Israel’s Protests Are Said to Stall Gulf Arms Sale

April 5, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 4 — A major arms-sale package that the Bush administration is planning to offer Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies to deter Iran has been delayed because of objections from Israel, which says that the advanced weaponry would erode its military advantage over its regional rivals, according to senior United States officials.

Israeli officials, including the former defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, have come to Washington in recent months to argue against elements of the planned sales. In particular, the Israelis are concerned about the possible transfer of precision-guided weapons that would give Saudi warplanes much more accurate ability to strike targets, officials said.

The United States has made few, if any, sales of satellite-guided ordnance to gulf countries, several officials said. Israel has been supplied with such weapons since the 1990s and used them extensively in its war against Hezbollah last summer.

By DAVID S. CLOUD and HELENE COOPER

--MORE--

U.S. Carrier Nimitz to Deploy to Persian Gulf

Posted 03/30/07 12:09

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, WASHINGTON

Nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz will sail April 2 to support U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Navy said, amid a spike in tensions over Iran’s seizure of 15 British marines and sailors.

The Nimitz, and its battle group of destroyers and guided-missile cruisers, will relieve the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, which this week took part in war games exercises in the Gulf with another carrier, John C. Stennis.

The new battle group will be in position by late April, but there will be no overlap with the Eisenhower, and the number of U.S. carriers in the area would stay at two, a navy official said on condition of anonymity.

"If anything, there would be a point where there is only one in the region," the official said, on condition of anonymity.

The Stennis and the Eisenhower wound down their show of force involving 15 warships in the Gulf on March 29.

The two-carrier deployment in the Gulf was the highest level of U.S. naval presence in the gulf since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

The Nimitz will support operations in Iraq, the Horn of Africa and Afghanistan, the Navy said in a press release.

The Stennis had been operating in the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea but entered Gulf waters March 27, escorted by the guided-missile cruiser Antietam, the 5th Fleet said.

Israel pits US against Iran, then ducks when the SH*T hits the fan

As usual, israelis get US to do their dirty work while they avoid casualties by keeping a low profile.

When will Americans learn that it doesn't 'pay' to be a zionist hitman?

Israel’s chief of military intelligence warned on Sunday that Hezbollah, Syria and Iran were preparing for a possible attack on Teheran by Israel’s main ally the United States as early as this summer.

Amos Yadlin told the weekly cabinet meeting that Israel’s three principal foes were steeling their defences because they feared a US attack on Iran, a senior official who attended the meeting told AFP.

‘Their preparation is defensive ahead of war,’ the official quoted Yadlin as saying on condition of anonymity. ‘They fear a war initiated by the Americans because they understand that there might be an attack against Iran over the summer, but not by Israel.’

Although Yadlin insisted Israel had no intention of becoming embroiled in such a conflict, he warned that any moves by the Jewish state could be wrongly interpreted by its neighbours as a sign of hostile intent.

‘If the Americans launch an offensive in Iran, Hezbollah and Syria will think the move had been coordinated with Israel and would expect Israel to strike them too,’ another government official at the meeting told AFP.

Yadlin said he feared a repeat of 1967 when sabre-rattling, brinkmanship and miscalculations upset a fragile calm and plunged the region into war.

‘We might again find ourselves in a war no one wanted,’ Yadlin told ministers.

What Chutzpah!

Zionists have been DEMANDING war for over four years, yet when everyone around them is dead and buried they will deny they ever wanted it.

‘Israel must be prepared and make sure its steps will not lead to any miscalculation on the other side.’

‘Israel is closely following developments on this front out of a concern that the three players might misinterpret certain steps taken by Israel,’ Yadlin was quoted as saying.

Unbelievable.

israelis never cease to amaze me with their treachery and their cowardice as they meticulously plan to sit it out, while Americans and Iranians duke it out.

Yadlin said Hezbollah was abiding by a UN-brokered ceasefire in southern Lebanon, but alleged the Shia militants were busily rearming north of the Litani river -- out of the jurisdiction of UN peacekeepers. * * *

‘Hezbollah has no intention of getting into a second round of conflict,’ Yadlin was quoted as saying. ‘But it is busy rebuilding its forces and has accelerated those efforts for fear of a summer attack.’

On Saturday, Iran’s joint chief of staff warned Arab states neighbouring Israel against what he called a ‘Zionist suicide attack’ this year.

‘The Zionists plan to carry out a suicide plot in the summer,’ the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Major General Hassan Firouzabadi as saying.

He predicted that an Israeli attack would start from Lebanon and Syria and proceed to Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

It will begin in May when the third US aircraft carrier is scheduled to arrive in the Gulf.

We have very little time to stop them.

