1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Bush's Zero-Sum Fiasco

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Sasquatch, Dec 7, 2007.

  1. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,451 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    The Zero-Sum Fiasco
    Bush in a humiliating zero-sum Iranian game of his own making. Dilip Hiro
    December 06 , 2007

    [FONT=georgia,times new roman,serif]LINK
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=georgia,times new roman,serif][/FONT]

    [Introduction by Tom Engelhardt]
    Whatever else the release of the 16-agency National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the Iranian bomb may be, it is certainly a reasonable measure of inside-the-Beltway Bush administration decline. Whether that release represented "a pre-emptive strike against the White House by intelligence agencies and military chiefs," an intelligence "mini-coup" against the administration, part of a longer-term set of moves meant to undermine plans for air strikes against Iran that involved a potential resignation threat from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and a "near mutiny" by the Joint Chiefs, or an attempt by the administration itself to "salvage negotiations with Iran" or shift its own Iran policy, or none of -- or some combination of -- the above, one thing can be said: Such an NIE would not have been written, no less released, at almost any previous moment in the last seven years. (Witness the 2005 version of the same that opted for an active Iranian program to produce nuclear weapons.)


    Imagine an NIE back in 2005 that, as Dilip Hiro wrote recently, "contradicts the image of an inward-looking, irrational, theocratic leadership ruling Iran oppressively that Washington has been projecting for a long time. It says: 'Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Teheran's decisions are judged by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs.'"


    The Iranians as rational, cost-benefit calculators? Only the near collapse of presidential and vice-presidential polling figures, and the endless policy failures that proceeded and accompanied those numbers; only the arrival of Robert Gates as secretary of defense and a representative of the "reality-based community," only the weakening of the neocons and their purge inside the Pentagon, only the increasing isolation of the Vice President's "office" -- only, that is, decline inside the Beltway -- could account for such a conclusion or such a release.


    Whatever the realities of the Iranian nuclear program, this NIE certainly reflected the shifting realities of power in Washington in the winter of 2007. In a zero-sum game in the capital's corridors in which, for years, every other power center was the loser, the hardliners suddenly find themselves with their backs to the wall when it comes to the most compelling of their dreams of global domination. (Never forget the pre-invasion neocon quip: "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.")
    Now, as Jim Lobe points out, we probably know why the Vice President and others suddenly began to change the subject last summer from the Iranian nuclear program to Iranian IEDs being smuggled into Iraq for use against American forces. And why, in August, according to the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin, the President "stopped making explicit assertions about the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program... and started more vaguely accusing them of seeking the knowledge necessary to make such a weapon." They knew what was coming.


    Enough power evidently remained in the hands of Vice President Cheney and associates that the final NIE was delayed at least three times, according to Congressional sources speaking to the Los Angeles Times. The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh claims that "the vice-president has kept his foot on the neck of that report... The intelligence we learned about yesterday has been circulating inside this government at the highest levels for the last year -- and probably longer." Still, it's now out and that is a yardstick of something.


    Dilip Hiro is intent on measuring a more significant decline -- not of the Bush moment in Washington, but of imperial America which, as he points out below, now finds itself on the losing end of an ever more humiliating zero-sum game with a relatively minor power. If you needed the slightest proof of this, just consider how, on Wednesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad termed the release of the NIE a "declaration of victory" for Iran's nuclear program. And he has reason to crow. After all, as the headline of the latest Robert Scheer column at Truthdig.org indicates, when it came to the latest stare-down at the nuclear OK Corral between the President of the planetary "hyperpower" and the president of a relatively weak regional power: "It Turns Out Ahmadinejad Was the Truthful One." Tom Engelhardt

    The Zero-Sum Fiasco
    Bush in a humiliating zero-sum Iranian game of his own making.
    By Dilip Hiro


    Bush's woefully misguided invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, carried out under false pretences, has not only drained the United States treasury, but reduced Washington's standing in the Middle East in a way not yet fully grasped by most commentators. Whereas Washington once played off Tehran against Baghdad, while involved in a superpower zero-sum game with the Soviet Union, the Bush administration is now engaged in a zero-sum game, as a virtual equal, with Iran. That is, America's loss has become Iran's automatic gain, and vice-versa.


