(Continued. Read Part I of the article here)
the election of George Bush to power we see that this Israeli strategy
paper has served as a template for U.S. foreign policy in Middle East.
Now let us examine each suggestion in the paper and the events in the
1. Only the unconditional
acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial
dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future. During
Mr. Bush’s presidency,
Israel has abandoned the concept of "Land for Peace" and concentrated
instead on unilaterally drawing the borders of a future Palestine. This
is being done by first constructing a so called "security wall"
separating Israel from Palestine, and then declaring that wall as the
international border separating the two states. The "Peace for Peace"
means that Israel will increase the pressure on Palestinians by such a
degree that Palestinians will come to Israel, hat in hand, begging not
for land but for peace. In this way Israel will determine the size and
shape of the future Palestinian state. This has been and is supported
by United States. The current strangulation of the Palestinian Economy is part of that strategy.
An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize,
would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern
borders by engaging Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents
of aggression in Lebanon,
This has been done through news media and United Nations where United States
has tried hard to isolate Syria and even have put sanctions on the
country. United States has also tried, by pressuring the Lebanese
government, to isolate Hezbollah and
reduce its power within the Lebanese society. Syria has claimed that
former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Harriri was assassinated by
Israeli agents to damage its reputation in Lebanon. It is interesting
to note that this assassination was one of the main reasons that Syria
was forced to leave Lebanon. It was also used to try to impose U.N.
sanctions on Syria.
Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and
roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break
from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of
strategy based on balance of power.
The Israel’s relationship with Turkey
prior to the Iraqi invasion was improving rapidly. Turkey knows that it
needs United States backing in its negotiations with the European
Union. It also needs United States’ help in restructuring its 200+
billion dollar loans. Therefore for Turkey it was a good idea to accept
a close partnership with Israel. Currently Israeli pilots carryout air
exercises in Turkey and rumours have it that they even spy on Iran from
Israel (behind the scene) has traditionally had a good relationship with Jordan.
Israel hoped that after invasion of Iraq, the former crown prince
Hassan of Jordan would become King of Iraq. The Jewish Daily Forward of
New York reported on August 9 2002, the following:
observers said some Bush administration officials are indeed rooting
for Hassan at a time when Washington is struggling to find a consensus
leader to succeed Saddam. After the
London meeting, the London-based Guardian newspaper reported that
Hassan had the backing of Pentagon hawks and that he met in April in
Washington with one of their most prominent figures, Deputy Secretary
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz."
4. This effort can
focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important
Israeli strategic objective in its own right. Here we see that Israel’s
strategy as presented in the document is the removal of Saddam Hussein
from power. Israel could not do this on its own. But again Israel
didn’t have to. United States achieved the strategic objective of
Israel, without Israel spending a single dollar.
far Israel has achieved most of its main objective except completely
neutralising Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. Israel has been partly
successful in weakening and isolating Syria, however, Syrian government
remains in place and still supports the Palestinians. The Iranian
government is still there, supporting Syria, Hezbollah and the
Palestinians. The main point of problem for the Israelis
then is Iran. If Iran is neutralised, then no-one is left to back
Hezbollah, and Syria is left totally at the mercy of Israel. Then
Israel can play the "Peace for Peace" game with Syria.
By occupying and breaking large centres of power in the Middle East
such as Iraq and Iran, Israel will be left the dominating power for a
very long time. Iraq is now fractured into many pieces and in near
future will not be able to support Palestinians in any meaningful way
or cause Israel any problem. If Iran is also occupied and made into a
federation, like Iraq, the internal strife will be such that it (Iran)
too will not be able to do anything.
Something for Israel and Something for the United States
the architects of these wars have to, at the end of the day, have
something tangible to show the American people for all the blood and
money that United States has spent in these ventures. The answer of
course is Oil. Now that the war in Iraq has gone badly wrong, and the
threat to Iran has pushed oil prices to above 70 dollars per barrel,
people are thinking that maybe it will not be a bad idea for the U.S.
to do something to bring the prices down.
United States can occupy Iran, or at least change the regime in Iran to
something that is subservient to the American interests, then U.S. can
have over half of the world’s oil reserves under its control. There are
four countries in the Middle East, that combined, have over 50% of the
world’s proven oil reserves. These countries are: Iraq, Iran, Kuwait
and Saudi Arabia. United States
directly or indirectly controls 3 of the 4 countries, and if it can get
the fourth then it has its cake and can eat it too. But to control
means to be close enough to be able to protect or threaten the
governments in those countries. This necessitates the presence of
American bases on those territories or close by. United States has
bases in most of the Persian Gulf countries such as Qatar, Bahrain,
Kuwait, and now is planning permanent bases in Iraq
Iran’s Nuclear Weapons
Let us be clear about this: Iran does not posses nuclear weapons.