Posted in

• cowards
• divide and conquer
• instigate
• Iran
• Israel
• US
• war
• zionism

Submitted by qrswave on Mon, 2007-04-02 00:48. qrswave's blog

Flexing Imperial Muscles in the Middle East

Jacob Hornberger’s Commentary

In the wake of the Iranian capture of British sailors, U.S. Naval forces are conducting “exercises” in the Persian Gulf, heightening tensions against Iran. (Surprise, surprise!)

Bush administration officials say that the exercises are intended to send a message — that Iran is not going to be permitted to expand its influence and power in the Middle East. (You would think they would have thought about that before installing a pro-Iran regime in Iraq.)

As one anonymous senior U.S. official put it, “Iran has been trying to send a message for some time that we are on the way out, that they are the natural great power of the region and that everybody should circle around Iran. This whole thing [the Naval exercises] is designed to send a message to the region. We are sending a message that we are here to stay.”

That is classic empire talk! Isn’t that exactly the way officials in the Roman, Soviet, and British empires spoke?

Suppose Iran sent a fleet of battleships and carriers into the Gulf of Mexico and declared to Washington, “This exercise is designed to send you a message about your aims to expand your power and influence in Latin America. You will not be permitted to do so, and we are here to stay.”

U.S. officials would have a conniption fit, no doubt about it.

Now, suppose some Iranian soldiers “strayed” into U.S. territorial waters and were taken into custody by U.S. officials. What do you think would happen to the Iranian captives?

They would never be permitted to set foot on American shores. Instead, they would be shackled and goggled and then shipped to Guantanamo Bay or one of the CIA’s secret overseas prisons, where they would be subject to torture and sex abuse as “enemy combatants” in the “global war on terror.”

Now, how do you think U.S.-British Empire officials would respond if the British soldiers who were recently taken captive were whisked off by Iranian officials to some secret Iranian prison camp, where they were disrobed and subjected to the same mistreatment, torture, and abuse that prisoners have been subjected to at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and the CIA’s prison camps?

U.S. and British officials would have a conniption fit, no doubt about it.

The U.S. Empire is currently engaged in the same imperial misconduct in the Middle East in which it has been engaged for decades, which has caused untold damage to America, including the 9/11 attacks. And to what avail? People in the Middle East hate the U.S. more than ever, which makes the threat of terrorism that much greater, which only solidifies the Pentagon’s power over the American people.

Why, even longtime ally Saudi King Abdullah is now calling the U.S. occupation of Iraq “illegal” (which, of course, it is). How long before Abdullah becomes the new Official Enemy, just as former U.S. partners and allies Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden did?

The basic issue is: What business does the U.S. government have occupying Iraq, conducting naval exercises in the Persian Gulf, and threatening Iran with war? Answer: No more business than Iran would have occupying Mexico, conducting naval exercises in the Gulf of Mexico, and threatening the U.S. with war.

When Americans finally wish to restore freedom, harmony, and peace of mind to our land, they’re going to have to confront the paradigm of empire, militarism, and interventionism that holds our nation in its grip. Otherwise, if they want their empire, they need to get used to imperial muscle-flexing, perpetual war and international tensions, and to the loss of their liberty, prosperity, and harmony.

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Two US, one French aircraft carrier in Gulf region

(Reuters)

26 March 2007

LONDON - The United States and France have bolstered their naval presence in the Gulf region to three aircraft carrier groups to support operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, US and French naval sources said on Monday.

The USS Stennis carrier strike group arrived in late February with an additional 6,500 sailors to join the USS Dwight D Eisenhower carrier strike group.

‘The Stennis is in the region, in the Arabian sea outside the Gulf and Eisenhower is inside the Gulf,’ said Lieutenant-Commander Charlie Brown, a spokesman for US Naval Central Command in Bahrain.

‘Having a second strike group here is to support ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and to reassure our regional partners of our commitment to the area,’ he said.

Strike groups are typically deployed with four to five frigates and destroyers and one submarine, but are then split up between different coalition task forces on arrival, he said.

The French aircraft carrier group Charles de Gaulle arrived in the Arabian Sea in mid-March for operations relating to Afghanistan, a spokesman for the French naval forces in Paris confirmed.

He said the carrier deployed with an air-defence frigate, two anti-submarine frigates, a supply ship and a submarine.

Lieutenant Commander Bertrand Bonneau, chief of press for the French navy, said the carrier group would be restricted to actions over Afghanistan.

He said the carrier’s deployment had ‘nothing at all’ to do with exerting pressure on Iran. Tensions are high between the West and Iran over Teheran’s nuclear programme.

Bonneau said the carrier would only enter Gulf waters at the end of April for a port call in Abu Dhabi.

Asked if the carriers, the Stennis and Charles de Gaulle, were within easy reach of the Gulf, the US Navy’s Brown replied: ‘I don’t know about easy reach of the Gulf...They are here to fly missions over Afghanistan.

