HUSH, HUSH--SPIN, SPIN--OH, OH, WHAT A ROT WE'RE IN

a no-spin perspective

"Before the Gulf War
We wore a patched costume of [Arab]unity...
After the Gulf War
We un-clothed, as God had created us..."

The Light of Exile
Nizar Qabbani





Editor's Note The analysis that follows will be better appreciated if read after reviewing earlier issues of this newsletter, in particular the article, "American Illusions and Iraqi Realities."

HUSH! HUSH!
OF ISTIKBAR AND MEDIOCRITY


A hush has fallen over Washington, D.C.. Hushshsh...lest the Iranians hear you. Don't endanger the safety of the troops. Don't talk about the troops in Iraq as hostages to Iran; about the disgust so many in the public feel for getting us stuck in this morass called Iraq. Hushshsh.

No need to hush: The Iranian press , and therefore Iran's decision-makers, know all there is to know about American capabilities and limitations. They've seen what transpired on the battlefield (with Iraq) and in the propaganda campaign that preceded the Iraq invasion, that sophomoric psychological and misinformation warfare waged by the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. And they read the American press and know that there's little public excitement about the Iraq adventure.


SPC dares say that there is not one single Iranian politician of note who has not mentioned (in his own way) that the balance of power favors Iran, and that the talk of attacks on the Islamic Republic is part of a psychological campaign orchestrated by the Pentagon, with severe limitations on its probabilities.

Still, the Bush administration and most politicians in the city, in the name of the troops, are demanding the silence of all. They seem to be saying that talking about Iraq endangers the troops. More to the point, however, they seem to be warning us all that talking about Iraq in any critical fashion could vitiate our bluff--one where we scare the Iranians into accepting American expansion into the region, described by some as American hegemony. The hope is that we will be able to achieve this total hegemony without having to invest any more than needed in blood and in treasure.

This demand for the silence of all probably explains why the American press now covers the death of Iraqis first, and that of Americans second. In addition, this hush-from-above order can explain the relative silence of the press about the crash-or-shooting down of the American helicopter on or about January 25, 2005, resulting in the death of over 30 soldiers, and the shooting down of the British Hercules C-130 on or about January 30, 2004, which resulted in the death of over ten soldiers.

Could it be that the shooting down of these planes was a message from the Iranians to the U.S. and Britain? Was the message understood? Was it communicated to the President? Did the Iranian message say that U.S. and British troops are not safe, not even in the air to where they've taken to dodge the Arab Sunni resistance? That the troops are hostages of the Islamic Republic and that their countries should listen to and meet Iranian demands?

The idea that Iran can hear us is probably the product of the same mediocre minds that got us into this mess. The Arab Islamic press describes this attitude as Istikbar--a hybrid of "arrogance" and "self-appointed elitism"--of people who are full of themselves and full of sh-- (My translation) These people believe that their enemy is inferior to themselves; hence in part the morass they got us in. They don't think countries learn from other countries, from defeat, from the success of others. They have not understood that advanced technology is copied by the multitude of university graduates, and that these have devised such seemingly simple guerrilla methods as roadside bombs.

And so our generals, flush with Istikbar, had no plans to face technologically-modest bombs, home-made, they tell us. It must be then that the Iraqi Baath, by using these bombs, had in fact learned from past mistakes, and from the victories and defeats of others. It did learn from the Gulf wars. It learned that one didn't (and doesn't) fight the United States or Israel conventionally. It may have learned that one war too late, but it learned it nonetheless. Had the Iraqi generals not been so scared of their delusional President, they would've probably not fought the Kuwait war--at least not in a conventional fashion.


