Bush 'believes conflict is a US-Iran proxy war'

By Edward Luce in Washington
Financial Times
Aug. 12, 2006

Washington’s foreign policy elite is engaged in a bitter tussle between “neoconservatives” and “realists” seeking to influence George W. Bush’s stance on the Israel-Lebanon crisis. The neocons increasingly have the upper hand.

Former and current administration officials say that George W. Bush feels more strongly and is more engaged in support of Israel’s military assault on Hizbollah than on any other question. They say Mr Bush feels passionately that the US should support Israel in what he sees as the frontline in the global battle between democracy and terrorism.

Over the past four weeks, Mr Bush’s language has toughened from talking about the “war on terror” to stronger terminology in which he refers to the war against “Islamic fascists” and “Islamofascism” – terms long in currency among neoconservatives.

In response to a question about Hizbollah at his ranch in Crawford this week, Mr Bush said: “As young democracies flourish, terrorists try to stop their progress . . .  They try to spread their jihadist message – a message I call, it’s totalitarian in nature, Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism – they try to spread it as well by taking the attack to those who love freedom.”

Observers say Mr Bush is motivated by two instincts in guiding America’s diplomatic approach.

The first is the president’s visceral instinct to support Israel against its enemies, which he sees in terms of democracy versus totalitarianism. “People should not underestimate just how strongly the president feels in support of Israel and in his anger towards Iran and Syria [because of their sponsorship of Hizbollah],” said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former senior official at the Central Intelligence Agency and now at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

The second is Mr Bush’s belief that the fighting between Israel and Hizbollah is a proxy war between the US and Iran’s theocratic regime, which Washington sees as the most serious threat to stability in the region and beyond. US officials say they have intercepted communications between Tehran and Hizbollah that show Iran continues to supply arms to the Lebanese group.

Although Washington has not released evidence that Iran instructed Hizbollah to cross the “blue line” into Israel last month – when it captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others in ensuing clashes that sparked the current crisis – officials insist the Shia movement was doing Tehran’s bidding.

They say it is no coincidence the Hizbollah raid occurred the day after Tehran effectively turned down Washington’s conditional offer of talks over its alleged nuclear weapons programme.

Motivated by this larger picture, the president believes the US and Israel cannot afford to compromise in their demands that Hizbollah eventually be disarmed. “We get clear indications the Bush administration sees this crisis in black and white terms,” said a senior European diplomat who is closely involved in the UN negotiations. “There is a widespread view that US diplomacy is a prisoner of its own starkly moral framework.”

Meanwhile, Washington’s increasingly marginalised foreign policy “realists” claim – without substantiation – that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, was overruled by Mr Bush last month when she argued for an earlier ceasefire by Israel.

Backed by ex-colleagues of former president George H.W. Bush, such as Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger, they argue the US should talk to Syria – which also backs Hizbollah – to help defuse the crisis.

Mr Bush dismissed that advice this week. “Syria knows what we think,” he said. “They know exactly what our position is.” Republican critics of Mr Bush say he is risking a broader war because of his refusal to consider talking to unfriendly regimes.

“There was no suggestion Mr Bush wanted to know what Syria thinks,” said John Hulsman, a foreign policy analyst who left the conservative Heritage foundation last month. “This administration continues to believe talking is a sign of weakness. In spite of Iraq, the neocons are still in charge.”












All original InformationLiberation articles CC 4.0



About - Privacy Policy