I’m sure someone who spends far more time analyzing government policies around the world is going to correct my logic here, but Jefferson Morley’s World Opinion Roundup kicked off a train of thought.
Morley reports on reactions to Egyptian president Mubarak’s statements regarding the Shiites’ ultimate loyalties (to Iran, according to Mubarak), and his fears that an Iraq civil war would engulf the entire region:
Harsh reaction to remarks made by Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak about Iran’s influence this weekend shows that the conflict between Shiites and Sunnis reverberates well beyond Iraq.
[snip]
An Iraqi civil war, warns one Saudi analyst in a front page story in the Khaleej Times, also based in Dubai, “would have the gravest implications for the entire region, especially Saudi Arabia, which shares its longest international borders with Iraq.”
“Saudi Arabia should to try to avert Iraq’s fragmentation by lobbying against any premature withdrawal of U.S. forces and by pressing Iran to stop meddling,” said Nawaf Obaid of the U.S.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Ah. In light of the recent articles about US intentions toward Iran (my posts here and here), a lightbulb went on for me when I read these last two paragraphs.
The US administration has consistently downplayed reports that Iraq is devolving into civil war, but they’d have to be idiots (no trolls, please!) to think that the country isn’t splitting along sectarian lines. If the Roundup paints an accurate picture, Polimom wonders whether our apparent unseemly haste to threaten Iran might not be directly related?
US support for the Saudi rulers is no secret, and Polimom suspects that any potential threat to them would necessitate action by Bush. However, Bush is not likely to take a direct approach in protecting the House of Saud. Furthermore, if the entire region would follow Iraq into civil war, our oil supplies from that region would cease.
If Iran is the holder of Shiite loyalty, then taking out Iran makes much more sense, strategically, if it could be realistically accomplished. (Note: I’m just theorizing, not attacking or defending…)
On the other hand… If Mubarak is correct (again, if), then the mere threat of aggression against Iran could radically escalate the situation in Iraq.
Some have speculated that White House planners are deliberately allowing plans for attacking Iran to “leak” into the press in hopes of intimidating Ahmadinejad. For that to be correct, then one has to conclude that the White House either a) disagrees with Mubarak, and instead thinks Iran hasn’t nearly that much influence with Shiites in Iraq, b) thinks there is some advantage to a civil war in the Middle East, or c) has no clue what it’s doing.
Frankly, all of this feels pretty Machiavellian to me, but I needed to clear these thoughts out so I could function again.
Actually, I agree with you and I think White House intentions fall into (b) and (c) from your post above. I have long felt (cynically) that one plausible way out of Iraq for this Administration is through Iran. I posted about this thesis this weekend on my blog.
It may not be the smartest strategy, but it does appear to be the logical place that our policy in Iraq has gotten us to.
One more note, in the neo-con dream world, the dominoes go from Iraq to Iran to Syria. So, this thing isn’t over by any means. At worse, they have only one year to create this conflagration, so they are definitely in a hurry now.
Iinteresting hypothesis Polimom. My bet would be on a mixture of a) and c). I think the Administration believes that Iran has the ability to cause trouble in Iraq, but not the ability to cause/promote tranquility and calm. As such, if Iran can be intimidated into doing “nothing” then the US will have received the maximum benefits available. No ‘carrots’ will be needed.
As to whether the “bullying” of Iran is likely to engender a pan-Shiite wave of sympathy, let alone a pan-Shiite determination to take actions in support of Iran, I doubt it. It reminds me of the old “all Catholics owe their first allegiance to the Pope” canard. Shiites and Catholics are not the same, but I suspect the Arab/Persian ethnic difference and the secular/theocratic government preference will prove more influential on the actions of non-Iraqi Shiites.
Mubarak is an old man, scared, and wrong.
Polimom, I note you used the word “if” 5 times in your piece. If we had bread we could have bread and butter if we had butter.
Yes, I was very “iffy”. The entire train of thought was so dependent on suppositions, I had trouble making concrete statements.
I’m glad I took the time to italicize some of them, to help with the count. :>