    To grasp the steepness of Washington's recent fall, recall that until Saddam Hussein's disastrous invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, the zero-sum doctrine in the region applied only to Iraq and Iran, two minor powers on the world stage.


    Having emerged in a self-congratulatory mode as the "sole superpower" after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the U.S. now finds itself competing with a secondary power in the Middle East. This humbling realization seems to have finally penetrated the minds of top policy makers in the Bush administration, causing concern.


    More than anything else, that explains the sudden spurt of presidential interest in healing the long-running Israeli-Palestinian sore by holding a Middle East conference in Annapolis, Maryland. The real objective of the Bush team had more to do with mollifying Arab leaders in order to hold them together in its ongoing confrontation with Tehran than realizing a genuine urge to create a viable, independent Palestine within a year.


    With his invasion of Iraq in 2003, George W. Bush diverged wildly from the policies of his two Republican predecessors: his father, George H. W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan. Both of them had proved erudite enough to maintain the zero-sum game between Iraq and Iran.


    The Zero-Sum Doctrine
    While the United States and the Soviet Union vied for supremacy in the oil-rich, strategically important Middle East, the rivalry between Baghdad and Tehran was long submerged in the Cold War between the two superpowers.


    After the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia in February 1948, a zero-sum doctrine came to dominate that global "war." From then on, each Soviet gain was automatically seen as a loss in Washington, and vice-versa in Moscow.


    This status quo held for 30 years. In April 1978, a Soviet-inspired military coup in Afghanistan toppled the regime of Daoud Khan -- who had earlier overthrown his cousin, King Zahir Shah, and founded a republic -- replacing it with a pro-Moscow republic. That alarmed the administration of President Jimmy Carter. The turmoil that ensued in Afghanistan would last two decades, at the end of which the puritanical, Sunni, Islamic fundamentalist Taliban movement would seize control of almost the entire country. (Being staunch Sunnis, the Taliban held Shiites in low esteem, which helped raise tensions with Shiite Iran to a fever pitch in 1998.)


    In the Middle East, meanwhile, a historic zero-sum game had prevailed between the pro-American Shah of Iran, re-installed after a CIA coup in 1953, and the Soviet-leaning regime of Arab nationalist officers in Iraq that followed the overthrow of the pro-British monarch in 1958.


    In the eight-year war between the two neighbors, started by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, President Reagan maintained a pretence of neutrality, while covertly supporting the Iraqi dictator, as some "rogue" officials in his administration sold weapons secretly to Iran's fundamentalist regime that had toppled the Shah in 1979.


    In the mid-1980s, when Saddam's defeat became a real possibility, the Pentagon introduced the U.S. Navy into the conflict. While the ostensible purpose was to escort tankers, carrying Kuwaiti oil, through the Persian Gulf to foreign destinations, this was an overt U.S. tilt toward Iraq. The war ended in a stalemate, leaving the regional zero-sum equation intact.
    Following the expulsion of Saddam Hussein's occupying Iraqi forces from Kuwait in February 1991, President George H. W. Bush, leading a coalition of 28 nations, called on Iraqis to rise up against Saddam. Both the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south answered his call. Bush senior came to the rescue of the Iraqi Kurds under the guise of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (relating to "the repression of Iraqi civilian population"). By contrast, he allowed Saddam's forces to deploy helicopter gun ships to mow down the Shiite rebels in the south. Why?


    Bush and his top officials, including then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, understood that Saddam's overthrow would end the classic Iraqi-Iranian zero-sum game. Once the long-suffering Shiite majority in Iraq was in the driver's seat in a post-Saddam Iraq, it would naturally ally with predominantly Shiite Iran.


    The Zero-Sum Fiasco
    The coming to power of the anti-Shiite Taliban government in Afghanistan, culminating in its killing of a dozen Iranian diplomats in the regional capital of Mazar-e Sharif in the summer of 1998, raised Tehran-Kabul tensions to an explosive point. Tens of thousands of Iranian Revolutionary Guards gathered along the international border with Afghanistan for "military exercises."


    Although the two governments pulled back from the brink of war, Iran continued to regard the Taliban, a creature of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, as an intensely hostile entity.


