Removing Iran from the New Middle East Equation

Category: Middle East, World Affairs Topics: Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Occupation, Saddam Hussein Views: 5551
5551

The configuration of the New Middle East - as envisaged by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during the Israeli war against Lebanon in July-August 2006, most certainly has no place for more than one regional power broker, namely Israel.

Under such an arrangement - subservient Arabs and Iran governed by an all powerful Israel and supervised, even from afar by the seemingly philanthropic United States - would ensure Israel's 'security', which has for long served as a casus belli, and supposed American interests in the region; regardless of what one thinks of such logic, in Washington, it is still prevailing.

With the elimination of Iraq - not just Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party as some in the mainstream media tirelessly reiterate, but rather Iraq as a strong Arab nation with immense regional influence - the long sought pact is close at hand. Iran, however, remains the only menacing reality that stands between Israel and its powerful Washingtonian allies and this New Middle East.

This means that the war of words between Teheran and Washington is mostly inspired by this redoubtable strategic chasm: where Washington strives to knock the Iran factor out of the regional equation, and Teheran pushes with all of its might to keep itself pertinent, indeed equally relevant to the shaping of the region's future.

This conflict has been reduced, as required by rhetorical necessity, to that of Iran's alleged intent to manufacture nuclear weapons, a right that has been exclusively reserved for Israel, who possesses hundreds of nuclear heads and the technology to deliver them, even past the threshold of its intended targets, neighboring Arab capitals.

Iran might in fact be aspiring to obtain nuclear technology to produce the lethal weapon, to assert itself regionally, to create an equilibrium of terror, and to - in this age of global unipolarity - shield itself from the troubling fate of its neighbor to the West.

The Iraq and Korea example are textbook illustrations of how small countries with or without deadly means of defense are treated with partiality in the global arena; Iraq, who possesses no weapons of mass destruction is experiencing prolonged genocide, while North Korea has admitted, even boasted about the possessing and testing of its nuclear capabilities and is now being rewarded with generous US aid packages and security guarantees. Chances are also great that Kim Jong II will not meet the gallows, unlike Saddam and will die peacefully in his bed. (Professor Steven Weber's article in the January-February issue of Foreign Policy Magazine: How Globalization Went Bad, offers a detailed elaboration on this topic.) It's also important to note that the Koreans pose no danger to Israel, a fact that must have relegated their threat level significantly.

Thus the escalating war of words between the US and Iran must be settled somehow in a manner that yields a favorable solution for both sides, or military confrontation is simply unavoidable. 

The British Guardian revealed in a mid-February report, quoting US officials and analysts, that the Bush administration is in the "advanced stages" of preparing for a military strike, targeting Iran's nuclear sites. Though US deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, Mark Kimmitt dismissed allegations that his country is seeking a military confrontation with Teheran, the US action - the intensification of its naval build up, seeking the elimination of Iranian 'agents' in Iraq, and so forth - suggests that the Guardian report is quite accurate in its estimation.

Iran is still unwavering, however. Iran's state television quoted the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on February 17, as he defended the country's pursuit for nuclear technology. "Oil and gas reserves won't last forever. If a nation doesn't think of producing its future energy needs, it will be dependent on domination-seeking powers," he was reported as saying. Again, regardless of the dialectics of Khamanei's rationale, the US understands this view as continuing 'defiance', an understanding that positions the military option, from the US viewpoint, as inevitable.

US Democrats are practically ruling out any serious challenge to Bush's war policies - House leader Nancy Pelosi dismissed from the outset any possibility to impeach the president despite his administration's unequalled indiscretions, to say the least, of dragging the country into a most destructive war under false and largely forged pretexts. At the US Senate and for the second time in a week, Republicans managed to block a 'debate' on a resolution that would simply 'rebuke' the president for his Iraq troop buildup. Even if the debate convened and a resolution was passed, it would remain pitifully lacking, for it is simply non-binding.

It is unlikely that Iran will back down; again the North Korea lesson is too fresh, too poignant to ignore. Moreover, the Islamic Republic has a formidable power base in Iraq and Lebanon: Shia militias and the Hezbollah resistance movement respectively; the former is capable of worsening the US army's plight in Iraq by several fold if decided to join the ongoing Sunni resistance, and the latter has proved an insurmountable foe to Israel in their latest military showdown last summer.

