UPPING THE ANTE WITH IRAN: WILL THE UNITED STATES RAISE THE ISSUE OF ABU MUSA, GREATER TUMB, AND LESSER TUMB?

SPC has recently learned that the United States is looking into the possibility of internationalizing the issue of three islands which are contested between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Iran.

Iran occupies Abu Musa, Greater Tumb, and Lesser Tumb, three islands which are located in the Persian Gulf. The UAE has not conceded Iranian sovereignty over these potentially oil-rich islands.

The islands are about equidistant from Iran and the UAE. Abu Musa lies at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz and is therefore strategically important in monitoring the ship traffic in the Persian Gulf.

CONFUSED AND DESPERATE?

The Bush administration is confused about how best to deal with Iran. Hence the idea of internationalizing the issue of the three islands as a means for applying yet more pressure on the Islamic Republic and responding to an Iranian-supported idea for the secession of the oil-rich Iraqi south--a la U.S.-sponsored de facto secession of the Kurdish north.

The Bush Administration Destroyed a Precarious Balance of Power. By staying out of Iraq, the United States had kept the possibility open that it would yet again tilt towards that country, under the working albeit ruthless leadership of its former President, and terrify Iran once again. But on the advise of neo-con-artists (a mix of alleged conservatives and confirmed con-artists), and tantalized by the huge oil bonanza, the United States invaded the Arab country. The dismemberment, invasion, and occupation of that country meant that the Bush administration would place outnumbered American troops at the mercy of Iran. The Islamic Republic is highly experienced at handling the cunning-less United States and it understands its political culture. It knows how to modulate the great power's behavior, especially that it now has one hundred and thirty thousand American hostages next door.

WAR IS IMPOSSIBLE; THE DRAFT IS NOT!

The Bush administration's dilemma is severe because it lacks the troops to wage a full-fledged war against Iran. This dilemma is made worse by the fact that, should the United States prepare for full-fledged war, Iran in the transition period should be expected to raise the level of its unconventional retaliation in Iraq, costing the lives of countless Americans. It should be eminently obvious, however, that full-fledged warfare is unrealistic for yet another reason. Iran would only need to fire a few missiles (which it has developed and tested) into the oil complexes in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province (or fire at tankers) to cause the price of each barrel of oil to shoot into the hundreds of dollars. There's so little extra capacity in world oil production (an estimated one million barrel per day only) that an American-Iranian war would spell global economic disaster. If a war does erupt, and a few Iranian missiles make their way to the petroleum complexes of the Saudi Eastern Province, the American administration (Bush or Kerry) would be certain to face an acute recession. This recession should dwarf that which we escaped thanks in good part to the pumping of countless billions of dollars into the post-September 11 anti-terror and Iraq war campaigns and the flooring of the interest rates by the Federal Reserve Bank.

The dilemma becomes more intricate when one considers that giving in to Iran--which some in the foreign policy establishment seem to advocate as "partnership"--carries as many risks as fighting it. Iran already is the leader of the Arab and Islamic worlds, if only by default. Giving in to the Islamic Republic would confirm its leadership and place such client regimes as Jordan's and Egypt's at its mercy.

Has President Bush miscalculated! You bet. And the poor Mr. Kerry; if he wins, he would face an impossible situation, one which likely will burn him, as it will burn Mr. Bush. (Only that Mr. Bush would have no third term to serve.) An entire nation was set-up by the neo-con-artists and is now paying a heavy price in unnecessary deaths. It's time for the draft. How else avoid it and not incur defeat?

DESPERATE, THE UNITED STATES TURNS TO SYRIA

Using a carrot and stick approach, the United States is trying to break the Iranian-Syrian alliance, in the hope that Syria will help it out in Iraq--a worrying development for the Sharon government. This government has recently assassinated a Hamas official in the heart of Damascus, in the hope--very possibly--of halting the process of the American rapprochement with Syria.

Syria's propaganda machine (reporters and columnists) is portraying the Israeli assassination as one that was coordinated among the intelligence services of the United States, Israel, and those of “some Arab government." (They mean Jordan and Egypt). Such is the stick. (The Syrian version is probably correct.) Now the carrot. There is a distinct possibility that the United States has some lucrative offers for Syria. Money, the Bush people would hope, would lure Syria away from Iran. It would turn it into a beneficiary and a tool of empire, a la Israel (utterly useless), or Egypt (relatively useless), or Jordan (somewhat useful, but little extra capacity to dispatch troops abroad lest they return home to re-education camps run by a new Islamic regime.)

Syria is no fool. Its cooperation with the Americans in the first Gulf war brought it nothing but conceit, especially on Capitol Hill, even though it had provided the most credible Arab cover to the U.S. assault on Iraqi troops in Kuwait. Moreover, it has witnessed no progress on the return of its Golan. Syria is therefore unlikely to risk its alliance with Iran. It would not fall for any American scheme without the return of its Golan, on its terms. But a Bush administration cannot deliver the Golan, as its right-wing core is corrupt, biased, idiotic, and therefore incapable of new thinking; and a Kerry administration will probably focus solely on the Palestinians and avoid Syria altogether. (SPC suspects that Syria is so distasteful to those surrounding Mr. Kerry.) Hence Syria's mistrust. Syria, however, should be expected to go through the motions--to work with the United States to modulate the its behavior, while still coordinating with its more reliable Iranian ally.

