It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that invading Iraq will make Iran the dominant power in the region for years to come.
Although on the surface, things have been going well lately for President Bush on Iraq — the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the installing at long last of a permanent government in Iraq, and a vote of support in the U.S. House of Representatives for the President’s Iraq policy — it is easy to forget that even if the United States wins the war in Iraq, it loses. Even if the Bush administration eventually creates, in the words of the House resolution, a “sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq,” the big winner there will be Iran.
The real driver behind U.S. policy in Iraq still remains murky. It certainly wasn’t to enshrine the will of the people in Iraq. If that were the case, the administration would have agreed to the proposal of some Democrats to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from that country. The president and vice president of Iraq have requested one, and 80 percent of Iraqis want U.S. troops to go home.
Some analysts allege that the neoconservative elements of the administration wanted to knock off an enemy of Israel. Others allege that Bush and Cheney wanted to tidy up unfinished business from the first Bush administration and take down the Arab leader who had allegedly tried to assassinate Bush’s father after the first Gulf War. Another possibility is that the United States knew that it was going to lose its military bases in Saudi Arabia and needed to find — or create — another friendly country near the Persian Gulf that would support such a military presence. But none of this really matters much because, whatever the administration’s real rationale, it made a Herculean blunder by not focusing on the effects of the invasion on the key player in the region — Iran.
Iran has always been the regional superpower in the Persian Gulf area. This fact caused alarm in the West when Mohammed Mossadegh, the then-Iranian Prime Minister, nationalized Iran’s oil industry in 1953. A coup engineered by the U.S. and British intelligence services restored to power the more Western-friendly Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Supporting Iran, because of its large population and abundant oil reserves, was the keystone of U.S. foreign policy in the Persian Gulf for much of the Cold War until Iranians became fed up with the brutality and corruption of the Shah and overthrew him. They replaced him with a radical theocratic regime hostile to the United States. So alarmed was the U.S. government about this new Iranian regime that it supported Saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war during the 1980s. After that war, however, Saddam invaded neighboring Kuwait in response to Kuwait’s slant drilling of oil from under Iraqi territory. Instead of warning Saddam against further moves against Saudi Arabia and deploying a few U.S. forces there to act as a tripwire against such further Iraqi action, President George H.W. Bush elected to demolish half of Saddam’s army and his entire air force in the process of liberating Kuwait.
Of course, Desert Storm weakened Iraq as a counterweight to the 800-pound Iranian gorilla, but at least the current president’s father realized that completely obliterating Saddam’s regime would have given Iran free reign in the region.
So it didn’t take a rocket scientist to see that invading Iraq to shoot the already wounded Iraqi army would make Iran — now ruled by the despotic Ayatollah Khameini — the dominant power in the region for years to come. During the occupation, President Bush proved that he was certainly no rocket scientist by dismembering what was left of the smashed Iraqi security forces.
General William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency and a conservative, opposed the Vietnam War because he believed U.S. involvement there helped the main U.S. adversary — the Soviet Union. Similarly, he opposed the invasion of Iraq because it helped the country most hostile to the United States in the Persian Gulf — Iran. Iran is now funding, training, and supporting Shi’ite militias in Iraq, some of which are slaughtering Sunni Arabs. Without Saddam Hussein holding the fractious Iraq together, Iranian influence there has skyrocketed.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration, oblivious to the stark geopolitical realities of the region, has been squandering U.S. lives and money — $320 billion so far — to help Iran expand its role as a regional superpower.
ieland@independent.org
http://www.independent.org
Read more articles by Ivan Eland
I went to independent.org and also read your article titled: "Zarqawi's death is likely a plus for the Iraqi Insurgency".
People who are emotionally involved in an issue and want to believe something will do all they can to make themselves feel more comfortable with their decision. Before the 2004 election, there was alot of talk of the caputre of Bin Laden. My liberal friends were saying two things: 1. Bush is so incompetent he hasn't caught UBL yet, therefore we should not vote for him. 2. Bush already has UBL and will spring him on us right before the election just to get elected, therefore we should not vote for him. This is the same thing!
We have not suffered another attack since September 11, 2001. We have captured or killed most of UBL leaders and organizers. We have taken away his safe haven in Afghanistan, and now we have killed the face of the Iraqi insurgency and the man who claimed responsibility for the grissly beheadings, and somehow everything is a disaster, wrong, or bad.
You claim we were the ones who built up Zarqawi, I think he did that himself through his public beheadings. You claim our "propaganda machine has made al Qaeda the most overrated organization in the world", would the families of the September 11th attacks agree with that? Even your dollar amounts appear to be biased. The congressional budget office has a figure of 323 billion since 2001 for both Iraq, Afghanistan, and other spending for the war on terror.
