The Saban Center weighs in on Iran

Haim Saban (right)

David Seaton's News Links
Since involving the United States in an open war with Iran is a primary objective of the Israeli Likud party and the Israel Lobby in the United States, this report from the Saban Center of the Brookings Institute should be read with extra care.

If the objective were really to stabilize Iraq than it seems obvious that the cooperation of Iran, would be essential. That, in fact was exactly the conclusion of the Baker/Hamilton report.

It is only fair to remember that Iran did not invade Iraq or seek to have Iraq invaded and if it is deriving any advantage from the situation, that is simply due to the criminal idiocy of American policies in the Middle East. DS

US must abandon Iraqi cities or face nightmare scenario- Independent

Abstract: The US must draw up plans to deal with an all-out Iraqi civil war that would kill hundreds of thousands, create millions of refugees, and could spill over into a regional catastrophe, disrupting oil supplies and setting up a direct confrontation between Washington and Iran.(...) The unremittingly bleak document, drawing on the experience of civil wars in Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, Congo and Afghanistan, also offers a remarkably stark assessment of Iraq's "spill-over" potential across the Persian Gulf region. It warns of radicalisation and possible secession movements in adjacent countries, an upsurge in terrorism, and of intervention by Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Ending an all-out civil war, the report says, would require a force of 450,000 - three times the present US deployment even after the 21,500 "surge" ordered by President Bush this month. Everywhere looms the shadow of Iran. In a "war game" testing US options, the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution found that, as the descent into civil war gathered pace, confrontation between the US and Iran intensified, and Washington's leverage on Tehran diminished. Civil war in Iraq would turn Iran into "the unambiguous adversary" of the US. (emphasis mine. DS) READ IT ALL

Scowcroft puts the fox among the chickens

David Seaton's News Links

If you peel off all the national security rhetoric from Brent Scowcroft's Op-Ed in today's New York Times, the message is: America's support of Israel is endangering America's hegemony in the Middle East, which in turn endangers America's control of the world's energy supplies. To save what is left of America's power and prestige, a face saving solution is needed for Iraq. No solution can be found for Iraq without the cooperation of its neighbors. Because of America's support of Israel the population of those countries would not tolerate cooperation with the USA and that support would not be forthcoming. Therefore the Palestinians must be satisfied in order to extract the USA from Iraq. Very neat. Really what General Scowcroft's analysis shows is how desperate the situation and with it America's position in the world have become. If the United States had imposed a Pax Americana on Israel and Palestine at the zenith of American power at the end the First Gulf War, this would have been seen as America's acting from strength: power imposing justice. Very Roman. At this point the message that is being sent is that the armed resistance of irregular Arab fighter is forcing the United States to abandon Israel. Certainly this will encourage others to resist American power everywhere in the world. It also means importing the same tribal politics that poison the Middle East directly into the heart of America's political discourse. Can you imagine AIPAC's reaction to Scowcroft's proposals? Jimmy Carter with Mearsheimer and Walt are a Hadassah kaffee klatch compared to Brent Scowcroft. The Israeli, defense and energy lobbies will be at each others throats and we may see the rise in "deep America" of a Borat-like isolationist populism tinged with antisemitism. However unfortunate it may be though, General Scowcroft's analysis is the correct one: this is the only way out. It is also an epitaph for America's empire and the beginning of a "Baghdad-like" political climate in Washington. DS