(This is not an article about Syria. But SPC notes that Syria has countless options at its disposal, and can project power in a manner that far outweighs its limited resources.)

In the meanwhile, the Bush administration's desperation is peaking, especially that its happy portrayal of progress in Iraq can go so far. What with all those leaks from the angry and once justifiably cautious intelligence community--all those who the neo-con-artists had pushed aside in order to invade. (See the September 29 article on the front page of the Washington Post, one of those liberal papers that caught Mr. Rove's bait, but now doesn't want to be blamed for the loss of young American lives and has therefore been back-pedaling.) The Bush administration badly needs to secure some Iranian cooperation in Iraq. Abu Musa, the Greater Tumb, and the Lesser Tumb seem to be the latest idea to which a desperate administration is clinging. The draft will be next.

REFORM ACTIVISTS ON TRIAL IN SAUDI ARABIA--BUT FOR WHAT?

Mr. Ali al-Dumaini, Dr. Matrouk al-Faleh, and Dr. Abdallah al-Hamed, three Saudi reform activists calling for constitutional monarchy, were arrested on March 16, 2004, along with several others. The authorities released all but the three. Those released promised to end their activism. Dumaini, Faleh, and Hamed refused to enter into such an agreement with the authorities; hence their continued detention.

THE CHARGES

On or about August 10, 2004, the authorities opened the trial of the three. After a one-day hearing, at which charges were read, it remained unclear when the trial will reconvene. The three activists were charged with calling for the establishment of a constitutional monarchy and for impuning the independence of the Saudi judiciary. Moreover, the authorities accused the three of having issued statements that were critical of the royal government, of having adopted and circulated petitions, and of having contacted the foreign media.

(The general confusion about the time table of the trial is likely due to the absence of secular legal tradition. The one-day hearing at which charges were read should have been referred to as presentment or arraignment. Following this initial hearing, the court gives the parties time to engage in discovery and otherwise prepare their cases. Attorneys at that hearing can re-engage the court in bond determination; they should be able to address the bond status of their clients any time they feel developments have emerged that warrant re-consideration by the court.)

One internet site which gave a detailed description of the first and only day of trial described the charges as follows: (1) incitement of unrest; (2) rebellion against the ruler; (3) creation of turmoil; (4) calling for the assembly of citizens; (5) drafting inciting statements; and (6) attempting to disturb the peace of the lands.

Faleh, one of the reformers, has recently reiterated his call for the election of the Majlis al-Shawra (the Consultative Council--appointed), and diminished the importance of the upcoming municipal elections.

THE THREE REFORM ACTIVISTS REPRESENT PEACEFUL OPPOSITION IN SAUDI ARABIA

No one disputes that the three reformers reject violence and are peace-minded. In essence, therefore, the government has placed on trial the legitimate and peaceful political opposition. This opposition stands in sharp contrast to the dangerously-divisive and criminally-violent activism championed by the emir-in-chief, the exiled Osama bin-Laden.

DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS

That the government is violating the basic due process rights of the three activists is evident in the reported comment by a Saudi lawyer that none of the charges leveled against the three is defined by Saudi statutes.

A Public Relations Disaster? It is possible that American (sophomoric!) public relations firms are advising the Saudi government about this trial. These amateurs (who probably never worked or volunteered for human or civil rights organizations) don't seem to appreciate (or even understand) that Western observers will justifiably key in on due process violations, first and foremost.

For many among the American observers are still laboring under the old paradigm when, once upon a time in the United States, before the enactment of the U.S. Patriot Act, a prosecutor would be laughed out of his job for charges of the kind leveled against the three Saudi activists. If an indictment failed to parallel the text of a statute, and the rubber-stamp grand jury let the prosecutor get away with it, he would run the real risk of the independent court granting a motion to strike the indictment and very possibly dismissing the case. Under the U.S. Patriot Act, however, such protection for the accused has been eliminated, and kangaroo justice has taken over. Still, Western observers--including the American--mostly belong to the old generations when due process mattered.

It's important to note that the Saudi authorities have treated the three detained activists humanely, as reported by Faleh. This humane record, however, was tarnished when on the first day of trial, Mr. Hamed, who suffers from diabetes, complained about the poor state of medical care in prison. SPC certainly hopes the Saudi authorities would bring in competent physicians to attend to Mr. Faleh's condition.

Internet sources mentioned yet more due process violations: The alleged disqualification by the Minister of Justice (the "Attorney General") of three attorneys (Al-Wahaibi, al-Reshdawi, and al-Nassiri) in the case. Additionally, Hamed, one of the three reformers on trial, reported that he was not allowed to meet with his lawyers. Equally disturbing was his complaint that he had not been informed of the date of his trial and only learned about it from Mr. Dumaini one hour before the start of the judicial proceeding.

Most disturbing of all: Why are these three men detained? Why aren't they on bond?