consortiumnews.com

Bush's Iran-Friendly Foreign Policy

By Ivan Eland
August 2, 2006

Editor's Note: George W. Bush remains convinced that the broad application of violence -- both by U.S. forces in Iraq and the Israeli army in Gaza and Lebanon -- is the way to shatter the old Middle East and create a new Middle East that will be more compliant to the interests of Washington and Tel Aviv.

To use the metaphor favored by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- that the ongoing slaughters are "birth pangs" -- the Bush policy amounts to a forced Caesarian section carried out by deranged doctors who have strapped the mother to the operating table. Even the supposed higher principle of "democracy" is being sacrificed in the cause of these overlapping, purifying wars.

But beyond the questions of morality and war crimes, there is also the issue of practicality: Does this brutal strategy have even the slightest prospect of success? In this guest essay, the Independent Institute's Ivan Eland examines whether Iran will end up being the ultimate beneficiary of Bush's Middle East adventures:

Despite growing world outrage, the Bush administration's continued backing of Israel's over-the-top military action in Lebanon can only help Hezbollah and its patron Iran. The administration's foreign policy could not be more pro-Iranian if the White House had become infested with Iranian agents.

Even after the carnage in the Lebanese town of Qana, the administration continues its nonsensical rhetoric about seeking a "sustainable cease fire" in Lebanon as Israeli military action continues. Most casual observers employing any logic would conclude that it would be difficult to determine the sustainability of any ceasefire unless it was first attempted.

Obviously, the administration's rhetoric is designed to give Israel more time to damage Hezbollah. Of course, Israel's original and implausible goal was to eradicate Hezbollah without invading Lebanon and becoming bogged down in another quagmire there.

Israel has found, however, much like the Bush administration has in Iraq, that guerrilla organizations, especially ones as competent as Hezbollah, are not that easily eliminated. Israel has found Hezbollah's infrastructure and combat skills to be much more formidable than anticipated.

The bombing of Qana has united the previously divided Lebanese and much of the rest of the world against Israel's veiled terrorism. Israel will have even less time to degrade Hezbollah, which is also committing terrorist acts against Israeli towns

Soon world opprobrium will force the U.S. to stop Israeli military action. And the thimble-full of aid the U.S. is offering Lebanon will not win back any hearts for the cause. The paltry $30 million in U.S. aid being offered to that war-ravaged country is like an armed gang busting up someone's business and then leaving them $5 for repairs.

Hezbollah will survive Israeli attacks and its stature in the Islamic world will be elevated. The group's weapons and equipment will be replenished, and a stronger Hezbollah will reflect favorably on Iran, its principal benefactor.

Once again, excessive or unnecessary foreign military action—by Israel or the United States—has benefited Iran.

Iran's rise began when the United States took out one of Iran's major adversaries—the Taliban regime—in Afghanistan. Then the ayatollahs in Tehran received another and even bigger gift: U.S. taxpayers funded the destruction of their principal rival—Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime.

Even better for the Iranians, U.S. forces remained to protect what became an Iranian-friendly, theocratically oriented Iraqi government from Sunni insurgents. The quagmire also undermined U.S. leverage in pressuring Iran to forgo its alleged quest for atomic weapons, while the U.S. invasion of neighboring Iraq provided greater Iranian motivation to acquire a nuclear deterrent to a future U.S. attack.

The United States needs Iranian help to contain Shi'ite militias and death squads in Iraq. If the U.S. gets too feisty in demanding that Iran get rid of its nuclear program, Iran could give the Shi'ites in Iraq the green light to escalate action to a full-blown civil war. The U.S. invasion of Iraq made it less likely that Iran—fearful of being the target of a similar future U.S. action—would ever negotiate away its nuclear program.

In the eyes of the Islamic world, the U.S.-backed Israeli offensive is making martyrs of Hezbollah fighters, which is icing on the cake for the medieval Iranian regime.

Thus, U.S. conduct and support of militaristic foreign policies in the Persian Gulf/Southwest Asian region have inadvertently caused the already influential 400-pound Iranian gorilla to grow into an 800-pound monster. With two-and-a-half years left in the Bush administration, even more bungling in U.S. grand strategy may provide enough policy bananas to create an Iranian King Kong.


Ivan Eland is a Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute, Director of the Institute’s Center on Peace & Liberty, and author of the books The Empire Has No Clothes, and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy.


Back to Home Page