Which begs the question: What was our generals' excuse? They can't claim that it was fear of the President which led them to go to a war where they were certain to face an Arab Sunni insurgency and the use of suicide bombings and roadside bombs. Mr. Bush is not the vengeful and murderous Saddam Hussein. In other words, our generals never faced the prospect of being executed as did the Iraqi generals, and so they could've told the President that a Hezbollah-like war could/will be waged against our troops once we defeat the Iraqi army, and that we had no defenses against a like war. George Bush is a born-again believer, a true Christian. He would not have hurt a reluctant general. Why didn't they tell him?

What was our generals' excuse for not considering the regional balance of power in their calculation? Did they fall for Iranian promises at secret talks that Iran's people in Iraq will assist them; and accordingly they ignored such basic principles as the balance of power in the region, the way invaded people now fight off occupiers, and so on of what their profession is all about? Didn't they consider how a small political party, with a solid native base, and with support from Syria and Iran, had kicked Israel's conventional ass? And by so doing, it taught everyone that conventional weapons are obsolete when men and women are willing to explode themselves; and when little technical knowledge creates such an awesome weapon called a "roadside bomb?"

What was our generals' excuse? Will anyone have the courage to stand up and talk in this town of cowards?

So the Baath learned. It learned to keep its state nearly unscathed. "Go home men," seems to have been the word down from the officer corps to the Arab Sunni troops." "We have wars coming up; take your weapons with you; save what you can. We will be fighting Americans, Shiites, Kurds, Iranians, Israelis. For now, it's an American-Israeli war on us, meant to castrate each and every Iraqi Arab Sunni male and turn him into an Uncle Tom--to transform us into political and economic beggars in our own country. But there'll be other wars to follow.




OH!-OH WHAT A ROT WE'RE IN:
DID IRAN SET UP THE BUSH TEAM?


The Iranians understand the geo-political picture, and know our limitations and theirs. They are not going to be bluffed. If anything, my worry is that when we bluff others, as we did in the campaign preceding the Iraq invasion, we end up bluffing ourselves. And a President lands on an aircraft carrier.


I got tired transcribing the endless statements by Iranian policy makers--and they have so many leaders, since the Islamic Revolution has placed so many on the payroll. (Call it their Homeland Security Act: Jobs, jobs, and more jobs. Some day soon, like the Iranians, with all the intelligence and Homeland security hirings, we will all be spying on each other to make a living. Or maybe it's already started!)

I stopped transcribing. Got tired.

Here's a bunch of statements by the Iranian leadership which reveal that they know what's going on. This is only a sample.

1) Yehya Rahim Safawi, the Commander-General of the Guard of the Islamic Revolution (GIR) said in early January that the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are meant to control 65% of the oil and gas reserves in the world.

(Mr. Safawi shouldn't really take it personally, since we're in his neighborhood in good part to control China's foreign policy--especially as it relates to Taiwan. Global strategy, my dear; the New American Century. But the Chinese--who own over $500 billion of reserves, signed a commercial pact with Iran, once they realized that we are up to squeezing them--to drive them out of Iraq, as we did the Russians, the French, and everyone in between.)


2) Hamidrida Asifi, Foreign Ministry Spokesman, said on January 22 that the American threats against Iran are part of a psychological war meant to pressure Europe, and that the Americans know that an attack on Iran would be a grievous strategic mistake.


3) Ali Younisi, the Minister of Security, made a similar statement around the same date; he said so much again on or about February 2.


4) Ditto for Rida Afshar (around the same date), official of the cultural and communication affairs in the armed forces; he threatened that an attack in Iran will beget double its value in retaliation.


5) Ditto for Kamal Kharazi (on or about January 20), the Foreign Minister: American threats are part of a campaign of psychological warfare. In other words: the U.S. can't do it--not with all these American hostages (troops) in Iraq.


6) Ditto for Muhammad Khatemi, the President, on or about January 21.




SPIN SPIN:

WE'RE NOT ATTACKING IRAN BECAUSE
WE DON'T WANT TO UPSET THE EUROPEANS.