‘You can’t fly missions over Afghanistan from the Gulf because you’d have to fly over Iran.’

Iran’s southern coastline stretches into the Gulf of Oman and into the Arabian Sea.

On Sunday Iran said it would limit cooperation with the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog and resolved not to halt its atomic work after the Security Council voted to impose new sanctions.

UK doubles naval presence in Persian Gulf

By Damien McElroy in Manama, Bahrain

Last Updated: 4:04pm GMT 25/02/2007

Iran launches first rocket into space Britain’s senior naval officer in the Persian Gulf has revealed that Royal Navy deployments in the region have doubled since October in a build-up that matches the rapid escalation of American maritime firepower. Prince Charles meets Royal Marines during a visit today to HMS Sutherland in Bahrain Commodore Keith Winstanley, who serves as deputy commander of coalition maritime operations for US Central Command, has told The Daily Telegraph that British trade and strategic interests dictate the necessity of a high and sustained commitment to patrol the seas around the Middle East. “If you look at the UK component we have almost doubled it,” he said in an interview aboard HMS Sutherland in Mina al-Salman port. “Most of these ships are here on training missions but there is no doubt that we could use the warfighting capabilities they possess.” Cdre Winstanley said there was a message for Iran in the expansion of the coalition fleet in the waters of the Persian Gulf, Sea of Oman and Arabian Sea. advertisement More ships on patrol would have strategic effects that went beyond the operational benefits of increased patrols. Royal Navy commanders insist the build-up in the Gulf has not been ordered by the Ministry of Defence in direct response to Teheran’s pursuit of an atomic weapons programme in defiance of a United Nations Security Council resolution. But there are hopes that additional vessels will intensify pressure on the regime in Tehran to abandon its nuclear activities. The additional Royal Navy vessels sent to the Gulf include HMS Cornwall, a type 22 frigate, two mine sweepers, HMS Ramsey and HMS Blythe, and a vessel from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The British ships will work in an American-led coalition of naval vessels, which has expanded rapidly in recent weeks with the arrival of a second aircraft carrier battle group, led by USS Stennis. While most of the coalition is engaged in routine patrols, Cdre Winstanley refers to the area of operations as the "battle-space". Commitments include protecting Iraq’s southern oil terminals against attack until the Iraqi navy can prove its competence to ensuring the six miles of shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz remain open. Up to 80 per cent of Europe’s trade with the Far East and a substantial proportion of the world’s oil and gas is shipped through local waters. Cdre Winstanley said British strategic and economic self-interest dictated a strong Royal Navy commitment to the region. “We have a vested interest in the freedom of the high seas,” he said. “We can’t do that alone but we can make a contribution. There is a threat of widespread economic attack that I don’t see diminishing.” Nineteen countries belong to the coalition led by US Admiral Patrick Walsh and his deputy, Cdre Winstanley. Maps at the command centre show the position of 45 naval vessels from the southern coast of Pakistan to the east coast of Africa. Terrorist threats and piracy loom large in operational plans. Al-Qa’eda has attacked and destroyed US vessels in Arabian ports and its leaders repeatedly called for strikes against oil platforms and loading docks. British developed computer software, the Automatic Identification System (AIS) tracks vessels bigger than 300 tonnes throughout 2.5 million square miles. Unlike traditional radar systems, the AIS gives naval planners a three dimensional view of the seas that enables detection of any unusual movements. Commodore Bruce Williams who commands Task 150, the southern segment of the coalition, said the concentration of naval firepower has steadily reduced the risk to commercial shipping. “There are no guarantees,” he said. “This is an area of economic vulnerabilities but we can cause the environment to shift to make it harder for those who would attack us to do their business.”

U.S. patrol ship on alert in gulf

Amid tensions with Iran, a small Navy craft looks to a task force's arrival in the region.

By Tony Perry

Times Staff Writer

February 16, 2007

ABOARD THE USS FIREBOLT — Every day the 30 sailors on this coastal patrol ship in the Persian Gulf are on alert. At 170 feet in length, the Firebolt and similar craft are the smallest and possibly the most lightly armed vessels in the U.S. Navy.

Soon the Firebolt will be joined in the region by one of the Navy's most heavily armed behemoths: the 1,092-foot-long carrier John C. Stennis, with a crew of 5,000 and more than 80 warplanes. The Stennis will head a strike force of destroyers, cruisers and submarines deployed to the region by the Bush administration amid heightened tensions with Iran over its nuclear program and allegations of Tehran meddling in Iraq.

Despite their differences in size and weaponry, the Firebolt and the Stennis share a stated mission: deter the Iranian navy from hostile acts in an area vital to oil shipments by showing Tehran that the strength of the U.S. military remains formidable despite its entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran, for its part, has begun an air and naval exercise, and has announced that it has tested a missile capable of sinking a large ship. In November, the Iranian navy released pictures of mines it said could be used to deny access to the Persian Gulf by ships considered "invaders."

