...in India, at least:
The Iraq war has now acquired two faces: in Iraq and Crawford, Texas. President Bush may have been able to spin his way through two elections but now American democracy seems to be catching up with him in the form of Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq. She is drawing full houses picketing outside the Bush ranch. In Iraq, the war gets more nasty. The deadline for the new Constitution has been extended because there is disagreement on whether ‘‘Islam’’ will be one of the sources for laws or the only source.
Ahmad Chalabi carried the interim Constitution, drawn up under Paul Bremer’s auspices, for Ayatullah Sistani’s approval in Najaf, in March 2003. Sistani rejected ‘‘one-of-the-sources’’ concept. That constitution also suggested two languages for Iraq — Arabic and Kurdish. If Sistani rejected a formulation over two years ago, why will he accept it now?
Meanwhile the Shias have upped the ante. They have called for a separate southern area within a federal arrangement. To balance the Kurdish language, Farsi is being sought to be inserted as one of the languages. As if this was not troubling enough, Iran is being brought into focus as a bigger trouble spot under President Ahmedinejad.
‘‘All options are on the table’’, said President Bush, if Iran does not comply on the nuclear issue. Scott Ritter, former UN Inspector, has been citing ‘‘high sources’’ for the past few months for some sort of US action.
Precipitate action on Iran seemed out of the question until the other day because Washington was overstretched in Iraq. In fact, a dual policy on Teheran has been in operation: public outrage on the nuclear issue but private gratitude for Iran not ‘‘messing’’ in Iraq, Afghanistan, Baluchistan (Pakistan), Hizbullah (Lebanon). Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafri travelled to Teheran; Iran’s Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazzi travelled from Baghdad to Najaf. Neither of these trips was possible without American help.
But there are new, tentative signals in the air. Suddenly an item appears that Iranian arms are reaching Iraqi insurgents. Why this switch on Iran? Because Iraq will be an electoral liability in the spring mid-term elections in the US. An air attack on Iran, according to administration hawks, will go down well with an electorate which, by that time, will have been fed on demonised images of President Ahmedinejad.
Sharon, having shown ‘‘reasonableness’’ on Gaza, may be tempted or encouraged for a pre-emptive strike. An Anglo-American action would then be projected as more ‘‘responsible’’. Of course, the whole region will be ablaze and oil prices will go beyond the ceiling. But will this blaze not be preferable to a nuclear armed Iran?
Look how reversals in Iraq are encouraging leaders like Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan to close down a key US base in Khanabad. And all of this is coinciding with the US President’s lowest ever ratings.
There is confusion in Washington — just the sort of atmosphere when illogical acts are presented as the emergency escape route. Historically, the US has been capable of both Hiroshima and Vietnam. Which one will it be this time? The third more attractive option will evolve if Washington pushes Sharon on the path of peace. Many situations will change then, even in Iraq. Meanwhile, the media’s focus on Cindy Sheehan will keep recklessness in check in Washington.
(Thanks to Ruchira Paul for the pointer.)
Recent Comments