld) "ideologically hostile" towards Syria - the White House never gave it a chance. They asked for too much too soon and the talks came to an end, as did the flow of intelligence Syria was providing on al-Qaeda, the moment Bush invaded Iraq.
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
So two golden opportunities to normalize diplomatic relations with two terrorist states didn't just fall between Bush's fingers, he threw them to the ground!
An agreement with both Iran and Syria would have given us twice the leverage against Hezbollah, who it appears were willing to cooperate, and an enormous amount of help against al-Qaeda (my god, Bush is so stupid, he must be the only person in the world that never heard the phrase, "the enemy of your enemy is your friend;" along with "learn from history or you'll be doomed to repeat it").
And maybe some brakes would have been applied to Hamas as well.
The problem with Bush and Cheney (among many) is that they fail to realize that no Arab country - with hundreds, perhaps thousands of years of complicated authoritarian and ruthless history behind it - is going to turn into a "Jeffersonian democracy" through intimidation and force.
So Bush and Cheney cannot be stubborn and petulant (insert sarcasm here) with their foreign policies (insert incredulousness here). In fact, they have to be clever, astute, and most of all, practical (insert laughter here), and take what they can get.
China, for example.
While they're not a "Jeffersonian democracy," and while we're not thrilled with their civil rights record*, what this myopic White House also fails to realize is that money, trade and investment lessens the chance of conflict between our two countries because there's too much too lose from confrontation (or from a terrorist attack, especially via a shipping container. So it's in China's interest to join our fight against terrorism.).
Therefore, if Bush tried to bring the "globalized world" to the Arab world soon after the 9/11 attacks - allowing the political chips fall where they may and offering a "civil rights carrot" when necessary - and gave young Muslims and their governments a financial incentive to behave themselves, it would have struck a bigger blow against al-Qaeda and terrorism then any "smart bomb."
Well, Bush had his chances to do exactly that after 9/11 when the world, including the Mideast, were offering their sympathy and support. Now it's too late. Opportunities, lost.
Congratulations, Mr. President, you now hold the distinction of joining Hafez Assad and Yasir Arafat on the all-time list of leaders who've "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity" the most often (and you haven't even been in office six years yet!).
The consequences of Bush's negligence and feckless actions couldn't be more clear: colossal disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, a flood of Iraqi refugees are on the horizon, an Iraqi civil war could threaten the entire Mideast, including Saudi Arabia and its oil fields, Iran's going nuclear because they've been "bolstered" by Bush's "war on terror," more terrorists are being created every day, and a war is brewing between Sunnis and Shiites throughout the region (this dire predicament is detailed here).
And there's more (hey, I said there's always more with this White House!): Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas couldn't be any more united against their "axis of evil" - the United States, Great Britain, Israel and the "globalized world."
Well done, Mr. President.
You know, Bush and Cheney couldn't have done a better job for al-Qaeda and the radical Islamic fundamentalists if they tried.
Makes you wonder...either they're spies, or it really is an exponential amount of arrogance, ignorance, incompetence, belligerence, immaturity and hypocrisy.
Which is it, Republicans?
* With his own embarrassing (China-like) record on civil rights - wiretapping without a warrant, locking up Americans indefinitely without charges or a lawyer, torturing prisoners, etc. - Bush is certainly in no position to preach to China, or anyone else for that matter, on the issue.
May 2007 insert: New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof details the Iranian proposal in his April 29, 2007 column. It also includes a link to the documents themselves on his blog.
August 2007 insert: Robert Buzzanco, History Professor at the Univ. of Houston, December 2006:
If enemies of the United States had gotten together a few years ago to devise a plan to damage America and undermine its global position–diminish its power and credibility, drag it into a stubborn war, harm its relations with allies, create international financial disarray, run up huge deficits, create political openings for the Europeans and China to exploit and become equals in global economic matters, motivate terrorists, bring the U.S. image in the Middle East to its nadir, restrict civil liberties at home, and so forth–they would have been hard-pressed to create a program that would be more effective than the Bush administration’s policies on these issues of war, terrorism, and global economics have.The rest of the column here.
Indeed, if one is an “enemy” of the U.S., then he/she would have to be heartened that Bush has pursued this agenda and would have to be elated that the war in Iraq continues today...
+/- show/hide this post