Although there is no denying that the Stennis and its strike force bring with them the ability to attack Iran's nuclear sites, officials in Washington and Tehran appear to be focusing on the near-term threat of a naval confrontation.

Such a clash could be disastrous for the world's oil supplies, 40% of which pass in tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, a 34-mile-wide choke point at the southern edge of the 600-mile-long gulf.

Vice Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, commander of the U.S. 5th Fleet, based in Bahrain, said the Iranians, by conducting live-fire missile exercises near the strait, had created "an environment of intimidation and fear" among gulf nations.

"We will continue to stand by our friends in the region," Walsh said in an e-mail to The Times.

The Iranians, however, view any American presence in gulf waters as a provocation and security threat, and have repeatedly issued warnings that they have the ability to attack U.S. ships by using drone aircraft, small boats and missiles.

In testimony before Congress two weeks ago, Admiral William J. Fallon, President Bush's nominee to be commander of U.S. Central Command, said it was clear from the Iranians' recent military acquisitions and showy exercises that their main strategy was to "deny us the ability to operate in this vicinity."

Asked by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) whether the Iranians had the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, Fallon responded that he would be glad to answer — in closed session.

Iran has deployed mines in the gulf before. In April 1988, near the end of the Iran-Iraq war, the guided-missile frigate Samuel B. Roberts nearly sank after hitting a mine while escorting oil tankers. After determining the mine was Iranian, the U.S. sank two Iranian warships and six armed speedboats in what was called Operation Praying Mantis.

In July of that year, the guided-missile cruiser Vincennes, which had been sent to the gulf to protect the Roberts as it left the waterway, mistakenly shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290 people. The Vincennes' captain said he believed the airliner was a military plane attempting a strike.

Analysts suggest that Iran's current strategy might be to trap U.S. ships in the gulf by laying mines at the Strait of Hormuz, or by launching an attack using its three submarines.

The Iranians have boasted that their Russian-built diesel-powered submarines are so quiet that the vessels have been able to operate within striking distance of U.S. ships without being detected. The chief of the Iranian navy is a submariner.

But analysts say that closing the Strait of Hormuz, even briefly, could prove economically disastrous for Tehran, given its dependence on its oil exports.

"They may be religious enthusiasts, but they're not stupid," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, which analyzes military trends. "They play things so close to the line that without oil revenue, they could be finished."

Part of the Iranian strategy is to have, in effect, a navy within a navy. The Revolutionary Guard's navy, which acts somewhat independently of the regular navy, has hundreds of boats that could be used to "swarm" American ships, analysts say.

Although the U.S. could sink many of the boats quickly, some might be able to inflict enough damage to allow the Iranians to claim a symbolic victory, analysts say. But in recent years, the U.S. has armed its smaller ships with weapons that can repel smaller craft.

Any pledge to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, Walsh said, "must have sustainability, visibility and muscle for it to be credible." To provide extra muscle, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates ordered the Stennis to join the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower in the region.

Technically, the Navy will not confirm that the Stennis will be in the gulf, suggesting that it could be stationed in the Gulf of Oman, just outside the Strait of Hormuz, or much farther south, off the Horn of Africa.

While it awaits the arrival of the Stennis in the region, the Firebolt's crew keeps a wary eye on the two Iraqi oil terminals in the gulf. Crew members are convinced that if the U.S. and Iran are headed for confrontation, they'll be in the middle of it.

"If we have to go to close quarters, we're going to see a lot more than the guys on the big ships," said sailor Douglas Stevenson, 28, of Erie, Pa. "This is why we signed on the dotted line."

tony.perry@latimes.com

Times staff writer Peter Spiegel in Washington contributed to this report.

Was Iraq War a `Blunder' or Was It Treason?

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Dave Lindorff

New Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), is calling President Bush's invasion of Iraq a "stark blunder" and says that his new scheme to send 21,500 more troops into the mess he created is just digging the hole deeper.

I wonder though.

It seems ever more likely to me that this whole mess was no blunder at all.

People are wont to attribute the whole thing to lack of intelligence on the president's part, and to hubris on the part of his key advisers. I won't argue that the president is a lightweight in the intellect department, nor will I dispute that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and that whole neocon gang have demonstrably lacked the virtues of reflection and humility. But that said, I suspect that the real story of the Iraq War is that Bush and his gang never really cared whether they actually would "win" in Iraq. In fact, arguably, they didn't really want to win.

What they wanted was a war.

If the war they started had ended quickly with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, that would have served their purposes, at least for the short term. Bush would have emerged from a short invasion and conquest a national hero, would have handily won re-election in 2004, and would have gone on to a second term as a landslide victor. But if it went badly, as it has, they figured he would still come out ahead. He would be a wartime president, and he'd make full use of that role, expansively misdefining his "commander in chief" title to imply authority over the Congress and the courts, to grab power heretofore unheard of for a president.

