[NYTr] RHC Analysis: 2007 Annual Report - US Policy Toward Iraq and Iran

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Radio Havana Cuba
http://www.radiohc.cu/ingles/portada.htm


RHC Annual Report 2007: US Policy Toward Iraq and Iran

INTRO: As 2007 draws to a close, we are bringing you series of
end-of-year reports. Here's MA with a summary of another year of
aggressive US policy towards Iraq and Iran.

In its policies towards the middle east, the George W Bush
administration has maintained the same strategic objectives as previous
administrations: positioning itself in territories where a considerable
part of the planet's energy resources are concentrated, and
particularly the hegemonic control of the natural resources of Iraq.

Perhaps the most distinctive characteristics of this adminitration's
policies have been the devices it has turned to in achieveing its
strategic aims: firstly, initiatives to promote what it calls
democracy, specifically initiatives aimed at greating a New Broader
Middle East and North Africa and secondly, direct military occupation
as in the invasion Iraq.

The US position towards Iraq and Iran is fundamentally determined by
its interest in controlling the oil and gas reserves of those countries.

>From the National Security Stratgy to the President's addresses to the
nation, this administration's policy shows a clear continuity in its
policies to destabilise and destructure both of those countries.

To begin with, the administration continues to insist that the war on
terror has still not ended, and cites the Middle East region as the
world's terrorist hotbed. It also promotes the idea that certain nation
states sponsor terrorism abroad. These ideas disguise the US's real
interest in advancing on new fronts in the region, which is to achieve
its geopolitical goals.

Secondly, there is the policy towards Iran, which emphasises that Iran
should abandon its nuclear programme, open up politically and reform
its social system, which clearly demonstrates the US's real objective
for Iran: regime change.

Thirdly, the priority for the Middle East continues to be economic
deregulation and the promotion of free trade, accompanied by the
political reforms that will make this possible. If the development and
cooperation agendas of the world's principal powers are analyzed, there
is a clear emphasis on the so-called Broader Middle East as a primary
policy focus. This is nothing new, particularly bearing in mind plans
to create a Free Trade Area in the region by 2013.

As a fourth point, the current White House administration continues to
reinforce the occupation in Iraq, with an emphasis on the fact that the
US cannot possibly lose in Iraq.

In his State of the Union address at the beginning of this year,
President Bush stated that:

"it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and
proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military
action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the
American people. This war is more than a clash of arms -- it is a
decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the
balance. (...)

"America must not fail in Iraq." (State of the Nation address, Jan 2007)

In the context of avoiding this failure, the presence of private
security companies in Iraq is increasing, that reinforce the use of
torture as a method of extracting information that will allow them to
destroy the resistance. This is not a new phenomenon. Since the
beginning of the occupation, mercenaries found a lucrative market in
Iraq.

Parts of the press have denounced the Pentagon's contracting of private
companies to carry out the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners of war.

Contradictions in Iraq

Despite the clarity of its objectives, there are factors that have
prevented the success of US policy in Iraq. Over the course of 2007,
the US stance towards Iraq and Iran has been marked by contradictions.

In Iraq, the prime minister Nuri al Maliki, who was supported by the
United States, faced a country-wide political, economic and social
crisis. Meanwhile resistance groups continue to be represent an
influential force needed to achieve stability.

Al Maliki has been unable to fulfil the political objectives set out
for his country by the US administration. This has caused questions
over his role as premier, and the US has been less than satisfied with
his performance.

The new system of "national unity", based on a consensus between ethnic
and religious groups, is headed for failure. A real, solid consensus
between political leaders, that might allow the country to comply with
the US's post-occupation agenda, does not exist.

Washington sees the Iraqi parliament as a dysfunctional body. This
opinion has been accentuated since the withdrawl of the Iraqi Consensus
Front from parliament in early August. This was the faction that
grouped the three principle Sunni parties. Public sources announced at
the end of August that an agreement had been made between Shiite, Sunni
and Kurd leaders with a view to reconstructing the country's political
processes, but this is still a long way from achieveing a government
with a broad base.

Added to the chaos is the government's need to control the provinces
newly handed over from US and British military control to Arab security
forces, as well as tensions between Turkey and Iraq that resulted from
the actions of Kurdish PKK forces entrenched in Northern Iraq. Al
Maliki's government has not responded effectively to either problem.

Neither is there an end in sight to the economic crisis that has
affected the country as a consequence of occupation. The scarcity of
food, drinking water and fuel, as well as the level of fear on the
streets has heightened the general insecurity of Iraqi society.

Nor can the resistance movement be ignored, that albeit divided is not
giving in to its enemy. It is very difficult to get a true picture of
the situation because of the fierce campaign waged by the corporate
western media, who attribute violent terrorist actions to Iraqi
resistance groups when theu could equally be the work of Al-Qaeda or
other terrorist networks.

There have been attempts to form coalitions between the various Iraqi
groups, both nationalist and islamist, but the situation has not yet
allowed for the growth of an organised united front with common aims.

Aggression against Iran

The Iranian case is very different. The principal aims of the Islamic
government led by Mahmud Ahmadineyad are to resolve internal problems
in the face of growing threats from the United States.

While an imminent military strike over the nuclear issue does not look
likely, neither can the possibility be discounted. The US will have to
make a full cost-benefit analysis, but the possibility of an Islamic
Iran with nuclear weapons is a serious threat for US interests in the
region. Iran's willingness to negotiate shows its interest in
preserving its peaceful nuclear program.

At home, the radicals of the Iranian have not been able to solve the
problems it promised to solve in its election campaign. After the
Ayatollah Khomeini's death, the government has made some severe errors
that it has been unable to reverse, among them widespread
administrative corruption. Unequal distribution of national wealth,
particularly oil money, has lead to high levels of poverty.

Additionally, the misdirection of funds and the appearance of a new,
rich social class linked to or supported by the spheres of power.
Recent increases in rent and food prices have provoked large-scale
discontent among a population that is questioning its government's
foreign policy, demanding more attention to problems at home.

Washington is taking advantage of the situation, trying to fuel social
unrest and even encourage terrorist action, based on the theory that
the Islamic Revolution will implode.

However Iran is a solid state with a well-structured system of
government that has the support of the majority of the population. It
is also a highly self-sufficient country.

Iran has a well organised army and an arms industry that also supplies
other nations in the region.

And Iran has been able to open up to the world of diplomacy and break
with its isolation, securing strategic alliances among the Islamic
community and beyond.

The US government looks set to maintain its strategic objectives in the
Middle East in 2008. But 2008 is also elections year, and the outcome
is sure to have a bearing on the country's nuclear dispute with Iran.

In Iraq, all the signs point to a continuation of the status quo,
although the number of troops may finally begin to decrease.