Everyone, even in Washington, agree on this. Even Director of United
States National Intelligence John Negroponte estimates that in spite of
Iran's declaration that it has managed to enrich uranium, Iran will not
have a bomb within four to nine years from now.
main argument against Iran is that Iran is enriching Uranium. Under
"Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" (NPT), all members
are guaranteed the right to enrich Uranium. Article four of the treaty
"Nothing in this Treaty shall be
interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to
the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with
articles I and II of this Treaty".
gives Iran and other member states the right to do research and enrich
uranium. So what Iran does is totally legal. In contrast we see that
all the nuclear states such as
England, Russia, China, France, and United States are in violation of
this treaty. The treaty clearly states that Nuclear powers have to
"Desiring to further the easing of
international tension and the strengthening of trust between States in
order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear
weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the
elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of
their delivery pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament
under strict and effective international control."
only Nuclear powers have not reduced their nuclear weapon research and
development activities but some openly threaten non-nuclear states with
President Bush constantly
reminds us that he considers using Nuclear weapons against Iran. For
example on 12th April 2006 Reuters reported that President George W. Bush once again had refused to rule out nuclear strikes on Iran.
Bush refused on Tuesday to rule out nuclear strikes against Iran if
diplomacy fails to curb the Islamic Republic's atomic ambitions…
about a U.S. attack has mounted since a report in New Yorker magazine
said this month that Washington was mulling the option of using
tactical nuclear weapons to knock out Iran's subterranean nuclear
Even president of France has stated
that his country will use Nuclear weapons to "safeguard" French
"interests". In an address to the strategic submarine forces (FOST) at
the Ile Longue nuclear submarine base in Brittany Jan. 19, Chirac
said the "perception" of the country's "vital interests" had changed
with the world's growing interdependence. "For example, the guarantee
of our strategic supplies or the defence of our allies are, among
others, interests that are to be protected," he said. Chirac said it is
up to the president of the Republic-himself, until at least next year
to determine whether a given "aggression, threat, or unacceptable
blackmail" has consequences that bring it within France's "vital
interests" and thus could unleash the nuclear deterrent.
is very interesting since none of these countries are threatened and
they state very clearly that they want to use Nuclear weapons to
protect their "interests".
While Iran is being threatened with sanctions, military invasion and nuclear attack,
others are rewarded for going Nuclear. India which has not even signed
the NPT and has tested nuclear weapons is rewarded with access to new
nuclear technologies, weapons and even lucrative trade deals.
Pakistan the creator of Taliban
and home of the famous Dr. A.Q. Khan - black market nuclear technology
salesman- is similarly rewarded with brand new F16s (capable of
delivering Nuclear weapons) and financial aid.
200+ nuclear bombs are the best known secret in the world. On 12th of
October 2003 Guardian newspaper reported that Israeli and American
officials have admitted deploying U.S.-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles
armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class
"Israeli and American officials
have admitted collaborating to deploy US-supplied Harpoon cruise
missiles armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class
submarines, giving the Middle East's only nuclear power the ability to
strike at any of its Arab neighbours. The
unprecedented disclosure came as Israel announced that states
'harbouring terrorists' are legitimate targets, responding to Syria's
declaration of its right to self-defence should Israel bomb its
We all know that US, UK, France and even peaceful Norway helped Israel to develop nuclear weapons.
then we have the Brazilian nuclear activities to consider. Associated
press reported on 22nd of April that: "The government-run Industrias
Nucleares do Brasil S A has been
conducting final tests at the enrichment plant, built on a former
coffee plantation in Resende, 145 km west of Rio de Janeiro. When it
opens this year, Brazil will join the world’s nuclear elite." So where
are the IAEA, and Security Council? Brazil is doing exactly the same
thing that Iran is.
Let us face the truth, Just
like Iraq, all the talk about Iranian nuclear activities is a smoke
screen for something else. The most likely answer is a combination of
the United States strategic interest in oil, containment of China and
Israeli interest. But in 2006 governments are understandably shy about
mentioning neo-colonialism and greed as the reasons for invading other
Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar
Bakhtiar lives in Norway and is currently writing a book about the
reasons behind the United States involvement in Iraq and Iran. He's a
former associate professor of Nordland University, Norway. He can be contacted at: email@example.com
Discuss this article on Pravda.ru English Forum