  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 ‘Great Satan’ Gets Struck OutPosted on Mar 4, 2008
Are the media dumb or just out to lunch? Sorry to be intemperate, but how else can one explain the meager attention paid to the truly historic visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Iraq? Not only is he the first Mideast head of state to visit the country since its alleged liberation, but the very warm official welcome offered by the Iraqi government to the most vociferous critic of the United States speaks volumes to the abject failure of the Bush doctrine. On Tuesday, Condoleezza Rice reiterated the administration’s position that Iran is behind the turmoil that has engulfed the Mideast from Beirut to Baghdad and, most recently, Israel, where what she claims are Iranian-supplied rockets have totally destroyed the belated Bush peace plan. There is also the matter of Iran’s nuclear program, which President Bush condemned once again over the weekend. But what leverage does the United States have over Iran when, as the image of Ahmadinejad holding hands with the top leaders of Iraq demonstrated to the world, we have put the disciples of the Iranian ayatollahs in power in Baghdad? There is no face-saving exit from Iraq without the cooperation of Tehran, and the folks who call America the “Great Satan” now hold the high cards. How interesting that Ahmadinejad, unlike a U.S. president who has to be airlifted unannounced into ultra-secure bases, was able to convoy in from the airport in broad daylight on a road that U.S. dignitaries fear to travel. His love fest with Iraq President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd who fought on Iran’s side against Iraq and who speaks Farsi, even took place outside of the safety of the Green Zone, adding emphasis to Ahmadinejad’s claim that while he is welcome in Iraq, the Americans are not. Nor did the Iraqi leaders take exception to Ahmadinejad’s insistence that the U.S. has only brought terror to the region and that the continued American presence is the main obstacle to peace. On the contrary, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pronounced his talks with fellow Shiite Ahmadinejad “friendly, positive and full of trust.” Video of Talabani, who asked that Ahmadinejad call him “Uncle Jalal” after holding hands and exchanging kisses with the Iranian president, was broadcast throughout the region. Saddam Hussein went to war with Iran, but George W. Bush has given his Iranian foes a Shiite-run ally. Iran is now a major trading partner of Iraq that has offered a $1 billion loan, the border is increasingly porous as religious pilgrimages have become the norm, and many investment projects supervised by Iranians are in the works. Instead of isolating the “rogue regime” of Iran, the Bush administration has catapulted the theocrats of Tehran into the center of Mideast political power. There can be no peace, whether in Lebanon, Gaza or Iraq, without the cooperation of the ayatollahs of Iran. If that was the intention of the neoconservative cabal that led Bush into this folly, its members should be tried for treason. That was, however, obviously not what the neocons expected from the invasion of Iraq, which they engineered in the wake of 9/11 with a much rosier scenario in mind. The saying that there is no need to attribute to mendacity what can be explained by ordinary stupidity aptly defines the neoconservative folly. Clearly the neocons were conned by the likes of Ahmed Chalabi, the rogue banker accused by the CIA of slipping U.S. secrets to Tehran, into believing that a “liberated” Iraq would advance democracy in the region, not to mention the security of Israel. That the opposite has occurred is no big problem for them as they emerge with their careers intact. The leading neocon publicist, William Kristol, has even been rewarded for never getting it right with a premier spot on the New York Times opinion pages, so yes, in the punditry business, one does fail upward. But for Bush, his signature issue, the battle against terrorism, is a shambles. The terrorists are very much on the rise in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which Bush neglected for an Iraq sideshow that has cost over a trillion dollars and tens of thousands of lives. But the long-run price will be far higher, with the blowback from the massive instability that he has engendered in the region. When Bush has finally retired to that ranch, cutting sagebrush to his heart’s content, his all-consuming smugness might ever so subtly be troubled by the memory of a father who knew best, and who warned against the terminal foolishness of seizing Baghdad. Previous item: A Tale of Two Campaigns Next item: As Goes Vermont Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
