US Foreign Policy 'New Turn' Leaving Many Wondering

The New US Foreign Policy 'Turn' convening Iran and Syria to a conference on the stabilisation of Iraq is taking its closest allies and puppet governments in the ME by surprise.

Lebanese Sanyura's US/Saudi puppet government and its champions on the Lebanese Political scene are afraid they might be 'Sedotta e Abbandonata' by the US once again - it happened in the past- in favor of talks and normalisation of relations with Syria. Rice had to reassure former militia leader and present leader of the pro-Sanyura government March 14th movement, Walid Jumblatt, that Lebanon is still dear and close to her heart (as when it was bombarded by Israel and its children dying by the hundreds).

In its March 3rd electronic edition (link not available yet), Le Monde publishes an article Titled: 'Iraq: Paris is cautious (circumspect) towards US diplomatic turn'. The article author, Nathalie Nougayrède, reminds us that Chirac became very close to US policy on matters related to Lebanon. In addition, the personal and close ties Chirac entertains with some Lebanese anti-Syrian Politicians supported by the US, like Saad Hariri, have contributed to France's isolation from Syria and the Middle East scene the US seems to be opening now.
Meanwhile, the six members of the UN security council have agreed on a framework for another resolution on Iran if it does not stop enriching Uranium. They seem to be heading for specific economic sanctions which can become more and more constraining for Iran.

It is no coincidence that this agreement of the UN security council comes at a moment the US is inviting Tehran to a conference on Iraq. In exchange for showing a will to stabilise Iraq and talk with Syria and Iran, the US was able to extract from the members of the security council an agreement of principle on future sanctions against Tehran. If Iraq is not stabilised, the US, who had a hard time making the case against Iran, will at least complain about Iran's uncooperativeness in the Iraqi dossier and push further the case of Iran helping the Iraqi insurgency. Tehran's decision about the conference on Iraq is not known yet, and the US made it clear that the question of Iran's nuclear program will not be discussed neither weighed in during the Iraq talks. Iran is cornered. Should it participate or not, its role in the stabilisation of Iraq and the US's willingness to implicate Iran in this process are now a public opinion matter and the US will make sure to pin the blame on Iran turning public opinion in the west against Iran when it comes to justify the situation in Iraq. It seems that the US has at least set the stage for Iran, which is to exert continuous and increasing constraints, including the increased military presence in the Gulf, manufacturing a consensus both inside the US and outside on the international scene against Iran. The goal will be to weaken and isolate Iran on the regional and international scenes while making the case against it more stronger.

In this context, the invitation sent to Iran and Syria for a conference on Iraq appears to me more about Iran then it is about Iraq. It is part of the US maneouvers to keep Iran pressured while appearing at the world stage as willing to talk. We should not therefore expect any miltary action against Iran soon but surely escalation in the threats and the sanctions. Unable to go to war against Iran, the US has chosen to weaken it before any military action, while appearing at the same time to be outside a logic of war by inviting Iran to talks on Iraq...The conference on Iraq is more than two years late and is likely to produce nothing for the Iraqi people.
Le Monde's Corine Lesne published an analysis of the US strategy toward Iran on february 17th in which she argues that the US is trying to 'strangle' Iran economically as it did against Hamas, North Korea, and recently Sudan.
Lesne concludes:
''Affaiblis sur le plan politique et militaire, les Etats-Unis entendent utiliser la puissance qui reste entière : Wall Street.'' which translates: weakened politically and miltarily, the US wants to use against Iran the power that is still theirs, Wall Street.

There is no turn in the recent moves we are witnessing in US foreign policy. What we are witnessing is an administration weakened abroad and at home, trying to pursue its belligerant policy by other means, even if it means doing so on the expanse of the stability of the entire ME. I did not discuss the frenetic diplomatic intiatives of Saudi Arabia because I think they are irrelevant. They are dictated by Bush and Co and intended to lull the defiance, suspicion and mistrust the Arab public opinion hold now against the US and its closest ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.

In light of all this I can say that I am not among the wonderers ! And I predict another turn when the time will come this administration will feel stronger enough to wage a military war Iran . And everybody, including the dovish left and anti-war movements worldwide, will be taken by surprise ! We should not look for TURNS in US policies in the ME right now, we should look for logical continuities and how an administration which is weak, both on the domestic and international fronts, is building the case for another illegal war in the ME. This is not a turn in foreign policy, this is political deception !


Unknown said...

I think you are a bit off, because there are those in the OVP and hawkish civilian elements at the Pentagon actually delight in media reports about a US attack on Iraq. It is called "irrational compellence," or simply brinksmanship, and probably means that Kissinger, the master at such things, has Bush's ear.

Anonymous said...

Sophie - i expected you to bash Israel a little more in this column. Just read about Muslims kidnapping 14 police officers in Iraq today. Surely this is Israel's fault! :)

Sophia said...

Martina or Mr. or Mrs Israeli cybersoldier because this is what you are posting from the same IP with different names,

You confirm my hypothesis that the Iraq war was partly waged in order to hide and distract from israel's crimes in Palestine. It is highly siginificant that everytime things are bad in Iraq and they always are, you come by, ignore my posts on Israel- there is one on the Israeli apartheid just down the page- on which you did not feel like commenting, and show how much Israel is innocent because it has nothing to do in the mess going on in Iraq. Well you are wrong. Most people think the Iraq war was done on behalf of Israel as the coming iran war...

Are you happy now ?

I am not publishing any other of your comments.

Anonymous said...

In the light of what has been going on your analyzes seems, unfortunately, very realistic.

Anonymous said...

Here 2 articles with the same conclusion:

Sophia said...

Thanks Homeyra

Naj said...

Sophia, I share your skepticism too. (just holding my breath; but I am veru suspicious too.)

On the other hand, to get along with Iran IS in their (US) interest, regardless of how much Israel nags!

Again, I am beginning to lose the sight of what objective an attack on Iran will acheive for the neocons!

Fleming said...

Sophia, your post is excellent. I want to congratulate you for showing "Martina" the door. That's the only way we can deal with these rude Zionist intruders who are long on irrelevant sarcasm and short on debating facts.

It's very interesting that they use the same technique on you that they almost always use on me: They set up a straw man and blow it over. They directly or indirectly attribute some ridiculous opinion to me (something I've never said or implied) and then mock it as if they were proving something about my opinions in the process. That illogical method shows that they really have no valid argument to present.

Good for you, Sophia!

I invite you to look at my recent posts on the same subject as your post: http://viewfrommoon.blogspot.com/

Since March 29th 2006