Seeking an explanation for the underpinnings of American foreign policy in the post-9/11 era, you might have paid attention to the religious — some might say messianic — overtones of Bush’s utterances, including his grand, improbable design to democratise the Middle East, according to The Australian Financial Review (28/8/2007, p. 61).
Messiah-like overtones: “We will rid the world of evildoers. This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while. And American people must be patient,” Bush said on September 15, 2001, four days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Note the use of the trigger words “evildoers” and “crusade”. If we went to Isaiah 14:20 in the King James version we would find similar language: “Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.”, the AFR said.
Bush’s belief: What could not be discounted is that America’s 43rd president might actually believe these things, noted the newspaper. His talk of “ridding the world of evildoers” might just reflect a sense of divine obligation. Never underestimate the power of religious belief in a country like the United States, warned the AFR. If that was the case, then calculations about how the US might deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions in the dying days of a Bush presidency could not exclude the possibility of pre-emptive action that, on the face of it, would carry enormous risks.
Pressure for pre-emptive strike growing: Betting in Washington was 60-40 against military action, but this did not preclude the administration raising the level of contingency planning for a pre-emptive strike, even if such action would test the capacity of an overstretched military. Bush’s own remarks in recent days had tended to reinforce an impression that pressures were building once again within the executive branch for some form of military action against Iran — these pressures ebb and flow — whether it involved a limited strike against alleged “terrorist training camps”, or an all-out bombing campaign of nuclear sites across the country. At a White House news conference before he left for his summer vacation, Bush warned Iran of “consequences” for its alleged involvement in providing to militia groups high velocity explosives, so-called explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), that were used to “kill Americans in Iraq”.
“Realists” vs. “hawks”: McClatchy Newspapers, in its previous guise as Knight Ridder, was responsible for some of the more sceptical reporting in the lead-up to the Iraq War, in contrast to the cheerleading masquerading as reporting that characterised other outlets, the AFR said. Earlier this month, McClatchy reported that Vice-President Dick Cheney had several weeks ago “proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iran run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps”.
“New crazies” in Washington: It was clear that a tussle was under way within the Bush administration between “realists”, clustered around Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Bob Gates, who would resist precipitous military action, and “hawks” associated with Cheney’s office. When Mohamed El Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, recently referred to “new crazies” in Washington pushing for military action against Tehran, he was describing, in fact, many of the same people who agitated for war in Iraq.
War-drums beating: Postings on the websites of war incubators such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Hoover institution and the Heritage Foundations are the modern-day version of war drums, said the AFR. One option, which appeared to be gathering adherents, is a “demonstration strike” that would send a message to Tehran, but would not result in all-out conflict. Of course, the unanswered question about a “concept strike” is, what comes next?
