Posted on 03/08/2002 5:02:32 PM PST by pkpjamestown
NEW YORK, March 8 — When Vice President Dick Cheney visits the Middle East next week, his itinerary will include the usual capitals of America’s Arab allies, NATO partners and other powers regarded as vital to any decision to move against Iraq. Conspicuously listed among those states this time around, however, is Israel, carefully quarantined from such planning during the 1990-91 Gulf War, but very much a player this time around. It is just one indication of how Sept. 11 has changed Washington’s view of the Middle East.
THAT THE Bush administration is making little effort to conceal its discussions with Israel on this topic is an indication of just how far the United States may be prepared to go to topple the regime of Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein, U.S. officials say.
The administration has left little doubt that serious battle planning is now under way for a campaign to bring down Saddam. According to senior U.S. officials, the administration expects to complete a long-delayed Iraq policy review by the time Cheney leaves Sunday on his 11-nation Middle East tour, so that he can outline American plans to Arab leaders.
These officials say Cheney, who is set to visit eight Arab states, along with Israel, Turkey and Britain, will make sure that Arab leaders fully understand that President Bush is “deadly serious” in his intention to pursue his war on terrorism and to confront states like Iraq that threaten their neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.
“He will speak bluntly in a way that leaves nobody in any doubt that we mean business,” one official said.
OUT OF THE SHADOWS
Israel’s inclusion on Cheney’s tour reflects a major change in the strategic thinking of Bush from that of his father’s administration during the Gulf War. Back then, any overt involvement by Israel in the war coalition was considered a dangerous liability that would shatter the alliance of anti-Iraq Arab states.
Senior U.S. officials pointedly avoided visiting Israel during the buildup to the war and during the actual fighting, using the telephone - and high-profile shipments of Patriot missiles - to persuade then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir not to retaliate when Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles at Israel.
Today, Israel’s strategic role in the war on terror has emerged from the shadows somewhat. The United States has pre-positioned large amounts of military equipment in Israel, and “more is arriving all the time,” according to a knowledgeable Israeli source. Israeli, Turkish and U.S. troops have trained together in numerous military exercises in the eastern Mediterranean — a high-profile reflection of a strategic relationship that is further underpinned by extensive intelligence sharing and a common concern about Iraq’s ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
“Israel and the U.S. now share a common strategic threat,” said David Ivry, Israel’s outgoing ambassador to the United States.
REGIME CHANGE?
Indeed, some in the Bush administration, confident of the U.S. military prowess after the rout of the Taliban and disappointed with the half-hearted support it received from old allies like Saudi Arabia, feel it no longer needs a Gulf War-style, Arab-studded coalition to topple Saddam.
If necessary, Secretary of State Colin Powell has warned, a “regime change is something the United States might have to do alone.”
On one hand, the administration hopes this threat of unilateral U.S. action against Iraq will convince Arab states of America’s determination to act and to support its campaign.
But if the Arabs balk, analysts say, the United States can turn to Israel and Turkey for practical support.
“I’m sure this is one of the options,” said Edward Walker, a former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. He said the inclusion of Israel and Turkey on Cheney’s itinerary suggests the administration is exploring both avenues.
“If we have to go it alone without the Arabs, then Israel becomes a fundamental player,” said Walker, who now heads the Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C. “Militarily, you can do it with Turkey and Israel.”
IN A BETTER POSITION?
During his visit to Washington last month, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon spoke privately with President Bush about the assistance Israel could offer in the event of an American attack against Iraq.
Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer said Israel stands “ready to help the Americans with anything they may need — intelligence, weapons systems.”
Turkey, a NATO member that fully supports Bush’s war on terror and borders Iraq on the north, could be expected to allow access to its airbases.
Militarily, the United States is in a much better position to wage war against Iraq than it was in 1991. With its improved lift capabilities, the United States could deploy a 200,000-strong force and equip it with weapons already pre-positioned in Israel and the Gulf States in a matter of weeks, not months, noted Patrick Clawson, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Another Iraq hawk, former Clinton National Security Council staffer Kenneth Pollack, believes the only country whose support would be “absolutely necessary” for a ground invasion is Kuwait, which borders Iraq on the south.
DOUBTS RAISED
But Gen. Wesley Clark, the former supreme commander of NATO, says a strategy against Iraq that relies only on one or two allies is risky and raises many questions.
“What are we going to do with other countries in the region?” Clark asks. “What’s their action going to be? What’s going to happen in the post-conflict phase? Who’s going to do the peace-keeping, and what is the government going to be?
