Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

BBC reporter John Leyne writes that Sec'y. Rice didn't arrive with any fresh ideas to get the Arab-Israeli peace process back on track because it's acknowledged that neither Israel or the Palestinian government are in a political position to effectively negotiate with one another.

Saul Singer in the Oct. 6 Jerusalem Post puts it bluntly.  The US is back to playing its "rogue game," going it alone militarily regardless of world opinion, much less need for military intervention.

The simple rule is this: Every time the White House decides to confront a rogue regime, the State Department decides it's time to build a coalition.

Mr. Singer has history on his side of the argument.

Coalition Buildup I began immediately after 9/11. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan had to go. Though the US did not feel a need for explicit UN authorization, it needed neighboring states to host US forces, and others to join in the operation.
    <snip>
    During Coalition Buildup II, the pattern was repeated. In early 2002, as the US was again courting Europe and the moderate Arab states for a coalition, this time to confront Saddam Hussein, the pressure was on even from allies such as Tony Blair to "deliver" Israel.

Here we are at Coalition Buildup III, and once again the Bush Administration is courting moderate Arab support.  Condi goes to

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel the Palestinian Territories, and Iraq, October 1-6, 2006. At the President's request, Secretary Rice is leading a diplomatic effort to engage moderate leaders across the region. US Department of State

Engage them in what, exactly?  It certainly wasn't a diplomatic mission to cheerlead the moderate Arabs to support the puppet regime in Iraq.  Saudi Arabia finds itself in the unenviable position of trying to keep some of Iraq's nastier element out.

Prince Ahmed confirmed reports that Saudi Arabia was erecting a fence to prevent intrusion along its entire 560-km border with Iraq. "Such a fence is essential to prevent the spillover of violence," the minister said. . .Arab News

It's unimaginable that Rice visited Saudi King Abdullah to get his ideas about what the future US-Mex. border fence should look like.  So let's not go there.  In fact, here's Condi's own words from the State Dept. website.  Blah, blah, Palestinian Territories. . blah, Lebanon. . blah, Iraqi national compact. . blah, blah,

Finally, of course, we discussed our concerns about Iran, about the Iranian nuclear program. I was able to brief His Royal Highness and earlier King Abdullah about the lack of progress in the Iranian nuclear problem.

And her remarks following talks with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit?  After Rice had summarized their extensive discussion on Egypt's peaceful nuclear capabilities, she said this.

If I may just mention, I neglected to mention I also provided an update for my colleagues on where we stand in the Iranian nuclear talks. And by the way, reiterated there that the access of Iran to civil nuclear technology is not the issue. Iran should have access to civil nuclear technology. It is a question of enrichment and reprocessing.

Notice the rhetoric ratcheting up?  Couple the above with Under Secretary for Political Affairs, R. Nicholas Burn's on-the-record-briefing following the P5+1* Foreign Ministers Meeting in London October 6, 2006 (a selection):

[*Members of P5+1 are U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China.]

Iran is not now prepared to negotiate with us based on the offer we made in Vienna on June 1. It's been four months and one week since we made that offer. . .the Iranians are not willing to suspend their enrichment-related programs. . .therefore we have no alternative but to proceed along the second path that we talked about. . .The decision has been made we'll go for sanctions. . .we have to turn to sanctions to raise the cost to the Iranians of their irresponsible attitude. That's been expressed over the last several months.

This is exactly the same scenario the Bush Administration used prior to invading Iraq.

1. Lobby moderate Arabs for their quiescence;
   
2. Cobble some kind of European support for coercion;
   
3. Isolate and sanction;
   
4. Set up several "deadlines" for cooperation by the Recalcitrant One  (Burns, ". . .we said back on June 1st there were two paths. We have offered that positive path for four -- over four months. We've extended the deadline twice to accommodate them.");
   
5. Make a point that the Recalcitrant One is not abiding by UN requirements/requests (Burns reading, ". . .Iran is not prepared to suspend its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, as required by the IAEA Board who made it mandatory and UN Security Council Resolution 1696.");
   
6. Say that the US has backers for its unilateral action;

QUESTION: How was the determination made that there was agreement on this? Was there actually a vote? Was there a hand-raising? Was there --

    UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, you know, you're only talking about six foreign ministers around the table with Javier Solana. And Solana reported and various other people reported on their view of what was going on. At the end, Secretary Beckett summed up and said, "I think it's clear what we've got to do."

7) Shock and awe.

So, there you have it.  At the very least the US has completed six of its traditional seven steps in the process that gets us in a war with Iran.  I'm entertaining the idea that the US plans "surgical strikes" against known Iranian sites of enrichment and reprocessing facilities.  A possibility that has been speculated on for at least two years, as in this Center for Nonproliferation Studies research article, A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences.

Without making this diary far too long, let me just state that there is evidence all over the Internet that a) The US and perhaps Israel have executed special forces operations on the ground inside Iran for some months now;

As part of a covert scheme to destabilize and soften up the Iranian regime for possible Special Forces attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, Washington has turned to disaffected Iranian Kurds for help and to Iranian dissidents in the MEK.

    Using fighters trained by the United States in secret bases in southern Iraq, the MEK has carried out a series of attacks in Iran. In recent months, there has been increasing instability inside three Iranian provinces dominated by Kurds, as well as attacks on Iranian troops near the border with Iraq. A Kurdish guerrilla group claimed responsibility for two of the attacks. . .US, ISRAEL OPERATE IN IRAN: COVERT FORCES IN IRAN TRAINING KURDISH REBELS

b) The concentrating of troops inside Afghanistan toward the soutwestern territory, ostensibly to battle Taliban in an area where there are is no real value seems suspect -- the Taliban have been largely confined in this part of Afghanistan since 2002.  Historically, their insurgency ratchets up in the summer and fall months only to die down as winter settles over Afghanistan.  Why would we mount a confrontation with Taliban forces when they'll have melted away and not be "forces"?

It seems the only question concerning US military action in Iran is "When"?  Before the month is out as an October surprise?

[If you would like to read the incentive package given to Iran by the P5+1, go here.  If you wish to see Iran's response, go to this pdf file.]