|
|
Iran, Iraq and U.S. interests in the Middle East: Washington's dilemmas
By: Khashayar Hooshiyar Condoleezza Rice, U.S. secretary of State, is partially right when she says "Iran is the single greatest challenge for American Security interests in the Middle East and possibly around the world." In fact, Iran could be singled out as a major obstacle to the U.S. vision of a Middle East if we accept that Washington's drive for absolute power and hegemony in the region has encountered several formidable barriers from the Iraqi resistance against occupation to Iran's growing influence in the region. According to George Bush's secretary of state, the U.S. vision is a region where the countries "trade more, invest more, talk more and work more constructively to solve problems." This fairy-tale vision is very similar to Washington's vision for Iraq just before the2003 invasion--i.e., the establishment of a free, democratic, and just society rising from the ashes of Saddam Hussein's fascist regime. A society in which the people of Iraq would "throw rose pedals under the feet of their liberator"-- the U.S. soldiers. In propagating these visions , the benevolent U.S. administration purposefully avoid mentioning anything about their interests in the region and the human and material price the people of the Middle East will have to pay to realize the dream-world of Mr.Bush and his capitalist Neocone friends and backers. The bloody, destructive, and chaotic experience of Iraq, however, shows what the rest of the Middle East, particularly Iran and Syria, should expect from the U.S. vision if Washington ever manages to rise from the ashes of the Iraqi quagmire. Washington's fairy-tale vision, which is only meant to feed the public opinion in the U.S., in reality, is an imperialist design for the Middle East which includes:
The Iraqi invasion was the medium through which this design was supposed to take off in the region. The failures of the "sock and awe" strategy and U.S. plans for Iraq, as result of the growing and unpredicted resistance to foreign occupation, however, have forced Washington to reconsider its options in the region. In fact, the U.S. long term plans for the region, have temporarily been overshadowed by the situation in Iraq and Iran's unwillingness to comply with the will of the desperate empire. More specifically, two unresolved regional issues; namely, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iran's regional ambitions have greatly limited U.S. options in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq. The first issue regulates the U.S. options with respect to relations with Arab countries and anti-American sentiments in the region. The Iran challenge, which is the focus of this analysis, seems to be the single greatest limiting factor as far as U.S. options are concerned. It is obvious that a nuclear, politically ambitious, and disobedient Iran would not easily fit into the U.S. vision. In fact, Iran has emerged as the main beneficiary of the U.S. imperialist adventures in the Middle East. Regionally, the Bush administration has eliminated two of Iran's archenemies; namely, Saddam Hussein and Taliban. Internally, by invading Iraq and Afghanistan and positioning its military forces in a very close proximity to Iran, as well as publicly threatening Iran with war, sanctions, and regime change, the U.S. has provided the mullahs with much needed justifications to consolidate their regime by marginalizing the reformist faction, brutally crushing any voices of freedom, democracy, and justice, as well as implementing sweeping repressive measures aimed at "re-Islamization" of the whole society, especially women and the youths who are main targets of such policies. The Iranian regime has also been benefiting from being the target of U.S. animosity and a propaganda war waged by the U.S.-controlled corporate media. In fact, Iran's hardliner and despotic president, Mahmoud Ahamdinejad, has successfully been using such attacks to portray himself as anti-imperialist and the "Messiah" of the poor and oppressed people not only among the people of the region, but also, surprisingly, among a large segment of the Left in the West. A part of Washington's psychological and media war against the Iranian regime, its nuclear program, and its interferences in Iraq, could be construed as an escape goat to cover up Bush's failures in Iraq and the worsening economic conditions in the U.S. The rest, however, is a genuine threat felt by the U.S. administration and Israel as a result of Iran's growing influence and power in the region, on the one hand, and challenging U.S. authority and questioning the existence of Israel, on the other. At this juncture, the security of U.S. interests in the Middle East is closely intertwined with the outcome of Washington's strategy in Iraq as well as how successful it will be in fending off the Iranian challenge. It is now obvious that the United States is more concerned about a face-saving exit strategy from Iraq than pursuing it's fairy-tale vision. This could not be realized as long as the Iranian regime's influence and power in the region remain intact. If the U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq without resolving the Iranian question, there is a high possibility that Iraq will establish a very close relations with Iran and Syria, resulting in a dangerous polarization of power in the region between two major political and military alliances: Iran, Iraq and Syria, led by Iran and supported by Russia and China, vs. the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia, led by the U.S. The other option for the U.S. is to cripple Iran's military and economic machine through an extensive bombing campaign before withdrawing its forces from Iraq. Washington would have already bombed Iran if it was certain of both Iran's reactions and the larger implications of its actions, both regionally and globally. The other dilemma for Washington is the nature of the Iraqi resistance against occupation. Despite public claims to the contrary, the Bush administration is well aware that the Iraqi resistance has strong indigenous roots and nationalist character. If Washington succeeds in neutralizing the Iranian threat and withdrew its forces from Iraq, there would be no guarantees that the U.S.- installed government of Iraqi would survive and not be replaced by a more nationalist, anti-Israeli, and anti-American regime. This might explain the US Senate approval of a Bosnia-style plan to divide Iraq on ethnic and religious lines. The rational behind this decision might be that it would at least guarantee the United States a military base in Iraq, perhaps in the Kurdish area, to protect its interests. Regardless of what strategy Washington adopts, the Middle East is headed for a very grim future. The only way out of this situation is the emergence of independent progressive, secular, democratic mass parties and movements capable of challenging both imperialist forces and local despotic, capitalist regimes. Contrary to secretary Rice, this is the single greatest threat to American security interests in the Middle East, not the despised, theocratic regime in Iran who is more than willing to establish ties with the U.S. if Washington relinquishes its regime change policy and acknowledges Iran's major role in the region. |
If you find this site informative, please donate - every donation helps us keep up with costs and improve IRANReview.com. Thanks. |