|
May 03, 2006
According to this report in Asia Times Online the Wilsonian freedom/democracy agenda of the beleagured Bush administration is giving way to the traditional realist concerns of geopolitics, and the realpolitik that goes with it.
This is unsuprising really, given the messy chaos in Iraq, the country falling into disorder and becoming stuck in ethnic passions and loyalties. It still looks as if Iraq will be a very loose federation of three big ethnic enclaves rather than a united nation-state.
Geoff Pryor
Washington's geo-politics is about energy (ie., oil and gas resources) with the emphasis on stability and co-operation with those "friendly" autocrats who have both plentiful oil and gas resources and strategically placed real estate with regard to emerging foes, be they Russia, Iran or China. Good old realism: the world is a dangerous place, good intentions don't mean very much, and the key to international order is a balance of power among armed nation-states.
The Bush Administration could sure do with a dose of realism about starting a war with Iran. If the US lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, and currently lives with a nuclear Communist China, then it could live with a nuclear Iran. Iran is nowhere near being a greater military threat to the United States than Communist China. Is that not so?
Surely Washington’s current fixation on preventing Iran from pursuing its nuclear energy research under the Non -Proliferation Treaty is not due to pressure from the Israel lobby? Mearsheimer and Walt longer footnoted paper is archived at the Kennedy School of Government.
The Israel Lobby? A critical response An interpretation and assessment by BTC News of the historical background. An interpretation by Juan Cole of the excellent Informed Comment.
Certainly, Israel and its hawkish supporters are strongly advocating sanctions and military strikes against Iran. Is this another example of the close US alliance with Israel damaging American relations with other nation-states?
It was once held by the Washington neo-cons that the road to peace in Israel/Palestine led through Baghdad. By that it was meant that if give Israel a greater sense of security then you can solve the Palestinian issue later. Does the road to peace now lie through Tehran? Does the new concern with geopolitics, and the realpolitik that goes with it, mean that the US will no longer identify its interests with those of Israel? Surely there is more to the U.S. opposition to Iran possessing nuclear weapons than the protection of Israel?
|
Israel is not a monolith any more than is the US. Recent regimes is Israel have not deserved US support.
Spying in US with our own money is the piece de resistance.
I'd like to see Iran say they would allow inspections and forego nuclear weapons forever if the Middle East were made nuke free. The rhetorical gymnastics from the Amen Chorus would be a sight to behold.