This, I suspect, was the grand strategy underlying the attack on Iraq.

If I'm right, there may have been method to the madness of not building up enough troops for the invasion to insure that U.S. forces could occupy a destroyed Iraq and help it rebuild, method to the madness of allowing looters free sway to destroy the country's remaining post-invasion infrastructure, method to the madness, even, of allowing remnant forces of Hussein's to gather up stockpiles of weapons and even of high-density explosives, so they could mount an effective resistance and drag out the conflict.

So many apparently stupid decisions were made by people who should clearly have been too smart to make them, from leaving hundreds of tons of high explosives unguarded to cashiering all of Iraq's army and most of the country's civil service managers, that it boggles the mind to think that these could have been just dumb ideas or incompetence. (L. Paul Bremer, for instance, who made the "dumb" decision about dismantelling the Iraqi army, prior to becoming Iraq's occupation viceroy, had headed the nation's leading risk assessment consultancy, and surely knew what all the risks were of his various decisions.)

I mean, we expect a measure of idiocy from or elected leaders and their appointees, but not wholesale idiocy!

This disaster has been so colossal, it almost had to have been orchestrated.

If that's the case, Congress should be taking a hard look at not just the latest installment of escalation, but at the whole war project, beginning with the 2002 campaign to get it going. Certainly throwing 21,500 new troops into the fire makes no sense whatever. If 140,000 of the best-equipped troops in the world can't pacify Iraq, 160,000 aren't going to be able to do it either. You don't need to be a general to figure that out. Even a senator or representative ought to be able to do it. So clearly Congress should kill this plan.

Since it's not about "winning" the war, it has to be about something else. My guess would be it's about either dragging things out until the end of 2008, so Bush can leave office without having to say he's sorry. But of course, it could also be about something even more serious: invading Iran.

We know Bush is trying mightily to provoke Iran. He has illegally attacked an Iranian consulate in Iraq (an act of war), taking six protected consular officials there captive. He is sending a second aircraft carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf, and is setting up Patriot anti-missile missile bases along Iran's western border. This buildup has all the earmarks of a pre-invasion. All that's needed now is a pretext--a real or faked attack on an American ship, perhaps, ala the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" that launched America into the Vietnam War.

The way I see it, either way the president is committing treason, because he is sending American troops off to be killed for no good reason other than for aggrandizing power he shouldn’t have, and/or simply covering his own political ass.

Treason is the number one impeachable crime under the Constitution, and we're at a point where Congress is going to have to act or go down in history as having acquiesced in the worst presidential crime in the history of the nation.

12:01 pm pst

• Gates, commanders plan Persian Gulf operations

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 1 hour, 20 minutes ago

Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with senior U.S. and coalition naval commanders Thursday to plan operations in the Persian Gulf, including the arrival next month of another U.S. aircraft carrier and more Patriot missiles meant in part as a warning to Iran. This tiny state in the northern Gulf is headquarters to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet and Central Command's naval staff.

Gates also flew to nearby Qatar for a private meeting and lunch with that nation's leader, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. Later he was visiting an air base that hosts a high-tech war room that is the nerve center of all U.S. and coalition air operations throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. Under ground rules imposed by U.S. officials, reporters traveling with Gates were prohibited from identifying the base or the country in which it is located.

In Bahrain, a British Royal Navy officer who is the No. 2 commander for coalition naval forces in the Central Command area of responsibility told reporters that the exact role and missions of the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis, which is due to arrive in the Gulf area next month, have not yet been worked out.

British Commodore Keith Winstanley said the Stennis deployment should not be seen entirely as a move aimed at Iran, but he added, "I'm sure there's a message there for Iran."

He said Iranian naval operations have not changed in any significant way since President Bush announced last week that he was sending a second carrier to the Gulf, and Winstanley said at-sea contacts with the Iranian navy have been "extremely cordial."

Earlier, Gates spoke of possibly sending more troops to Afghanistan, where there are now about 24,000 U.S. troops. But the question is how many more can be contributed at a time when Bush is ramping up U.S. firepower in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

Gates said that he wants to ensure that gains made against extremism in Afghanistan since the U.S. invaded to topple the Taliban regime in October 2001 are not lost as the Taliban re-emerges.

"I think it is important that we not let this success here in Afghanistan slip away from us and that we keep the initiative," he told reporters at Bagram Air Base, the main U.S. military air hub in Afghanistan. "There's no reason to sit back and let the Taliban regroup."