Getting the Middle East Back on Our Side - Brent Scowcroft - New York Times
Abstract: An American withdrawal before Iraq can, in the words of the president, “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself” would be a strategic defeat for American interests, with potentially catastrophic consequences both in the region and beyond. Our opponents would be hugely emboldened, our friends deeply demoralized. Iran, heady with the withdrawal of its principal adversary, would expand its influence through Hezbollah and Hamas more deeply into Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Jordan. Our Arab friends would rightly feel we had abandoned them to face alone a radicalism that has been greatly inflamed by American actions in the region and which could pose a serious threat to their own governments. The effects would not be confined to Iraq and the Middle East. Energy resources and transit choke points vital to the global economy would be subjected to greatly increased risk. Terrorists and extremists elsewhere would be emboldened. And the perception, worldwide, would be that the American colossus had stumbled, was losing its resolve and could no longer be considered a reliable ally or friend — or the guarantor of peace and stability in this critical region. To avoid these dire consequences, we need to secure the support of the countries of the region themselves. It is greatly in their self-interest to give that support, just as they did in the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict. Unfortunately, in recent years they have come to see it as dangerous to identify with the United States, and so they have largely stood on the sidelines. A vigorously renewed effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict could fundamentally change both the dynamics in the region and the strategic calculus of key leaders. Real progress would push Iran into a more defensive posture. Hezbollah and Hamas would lose their rallying principle. American allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states would be liberated to assist in stabilizing Iraq. And Iraq would finally be seen by all as a key country that had to be set right in the pursuit of regional security. Arab leaders are now keen to resolve the 50-year-old dispute. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel may be as well. His nation’s long-term security can only be assured by resolving this issue once and for all. However, only the American president can bring them to the same table.(...) What is at stake is not only Iraq and the stability of the Middle East, but the global perception of the reliability of the United States as a partner in a deeply troubled world. We cannot afford to fail that test. READ IT ALL

Iran: dealing with the demons

David Seaton's News Links

The only way that the USA could "solve" its situation in the Middle East, as it stands today, is to make a deal with Iran. Not just a little deal, but the "mother of all deals". The realpolitik solution to America's problems in the Middle East would be to become Iran's "new best friend". Full trade (especially oil technology), full diplomatic relations, non-interference in Iran's internal affairs, let them have their atomic bomb: all in exchange for a dignified withdrawal from Iraq and Iran's recognition that the US Navy -- over the horizon -- guarantees the independence of Saudi Arabia and the emirates and free movement of oil. To insure the survival of the Saudi throne, force Israel to accept the Saudi peace plan, which means Israel returning all the land it took in 1967, including Jerusalem.... Hey David, what are you smoking? The United States' international behavior is normally ruled by domestic politics. Pressure groups of every stripe twist the general interest to their benefit. Things will have to get a lot worse in the Middle East before the deal I've sketched out could happen. Will things get worse? Do bears do whatever they do in the woods? DS

Iran looks like the winner of the Iraq war - Los Angeles Times

Abstract: The report issued last week by the blue-ribbon Iraq Study Group provides fresh proof of Iran's strengthened hand in the Middle East since the U.S.-led invasion: It mentions the Islamic Republic more than 50 times and makes clear that the U.S. will have to seek Iran's help for any resolution. "The report told the Iranians, You are mighty now in the region and in Iraq. The Iranians feel now they are untouchable," said Mustafa Alani, director of security and terrorism studies at the Gulf Research Center, an independent think tank in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The Bush administration no longer has much leverage to stop Iran from pursuing uranium enrichment, diplomats and analysts said. And the price of cooperation, Alani said, will be very high.(...) "So far, Iran won the Iraq war," said George Perkovich, the vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "They gained the most by far." He said the U.S. hand was already weak on the nuclear issue because of Russia's reluctance to go along with sanctions against the Islamic Republic. But the report makes clear that Iran has substantial leverage in any negotiation, he said, because of Iran's importance in helping to quell the civil war in Iraq. "We have to deal with reality," Perkovich said. Israel views the situation with alarm. "The idea was to make Iraq a partner in the moderate Arab camp. Instead, it has come under the influence of Iran, a state that calls for Israel's destruction," said Ephraim Sneh, Israel's deputy defense minister.(...) Western diplomats are reluctant to describe Iran as a victor but concede that for the moment, at least, it looks that way. "Iran won the first round," said a senior Western diplomat in an Arab state. "But there is a long way to go, and if the U.S. leaves Iraq and other countries in the region come in — Saudi, Syria — Iran's position could weaken."(...) Analysts emphasized, far more than the report's authors did, that Iran's strengthened position means the nation is unlikely to see any reason to help the U.S. unless Washington meets Ian's demands. And, they said, Iran will put such a high price on cooperation that it will be impossible for Washington to agree. "Iran certainly would want recognition of their enrichment program, what they claim to be their rights to uranium enrichment…. They would also want lifting of [existing] U.S. sanctions, particularly on investment in oil and gas," said Mark Fitzpatrick, a senior analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. (...) "It's ironic that Bush, after having coined the 'axis of evil' phrase, now finds it very hard to address the Iran problem because of the failure of the Iraq policy," Fitzpatrick said. "So now they have to deal with the demons." READ IT ALL