Naturally, the US - which is caught in an unwinnable war in Iraq, confined and blinded by its bizarre alliance with Israel, which is more of a liability to Washington than a strategic advantage and who is watching its own New World Order faltering under its feet, with Latin America going its separate ways, and China moving into what has been the unchallenged domains of the United States for decades - should be expected to avoid a military confrontation at any cost. Savvy US diplomat and former Secretary of State James Baker had many ominous warnings in his Iraq Study Group recommendations. A traditionalist and a pro-business politician, Baker knows well that without a quick exit from Iraq, chaos will befall the waning empire, which is ultimately bad for business. Baker also knows that without solving the Arab-Israeli conflict, the US regional woes will amplify beyond repair.

But as the voice of reason, from a traditionalist viewpoint, is being hushed or sidelined, the warmongers' hold on Washington is still as tight as ever, one of whom is Israel and its dedicated friends on Capitol Hill.

Evidently, Israel is a prime cheerleader for war, and most likely Israeli agents are working overtime to provide the needed case for war; at least we know, through news reports that Israeli agents are actively involved in Iraq and there is a possibility that they have penetrated the Iranian domain as well, through the northern Kurdish areas. Last November, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appointed a major war advocate, Avigdor Lieberman, as the country's Minister of Strategic Affairs and also as Deputy Prime Minister. Lieberman's appointment was principally aimed at 'countering' the Iranian threat; championing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, has recently visited Washington to largely discuss the Iranian threat and won standing ovations and endless praise of Democrats and Republicans alike.

Other Israeli politicians have been adamant in their efforts to convince Washington that a war against Iran will yield strategic dividends and will ease the US mission in reigning in occupied Iraq, and will provide Israel with the security it covets. Of course, Israel knows well the disastrous affect that a war on Iran will bring to the waning American empire (even if merely by observing the Iraqi situation) but it matters little in the end, as long as the Iranian threat is eliminated, or so goes the Israeli logic.

Ramzy Baroud's latest book is "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London). See link below to buy this book.


  Category: Middle East, World Affairs
  Topics: Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Occupation, Saddam Hussein
Views: 5551

Related Suggestions

 
COMMENTS DISCLAIMER & RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
The opinions expressed herein, through this post or comments, contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. These are offered as a means for IslamiCity to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization. The IslamiCity site may occasionally contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. IslamiCity is making such material available in its effort to advance understanding of humanitarian, education, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and such (and all) material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.


Older Comments:
KRIS FROM MALAYSIA said:
Assalamualaikum wrbt and greetings to all.

Dear Jim Bob, I am not denying the holocaust and the Jews suffering during the World War 11. But the holocaust has often been magnified, the numbers had been inflated and where is the cogent evidence that 6 million Jews died ?

The rest of the world suffered too during the 2nd. World War, Asians at the hands of the Japanese Imperial army, Eoropeans at the Germans and this list goes on and on. So why use the holocaust as excuse to oppress the Palestinians, sieze their land, drove them out of their homes and recently to demolish mosques and other places of worship. I grieve for all the victims of any world wars and any isloated wars anywhere, and not just for a handful. And the rest of today's humanity should greive for victims of wars and conflicts especially women and children and old folks which had been bombed, maimed and shot at by the present sole super power and " their spoil brat child " in the midle east and in all corners of the globe.
()

AHMAD SIRAJUDIN FROM MALAYSIA said:
Both the Christians and the Jews believe in "The Promised Lands" as mentioned in their holy books-lands that were promised to Moses or Nabi Musa.This promised land includes all places that were onced settled by the ancient prophets. This includes the valley of Mesapotamia and the valley of the Nile. These are the lands the Jews and the Christians want to take back. When I was in America I once heard some American who remarked "How come our oil is under their sand
The Americans want what is under the ground that is oil and the Jews want what is above the ground and that is territory. The Jews and the Christians do not know that Moses and Jesus were prophets of Islam
()

HUDD FROM CND said:
With or without Iran in the equation, Israel will never have peace. Israel is like the zombie resurrected by Dr Frankenstein. Israel is not a natural country, maybe it was, 2000 years ago, but today is just an artificial colony supporting a Nazi ideology and a Fascist military machine aimed at the Arabs and hellbound on their distruction. Istant Karma is going to get the state of Israel sooner or later. When USA won't be able to economically support Israel due to the budget drain of their more than asanine wars, Israel will collapse on its own.

