It doesn’t take a Rhodes scholar to figure out where Bush is headed in the Middle East in 2007. The notion of troop withdrawals, proposed by the Iraq Study Group, is as dead as Marley’s ghost. The idea of talks with Syria and Iran, an antiquated notion once known as diplomacy (dî-plō-ma-see), is equally dead. The war can’t continue at current troop levels, yet neither can Bush extend the tours of duty of some 140,000 G.I.s, reservists, and National Guard units indefinitely. And a draft would be disastrous. Moreover, his legacy, which currently puts him somewhere between Pol Pot and Alfred E. Newman, demands that he make a decisive move before dumping the entire mess in the next guy’s lap. Add to that the fact that no one (including most on the so-called Left) wants to see Iraq turn into a (yawn) “staging area for terrorists”―as if the entire Moslem world hasn’t become a staging area for anti-American sentiment thanks to this administration― and you’ve got the fixin’s for an inevitable solution:
Bomb Iran.
It’s a no-brainer, really. Even for The Decider. With a croupier to spin the intelligence at the Defense Department, a Democratic Congress determined to prove they can be trusted with “national security” (yet naïve enough to believe a draft could be equitably implemented), Wall Street awash in unprecedented profits, and a Radicalized Christian base gnawing at their prayer beads for an Armageddon, the stage has been fatefully set.
First come the sanctions, which we saw on Friday. Then come the inevitable provocations, which began yesterday with the arrests of visiting Iranian diplomats in Iraq. Then come the pundits with their incendiary rhetoric. We’ll hear about Iran’s nuclear capability and their unwavering support for Hezbollah. We’ll hear about their interference in Lebanon’s affairs (though we’ll hear nothing about U.S-Saudi plans for a major aid and military training package to Lebanon’s Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora).
We’ll hear about Iran’s hatred for Israel and their commitment to eradicating the Jews. We’ll hear how Syria has contributed to our humiliation in Iraq by supporting the “insurgency” and see clips of anti-American sentiment in the streets (especially if we bomb Iran). We may even see that old footage from 2001―my personal favorite―of six guys in black struggling across a set of parallel bars in a remote village in (Afghanistan?) with AK-47’s strapped across their backs. It’ll be enough to make the most secular conscientious objector run for the nearest gun rack.
As the bombing nears, journalists and academics will insist we have no other choice. An occasional nut job from the Far Left will be interviewed to add credence to their case and the further the fiction of democratic discourse. Intelligence will be spun that proves Iran’s intent to develop nuclear weapons. The Democratic Congress, with an eye toward the polls and a burning desire to further their leadership image, will fall blithely in line (seizing the chance for a populist sound bite en route).
No one will suggest―as I did in 2000―that the plan to attack Iran and Syria has been in place since Day One; or that our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were designed, in part, to surround Iran and position ourselves for an invasion of Syria. And we won’t hear much about Riyadh’s complicity in our foreign policy, though their footprints are clearly evident. King Abdullah summoned Dick Cheney to Riyadh last month (the operative word being “summoned”) for one central reason: to discuss joint U.S.-Saudi efforts against Iran. And you can bet they weren’t discussing the Iraq Study Group (sorry, Jim).
And yet, you may ask―as Scrooge did while clutching the sleeve of the Ghost of Christmas Future― are these the things that will be, or are they the things that may be?
That, dear reader, is the million dollar question. If the Democrats in Congress refuse to fund a widening war, we may avert catastrophe. If they refuse to commit more troops to the region under any circumstance, we may also find reason for hope. But with our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, arms being funneled to the beleaguered Lebanese government, Israel all but admitting they have a nuclear bomb, social “conservatives” demanding a win in the Middle East, King Abdullah determined to counter Iran’s influence, and Congress increasingly open to the idea of a “temporary surge” in troop levels, I wouldn’t place any bets on Iran. Scrooge had to completely change course in order to avert disaster. This administration, I'm afraid, shows no such inclination.
Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net
Israel Raises Prospect of War in 2007
http://www.crusade-media.com/news35.html
Posted by: Bob Wilson | December 26, 2006 at 05:09 PM