I did find one thing in your article very interesting. I have never heard Kuwait had been slant drilling for oil under Iraqi territory. I would like to know where this information could be found, but I must say, I'm skeptacle based on the rest of your article.
Comment by Paul | June 23, 2006
And if Iraq had not been invaded, how would the geo-political realities appear? And is terrorism to be ignored in this "rocket science"?
One gain is apparent. That Iran is a threat seems to be dawning on the Europeans.
Comment by Bill White | June 23, 2006
This writer seems to believe we should have invaded Iran. I bet he would believe Iraq was the next superpower in that scenerio. This may be the lamest article ever.
Mr. Eland, who was the big winner when Marilyn Monroe was killed by the CIA, Twiggy???? How about Elvis, did this allow Kenny Rogers to become famous? What a moron.
Comment by honker | June 23, 2006
The author's grasp of the obvious is stunning.
President Bush the first was not prepared to deal with Iran. His son is.
Iran is mounting and funding attacks against the U.S. in Iraq.
Europe and most of the world is feeling the threat of Iran.
It’s becoming increasingly clear the Iran problem must be dealt with – by force if need be.
Regarding the author’s brief and interesting synopsis of the the Gulf War, what he doesn’t seem to recall is that it was mandated by the United Nations and consisted of a coalition force of 34 countries, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom.
The author saw it differently: an aggrieved Saddam protecting his country’s oil from theft and a U.S. president destroying half his army to defend thieving Kuwait.
It’s time to address whether senior fellows should be asked to take an annual test.
Comment by Nick | June 23, 2006
Nick you are right on. I would add, what if Iran as currently lead is removed from power? What would fill the Iranian vacuum?
A strongman to replace Saddam would have been easy. Removing Saddam was one of many possibilities.
Perhaps if we had treated Saddam the way we treated Kim iLL of Korea things would have been different and another US President would have a peace prize.
Comment by Ed Mooham | June 23, 2006
There's no question. The war is over and Iran has won without firing a shot.
I have no idea what the Bush Administration was thinking when they invaded Iraq. The only conclusion I can draw is that they believed their own propaganda. The Iraqi people would greet us with flowers and candy, as if we were liberating France crica 1944. Bush and his advisors were living in a dream world.
The question is what do we do now. Iraq is in a worse political situation than it was prior to the war. If it ends up being a functional democracy, the democracy will last until it becomes a Shi'ite Theocracy. The Iranians will find a compromise with the United States regarding the nuclear power issue. They have nothing to lose. We're fighting their war in Iraq. In time, we'll leave Iraq. We'll leave behind a country run by Shi'ites, for Shi'ites, controlled in proxy by Iran. We're spending countless billions of dollars and losing thousands of American lives for the Iranian cause. How stupid. This could only happen in the Bush Administration.
Greg in NY
Comment by Greg in NY | June 24, 2006
I think we should invade New Jersey, and then Sweden, for flooding our country with cheap furniture. Then we could invade Canada for giving refuge to our awol troops, followed by Japan, again, just for the hell of it.
Comment by Max Godwin | June 26, 2006
While making no excuses for the policy of invading Iraq, I do find it amusing the complete lack of logic behind those whose hatred towards the President and his staff is so overwhelming they cannot see the obvious opportunities.
There are many excellent reasons for removing Saddam and it does this war effort little good to ignore the congressional vote, twice, to remove Saddam by force unilaterally if necessary. Parroting anti war rhetoric is al Qaeda’s single best recruiting tool as they are banking on public opinion knowing well the history to useful idiots.
Iran has always been the larger threat to our interests in the region and indeed to our national security as this Mullah Mafia pumps billions annually into both Shia and Sunni terrorist groups, that would includes al Qaeda. Realistically, we have no choice but to confront Iran at some point in time, anyone paying the slightest attention to the stated objectives of this fanatical regime knows well, and the greatest threat to Iran is a freely elected government in Iraq, short of lobbing missiles. The Mullah Mafia is not a well liked government and they are fanatically trying to being about the return of the 12th Imam, Armageddon is the objective. They are convinced that if they lose they go to paradise and if they win the world will be entirely converted to Shiaism. There are plenty of moderate Mullahs in Iran willing to assist the removal of this regime and assuming our ultimate success in Iraq this is an excellent policy, at worst is buys some time. This coming from someone who did not support this war, however, geopolitically it has served to establish an Iraqi Army that is both willing and becoming more capable to assisting the war on terror with each passing day.
If we are to be successful we will ultimately have to empower moderate Islamic regimes, our problem is that most of the Democrat Leadership would rather risk national security and undermine this war for partisan gain, now that’s what I consider a real Ugly American.
Comment by Glen NorCal | July 3, 2006