by LINDA S. HEARD
April, 2006
http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/04/25/is-the-us-waging-israel-s-wars/
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.