The president of Iran has never denied the holocaust. However in order to support an eventual strike on Iran, the media was ordered by the elders of the Zion to twist the words spoken by Mahmoud Ahmadejan. Like the weapon of mass distruction hidden in Iraq.

Holocausts are happening ever still the dawn of mankind. Maybe the first genocide was toward the Neaderthals, when they were finished, homo sapiens looked for less fortunate of his brothers and slaughtered them. What pisses "the others" off is the monopolization of "The" holocaust for the Jews only, now this isn't fair, since the Jews are not above other humans nor are they sort of superior beings. They are just as high as anybody else and as low as any others that chose to. The Allies shot pictures of the Nazi camps and broadcast them all over the world repeatedly in order to sink in the subconscious of all mankind. Well it didn't work, and it won't, especially when the Israelis are commiting their own holocaust on the Palestinians. There isn't ONE holocaust; there are thousands of them, more recent, who cares or give a damn of what Hitler did almost a century ago when modern day holocausts are developing all over the world. The world weeped enough over the ungreatful Jews,now is time to cry over other nations that are of same or greater value than the Jews. This is the point. We must be fair to our human family. Let's sing an ode to the Tutsies!
()

KIM FROM USA said:
Its not about removing iran from new mideast.

Its about moving muslims into refugee camps.often on their own native lands.

following are List of accomplished missions,
ethopia, afghanistan, bosnia, kosovo, palestine, iraq, sudan, chad, somalia....
()

HALIM FROM MALAYSIA said:
After Iraq, Iran will be vapourised then followed by Pakistan total annihiliation. Dont blame the west, Muslims are to be blamed. Because Muslims killed and destroyed each other. Go to all Muslim countries, they are killing each other or in the process of killing each other. Muslims dont really follow Islam because they dont understand what is written in the Koran. What have the Muslims contributed to the well being of mankind for the last fifty years. Muslims are rich with oil money but they let Paletinians begged US, UN and Europe to give them food/economy. Some Muslims even request the invasion of Iraq and now begging US to attack Iran so that Iran wont be the regional power in the middle east, so much so with Muslim brotherhood.Cant the Muslims understand when Ehud Olmert said the US and Israel stand are identical !
()

KHAN FROM USA said:
Is it Removing Iran from the new Mid-East
OR
Removing muslims from this world
OR
Replacing muslims with Non-Muslims
()

JIM BOB FROM ARGENTINA said:
I am for removing Iran from the New Middle East Equation. The leader denied the existance of the Jewish holocaust. That implicates some level level of retardation on his behalf. Not sure how the videos taken by Allied soldiers then would have been faked, but if my mind was as brainwashed by Islamic fanaticism as his, I'm sure I could find a way to see things the was he does.
()

ADAM FROM NIGERIA said:
I know that attack on Iran is inevitable with all the rhetorics and the calling of a dog with bad name..game. This means that nomatter what Iran should not give in..infact it should speed up their work on the nuclear programme may be get some help from the north koreans by all means or alliance with the latin americas..by whatever means necessary they must succeed..

Allah has admonished us to fight (when attack) the enemy with WHAT THEY FIGHT US WITH..but unfortunately we did not heed this important command and went ahead to relax our intellect to the detriment of our civilisation. We even think we can use those old kalahsknovs (i hope that is the correct spelling) guns against the might of present day machine guns and armoury. We are just decieving ourselves. Our (the muslim world) only hope is this Iranian defiant and success in their efforts to defend the rest of us. If Iran falls then muslims are doom make no mistake about that.

And we shouldn't think that Allah will just come our aid with all the blattant disregards of his commandments and diobediece to his beloved prophet (SAW). A rebirth is necesssary by all and sundries whose mission on this earth is to have peace with Allah.




()