Not true, of course; if anything, it's an admission of defeat--no so much because we can't win a war against Iran. It's just that there's no popular support for allowing this Administration and its neo-con-artists to prevaricate in order to lose thousands of American kids, and have maimed thousands others for a project that is of doubtful benefit. Democracy in Iraq, you might say, is a benefit. Perhaps, though one shouldn't forget that it was an Iranian-born Ayatollah who made it work---Sistani. So, in essence, these elections were Islamic ones; and that's nothing new. Islamic Iran has been holding election after elections since the revolution.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in London around the 21st of February that an American attack on Iran for its nuclear program is "not on the agenda at this point." How kind of her. Hello? Like the Iranians don't know you don't have the troops to follow up on an attack (e.g., surgical air strikes) and not pay an unacceptably heavy price in losses among U.S. troops in Iraq. Spin Spin.

The President did his own spin: Around the same date he told the world that the European concern over the possibility of U.S. military action against Iran "is simply ridiculous" But to protect his image as a no-nonsense war President, he added that "all options are on the table." No they're not. The Iranians know it. And the Europeans know it, too; though they probably were humoring our President. If anything, European observers had been relieved that the Iraq war has "devalued" (their own term) American military power.

One wonders whether the President really knows what is taking place. One wonders whether the CIA--or whatever agency does that now--has been producing reports for the President about how nearly all of Iran's leaders have been declaring that the United States can't do anything against it if it were to avoid painful retaliation? And how they have developed plans similar to those of the Iraqi Baath to dismantle and develop resistance cells that bleed our troops? Hasn't anyone in government been reading this newsletter which speculated about these plans months if not years ago?

The latest spin: Oh, we'll let Iran adopt nuclear energy and, in exchange for safety measures meant to avoid the illicit use of nuclear material to develop weapons, we'll even help it join the World Trade Organization (WTO). Spin all the way. Like we could do anything militarily about what Iran will or will not do. Even economically (e.g., sanctions) we're limited, since Iran is superbly capable at retaliating in Iraq for any economic sanctions we impose--directly or indirectly. And what will President Bush's advisors have to show for their idiotic and tragic adventure if we're kicked out of Iraq altogether? What will they tell the mothers of American children who died or were maimed in an eminently grossly negligent scheme once Iraq turns into a full-fledge Islamist state?


The big question: Will Iran ease up on U.S. presence in Iraq now that the Bush administration has offered it carrots? Or will it use its effective methods to dislodge the Americans from that country which, in all ways, it now owns? In other words, is WTO membership and stopping the babble about Iran's nuclear program (about which we can't do much, anyway) amount to sufficient begging by the Bush administration to have Iran allow the U.S. some presence in Iraq?

Food for thought: If Iran decided to dislodge the United States fully, who will protect those countries in the Gulf who have significant Shiite minorities (even a majority in Bahrain) if Iran fuels the fires of ethnic-religious nationalism? Can the non-Arabic speaking United States, a sponsor of an anti-Palestinian Israel, a perceived Christian Crusader and a resource grabber by many in the region, be able to stem the tide of this nationalism? Is it willing and able to dispatch hundreds of thousands of troops for years and years and spread them all over the Gulf region? Will the local population accept the presence of these troops?


You might argue with SPC and say something like, "Hey, but Iran lost a war to Iraq; how in the hell does it now own it?"

Iran owns the south of Iraq because many of those who are now in power there are beholden to Iran. If one adds the presence of uncounted numbers of Iranian agents in that part of Iraq, one would grant Iranian control.

In the north, Iran has a lot of influence thanks to a history of involvement in Kurdish politics. In addition, the Kurdish leaders know that not accounting for Iranian interest in their policies would almost certainly result in Iranian agents wreaking havoc in their midst. The trips Jalal Talabani, an opportunists’ opportunist, takes to Tehran illustrate the importance an essential Kurdish leader attributes to Iran.