1
»
By Nabih Ammari, March 9 at 2:03 pm # Re:The Rise and Fall of Two Presidents. The red carpet reception of the Iranian President, Political value?? Yes,indeed,it is the whole core of Moreover,the triumphant visit is telling too:It was Furthermore,I am amazed by some posts which exactly In short,the war in Iraq is bankrupting us morally,
By jeffreydj, March 8 at 6:00 am # So Scheer feels that wanting Iran to be a major Middle Eastern player is treason, does he? I wonder how different such a desire is from the realization that Iran intends to be, and will be, that major Middle eastern player, and that to understand such would be, in Scheer’s eyes, virtually as treasonous. For the favoring of Iran in any way to be treason, wouldn’t they have to be a declared enemy? Oh sure, we allied ourselves against them, and with Saddam Hussein in the ‘80s, giving the latter satellite coordinates to guide his ballistic missiles at Iranian cities and sinking the Iranian navy for Saddam’s benefit. But then, on the other hand, Iran offered peace feelers, promptly rejected by the Bush admin, just a few years ago, and also displayed their emnity for the Taliban and Al Qaeda after 9/11. I guess that in Scheer’s estimation, it would be treasonous as well to point out that Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers, including unfriendly to the point of hostile to their West (Israel) and their South (three US carrier groups bristling with nukes). Hence only a traitor like myself would suggest that we make peace with Iran, not war, and perhaps even offer to demand that the Indian Ocean become a nuclear-free zone, thereby giving them, for once, a reason not to build nuclear weaponry. How ashamed I should be of myself for thinking that we should make Iran something other than a mortal enemy. How treacherous of me to seek peace.
By kath cantarella, March 7 at 10:11 pm # The Iraqi president's closeness to Iranmay be why he isn’t very supported by his people. i get the feeling that Iran isn’t very popular even with Iraqi shiites. Iraqis aren’t stupid. I doubt Iran would have any better success with Iraq than the US. I say let Iran go bankrupt trying. Perfect strategy.
By kath cantarella, March 6 at 1:34 pm # If the US haters wrote a scriptabout how to bring down your country, it would only differ in the smaller details. Treason, certainly. And McCain is the same ol’ same ol’. It’s too stupid for words.
By Michael Shaw, March 6 at 9:46 pm # Re: Re:The Iraqi government is a handpicked government by us, not the people of Iraq. Our very presence there is the reason for the violence. Note that before we got there the Shiites and Sunni’s lived in relative peace. There was also no Al Queda there. See how the business of government in Iraq operates and you’ll see the business of Iraq is American business, big American business and particularly oil corporations. There is nothing free willed about it. It is not a democracy but a nation held hostage. The stupidity of president Bush in placing Shiites in power is what Sheer is talking about here. It was a blunder so big it makes one wonder if the neocons have any idea whatsoever about what is really going on.
By Lucienette, March 6 at 9:10 am # Bush is Satan.
By Martin J. Clancy, March 6 at 8:05 am # Crackpot RealismThere is a passage in Garry Wills’s book Nixon Agonistes (pp. 384-85) that addresses the argument that the reasons we got involved in Iraq don’t matter. Since we are there, we must see it through to protect America’s credibility. It was the same argument used to support our continuation of the war in Vietnam. It’s an argument that C. Wright Mills called “crackpot realism”.
By D.W. Sabin, March 6 at 8:04 am # George W. Bush Lion of the Shiite.Mishun akomplished for Brushcutensis I, Peace Be With Him, for he has brought a Shiite Government to Baghdad and made the streets safe for the good and great Ahmadinejad to caravan from the airport to the new seat of Shiite Power. Perhaps when they are done building that giant Embassy Compound outside Baghdad with its food court and bomb-resistant entertainment corridor, they will name it the George W. Bush , Peace be upon him, Institute For Islamic Studies. I know the President doesn’t like to wear his religion on his sleeve now but it should be more than clear that he’s Shiite. Perhaps he’ll build his presidenshul librairie in Baghdad.
By HosemiteYam, March 5 at 11:04 pm # Intentions?“If that was the intention of the neoconservative cabal that led Bush into this folly, its members should be tried for treason.” What about the results.
< |
UN Envoy Heads to Burma with Urgent Relief Message
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article