~~~~~

"Mis-underestimating" Iran and Syria

Two major powers in the middle east, and each bordering Iraq, Iran and Syria have reached out to the Iraqi government, and each other. Here we have two countries that represent the two main rival factions in Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites, possibly coming together in Iran for a summit to discuss their main problem... the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the unrelenting violence that many feel is exacerbated by that occupation.

This presents a complication, shall we say, to the Bush administration's efforts to get a grip on things. While the pentagon is mulling over their "Go Big, Go Long, Go Home" options, which sounds more like the latest Verizon Wireless plan than a foreign policy, it seems that Syria and Iran clearly see what the rest of the world sees, which is, we don't have a clue what to do right now. Therein lies an opportunity for them to make a power play and this could limit the U.S. options even further (as if these three had any real promise to begin with).

Syria and Iran, separately, present challenges to the U.S. Sryia borders Lebanon and Israel and seems to favor Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran is heading nuclear and is already quite powerful. Working in concert, with Iraq as an ally (even reluctantly), creates a swath of influence reaching from Afghanistan to Israel. You think we've got problems now...

For years, Bush has been taking a threatening tone with Syria and Iran. There's enough evidence in the rhetoric to conclude that his plans for these two countries are not that different than his original plan for Iraq, that being military invasion, regime change, installation of a U.S. -approved pseudo-democratic government, with the intended goal of complete U.S. dominance of the middle east. That has been the Neo-con dream all along and they are not shy about saying it. All one needs to do is listen to what comes out of the American Enterprise Institute (the Neo-con think tank).

Iraq was somewhat unique in that it was isolated, even within the region. Our invasion was largely contained and, for the most part, what happens in Iraq stays in Iraq.

However, if we mess with Syria, they're likely to take it out on Israel. And, of course, doing anything to Israel is like hitting a beehive with a baseball bat. Taking on Iran militarily is a whole different ball game than Iraq as well. While Iran can't respond in kind to us (they're not going to park a carrier task force in the Gulf of Mexico), they have said that they possess "deterrent capability", meaning simply that our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan would increase by orders of magnitude if Iran wanted them to. This has tempered the conquest somewhat but it's also easy to imagine that the plan is (was) to continue the adventure from bases in a stable and cooperative Iraq. With the first invasion complete, the oil flowing, the Iraqis happily liberated, American support for the rest of the plan would be easy to come by.

Things have not exactly gone as planned. Iraq is a quagmire and Afghanistan is worsening. Israel lost a war with Hezbollah (at best, a stalemate), demonstrating that it is vulnerable. Our tough talk has held no sway in Iran and our credibility is almost non-existent in the rest of the world. Yet, Bush insists the military option is still on the table and, as Cheney said, its "full speed ahead".

In addition to the fact that the U.S. does not have a plan for Iraq, it is also common knowledge that the U.S. military does not even have the combat troop strength to beef up it's numbers in Iraq, in a sustainable way (as General Abizaid testifed before the Senate Armed Service Committee last week) let alone to get involved in a conflict that spans the entire middle east from Pakistan to the Mediterranian, an area roughly the size of the U.S. east of the Mississippi. Even this doesn't take into account the real possibility of a destabilizing effect on Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia if this thing drags out. We'd have fond memories of when it was only a quagmire and not a full scale morass.

Rep. Charles Rangel has been very vocal about his plan to introduce a bill in the House instituting the draft. No one believes it has a chance but it does put one card on the table. Senator Lindsey Graham insists that we must engage an all-volunteer force and that if we cannot, we would "explore other options". What are those other options? Tactical nukes maybe? If you can't build the volunteer force to the size you need it, and you won't draft, what other means are there to fight a continent-size war, where we must either win decisively, or lose quite spectacularly?

Watch the Iran-Iraq-Syria thing very closely. This is an important development with potentially terrifying possibilities, especially if we continue to not want to talk to them. We complain about Syria not controlling its border with Iraq. We complain about Iran supporting Shiite militias. Does anyone think this is not part of a strategy on the part of those countries? Of course it is. Now they are beginning to move that strategy into its next phase, which it to consolidate power and squeeze the U.S. out.

Don't forget, we still have al-Qaeda waiting in the wings to strike us at home and the best time to do that is when we are at the nadir of our failing effort in the middle east. There's probably not a swingin' thing we can do about it either.