The only part of Iraq that Iran doesn't own is the center--the Arab Sunni areas. But here, there's enough smoke to suspect that Iran has "groups" who effect its policies. One such group is the Ansar al-Islam--the group that claimed responsibility for shooting down the British Hercules.

It's also quite probable that Syria is playing a role in mediating some understanding between the old Iraqi Baath and the Iranians. Still, this is Iran's Achilles' heel in Iraq: The difficulty it has and it'll have in evolving an Islamist front that is totally allied to it, which would include relevant Arab Sunnis.

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the influential former Iranian President, a few months ago alluded to the need for the sects within Islam to become more harmonious. This comment reveals the possibility that Iran is finding it difficult to devise a formula for harmony with the Sunni Islamists, which now probably include a good part of the Baath organization.



How did Iran achieve this feat? How did it become so dominant in Iraq? The simple answer: With American lives, misery, and treasure. We did it for them. Which begs the question: Did the Iranians set up the Bush administration? Does anyone know? It certainly looks like Iran has been the big winner of the American invasion. So much so, that I wouldn't blame the Arab Sunni regimes if they thought that the United States has now decided to elevate the Shiites and Islamic Iran over them.

Conspiracy aside, unlike the Bush advisers, Iran knows how not to devalue its military power. It uses issues that endear it to the natives; it projects its power illicitly, and it does so effectively. It lets Uncle Sam fall for idiotic schemes--be set up.




NEEDED:
NEW SPIN FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION'S HELPLESSNESS


It's convenient for Iran to have American hostages in Iraq (i.e., some troops--say, 150,000) as this presence gives Iran leverage in its dealings with the United States. But Iran can ill-afford to have in Iraq a number of troops that signals the ability to invade.

The Bush administration, having faced the ugliness of Iraq, and unable for obvious popular and financial reasons to institute the draft, is in a state of retreat. (Note the pulling of John Negroponte out of Iraq.) But some of its Arab clients (e.g., Jordan and Egypt) seem to be begging it not to pull out all the way. The Islamist movements in their own countries is worrying them; an Iranian victory--as the current state of affairs is (not incorrectly) perceived by Islamist observers--will only strengthen Arab Islamists and threaten the stability of these governments. And the American assault on Iraq and on its Arab Sunnis is fueling by the day the animosity of the wider Arab public towards the United States.

And so it is that the Bush administration needs some sort of spin to qualify this situation as one that fits well in the preventive war mental construct. Help!



(NOTE: SPC is in no way calling for a war with Iran, for SPC has and continues to maintain that a new regime in Iran will hardly be pro-American. Worse, instability in Iran will require the commitment of hundreds of thousands of foreign troops, mostly American, for years to come. SPC, however, is angry with those who risked the lives of American troops without rational military planning that would have taken into account something as basic as the regional balance of power, a medium-range if not a long-range perspective, Israel's experience in south Lebanon, and so on of basic precepts. This planning would have included the option of not invading at all! SPC wouldn't mind seeing the mediocre elements--civilians, native informants, political advisors, and all--out of government and shamed for their mediocrity. But this is not Japan. Here, these fellows' very mediocrity will see them promoted, as they are part of a team, a political mafia--a racket. The mafia takes care of its own.)


A ROT: THE IRANIANS HAVE THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION BY THE BALLS


Has anyone told the President that the Iranians have us by the balls? Or is he really living in the same preventive war mentality he once so cherished? Instead of us castrating Iraqi Arab Sunni males, the Iranians and the Arab Sunni resistance/insurgency have now castrated this Administration. They read the American press. They know our government is bankrupt--they believe the Government Accounting Office when it says so.

Perhaps the President is content that he met his conservative agenda of bankrupting the federal government. But shouldn't anyone tell him that this government has 150,000 troops in Iraq, with a job that does not lend itself to being finished in any way that favors the United States or its client regimes in the region? And that these troops will come back to increased taxation (by necessity) and very possibly diminished growth as the federal government siphons off capital out of the market by borrowing huge amounts of money to service the widening public debt, once China and Japan edge towards some diversification of their foreign reserves? Wouldn't the hundreds of billions Iraq in the end will cost have been better spent on financing these troops' education?