    Contrary to Iran's public posturing, including protests against the Pentagon's aerial strikes on Afghanistan between October and December 2001, its government actually shared intelligence on the Taliban with Washington, using back channels. Like its politicians, the Iranian public was glad to see the Taliban defeated, and Iran's diplomats cooperated with their American counterparts to install Hamid Karzai as the leader of the post-Taliban Afghanistan.


    Then, in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Shiite-dominated government feared by the first Bush administration came into existence. The overthrow of its enemies to the east (in Afghanistan) and to the west (in Iraq) – wrought by Bush junior to advance his own blinkered agenda -- had now prepared the ground for Iran to assume the regionally dominant role its leaders consider their right.


    Iran has the largest population in the region, is four times the size of Iraq, shares land and water borders with nine countries, and has a coastline that runs along the whole Persian Gulf as well as part of the Arabian Sea, not to mention the land-locked Caspian Sea. It also has the second largest reserves of oil, as well as natural gas, in the world.


    In its regional policies, it does not differentiate between Sunnis and Shiites. It has taken the lead in offering aid, material and moral, to Hamas, even though it is a Sunni Palestinian movement.


    Iran's stance is in line with popular sentiment among Arabs. Hassan Nasrallah, Ismail Haniyeh, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- respectively, the heads of the Lebanese Hizbollah movement, the Palestinian Hamas movement, and Iran -- now top opinion polls as favorite leaders in Arab countries. That is, ordinary Arabs generally ignore sectarian differences, except when it comes to occupied Iraq.


    Worried by this fact, Arab rulers have resorted to stressing their sectarian, rather than ideological or policy disagreements, with Iran. The Bush administration has encouraged them to do so. Eager to counter rising Iranian influence by any means, its top officials are now trying to rally Arab rulers as Sunnis against Shiite Iran, forgetting that a hasty and unnecessary invasion of Iraq was what has brought about this wretched mess in the first place.


    Increasingly, Washington under Bush will be the loser, no matter who prevails in the region -- an apt definition of a superpower in decline and of a genuine zero-sum fiasco.


    Dilip Hiro is the author of The Iranian Labyrinth, Secrets and Lies: Operation "Iraqi Freedom" and After, and, most recently, Blood of the Earth: The Battle for the World's Vanishing Oil Resources, all published by Nation Books.
  2. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,437 Messages
    1,457 Likes Received
    from that guy it means nothing.
  3. AbeBeta

    AbeBeta Well-Known Member

    25,171 Messages
    715 Likes Received
    yeah that idiot who writes for all those prestigious newspapers.

    if he were any good he'd be on Fox"News"
  4. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    Eh.... No. All of the fantastical scenario's played out in the Englehardt intro are merely that: Fantasy. What he wishes. A 'mini-Coup' as he put it. His hatred for this administration has clouded his thinking and has him fantasizing about our intelligence agencies pitted in a battle against that fool in the White House.

    A little light of reality for Englehardt and everyone else: Bush does not gather intelligence. Intelligence agencies do. They then pass along their info to, guess who? The Dope in Chief. While the President is certainly able to alter, lie and all out obfuscate any intelligence he wishes, and apparently has, he can only do so in concert with his intelligence agencies and everyone else involved.

    History is going to tell the story of back alley deals made with Iran, much like the one's in which America played both sides of the fence in the Iran-Iraq war.

    America should not do these things.

    Iran may very well have stopped it's nuclear weapons program, but that's not why we have a problem with them in the first place. And no, it's not a problem of Bush's making, it's a problem he, or someone who advises him, felt he should take on. His handling of it only assures his credibility at handling such things is woefully lacking.

    As much as everyone wishes the problems will go away or be fixed once '08 rolls around, they're going to be dissapointed when they're not. Or if their candidate is in office, gladly bury their heads in the sand.
  5. silverbear

    silverbear Semi-Official Loose Cannon

    24,188 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Really?? Do tell us everything you know about Dilip Hiro, burm... :D
  6. zrinkill

    zrinkill Diamond surrounded by trash

    32,773 Messages
    524 Likes Received
    Nice.
  7. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    More on the folly of this fantasy. This article tries to suggest a rift in the intelligence community and the Executive Branch, using the Secretary of Defense as some kind of voice of reason that's thwarting Bush's ideals of simply declaring war willy nilly...

    What Gates Really thinks...

