In the last few days, however, the Bush administration has focused on allegations that Iran is supplying deadly weapons used against US forces in Iraq. The New York Times started the cycle of coverage with a Michael Gordon article that has already generated well-deserved criticism.
Now, major news outlets are reporting on a “long-awaited” presentation of more alleged evidence that Iran has been supplying lethal weapons to Iraqi Shiites. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post carried news of this unusual “briefing.” The Post describes the circumstances of the briefing:
The officials said they would speak only on the condition of anonymity, so the explosives expert and the analyst, who would normally not speak to the news media, could provide information directly. The analyst’s exact title and full name were not revealed to reporters. The officials released a PowerPoint presentation including photographs of the weaponry, but did not allow media representatives to record, photograph or videotape the briefing or the materials on display.
Why does it seem like the Bush administration doesn’t want to be pinned down on this one?
Let’s stipulate, if only for the sake of argument, that the allegations are true. What does it imply about Iraq? That Iraqi Shiites represent the greatest threat to US forces in Iraq?
Right Zionist Reuel Marc Gerecht argues that Iraqi Shiite militias are not the central problem in Iraq:
Our role now is to stop the radicalization on the Shia side–and you can only do this by breaking the back of the [Sunni] insurgency, something we’ve diligently avoided doing since the fall of 2003. And it’s worthwhile to repeat: They, not the Shia militants, are responsible for the vast majority of American dead and wounded.
One might argue that Iraq Shiite militias are now the greatest threat to Iraqi political stability and national reconciliation, as the Pentagon recently suggested. Even if that were true, however… even if the US were in Iraq primarily to help achieve national reconciliation… it would still be a very big leap to suggest that Iran is the greatest threat to US troops.
The Bush administration seems determined to “reveal” details about Iran’s efforts to foment violence in Iraq. What it actually reveals, along the way, is something about the way it views public opinion regarding US foreign policy. In the case of Iran, as in Iraq, the Bush administration assumes that there is absolutely no appetite for “foreign entanglements” or military adventures unless American lives are (allegedly) directly threatened.
Even when the Bush administration has “intelligible” (if not morally defensible) imperialist ambitions, it feels compelled to develop arguments that focus on immediate threats to US personnel rather than geo-political strategy.
The new “intelligence” on Iran tells us less about Iran than it does about Bush administration views regarding the popular political legitimacy of US empire.
Right Arabist Paul Pillar makes a similar point to Laura Rozen in the National Journal. [Note: the excerpt on Rozen’s blog leaves off the final part of the Pillar quote about the “more legitimate” concern about the Iranian nuclear threat… As I’ve argued before, many Right Arabists have a soft spot for a hard line on Iran.]
Even if this PowerPoint presentation eventually gets made public … what does this show us as to where Iran is really coming from?” [former National Intelligence Council Middle East analyst Paul] Pillar asked. “What is the larger significance? Even if Iranian assistance to an Iraqi group is proven to everyone’s satisfaction, the [administration’s] policy never rested on that. The policy [is being driven by a] much larger sense of Iran as the prime bete noire in the region, and that is why the administration is trying to put together these coalitions with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the Sunni states, that we’ve been reading about. None of this hinges [on the Iran dossier]. We are not going to call this off if we can’t prove that Iran is furnishing munitions to Iraqi groups…
It is just one more thing — along with the nuclear issue, which is really more legitimate in a basic kind of way — [in the administration’s case that] Iran is doing nasty things, therefore it’s appropriate to beat the drum about Iran. That’s what it’s come down to.”
Geopolitical strategy may be the underlying basis for US policy in the Gulf. But the Bush administration seems convinced the American people don’t think it is worth the effort.
Hence, the necessary centrality in all cases of an immediate risk, however twisted or convoluted the argument.
The Bush administration, for all its bellicosity, has internalized the anti-imperialist “new isolationism” of the American public.