What is it with these advisors to the President, who seem to treat everyone else in the world (and the Democrats) as stupid? (They do have something when it comes to the Democrats; if it weren't for leaders like Ted Kennedy, John Conyers, and Howard Dean, the Democrats would have had no voice about this war but to approve the disastrous policy, and hush up later.) The Iranians are not stupid. They know American limitations. Only recently their press had references to how costly this adventure has been in lives, wounded, and money to the United States. (One of their officials in late February claimed that the war has cost the U.S. 17,000 in dead and wounded (probably inflated) and around $200 billion.)

And they know we don't have the troops. John McCain (increase the troops) and Ted Kennedy (pull out) are both right. And the President's advisers are wrong.





THE BUSH ADVISORS ARE AT YOUR SERVICE
O DEAR ISLAMIC IRAN


But, please, by all means, go for it--all of you, Pentagon strategists. Finish the Sunni insurgency. You've been doing Iran favor after favor. Why not complete your deed? Islamic Iran needs you O Pentagon strategists. Hasn't anyone among you told the President that after you finish the Sunni insurgency, and put Saddam Hussein's men on trial, the Iranian-sponsored Shiite insurgency will begin. Not right away, of course. But it would be a matter of time.

Haven't you told the President that a significant percentage of those working with U.S. troops report to Iranian intelligence? And that, when orders are issued, they'll turn their guns on our troops and cause a carnage? And have you told him that the army the Pentagon is organizing (National Guard and all) will be plucked by Iran when the time comes, without a thank you note or a check to reimburse the American taxpayer?





DECADES OF MISERY FOR IRAQ
IN THAT "GREATER MIDDLE EAST"
THE WARS TO MOVE NORTH?

Turkey is dying to whip the Kurds. On or about March 3, 2005, it informed the United States that it will no longer need its $ 1 billion assistance per year, as compensation for trade losses incurred due to the U.S. invasion. And in the past, it had issued warnings to the United States. Yes: Turkey had issued warnings to the United States that it would intervene in Iraq. One such warning was issued during the U.S. bombing of the town of Tal Afar. If Turkey does intervene, wouldn't that risk an American-Turkish military confrontation? And if this confrontation gets bloody, wouldn't Turkey lend a secret hand to the Arab Sunni insurgency?

Jalal Talabani does his pilgrimage to Tehran on a regular basis. He's running scared.

Kurdish leaders know that the Turks and the Iranians will finish them, sooner or later. Turkey can arm the Turkomen and Arabs in the north of Iraq, and let them fend for themselves in a mini-civil war that would put an end to the Kurds' unrealistic quest for independence. And Iran can explode their leaders in car bombs and suicide bombings any time they don't control their servility to the Americans. What is the Bush administration going to do when this happens? Go to Europe and beg? What will the Bush administration do when the wars move to the north?


Dispatch Condoleezza to Europe where she'll get smiles and get nowhere?

The now Euro-rich Europeans will listen to Colin Powell; but Mr. Powell is now vomiting. It'll take him a long time to get over his falling for information given to him by the Uncle Toms of an allied Arab intelligence service, about the alleged mobile WMD laboratories.

Warning: These foreign intelligence operatives were and probably still are on our payroll. They are eminently dangerous to American democracy, as they are used by some of their American paymasters (equally dangerous for that democracy) here to spread false intelligence (as they did to ease the way for the Iraq invasion to mobilize the American public, and earlier when they had one of these foreign sources—an ambassador!--use his daughter to lie under oath before a congressional committee, as having been a nurse in Kuwait and witnessing Iraqi troops tossing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators) and as they are currently doing to spread spin.

The first to be fooled: Congress.

