The White House is targeting Iran but should instead focus on
Saudi Arabia
It is one of the great ironies that the United States, a land mass protected by two broad oceans while also benefitting from the world’s largest economy and most powerful military, persists in viewing itself as a potential victim, vulnerable and surrounded by enemies. In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
And
even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and
China are best described as adversaries or competitors rather than enemies as
they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its
best to turn them hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by
escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War 3.
Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual
threat that they represent more speculative than real. And, on the plus side,
both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where
Washington has little or no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea
problem and Syria, so they U.S. has considerable benefits to be gained by
cultivating their cooperation.
Also,
I would characterize international terrorism as a faux threat at a national
level, though one that has been exaggerated through the media and fearmongering
to such an extent that it appears much more dangerous than it actually is. It
has been observed that more Americans are killed by falling furniture than by
terrorists in a year but terrorism has a particularly potency due to its
unpredictability and the fear that it creates. Due to that fear, American
governments and businesses at all levels have been willing to spend a trillion
dollars per annum to defeat what might rationally be regarded as a relatively
minor problem.
So
if the United States were serious about dealing with or deflecting the actual
threats against the American people it could first of all reduce its defense
expenditures to make them commensurate with the actual threat before
concentrating on three things. First, would be to establish a solid modus vivendi with Russia and
China to avoid conflicts of interest that could develop into actual tit-for-tat
escalation. That would require an acceptance by Washington of the fact that
both Moscow and Beijing have regional spheres of influence that are defined by
their interests. You don’t have to like the governance of either country, but
their national interests have to be appreciated and respected just as the
United States has legitimate interests within its own hemisphere that must be
respected by Russia and China.
Second,
Washington must, unfortunately, continue to spend on the Missile Defense
Agency, which supports anti-missile defenses if the search for a modus vivendi for some reason
fails. Mutual assured destruction is not a desirable strategic doctrine but
being able to intercept incoming missiles while also having some capability to
strike back if attacked is a realistic deterrent given the proliferation of
nations that have both ballistic missiles and nukes.
Third
and finally, there would be a coordinated program aimed at international
terrorism based equally on where the terror comes from and on physically
preventing the terrorist attacks from taking place. This is the element in
national defense that is least clear cut. Dealing with Russia and China
involves working with mature regimes that have established diplomatic and
military channels. Dealing with terrorist non-state players is completely
different as there are generally speaking no such channels.
It
should in theory be pretty simple to match threats and interests with actions
since there are only a handful that really matter, but apparently it is not so
in practice. What is Washington doing? First of all, the White House is
deliberately turning its back on restoring a good working relationship with
Russia by insisting that Crimea be returned to Kiev, by blaming Moscow for the
continued unrest in Donbas, and by attacking Syrian military targets in spite
of the fact that Russia is an ally of the legitimate government in Damascus and
the United States is an interloper in the conflict. Meanwhile, congress and the
media are poisoning the waters through their dogged pursuit of Russiagate for
political reasons even though nearly a year of investigation has produced no
actual evidence of malfeasance on the part of U.S. officials and precious
little in terms of Moscow’s alleged interference.
Playing
tough to the international audience has unfortunately become part of the
American Exceptionalism DNA. Upon his arrival in Warsaw last week, Donald
Trump doubled down on
the Russia-bashing, calling on Moscow to “cease its destabilizing activities in
Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes including Syria and
Iran.” He then recommended that Russia should “join the community of
responsible nations in our fight against common enemies and in defense of
civilization itself.”
The
comments in Warsaw were unnecessary, even if the Poles wanted to hear them, and
were both highly insulting and ignorant. It was not a good start for Donald’s
second overseas trip, even though the speech has otherwise been interpreted as
a welcome defense of Western civilization and European values. Trump also
followed up with a two hour plus discussion with President Vladimir Putin in
which the two apparently agreed to differ on the alleged Russian hacking of the
American election. The Trump-Putin meeting indicated that restoring some kind
of working relationship with Russia is still possible, as it is in everyone’s
interest to do so.
Fighting
terrorism is quite another matter and the United States approach is the reverse
of what a rational player would be seeking to accomplish. The U.S. is rightly
assisting in the bid to eradicate ISIS in Syria and Iraq but it is
simultaneously attacking the most effective fighters against that group, namely
the Syrian government armed forces and the Shi’ite militias being provided by
Iran and Hezbollah. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that at least
some in the Trump Administration are seeking to use the Syrian engagement as a
stepping stone to war with Iran.
As
was the case in the months preceding the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003, all
buttons are being pushed to vilify Iran. Recent reports suggest that two
individuals in the White House in particular have been pressuring the Trump
administration’s generals to escalate U.S. involvement in Syria to bring about
a war with Tehran sooner rather than later. They are Ezra Cohen-Watnick and
Derek Harvey, reported to be holdovers from the team brought into the White
House by the virulently anti-Iranian former National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn.
Cohen-Watnick
is thirty years old and has
little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director
for intelligence on the National Security Council. But his inexperience counts
for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times that “wants to
use American spies to help oust the Iranian government,” a comment that
reflects complete ignorance, both regarding Iran and also concerning spy agency
capabilities. His partner in crime Harvey, a former military officer who
advised General David Petraeus when he was in Iraq, is the NSC advisor on the
Middle East.
Both
Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and
their proxies in Syria and Iraq need to be confronted by force, an
opportunity described by Foreign
Policy magazine as having developed into “a pivotal moment
that will determine whether Iran or the United States exerts influence over
Iraq and Syria.” Other neocon promoters of conflict with Iran have described
their horror at a possible Shi’ite “bridge” or “land corridor” through the Arab
heartland, running from Iran itself through Iraq and Syria and connecting on
the Mediterranean with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
What
danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian-influenced land corridor
would constitute remains a mystery but there is no shortage of Iran haters in
the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar sees “unrelenting
hostility from the Trump administration” towards Iran and notes
“cherry-picking” of the intelligence to make a case for war, similar to what
occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis
and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the
impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do
not wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a
new direction. Otherwise, they too consider Iran as America’s number one active
enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also
jumped directly into the argument on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both
of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf.
The
problem with the Trump analysis is that he has his friends and enemies
confused. He is actually supporting Saudi Arabia, the source of most of the
terrorism that has convulsed Western Europe and the United States while also
killing hundreds of thousands of fellow Muslims. Random terrorism to kill as
many “infidels and heretics” as possible to create fear is a Sunni Muslim
phenomenon, supported financially and doctrinally by the Saudis. To be sure,
Iran has used terror tactics to eliminate opponents and select targets
overseas, to include several multiple-victim bombings, but it has never engaged
in anything like the recent series of attacks in France and Britain. So the
United States is moving seemingly inexorably towards war with a country that
itself constitutes no actual terrorist threat, unless it is attacked, in
support of a country that very much is part of the threat and also on behalf of
Israel, which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against
Iran rather that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.
Realizing
who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem
would not only involve coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran,
it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent
to which America’s armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many
people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go. Saudi financing
and Washington’s propensity to go to war and thereby create a deep well of
hatred just might be the principal causative elements in the rise of global
terrorism. Do I think that Donald Trump’s White House has the courage to take
such a step and change direction? Unfortunately, no.
