The US in a tough neighborhood - the Middle East

Two recent analyses by Gareth Porter provide some important insight into the US position in Iraq and the prospects for war with Iran.

The more recent one focuses on a questions that has arisen about the Israel-Lebanon War: Was Israel's Aim to Clear Path for US War on Iran? Inter Press Service 08/08/06.  He writes:

Israel has argued that the war against Hezbollah's rocket arsenal was a defensive response to the Shiite organisation's threat to Israeli security, but the evidence points to a much more ambitious objective -- the weakening of Iran's deterrent to an attack on its nuclear sites.

In planning for the destruction of most of Hezbollah's arsenal and prevention of any resupply from Iran, Israel appears to have hoped to eliminate a major reason the George W. Bush administration had shelved the military option for dealing with Iran's nuclear programme -- the fear that Israel would suffer massive casualties from Hezbollah's rockets in retaliation for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

One leading expert on Israeli national defence policy issues believes the aim of the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah was to change the Bush administration's mind about attacking Iran. Edward Luttwak, senior adviser to the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, says Bush administration officials have privately dismissed the option of air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in the past, citing estimates that a Hezbollah rocket attack in retaliation would kill thousands of people in northern Israel.

That scenario is uncomfortably similar to the one outlined by one of Juan Cole's sources in One Ring to Rule Them Informed Comment blog 08/06/06.

Porter points to this recent context:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's main purpose in meeting with Bush on May 23 was clearly to push the United States to agree to use force, if necessary, to stop Iran's uranium enrichment programme.  Two days before the meeting, Olmert told CNN that Iran's "technological threshold" is "very close".  In response to a question about U.S. and European diplomacy on the issue, Olmert replied: "I prefer to take the necessary measures to stop it, rather than find out later that my indifference was so dangerous."

At his meeting with Bush, according to Yitzhak Benhorin of Israel's ynetnews, Olmert pressed Bush on Israel's intelligence assessment that Iran would gain the technology necessary to build a bomb within a year and expressed fears that diplomatic efforts were not going to work.

It seems likely that Olmert discussed Israel's plans for degrading Hezbollah's missile capabilities as a means of dramatically reducing the risk of an air campaign against Iran's nuclear sites, and that Bush gave his approval.  That would account for Olmert's comment to Israeli reporters after the meeting, reported by the Israel's ynetnews, but not by U.S. news media: "I am very, very, very satisfied."

Bush's refusal to do anything to curb Israel's freedom to wreak havoc on Lebanon further suggests that he encouraged the Israelis to take advantage of any pretext to launch the offensive.  The Israeli plan may have given Vice President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld new ammunition for advocating a strike on Iran's nuclear sites. (my emphasis)

The latter speculation, based on circumstantial evidence, is important.  It will be interesting to see more specific information coming out that will shed light on just what role the Cheney-Bush administration played in the initiation of the Israel-Lebanon War.

But it's important for Americans to remember that we have 130,000 troops and growing in Iraq.  The Israel-Lebanon War affects their situation there.  An actual attack on Iran would affect them even more drastically.

In US Now a Bystander in Iraq's Sectarian War Inter Press Service 07/25/06, Porter reminds us the situation in Iraq is anything but rosy:

The United States has been reduced to the role of passive bystander as a new stage of sectarian civil war has begun in Iraq, marked by military units with heavy weaponry carrying out mass killings. ...

"Sectarian violence has now become the significant challenge to Iraq's future," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jul. 13.

However, the unwillingness of the U.S. military to intervene against sectarian attacks on civilians casts a new light on the primary argument by administration and other opponents of a timetable for withdrawal - that the presence of U.S. occupation forces is the only thing preventing an even higher level of sectarian civil war and chaos.

And it's not just that the US is failing to stop such clashes: the policy has been to avoid the sectarian clashes:

The current U.S. rules of engagement regarding sectarian violence were set by a broad policy adopted by the administration at least as early as last March. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld told the Senate Appropriations Committee on Mar. 9 that, "The plan is to prevent civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the... Iraqi security forces deal with it to the extent they're able to." Rumsfeld later modified that only slightly, stating, "It's very clear that the Iraqi forces will handle it, but they'll handle it with our help."

Those forces are certainly not going to fight to quell sectarian violence.  As U.S. Ambassador Khalilzad acknowledged in a speech in Washington Jul. 11, "Unfortunately, there have been instances in which Iraqi forces gave way or even cooperated with sectarian militias."

The main army brigade in Baghdad, the all-Shiite 1st brigade, which has responsibility for all of Baghdad west of the Tigris River, probably could not be relied on to fight Shiite militias, moreover. As reported by Knight Ridder's Tom Lasseter last October, the views of its officers and troops on revenge against Sunnis are no different from the most militant Shiite militias.

This is not a pretty picture for the United States.  The problem is, how clearly do Cheney and Rummy see the real situation?  Because they've shown an amazing ability to disregard it before.  In fact, that's a big part of their modus operandi.