Gates said that commanders in Afghanistan had recommended a troop increase, and he suggested he was inclined to urge Bush to go ahead with it. He mentioned no numbers during the talk with reporters on Wednesday, but a senior official traveling with Gates said it would not be anything close to the 21,500 extra troops Bush is sending to Iraq. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it likely it would be one or two battalions — no more than a couple of thousand troops.

On Wednesday evening, Gates flew to Saudi Arabia, where he was driven to a royal hunting lodge outside of Riyadh, the capital, and met for more than two hours with King Abdullah and Crown Prince Sultan, who is the kingdom's defense minister, and other top officials.

Gates reassured the Saudis that Bush intends to stick to his strategy of building a democracy in Iraq, where Iranian Shiite influence is a major concern for the Saudis, according to a senior official who attended the talks and briefed reporters later after the U.S. delegation finished its day by flying to Bahrain.

Gates also made a pitch for more Saudi help in Iraq, including economic assistance, but he made no specific requests, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. They also discussed Iran; Gates noted the announced decision to send a second aircraft carrier battle group to the Gulf region and to deploy Patriot missiles in the area, but they did not discuss other military plans, the official said.

Gates has said several times publicly in recent weeks that he is concerned about backsliding in Afghanistan.

As described by U.S. military officers in Afghanistan, the Taliban has been regrouping, at least to the extent that it was able last year to launch vastly more attacks on U.S. and allied forces than in 2005. It has been particularly resurgent in the south and the east, along the Pakistan border.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said new troop commitments would further strain the U.S. military in the short run. But if done as part of a successful strategy against the Taliban, it might hasten the day when the U.S. military can withdraw its combat forces altogether, he said.

Before Gates arrived in Afghanistan for talks Tuesday with U.S. and NATO commanders — as well as Afghan government officials — he said he wanted to hear their views on what should be done to arrest the resurgence of the Taliban and provide the security needed to reconstruct the country.

The decline of empire

Arrogant and deaf to history, the American imperial moment already appears short-lived, writes Ayman El-Amir

---

Few empires in history have recognised the limits of their power and in good time saved themselves from the consequences of over-ambition. While historians point to the Roman Empire as the most classical example of the decline of overstretched empires, there are equally disastrous models in modern history. The Romanov's imperial Russia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire of the Habsburg and the Ottomans who ruled the Islamic State all collapsed under circumstances of revolution or global conflict. The British Empire learned the lesson of the limits of imperial power after it was battered by Germany in World War II and pressured by national liberation movements. London chose to relinquish the empire on which "the sun never sets" because it was unsustainable. The Soviet Empire, on the other hand, imploded. Contrary to claims by some US analysts, it was not Ronald Reagan's confrontational policies that brought it down.

The US, the most recent imperial power on the world stage, is missing a rare opportunity to learn these historical lessons. Either its political elite does not read history -- except perhaps its own -- or that it is carried away by an arrogant sense of invincibility (an old-time imperial trait). Thanks to the Bush administration and its neo-cons, the US is deeply wedged in the turbulent Middle East. It is bogged down in Iraq with no clear strategic direction on how to get out, it is in confrontation with Iran over the latter's quest for nuclear technology, and has frozen the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, strangulated the democratically-elected Palestinian government, is working with Israel to divide the Palestinian Authority, and has unleashed the murderous Israeli military machine against the Palestinian people.

Elsewhere, the Bush administration is pursuing similar confrontational policies. It is still embroiled in Afghanistan, where the Soviet Union fought a decade-long war and lost; it has stymied progress made by the Clinton administration in negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear weapons programme, replacing dialogue with threats and punitive sanctions; it encouraged Ethiopia to intervene militarily in the civil war in Somalia, thus inciting a potential major conflagration in the Horn of Africa; and it is fuelling an arms race in the Gulf region. Moreover, President Bush's war on terrorism is enhancing, not diminishing this dangerous global phenomenon. Imperial USA is stretched beyond limits.

Following historical patterns, the rise of US imperial power came on the heels of the collapse of the former Soviet Union. The execution of the first Gulf War that threw invading Iraq out of Kuwait was the first test of imperial prowess. It was not until the end of the two successive administrations of Democratic President Bill Clinton, the coming to power of George W Bush and his "neo-con" entourage, and the catastrophic events of 11 September 2001 that the imperial ambitions of the US became full-fledged. The preceding seven decades of bipolar international relations, until 1990, were marked by self-restraint based on limiting the exercise of power to spheres of influence. In a landmark White House strategy paper released September 2002, entitled The National Security Strategy of the United States, the neo-conservative Republicans unveiled their global imperial vision. It basically announced that the US will not allow its military supremacy, maintained since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, "to be equalled or surpassed"; that the US will launch pre-emptive strikes against countries that are suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction and which could be "perceived as a threat to the US"; and that it will attack, disrupt and destroy terrorist organisations that have global reach. The empire was in full swing and prepared to invade Iraq, which it did in March 2003.

