April 25, 2006
Many throughout the Muslim world and
beyond are asking this question: What are the real reasons behind
the US invasion of Iraq and its wish to overthrow the governments
of Syria and Iran?
For all their grandiose posturing,
in truth, Iraq, Syria and Iran have never posed a direct threat
to the US mainland. Put simply, they're too far away from the
neighbourhood. So why would the US be willing to expend so many
human lives and so much treasury on changing the regimes of countries
it doesn't like?
Theories abound. At the top
of the list is America's quest for oil, a shrinking, non-renewable
resource. But, in reality, the US gets very little of its oil
from the Middle East and the Gulf. Most comes from South America
and Africa.
Another theory revolves around
the petrodollar monopoly, which both Iraq and Iran have sought
to disband by trading their oil in Euros. There may be something
in this one but it doesn't explain why Syria is in the firing
line.
The US says it wishes to export
'democracy' to the region but its reaction towards the Shiite
government in Iraq, led by the Dawa Pasrty that has close ties
with Iran, and the way that the democratically-elected new Hamas-led
Palestinian government has been isolated, hardly lends credence
to this. Democracy will not bring US-friendly governments, which
is what the Bush administration really seeks.
A premise, which many in the
Arab world believe, should also be dissected. Is the US manipulating
and remoulding the area so that Israel can remain the only regional
superpower in perpetuity?
This is not as fanciful as
one might imagine on first glance. Read the following strangely
prophetic segment from an article published in 1982 by the World
Zionist Organisation's publication Kivunim and penned
by Oded Yinon, an Israeli journalist with links to the Israeli
Foreign Ministry.
Yinon's strategy was based
on this premise. In order to survive Israel must become an imperial
regional power and must also ensure the break-up of all Arab
countries so that the region may be carved up into small ineffectual
states unequipped to stand up to Israeli military might. Here's
what he had to say on Iraq:
"The dissolution of Syria
and Iraq into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as
in Lebanon is Israel's primary target on the Eastern frontIraq,
rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other
is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution
is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger
than Syria. In the short run, it is Iraqi power which constitutes
the greatest threat to Israel.
"An Iraqi-Iranian war
will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before
it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us.
Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the
short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim
of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and Lebanon.
"In Iraq, a division into
provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman
times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around
the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul and Shiite areas
in the South will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north."
Sound familiar?
Now let's focus on the reality,
24 years on.
The eight-year long Iran-Iraq
War that ended in 1988 was responsible for over a million casualties
but did not result in Yinon's desired break-up. Iraq still stood
as a strong homogenous entity.
Iraq was, however, severely
weakened in 1991 as a result of the Gulf War brought about by
Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Still, the country remained
unified.
It took the 2003 US-led invasion
of Iraq and the subsequent occupation to destabilize Iraq and
split the country on sectarian lines. Indeed, its new constitution
is drawn around a loose federation with partial autonomy for
the northern Kurds and the southern Shiites, and the country
is now rife with sectarian, religious and ethnic strife. Some
say "civil war".
Turning to Syria, until the
March 2003 invasion of Iraq Syria under President Bashar Al-Assad
enjoyed reasonably good relations with the West. We should also
remember that Syria fought alongside the US-led allies during
the Gulf War. Syria also voted, albeit reluctantly, for the UN
resolution that oiled the invasion, and was a strong partner
in the so-called 'War on Terror'.
Then, lo and behold, Syria
could do no right. Suddenly, it was accused to all kinds of 'crimes'
from hiding Iraq's mythical weapons of mass destruction, harbouring
insurgents and terrorists, and allowing the free passage of fighters
and arms into Iraq.
Heavy pressure was then put
on to Damascus to end its de facto occupation of Lebanon following
the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik
Hariri, and, now the Syrian government is being investigated
by the UN, accused of involvement.
Today the US is actively engaged
in weakening the Al-Assad government and is supporting opposition
parties. If it is successful, experts predict that Syria, like
Iraq, will fall victim to sectarianism and internecine conflict.
Lebanon, which had been recovering
from a long civil war and an Israeli occupation, and was on the
point of finding some semblance of unity, is also in danger of
being destabilized with parties lining up into pro-Syrian and
anti-Syrian confederations.
Yinon described the Arab-Muslim
world as a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners
and arbitrarily divided into states, all made up of combinations
of minorities and ethnic groups which are hostile to one another.
He then goes on to bemoan Israel's
relinquishment of the Sinai to Egypt under the Camp David Peace
Treaty due to that area's reserves of oil, gas and other natural
resources.
"Regaining the Sinai Peninsula
is, therefore, a political priority, which is obstructed by Camp
David" he writes. "And we will have to act in order
to return the situation to the status quo which existed in Sinai
prior to Sadat's visit and the mistaken peace agreement signed
with him in March 1979."
Yinon then predicts that if
Egypt is divided and torn apart, some other Arab countries will
cease to exist in their present forms and a Christian Coptic
state would be founded in Upper Egypt. Presently there are growing
problems between Egypt's Muslims and Copts, perceived by some
hard line Egyptian Muslims as being more loyal to the US than
their own country. This has resulted in open clashes often with
resultant deaths.