    U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called on the international community to step up pressure on Iran to vow not to develop nuclear weapons, suspend uranium enrichment and open up its nuclear facilities for inspection.

    ------*Snip*-----------

    Gates sarcastically noted that Iran celebrated the U.S. intelligence community's recent report -- the National Intelligence Estimate -- that said Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. He said it marks a "watershed" that "Iran has, for the first time, embraced as valid an assessment of the United States intelligence community -- on Iran's nuclear weapons program."

    He said "since that government now acknowledges the quality of American intelligence assessments, I assume that it also will embrace as valid American intelligence assessments" that Iran is funding and training of militia groups in Iraq; deploying lethal weapons and technology to both Iraq and Afghanistan; supporting terrorist organizations -- like Hezbollah and Hamas -- that have murdered thousands of innocent civilians; and continued research and development of medium-range ballistic missiles that can carry weapons of mass destruction.

    ------*Snip*-----------

    Ahhh. Does it really seem possible that there are independant entities operating with autonomy that can easily come to such differing opinions, within our government?

    Or isn't more likely that the partisan geniuses are being mislead by their own bias?

    A brilliant stroke by our intelligence agencies to expose Iran's hypocrisy and lies. You'll notice, if you bother to follow the topic, that soon after Gates made his speech, that Iran formally issued a complaint about 'U.S. Espionage'.
  8. Cajuncowboy

    Cajuncowboy Preacher From The Black Lagoon

    27,478 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    What's a Dilip Hiro.

    Can you get a shot for it?
  9. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    28,105 Messages
    1,156 Likes Received
    sb - not to be an intentional prick - but you've never said "oh from that writer it's meaningless?"

    i don't care about the why's...both sides got 'em. my point is we don't open ourselves up to alternative thinking, we guard ourselves from it.

    something i need to work on also.
  10. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    28,105 Messages
    1,156 Likes Received
    no but i think you just use a little "dilup" of mustard on your sammich.
  11. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    He's the other side of the coin.
    When an article is offered which claims good news in Iraq, the author is immediately criticized as a Neo-Con shill.

    Hiro is the Yang to that Yin.
  12. zrinkill

    zrinkill Diamond surrounded by trash

    32,773 Messages
    524 Likes Received
    :hammer:
  13. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    28,105 Messages
    1,156 Likes Received
    vta for president.

    i'd that that bullet for ya, dude. : )
  14. Jordan55

    Jordan55 Active Member

    1,176 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Do I mark Dilip down, as a vote for the Republican party?
  15. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    :eek:

    I can't even balance my own budget... just ask Wells Fargo.
  16. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    28,105 Messages
    1,156 Likes Received
    it aint money - it's a point of view. : )
  17. Sasquatch

    Sasquatch Lost in the Woods

    4,451 Messages
    131 Likes Received
    Granted, the writer can be a bit partisan, but he was among those who claimed that there was no evidence that Iran was developing a nuclear bomb. Recent events have borne him out, so he must not be totally devoid of credibility.

    As for his "conspiracy theory" about a potential Gates resignation threat, that was over the issue of impending air strikes, not applying pressure in conjunction with the international community on Iran.
  18. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,437 Messages
    1,457 Likes Received
    As usual Sasqie you don't get it. The report said that Iran STOPPED their program. Did not say they ABANDONED it.

    Oh, and I know its hard for you to see this but....


    TO HAVE STOPPED A PROGRAM MEANS THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO BUILD ONE.
  19. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,437 Messages
    1,457 Likes Received
    By the way sasqie. If I cannot use Fox News then you cannot use anything like Mother Jones either.
  20. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    I'm not worried over the partisan politics of the writer. Regardless of their feelings, information comes through in what they're saying.

    I think we're playing good cop bad, cop with Iran. Sending lot's of mixed messages, including the UK's doubts about CIA intelligence on the matter; that and leading them in circles, to where they'll eventually step on their own tongues.

    The slow threat of American force, the very real threat of an agitated and well armed Israel. Iran puts up a very good face of defiance, but the strain is very real and patience will, in the end, rule the day. And America is being very patient in it's steady application of pressure. Despite what is conveyed in our news organizations, nothing has slowed down or lessened America's presence.

    I'm betting there are some furious negotiations going on behind the scenes.

Share This Page