Antiwar.com Blog

Visit Lobelog.com for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service’s Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.

In my last post, I argued that the release by the U.S. military of nine Iranians, including two of the five officials seized in Irbil last January, suggested that Pentagon chief Robert Gates and the administration’s “realist” wing was making progress in wresting control of Iran policy from resurgent hawks led by Vice President Dick Cheney. In addition to the release, I cited as evidence the public assessments by Gates and senior military officers that the alleged flow of EFP’s (explosively formed projectiles) and other weapons from Iran to Shi’ite militias in Iraq had declined in recent months. Now comes the estimable Financial Times with a front-page article and a thorough back-page analysis that strengthens the case, quoting, among others, Centcom commander Adm. William Fallon at length as to why war with Iran is not an attractive option. It even quotes Patrick Clawson of the hawkish Washington Institute on Near East Policy (WINEP) — the same group that last month provided the forum for Cheney’s strongest war hoop against Iran — who is close to Cheney’s national security adviser, John Hannah, as saying: “The national intelligence director is saying we have time before the Iranians get the bomb, the secretary of state is saying diplomacy still has a chance, the secretary of defence is saying the military is at breaking point and the [White House] political advisers are saying another war would probably not be a good idea.”

I would add that the last week’s events in Pakistan — not to mention the continuing rise in oil prices and rapid decline in the U.S. dollar — have also probably set back the hawks’ hopes of confrontation with Iran. Not only is the crisis necessarily displacing Iran in the media spotlight, but it is also diverting the time and energy of key policymakers within the administration, including the vice president’s staff and deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams, who is also in charge of the White House’s badly tattered “Global Democracy Strategy.” And it gives Iran another card to play in the high-stakes regional poker game that is being played out. I personally don’t know whether long-standing reports of covert U.S. support for Iranian Baluch nationalists in Iran are true or not, but impoverished Pakistani Baluchistan (whose capital, Quetta, serves as the headquarters of the Afghanistan’s Taliban under the protection of Pakistan’s military) has long been restive. Indeed, riots broke out 15 months ago after the death of an important Baluch leader, Nawab Mohammed Akbar Khan Bugti, in a battle with federal forces. If Tehran wishes to add to Washington’s regional headaches in Afghanistan and Iraq, Baluchistan offers it a new opportunity (although one that could easily blow back across the border, too). In any event, nuclear-armed Pakistan’s suddenly apparent fragility once again underlines the importance of Iran as both a relatively tranquil island in an expanding sea of turbulence and as a potentially critical player in determining whether the region stabilizes or explodes further.

A letter from Eric, a reader, who elaborates on the theme of my column today on “Dynasties and Democracy“:

I wish to point out that there have been other American observers who noted the rise of dynastic politics in the United States . To be specific: Kevin Phillips, in his book American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush, published in 2004. The key point the book makes is that four generations of the Bush family have been involved with the rise of the national security state. There have been other prominent political families throughout America history, but stronger parties and strong public sentiment kept it under control. The Republican Party in the 14 elections between 1952 and 2004, has nominated either Richard Nixon or a Bush family member on the presidential/vice presidential ticket in 11 of those elections. This streak is unprecedented in American history. Here are the details:
 
Richard Nixon – 1952 VP, 1956 VP, 1960 Pres, 1968 Pres, 1972 Pres
George Herbert Walker Bush – 1980 VP, 1984 VP, 1988 Pres, 1992 Pres
George Walker Bush – 2000 Pres, 2004 Pres
 
The three exceptions during the period: 1964, 1976, 1996
 
The Democratic Party only has one streak that even approaches this in length:
 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt – 1920 VP, 1932 Pres, 1936 Pres, 1940, Pres, 1944 Pres

This fits in neatly with the premise of my piece: that the rise of political  dynasties is linked to our interventionist foreign policy. Since the War Party took up residence in the GOP, the dynastic factor has weighed heavily in their internal politics. And of course the reign of “Dr. Win-the-War” fits the same pattern.

It has been so obvious this week that it seemed a bit like piling on to observe that Saakashvili’s declaration of a state of emergency (like a certain other allied dictatorial ruler we know) and violent repression of civilian protesters are just the latest expression of the one-man despotism that Saakashvili created in Georgia in the wake of the so-called “Rose Revolution.” Like its successors in Ukraine, Lebanon and Kyrgyzstan, the Rose Revolution narrative has come to its predictable, unhappy conclusion where the revolution is supposedly “betrayed” (The New York Times took up this line Saturday) or fails to “fulfill its promise” or is “thwarted” by malevolent forces, when the entire thing was a sham from the beginning. The Guardian offers a typical lament (though, to their credit, they do not engage in the easy Russia-bashing that commentary on Georgia often becomes). Even now, Ralph Peters is offering up one version of this disappointment with how the “revolution” turned out:

The Saakashvili regime shone from afar – but grew rotten within.

But there was never anything that “shone” about the “Rose Revolution,” except perhaps the glaring hypocrisy of the “revolutionaries.”

Continue reading “Our Man In Tbilisi”

Of course, Saakashvili’s “Rose Revolution” never was a democratic movement.  That much is obvious.  So it would be deeply mistaken to describe the continued U.S. backing of Saakashvili as a contradiction or betrayal of the “freedom agenda”–the “freedom agenda” has always been aimed at the empowerment of local oligarchic stooges who will align their governments with ours, and Saakashvili has certainly fit the bill.  That is the whole point of the “agenda,” and how these lackeys rule at home has never been Washington’s concern.  The internal affairs of other states concern Washington in inverse proportion to those states’ alignment with the United States. 

In this way, we can understand why Washington continues foolishly to back Musharraf and will persist in its hostility towards Venezuela’s Chavez, despite the marked similarities in their styles of government and the clear destabilising effects all three rulers are having on their respective countries.  Chavez doesn’t play ball, Musharraf occasionally does what Washington (again often foolishly) calls on him to do, and Saakashvili is a reliable lackey, and they are treated accordingly.   

Cross-posted at Eunomia

New York Times headline: “Georgian Leader Says Emergency Rule to Last as Needed.” As needed — for what? Funny you should ask ….

Some very interesting details in the 14-count indictment of Berne Kerik, Rudy Giuliani’s protege and recommended nominee for Homeland Security chief, with some serious implications for Rudy’s reputation as the security candidate, are analyzed over at Taki’s Top Drawer. Go on, get over there and check out “Who Is ‘John Doe #7?: Giuliani, Kerik, and the Selling of US National Security.” This could be the torpedo that capsizes the Giuliani campaign.