Dinner party prattle

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6328753.stm

Why is this piece called "Middle East: An end to US primacy?"

'"Something is happening that could have a strategic potential," says Dennis Ross, the US peace envoy to the Middle East during the Clinton years.' Mr Ross, Clinton appointee, clearly has no axe to grind with the (evil) Bush administration. Neither, presumably does 'political correspondent' Jonathan Marcus. Just because the BBC is packed to the rafters with America-haters, doesn't mean Mr Marcus is one! Does it?

There are a number of arguments set forth here. According to this piece, Afghanistan and Iraq were both rival powers to Iran; and now both are occupied by US forces. When exactly was Afghanistan a rival power to Iran? Or indeed anyone? But we'll pass over that for a moment. Now Iran is free to exercise its influence over the whole middle east in an unconstrained way. How is the one a consequence of the other? Let me get this right... the US attacks in a full-blooded way Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Saddam the murderer in Iraq, and that emboldens the Iranians? Having 155,000 US troops, plus a whole carrier group just to its south in the gulf, and hundreds of land-based aircraft in Iraq is an encouragement to Tehran to have a go? Only if you are irrational and delusional and tanked up on prophesies of returning 12th Imams.

As anyone with an even passing interest in these matters would be able to tell you, Irans behaviour towards the middle east, America and the rest of the world has not changed at all since the arrival of the Mullahs in 1979. They are actively pursuing the dominance of Shia Islam at home and abroad. They are very keen to give the Sunni nations a poke in the eye whenever possible, and will use any and every political situation to achieve Shia pre-eminence. What else do you need to know?

Saudi Arabia and the other large Sunni nations know all this; indeed have always known it. It is part of their everyday political scene. What has happened that is new is the crazy determination of Iran, even faced with overwhelming military force, to pursue the semi-suicidal Nuclear weapons program they are so inordinately proud of. This is worrying to the Saudis, Egypt and the other Sunni nations because US politics may suddenly remove that massive US military bulwark on which they currently rely. How could they face down a nuclear Iran by themselves. The simple answer is they can't. Which is why they are all very twitchy at the moment.

'Ambassador Ross dates the genesis of this to Saudi Arabia's criticism of Hezbollah during last summer's Lebanon war.
"Iran," he said, was perceived by many Arab states "as trying to seize control of the Israel-Palestine issue and was using Hezbollah and Hamas as tools".'

Ambassador Ross is an idiot. Everybody in the middle east has been using the Palestinian Arabs for their own ends for sixty years. Saudi Arabian concern about Iranian influence goes back a bit further than last year- probably a few thousand years, to be exact. The only person to whom this is new, is Ambassador Ross.

'The Saudis have dusted-off their Middle East peace plan, and Riyadh, Cairo and Amman are all clamouring for a greater US push on the Palestinian front. And if this is the price for a new alliance to contain Iran, then the Bush administration seems willing to at least go through the motions.' Words dripping with cynicism and disdain... thank you Clintonians for your magnificent contribution!

'So for all the talk of a new US diplomatic push, Dennis Ross says that it is going to be very hard to make a strategic breakthrough now.' Because of course, having US forces occupying two of the most strategic countries in the middle east ISN'T a strategic breakthrough. What Dennis Ross is mindful not to mention is that Ahmadinejad is doing the political equivalent of whistling past the graveyard. Iran is in no shape to take on the US militarily, and only proper nuclear weapons will provide any real deterrence against a US strike. Even the most pessimistic observers believe Iran to be two to five years away from effective nuclear weapons, even with its nuclear program running flat out; and in the meantime the insurgency in Iraq may very well die on its feet.

At that point, Irans geopolitical situation will look very glum indeed. With only fair-weather, stab-you-in-the-back-at-the-first-opportunity friends like Russia to rely on, Iran is the only Shia nation of any size. There will be no great rising up of Sunni's on their behalf, especially if Iran overtly threatens Saudi Arabia. With a stable Iraq protected by a US army twice as large as the Iranian one, Syria will be under huge pressure to get with the Sunni program, and stop its novel dalliance with Shia Iran. Hezbollah will suffer badly if Syria can no longer provide its logistical backup, and without a constant new supply of arms would be even more vulnerable should Israel have another go at wiping it out.

In my view, even the short term prospects for Iran are poor. The medium and long term are very poor, especially if its oil production continues to decrease. But you'll never hear that from a clintonian appointee!