The centrepiece of US imperial strategy, Iraq may soon prove its nemesis. By all standards, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a typical example of old-time colonial conquest for economic gain. No one can recall exactly what the illegal invasion was supposed to achieve, and for whom. Was it the elimination of weapons of mass destruction that were never found? Was it to re-mould Iraq into a model of democracy for other Middle Eastern countries to follow? Was it the fairy-tale claim of crushing non-existent collaboration between Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist regime and Al-Qaeda? Or was it to get rid of Saddam Hussein, the dictator whose brutal execution, and the international indignation it provoked, served to redeem him more than to punish him?

The clearest purpose to emerge so far is that the US invasion sought to dominate the oil-rich Gulf region, reorient incorrigible Arab regimes and destabilise and weaken Iran in the interest of Israel. Four years into the war, and despite claims to the contrary, the US campaign in Iraq and beyond has failed. President Bush's new policy direction to send more troops to Iraq will do little to change the situation; Iraq has been destroyed beyond reconstruction, sectarian violence is rampant, US and Iraqi casualties continue to mount and a de facto partition of the country has taken hold. As the International Crisis Group has noted, Iraq faces "complete disintegration into failed-state chaos" -- the result of misadventure by an inexperienced imperial power.

The only way forward for the US in Iraq is the way out, be it as a result of rising casualties, the reigning state of chaos, or by the defiant opposition of the Democratic majority in the US Congress to an open-ended war. By mid-2007, the Bush administration will enter the state of lame-duck hibernation in preparation for the 2008 presidential election. By then, everyone will either try to put Iraq behind his back or use it to score popularity points over the Republicans in campaign polls. With the inevitable exit of the US from Iraq, the Middle East/Gulf region will never be the same and the exercise of imperial power will undergo fundamental change.

Whatever spin the US may put on its eventual exit from Iraq, there is no avoiding the universal conclusion that its invasion was a dismal failure. This will embolden terrorists and jihadists, strengthen autocratic regimes that will gleefully view US departure as a regression of the call for genuine democratic change, and enhance the influence of Iran which will come into indirect, and possibly direct, confrontation with Israel. US military presence that will be left behind in the Gulf region will create a casus belli for nationalist forces opposed to foreign military presence on Arab territory. It will also undermine regimes loyal to the US and that increasingly will be viewed as collaborators with a foreign military power. The only alternative Gulf Arab countries can afford is to build their own military power, with US assistance, to deter Iran, reward the US arms industry with generous contracts and avoid being caught unprepared in any future conflict between Israel and Iran. This attitude is already fuelling an arms race in the Gulf region that may escalate into non-conventional weapons acquisition. Saudi Intelligence chief, Prince Muqrin Bin Abdel-Aziz, told a security conference in Bahrain 8 December 2006 that "the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons is the most dangerous threat against Gulf security." Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hinting that Israel possessed nuclear weapons touched a raw nerve in many parts of the region.

When the US fought a decade-long traumatic war in Vietnam, it came out in 1974 badly bruised and empty-handed, with no success to show in rolling back the perceived communist threat. It was not even an imperial power then, only a superpower with a misguided strategic view of the Southeast Asian region. It was harassed and undermined by other superpowers, the Soviet Union and China. US defeat in Iraq will mark the end of a short-lived era of imperial power. The US will end up one of several powers in equal competition for the assets of a strategic and wealthy region.

* The writer is former correspondent for Al-Ahram in Washington DC. He also served as director of the United Nations Radio and Television in New York.

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Al-Ahram Weekly Online

Second U.S. carrier group to deploy to Gulf

Second U.S. carrier group to deploy to Gulf: sources

1 hour, 2 minutes ago

The Pentagon will send a second aircraft carrier and its escort ships to the Gulf, defense officials said on Wednesday, as a warning to Syria and Iran and to give commanders more flexibility in the region.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bremerton, Wash.-based USS John C. Stennis strike group would deploy this month. It will put 5,000 more U.S. sailors in the region, bringing the total to 16,000.

The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier group entered the Gulf in December.

NEARBY NATIONS DREADING IRAQ'S DISINTEGRATION

Posted on Thu, Nov. 23, 2006

Civil war could ripple outward

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post


BAGHDAD, Iraq - While American commanders have suggested that civil war is possible in Iraq, many leaders, experts and ordinary people in Baghdad and around the Middle East say it is already under way, and that the real worry ahead is that the conflict will destroy the flimsy Iraqi state and draw in surrounding countries.

Whether the U.S. military departs Iraq sooner or later, the United States will be hard-pressed to leave behind a country that does not threaten U.S. interests and regional peace, according to American and Arab analysts and political observers.