Apart from Muslim-Copt divisions,
Yinon was wrong in his calculations concerning Egypt. He believed
Cairo would break the peace treaty with Israel giving the Israelis
the opportunity to drive their tanks straight back into the Sinai
and other coveted areas. However, the Egyptian government under
the ever pragmatic President Hosni Mubarak has stuck to the letter
of the treaty and has become an important US ally over the years.
Yinon's solution to the ongoing
Israel-Palestine problem was to herd the Palestinians across
the Jordan River and label Jordan a Palestinian state.
He rejected the land for peace
principle, saying, "It is not possible to go on living in
this country in the present situation without separating the
two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west
of the river.
Genuine co-existence and peace
will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that
without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will
have neither existence nor security - a nation of their own and
security will be theirs only in Jordan."
Yinon, and others of like mind
must once again be disappointed. Jordan gave up any thoughts
of Pan-Arabism long before the demise of King Hussein and his
son King Abdullah is now America's staunchest Arab ally in the
region. With a two-thirds Palestinian majority in his country,
Abdullah has chosen self-preservation by hanging on to US coattails.
The idea of packing 4.5 million
Palestinians across the Jordan is no longer being openly touted,
although this option was on the table in 2002 according to an
article by Professor van Creveld in Britain's Daily Telegraph.
A then Gallup poll showed that
44 per cent of Jewish Israelis favoured the expulsion of Palestinians
across the River Jordan.
Professor Creveld believed
Ariel Sharon favoured this plan too. Sharon was quoted in his
article as emphasizing Jordan's Palestinian majority and referring
to it as the Palestinian state. "The inference that the
Palestinians should go there is clear," wrote Creveld.
If you feel the idea that the
US would put itself on the line for the sake of Israel is far-fetched,
then it is worth remembering the words of the assassinated Israeli
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who claimed in his book that the
Israeli government was, in fact, responsible for the design of
American policy in the Middle East after the 1967 'Six Day War'.
Yinon's essay does not focus
on Iran, but let's look at comparatively recent statements coming
out of Israel on this subject.
During a visit to Washington
in November 2003 two years before the US government turned its
fire on Iran - the Israeli Minister of Defence Shaul Mofaz told
US officials that "under no circumstances would Israel be
able to abide by nuclear weapons in Iranian possession.
During the same month, Meir
Dagan, Director of the Mossad, told a parliamentary committee
that Iran posed an "existential threat" to Israel,
assuring members that Israel could deal with this threat.
Last year, the rhetoric out
of Israel was ratcheted up with the Israeli Foreign Minister
Silvan Shalom telling the press that "the idea that this
tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare, not
only for us but also for the whole world."
Israel's Prime Minister designate
Ehud Olmert is continuing the tradition of hyping the Iran threat,
assisted, it must be said, by fiery rhetoric coming out of Tehran's
reckless leader Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
An article in the Daily
Telegraph dated February 18 headed "America would back
Israel attack on Iran" clearly indicates that it is Israel
leading the charge against Iran.
The article quotes George W.
Bush as saying,
"Clearly, if I was the
leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the statements by
the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country,
I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well.
And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we've made a very
strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if
her security is threatened."
A year later and the US government
is no longer portraying Iran's purported nuclear ambitions as
a threat to Israel, but a threat to the United States. In this
way the case against Iran and the possible repercussions emanating
from that, can be sold to the American people. Suddenly Israel's
concerns have become theirs. Interestingly, more than 55 per
cent of the US public say they would back strikes on Iran's nuclear
facilities, according to a recent poll.
As the columnist Doug Ireland
writes in his expose "The Real AIPAC Spy Ring Story It
was all about Iran",
"Bush's slip-of-the-tongue
that revealed his real intentions was front-page news in Le
Monde and other European dailies but received little attention
in the States-side major media."
Justin Raimondo wrote in September
last year,
"This case has received
relatively little publicity in relation to its importance. It
isn't just the fact that, for the first time in recent memory,
Israel's powerful lobby has been humbled. What is going on here
is the exposure of Israel's underground army in the US covert
legions of propagandists and outright spies, whose job it is
to not only make the case for Israel but to bend American policy
to suit Israel's needs) and in the process, penetrate closely-held
US secrets."
Back to the question of whether
the US is, indeed, waging wars on behalf of Israel. In short,
we can't be certain and we may never know since the Bush White
House has sealed its private tapes and papers for 100 years.
There is one thing that we
do know. Oded Yinon's 1982 "Zionist Plan for the Middle
East" is in large part taking shape. Is this pure coincidence?
Was Yinon a gifted psychic? Perhaps! Alternatively, we in the
West are victims of a long-held agenda not of our making and
without doubt not in our interests.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on
Middle Eastern affairs based in Cairo. She can be reached at
sierra12th@yahoo.co.uk
Note: A version of this
article first appeared in
Al Shindagah magazine,
a Dubai-based periodical.