Persian Gulf in the eye of big power politics

"We're pressing Iraq's leaders to take bold measures to save their
country. We're making it clear that American patience is not unlimited".
The words are those of a seemingly irate US President George Bush.
The incident is highly illustrative of the manner in which domestic
political compulsions impinge on a state's handling of foreign
relations. To be more specific, what is apparently troubling the US
President is the November 7 US Congressional elections.
The death toll of US servicemen in Iraq has spiked in October and US
public opinion is increasingly critical of Bush's handling of the Iraqi
situation. So vocal and widespread is this criticism that it is feared
that the Republicans would sustain heavy losses at the upcoming poll,
with the rising strong possibility of the Republicans losing control of
Congress. Hence Bush's rhetorical blast to his constituents on the
intensifying Iraqi conundrum. It could be seen as a Kneejerk reaction of
the President to his party's declining political fortunes.
However, the Iraqi situation has acquired such a complexity that the
question could be posed: What are Bush's options in Iraq? Could the US
"cut and run", in Iraq in the face of mounting US casualties? Could the
US impose a 'schedule' of tasks on the Maliki administration, as it is
rumoured, and expect the latter to pliantly adhere to it? In other
words, could the US freely dictate terms to the Maliki government in its
anxiety to reduce and contain its political and human costs?
These are just some of the troubling posers for the Bush
administration. However, the tenacity with which the US is operating in
this part of the world in pursuit of its interests would compel the
impartial observer to dismiss Bush's fulminations on Iraq as nothing
more than pre-election bombast. For, the President was quoted saying
that he would bring US troops home tomorrow "if I did not think our
mission in Iraq was vital to American security".
It is the US security dimension and the importance attached to it by
Washington that compels the observer to dismiss the US President's
outbursts against the Maliki government as an attempt at mollifying his
home constituency in the run up to Congressional elections. Not only
will the pressure be reduced on Maliki after the poll but an attempt
would also be made to fine-tune the US military operation in Iraq.
In other words, as long as the "war against terror" is seen as vital
to US interests, the chances are that the US presence in West and South
West Asia would not only intensify but also spread.
Afghanistan could be considered as symbolising these trends. In the
Afghan theatre the US and its allies could be considered as enjoying,
commonality of purpose. And what is this grand purpose? Put simply, it
is the expansion and consolidation of the Western presence in the
Persian Gulf region. Put precisely, it is a NATO presence.
The story that is unfolding in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf is by
no means a new one. It has been unfolding in slow stages from the time
of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. With the explosive
emergence of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, the US suffered a
setback in the Persian Gulf region, which is of course, a vital source
of Western oil supplies and of considerable relevance to Western big
business.
Until the Islamic upsurge in Iran, the Shah of Iran was faithfully
safeguarding Western interests in the region.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, gave the US a much-needed excuse
to reassert its presence in South West and West Asia. The Mujahedin war
in Afghanistan backed by the US was a function of this interplay of
interests.
The subsequent crumbling of the Cold War and the withdrawal of Soviet
forces from Afghanistan enabled the Western military alliance to
reassert its presence in the region.
The US invasion of Iraq is an attempt to further consolidate US
interests in the region.
Therefore, the US would stay put in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
For, the stakes in the region for the US are huge and alluring. |