``We're not talking about just a full-scale civil war. This would be a failed-state situation with fighting among various groups'' growing into regional conflict, Joost Hiltermann, Middle East project director for the International Crisis Group, said by telephone from Amman, Jordan.

``The war will be over Iraq, over its dead body,'' Hiltermann said.

``All indications point to a current state of civil war and the disintegration of the Iraqi state,'' Nawaf Obaid, an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and an adviser to the Saudi government, said earlier this month at a conference in Washington on U.S.-Arab relations.

As Iraq's neighbors grapple with the various ideas put forward for solving the country's problems, they uniformly shudder at one proposal: dividing Iraq into separate regions for Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, and then speeding the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

``To envision that you can divide Iraq into three parts is to envision `ethnic cleansing' on a massive scale, sectarian killing on a massive scale,'' Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, said Oct. 30 at a conference in Washington. ``Since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited.''

``When the ethnic-religious break occurs in one country, it will not fail to occur elsewhere, too,'' Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told Germany's Der Spiegel newsweekly recently. ``It would be as it was at the end of the Soviet Union, only much worse. Large wars, small wars -- no one will be able to get a grip on the consequences.''

In an analysis published last month by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Obaid said sectarian conflicts could make Iraq a battleground for the region.

Obaid described widespread interference by Iranian security forces within Iraq. He urged Saudi Arabia, which is building a 560-mile wall on its border with Iraq, to warn Iran ``that if these activities are not checked,'' Saudi Arabia ``will be forced to consider a similar overt and covert program of its own.''

In Damascus, a Syrian analyst close to the Assad government warned that other countries would intervene if Iraq descended into full-scale civil war. ``Iran will get involved, Turkey will get involved, Saudi Arabia, Syria,'' said the analyst, who spoke on condition he not be identified further.

``Regional war is very much a possibility,'' said Hiltermann, the analyst for the International Crisis Group. Iraq's neighbors ``are hysterical about Iranian strategic advances in the region,'' he said.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad last month ranked Syria and Iran with Al-Qaida in Iraq, one of the country's principal Sunni Arab insurgent groups, in terms of destabilizing influences in Iraq. Despite that assessment, the United States has not held substantive talks with Syria regarding Iraq since 2004 or with Iran since the war began in 2003.

Diplomats and analysts increasingly are urging the Bush administration to reach out to both countries as part of a regional approach to quelling Iraq's troubles. Former Secretary of State James Baker, leader of a panel preparing a set of policy recommendations for the Bush administration, already has endorsed the idea of seeking the help of Iran and Syria.

``The thing is, because Iran and Syria both have spoiling power in Iraq, if you could neutralize them,'' it would ease some of the many pressures within Iraq, Hiltermann said. But he said the two countries may demand a mighty trade-off: for Syria, U.S. help with its biggest stated aim, winning back the Golan Heights from Israel; for Iran, U.S. compromise over its nuclear program.

Hiltermann acknowledged the difficulty. ``I'm saying it's required,'' he said. ``I'm not saying it's possible.''

In Baghdad's Shiite stronghold of Sadr City late last month, aides to one of the country's leading Shiite clerics held a rally to urge followers to bide their time until the American forces leave the country. The rally was called by followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, a strongly anti-occupation figure who is one of the leaders in the current Shiite-led government and one likely claimant to power should the Americans withdraw.

``Will America win?'' a speaker in a brown turban demanded before the more than 1,000 protesters, as a brewing storm whirled dirt and trash and pelted demonstrators with drops of cold rain. Loudspeakers shot his question back across the square.

The men thrust their fists in the air, shouting their answer out to a grim, gray sky: ``No, no! America will not win!''

Between 2 percent and 5 percent of Iraq's 27 million people have been killed, wounded or uprooted since the Americans invaded in 2003, calculates Anthony Cordesman of the Center for International and Strategic Studies.

``This is civil war,'' he said.

Since midsummer, Shiite militias, Sunni insurgent groups, ad-hoc Sunni self-defense groups and tribes have accelerated campaigns of sectarian cleansing that are forcing countless thousands of Shiites and Sunnis in Baghdad to seek safety among their own kind.

Whole towns north and south of Baghdad are locked in the same sectarian struggle, among them the central Shiite city of Balad, still under siege by gunmen from surrounding Sunni towns after a bloody spate of sectarian massacres last month.

Even outside the center of sectarian strife in the central region of the country, Shiite factions battle each other in the south, Sunni tribes and factions clash in the west. Across Iraq, the criminal gangs that emerged with the collapse of law and order rule patches of turf as mini-warlords.

Since the war began, 1.6 million Iraqis have sought refuge in neighboring countries; at least 231,530 people have been displaced inside Iraq since February, when Shiite-Sunni violence exploded with the bombing of a Shiite shrine in the northern city of Samarra, according to figures from the United Nations and the U.N.-affiliated International Organization for Migration.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/16082761.htm