The joke is on us.
.





OH-OH WHAT A ROT LEBANON'S IN!

About the Lebanese former Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri.

The Bush administration and French President Chirac got him so excited about the prospect of assisting him in getting Syria out of Lebanon.

You see, it had nothing to do with Lebanon. The Americans and the French needed to mend the rift between them; they needed confidence-building steps to heal the wounds of the Iraq rift and make up for Condoleezza's threat to punish France. In short, they needed to cooperate somewhere in the Middle East to re-build trust. Lebanon happened to be a convenient venue. Mr. Chirac was known to be a close friend of the late Mr. Hariri. And the Bush administration wanted to place pressure on Syria to get it to cooperate in Iraq. Hence American-French cooperation at the U.N. Security Council. This cooperation produced Security Council Resolution 1559 calling on all foreign troops (read: Syrian) to leave Lebanon.





BUT NO ONE TOLD MR. HARIRI
THAT HE NEEDED TROOPS

But no one told Mr. Hariri that Syrian influence in Lebanon will not recede without troops on the ground. And we don't have the troops; they're busy with one insurgency, and will move on to others in the years to come. And the French obviously were not up to making in Lebanon the same mistake the Americans made in Iraq. Some advisors Mr. Hariri had!! How, you may ask, did this man and his advisors make the mistake of trusting the Americans and the French?

The answer: Hariri wanted the Syrians out of Lebanon and looked to France for help. American and French sophomores (probably with help from their local WOGs) got together and devised a policy to help him--the French to please the Americans and Hariri, and the Americans to force Syria to cooperate in Iraq and put an end to Hezbollah. These sophomores know that Arab leaders listen avidly to Westerners, however mediocre they are. Mr. Hariri was no different, probably. Not to mention that Lebanese leaders have historically been masters at misreading the geo-political map. A tragedy was bound to happen.




HEGEMONY REVISITED:

PUT ALL ARAB REPORTERS ON THE
PAYROLL SO THEY'LL GIVE US THE SPIN
THE BUSH PEOPLE WANT US TO HEAR


We are definitely gaining hegemony in the Middle East; that is, if hegemony is measured by how many Arab reporters and "experts" are now on our payroll. That number SPC suspects has gone into the stratosphere. The awful repercussion of this phenomenon is that it robs us of objective advice.

For instance, one Arab reporter who had not been on the payroll and who SPC had always respected for his objectivity, has recently shed that objectivity. He was recently featured on a radio talk show and was spouting the neo-cons' already discredited ideas. He has done a total volte-face--from objectivity to demagoguery. Not that he said anything wrong about wanting Syria out of Lebanon. It's the pledge of allegiance he took that disturbed this writer. He complemented his call for Syrian withdrawal with averments of allegiance that paralleled the neo-cons' silly ideas, such as we're there to spread democracy, not for oil, and so on. In short, we lost in him an objective voice.


In essence, we now talk to ourselves: we pay Arab reporters and intelligence sources who think like us, or who are willing to adopt our views; we ask for their advice, and they give us back what we want to hear. If we don't pay them, allied intelligence services, I suspect (e.g., Kuwait's), will, in part to please us, and in part because they lack a strategic perspective of their own. Some will undoubtedly in the future lure us into yet another adventure--of construction bonanzas and control of oil and natural gas to keep China on it feet, and jobs for the heartland's crusaders. And we will fall for it. Skepticism and objectivity are not welcome.

WOGs (right-wing native informants and Uncle Toms) and con-artists: We love you; we'll put you on the payroll so that you'll keep our dreams alive, for you know what language to use to bring a smile to our faces: "Democracy," and "freedom" to please liberal America, construction and oil contracts to please capitalist America, control over China's energy sources to please imperial America, and countless well-paying military jobs and endless Christian missionary outreach to please the heartland's crusaders.

What a deal. If only it were that simple.



