[Mb-civic] Bush's second mistake!

[Harold Sifton]

Intl. Intelligence
Politics & Policies: Bush's second mistake
By CLAUDE SALHANI
UPI International Editor 

WASHINGTON, March 27 (UPI) -- Historians and politicians will undoubtedly argue for years to come whether the war in Iraq was worth starting or a mistake. 

Despite the obvious outcome of the war -- the positive as well as the negative -- three years into the conflict is still too early to tell. The jury is still out as far as the results of the Iraq expedition is concerned and only time will tell if President George W. Bush's actions were justifiable or if he committed a major policy error. 

What is clear, however, is that President Bush is about to make another policy decision that need not wait for historians to judge as a major mistake in Iraq, and that is inviting Iran to negotiate in Iraq's future. 

This decision recognizes Iran as a de facto regional political power broker in the Middle East and legitimizes the theocratic regime of the mullahs. It also goes counter to the current policy of wanting to encourage a change in that direction and saps away efforts by Iranian opposition forces. 

Such a move elevates the regime in Iran to the statute of being a "Potsdam-like" participant in deciding Iraq's future, even though the Islamic republic played no role in liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein. 

As Amir Taheri, a noted writer on Iranian affairs, points out, it would be equivalent to the Allies inviting Switzerland or Poland to talks on Germany's future at the end of World War II. 

Taheri warns that asking Iran to such talks may be Washington's first major mistake. Of course, many would dispute that point, arguing that this is yet another of a multitude of mistakes, in a long-running series of political faux pas made by this administration in conducting the war and consequently in its efforts to establish peace in Iraq. 

Starting with the reason given for the invasion of Iraq, the mismanagement during the immediate aftermath of initial combat operations, and leading right up to the current running of affairs that has brought Iraq to the brink of civil war, and allowed Iran to establish a foothold in Iraq, it is reasonable to question where the first error lies. 

Again, historians might well argue that the first mistake was made by Bush 41, the father of the incumbent, Bush 43, when the perfect opportunity to oust Saddam Hussein arose during the 1990-91 Gulf War and he chose not to follow through. 

At the time all the elements were in place for Saddam to fall. All that was needed was a little more pressure, along with a little push from the U.S.-led coalition. 

However, in retrospect, it is quite possible that history is not being kind enough to Bush 41, and not crediting him enough for his clairvoyance. It may just be that he realized what kind of mayhem would be unleashed once the Iraqi Pandora's box was thrown open by the removal of Saddam. Bush 41 chose to let things stand and allowed Saddam to remain in power. Of course an unpleasant result from that decision was the senseless slaughter of some 200,000 Iraqi Shiites by Saddam's goons as revenge for their uprising. Once again, history will be the judge of that decision. 

Given recent history, and the maltreatment of Iraq's Shiites, it is quite understandable that Iran would want to play a role in Iraq's future. Iran sees itself as the protector of Muslim Shiites. And since the Islamic revolution in 1979, when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the shah and installed the Islamic republic, Iran has tried -- without success -- to export its revolution to other countries in the region. Until now. 

The war in Iraq, accompanied by the void of authority that ensued, has allowed Iran to establish an influential beachhead in Iraq via its client parties and militias. Inviting Tehran to negotiate in Iraq's future will further strengthen Iran's position. 

Taheri points out this will allow Iran a strategic corridor "through which it can communicate with Syria and Lebanon, which it considers as part of its broader glacis." Once Tehran establishes its power in Iraq as it has in Syria and Lebanon, Taheri states, "it would be able to project power in the Levant for the first time since the early 7th century when the Persian Empire under Khosrow Parviz drove the Byzantines out of Mesopotamia and what is now Syria." 

Tehran would very much like to see history repeat itself and see the new Byzantines -- the Americans -- repelled from Mesopotamia. The mystery, as writes Taheri, is "why Washington wants to give Tehran a place at the high table in Iraq." 

Once more, the answer may be found one day in the history books
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060327/32dc3c01/attachment.htm