“And what will happen if Saddam Hussein really is cornered? Will he use nuclear or biological or chemical weapons, if he’s got them? And who is he going to use them against, and what will be the ramifications of all of this?” “So I think that, while it’s militarily feasible to strike Saddam Hussein with only a couple countries supporting, it certainly isn’t the best course of action,” Clark says. “I’m sure the administration is going to try to create as broad a coalition as possible.”
The Bush administration already has begun offering carrots, proposing a major missile sale to Egypt and an increase in foreign assistance to Jordan.
But in trying to persuade the Arabs to join a coalition, Cheney is likely to confront a nagging set of issues involving Israel that won’t be as easily sidelined as in 1991.
Since Sept. 11, the Bush administration has maintained that its war against terror and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be dealt with separately.
And in an effort to show consistency in its campaign against terror, the administration has either supported or ignored Israel’s crackdown on Palestinian terrorist attacks, a tactic that has enraged the Arab world.
Since the outbreak of violence in late September 2000, more than 1,000 Palestinians and 288 Israelis have died.
Washington’s support for Israel’s tough tactics may be wearing thin. After Sharon said Monday that the Palestinians would negotiate only after they were “beaten,” alarmed U.S. officials said the administration would no longer give Israel unequivocal support for its beat-them-into-submission strategy.
Secretary of State Colin Powell weighed in publicly Wednesday, telling a House subcommittee that Sharon “has to take a hard look at his policies to see whether they will work.”
Powell pointedly added: “If you declare war against the Palestinians thinking that you can solve the problem by seeing how many Palestinians can be killed, I don’t know that that leads us anywhere.”
Amid the mounting anger over escalating violence between Israelis and Palestinians, it is now doubtful that moderate Arab leaders would be willing to support a showdown with Iraq unless the United States does something about the daily violence in the occupied territories.
SAUDI PROPOSAL
In an effort to resolve the situation, Saudi Arabia has offered — and Bush has publicly praised — a peace proposal that could provide a way to bridge the administration’s effort to build an anti-Iraq coalition with the Arabs’ concerns about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The proposal, floated via The New York Times by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, calls on all Arab countries to grant Israel full peace and normalized relations in return for Israel’s withdrawal from all the territories it seized in the 1967 Middle East war.
Though the plan has not been spelled out in detail, it is sure to figure prominently during Cheney’s Middle East trip.
As the region prepares for the vice president’s visit, Israel still enjoys the leverage that comes with its role as an ally in Bush’s war against terror.
But that role could change. If the price of Arab cooperation against Iraq is active American support for the Saudi peace plan, U.S.-Israeli relations could be in for some rough sledding.
In the past, Israel has rejected calls for a pullback to its pre-1967 borders, arguing they don’t provide enough security.
Even dovish Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, who welcomed the Saudi plan in principle, has warned a complete withdrawal is out of the question.
Ambassador Walker neatly summed up the Bush administration’s Middle East dilemma.
Interestingly, his remarks suggest that the Middle East strategic landscape, while it has shifted somewhat, may not have changed all that much since the Gulf war.
“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to fit in to Bush’s war on terror,” he insisted. “If you’re against terror, then you’ve got to be against groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. This isn’t an Israel issue; it’s a terror issue. And you’ve got to be consistent.”
But he added: “The U.S. war on terror and its campaign against Saddam will depend on the support of Arab countries in the region. These countries have a vested interest in cooperating with us. After all, our enemies are their enemies, too. But to the extent that the United States is in bed with Sharon, this will create problems.”
George Orwell
It will all come down to what Russia and China decide to do.
Sit back and watch? Iraqi oil will flood the market. Oil prices will fall to $14/barrel. China imports about 50%? of its consumption (happy). Russian oil will have to sell cheaper (the Russians don't see the money anyway).
Not as a country. A few Russian individuals will become richer. Russia as a world power is done, unless the communist party comes back to power. Highly unlikely.
Is Iraq a greater threat to us than China? If not, why don't we first attack China? She's the one with thermonuclear weapons and independently targeted re-entry vehicles. Compared to China, Iraq has diddlysquat nuclear capablity and no means to deliver a warhead anyway.
Also what is the legal basis for Bush's authority to attack Iraq? Isn't he supposed to ask congress to declare war first? Why isn't congress debating the issue? Is it the administration's position that it doesn't need congressional authorization? If so, are there any limits at all on the president's authority to go to war with anyone at any time?
I don't necessarily oppose a war with Iraq, but I sure oppose one where the reasons aren't spelled out, where the matter isn't publicly debated and where congress hasn't given its formal approval.
Russia will play standoffish, indifferent if not ambivalent, at times hostile, but will be a friend and ally. China will play the friend and ally, but be an enemy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.