OH!--OH! WHAT A ROT WE'RE IN:
THE TROOPS AND LEBANON

No one helps the troops by using them for their own narrow ethnic purpose; and Lebanon, that new Arab neo-con convert (the once objective Arab reporter) should know, is not well-served by activism on the ground that is not backed by the distinct possibility of American or international troops landing to help out. If anything, not only would pressure on Syria from Lebanon not work; it would lead to retaliation (by Iran) against our troops in Iraq. The U.S doesn't have the troops to help Lebanon; nor does the international community. The Syrians know it. the Iranians know it.

(If ever international troops are mustered and sent to Lebanon, they better be fighting troops; otherwise, Syria will remain there, physically and through its many Lebanese proxies--unless it regains its Golan heights, at which time it'll become fully pro-American, and outbid the Lebanese on that. Non-fighting troops, however, would be a welcome injection of money and eligible men into the Lebanese economy. Modern-day tourists! A hidden part of wars is the inter-marriages that take place. Scandinavian soldiers, once stationed in the south, took a good number of Shiite wives back with them; and U.S. Marines did the same, but mostly Christian Lebanese wives. As did Israeli soldiers. Since Lebanese men tend to emigrate, the infusion of mostly-male foreign troops would be welcome by Lebanon's Phoenician women.)

Syria and Iran will humor the United States--Syria by limited cooperation about Iraq, and Iran by rounding up three or four al-Qaeda operatives--the only ones in Iran! (In exchange, in desperation, we dismantle Mujahideen Khalq to please the Iranians.) But both these countries have a terrific ability to read correctly the geo-political map. And they know we don't have the troops, though we have enough to give them leverage in their dealings with us.

Lebanon will be freed of Syrian influence only when the Shiite community--large, powerful, and capable--decides to free it. Hezbollah has a lot of clout in that community and it knows it is the target of the American-Israeli alliance. Nabih Berri, Speaker of Parliament and head of the rival Shiite political party Amal, would probably be more open to the American part of that alliance; but it is highly unlikely that he would risk an intra-Shiite civil war (Amal v. Hezbollah) to please the Americans. (He would be portrayed as an Israeli agent, an ominous portrayal. And he doesn't have the credibility of Hezbollah, which is nearly corruption-free.)

In short, Lebanon will not be freed of Syrian influence when the Americans, in order to pressure the Syrians, convert the believers, and get a Lebanese leader excited--and then murdered, without American protection.





OH! OH!-WHAT-A-ROT-ISRAEL'S-IN
D E S P E R A T I O N


Vice President Cheney a couple of months ago, in desperation, threatened an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear sites. General Abizaid recently revived this threat. That is desperation.

Israel can't even get its house in order, let alone engage in some machismo air strikes for which it's assured to pay a high price for it at home. (The fact that it built a wall instead of engaging its Palestinians with good faith and generous concessions tells you how desperate it's become.) And the Iranians already had sent the message loud and clear to the U.S. intelligence services that an attack by Israel will be treated as an attack by the United States. (Refer to prior articles in SPC.)

Machismo. Huh. What a joke. Israel assassinates a Hamas official in Damascus and gets over thirty of its citizens blown up in Taba. (A reliable and exact figure isn’t available. Mr. Sharon's Likud blamed bombings on al-Qaeda, to avoid embarrassment at home. The Likud government has its own spin at work.) Israel now deals with a Palestinian President who is said to be an American representative, through and through. Good luck for him trying to subdue the Islamists, without a full Israeli withdrawal from pre-1967 Palestinian territories and the immediate stoppage of the expansion of settlements on the West Bank.

But all of this will not be enough. The Islamist resistance to occupation is taking a break, so to speak, giving Mr. Abbas the opportunity to obtain money for the starved Palestinian territories. He'd better flood Gaza and the West Bank with tons of cargo in aid and/or reparation. Otherwise, the third Intifadha will come faster than he thinks.