The New "Grand Bargain"

One of the most disturbing elements of President Bush’s attempt to avoid unambiguous failure in Iraq is the notorious “double down” strategy: postponing accountability redefining our effort a new, larger, open-ended mission that hasn’t failed—yet.

“Doubling down” in Iraq means going after Sadr in Iraq instead of the insurgency.

The anti-Sadr strategy is part of a new reconceptualization of Bush’s strategy in the Middle East, born of a desperate unwillingness to admit failure and Bush’s addiction to the defiant masterstroke.

It goes like this: the new doctrine is combating “violent extremism” a.k.a. Shi’a ascendancy a.k.a. Sadr in Iraq a.k.a. Iran—the new boogeyman.

That means rolling back Hezbollah in Lebanon. In turn, that means attacking Syria. Then, with Iran humbled and isolated, maybe that means taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities or maybe regime change.

Actually, this part of the strategy is old evil. The “Clean Break” strategy was always first Iraq, then on to Damascus and Teheran.

Of course, the difference was that the “Clean Break” regionalization of war was supposed to be a continuation of our triumphant remaking of the Middle East as a safe, prosperous, Israel-loving, US-fearing and democratic region.

It wasn’t supposed to be a desperate Hail Mary attempt to cope with failure in Iraq, growing Iran ascendancy, and Israel’s failed attack on Lebanon. The idea of expanding the war to multiple fronts in order to cope with setbacks on the main front—in Iraq—is scary to the point of irresponsibility.

But what’s new and really scary is the appearance of a new enabler for George Bush in the Middle East—Saudi Arabia.

Josh Landis’ Syria Comment blog lays out the speculation.

With Tony Blair drifting away, America has been bereft of an ally willing to assist and promote the Bush agenda. Now Saudi Arabia appears to be stepping up.

Concerned with the rise of a powerful, nuclear Iran, elements of the Saudi elite led by ex-ambassador Prince Bandar apparently have bought into a strategy of working with the United States and Israel to roll back the Shi’a.

The first overt element was the summoning of Dick Cheney to Riyadh to warn that Saudi Arabia would arm the Sunni insurgency in Iraq if the U.S. went through with the Shi’a tilt strategy as its last ditch attempt to stabilize the country.

What also appears to have happened is that Saudi Arabia sweetened that bitter pill with a new grand strategy for the Middle East.

In Iraq, the US would do a 180 and attack Sadr instead of the insurgency.

I expect that Bandar also told Cheney that Riyadh could restrain and domesticate the Sunni insurgency by controlling its funding by Saudi millionaires, and bring it into the coalition government—if independent Shi’a military power inside Iraq as represented by Sadr was checked.

In return, Saudi Arabia would reprise the whole Afghan mooj thing (against the Russians, not the Taliban) and bankroll and administer a whole flock of anti-Iranian/anti-Syrian covert ops in coordinatiion with Israel and the U.S..

The neocons in Washington are blaming Israel for not attacking Syria during the recent Lebanon fracas, a clear signal that that Tel Aviv is not expected to make the same mistake twice—if and when the Lebanon crisis re-ignites in summer 2007. Read this striking interview with neocon leading light—and wife of Dick Cheney’s right-hand man David Wurmser — Meyrav Wurmser on Syria.

Syria is clearly the “I don’t know how to quit you” situation for US regime-change junkies—so small, so oil-free, so weak, so tempting that we can’t imagine walking away from our failed informatiion in the Middle East with Asad still in power.

And destabilizing Syria offers the best—if somewhat forlorn — hope for some kind of rollback of our dismal situation in the Middle East.

On Josh Landis’ blog, there was also speculation that Saudi Arabia would give a green light to an Israeli attack (using Saudi airspace) on Iran’s nuclear facility.

From Bush’s point of view, the advantage of this approach is that it’s terra incognita.

You have scratch your head and say, well I guess it might work, and maybe consider that the worst president in history should be given enough slack to expand the conflict in Iraq to a regional war involving virtually every major nation.

Also, it’s a surrogate war, using non-U.S. blood and money. Zero public debate, zero oversight, zero accountability. No messy US troop issues beyond the muscle needed inside Iraq to take on Sadr.

But as a realistic strategy, it’s insane. Sufficient American power cannot be brought to bear in any of these theaters—Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, or Iran to ensure success even in one of them, but we’re going to try to run the table and take on all four at once?

And the Israelis and the Saudis are going to do our work for us?

This strategy is a recipe for failure—and a recipe for disaster for Saudi Arabia, which will appear the stooges of Israel and the United States in fighting fellow Muslims.

Probably that will turn those Saudi millionaires away from supporting the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, and return them to their first love: al Qaeda.

Perhaps one of the regimes to fall in this grand strategy will be Saudi Arabia, brought down by a reinvigorated al Qaeda.

In fact, the only country I can see reaping a clear benefit from this policy is Israel.

Israel has been unable to make peace with its neighbors, or successfully make war with them. The best it can hope for is to have its enemies fight among themselves.

Indeed, that’s what’s happening in the Palestinian territories, with Fatah and Hamas at each others’ throats.

If the Saudis and the Iranians are ready to spend the next twenty years fighting each other, that’s a program that Israel will be happy to support, and perhaps foment.

And if the deadline for accountability for Bush’s disaster in the Middle East can be stretched far beyond the end of his dismal term, well, that’s a victory in Bush’s terms as well.

But if our effort against Sadr stalls—as I suspect it will—and Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran prove capable of resisting the blows we and our allies pepper at them, then we will have cause to regret this grand bargain.

Peter Lee is the creator of the anti-war satire and commentary website Halcyon Days. He can be reached at peter@halcyondays.info.