2007/01/28

The Plan Behind the 'Surge'


In President Bush’s nationally-televised speech on January 10th, the main purpose was to outline his strategy of how to win in Iraq. He talked about the threat of failure in Iraq, the danger of death squads and factional violence, mistakes made in the past and even managed to throw in a few Al-Qaeda references, you know, for old-time’s sake. Yet in a major speech about Iraq, the President couldn’t help but mention Iran. Not once, but six times. The consequences of failure are clear…Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons…Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops…we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.” If one were to read between the lines of this speech, one could begin to see a different sort of picture and plan for Iraq than what is being pushed through mainstream channels.

Officially, the “surge,” as this latest attempt is called, is part of the overall plan to help Iraq stand on its own two feet and to return stability and peace to a still-wounded country. Helping the Iraqi people creates both good will towards Americans and a good ally in the region, which of course has its benefits for the U.S. It’s sort of like that Jerry Maguire quote “Help me…help you!”

But when looking at the President’s references to Iran in the speech, at the activity on the ground, and behind the scenes at the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence services, a theory begins to develop. Judging from past history of U.S. foreign policy, the idea that this whole Iraq venture is for altruistic, charitable reasons is a bit naïve. Any realist-minded student of international relations can tell you, there has to be a more shrewd, a more sinister motive involved when a country spends almost half a trillion dollars and sends a 160,000 of its troops into harm’s way. And that reason is to counter an enemy.

Since the astonishing events of the 1979 Iranian revolution, and especially the 444-day imprisonment of Americans at the embassy in Tehran, the U.S. and Iran have been less than cordial towards each other. This rivalry has only increased over the past few years as Gulf War II has raged on and Iran’s nuclear power program has shifted into action. Yet for a couple of reasons, direct military confrontation has not transpired. One is that Iran, though being downright provocative at times, hasn’t really threatened the U.S., let alone attacked them. Of course, neither did Iraq and Saddam, and look what happened to them. The second reason is that Iran, unlike so many of the banana republics that the U.S. has attacked over the years can defend itself. A nation of more than seventy million, the Iranian people are no stranger to bitter war and invasions. Looking back at history, from the Roman and Islamic invasions, to the more recent war against Iraq, the Persian civilization has outlasted most others on the planet. It is this long and beautiful history that inspires a healthy pride in Iranians for their country. It is also this national strength that makes it a threat to American interests in the region.

The U.S. and its Arab allies such as Saudi Arabia do not want Iran’s influence to grow beyond what it is. Neither do they want Iran to start making allies within the region nor most certainly do they want Iran declaring itself to be a regional power. Hence we come to the theory derived from the President’s actions and statements.

Iraq, in many ways, is a proxy war. In a lot of the ways that Afghanistan was a proxy war against the Soviets back in the 80s, Iraq is now the battleground against Iran. Instead of following through on their official motive to rebuild Iraq, the plan seems to be to add to an already spiraling civil war by starting another one with a neighbor and potential ally. Strategically speaking, balancing against Iranian influence is an adequate foundation for the carnage and loss of life in Iraq. Morally, it is utterly reprehensible and a tragedy that Americans will not be able to live down for another generation or two.

War is once again an option on the table. Despite the opinions President Bush, and indeed, our own Stephen Harper, may have on Iran and its leaders (officially, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), there exists fairly little proof of the much-publicized intentions of this Axis-of-Evil member. Talk of nuclear ambitions, WMDs and anti-Semitism has been brandished before against Saddam’s Iraq and Syria. And regardless of the inevitable emotional appeals about security and terrorism, the one thing you can take away from this column is that any action taken against Iran, whether by the U.S. or the Saudis or Israel, is going to be motivated strictly for strategic ends. Oil will be a factor, as it usually is, and so will fear, but chiefly, maintaining power and presence in the Middle East is what this war is, and the next, will be about.

=//Turnquest