COMMENTS: 18
U.S. Could Trigger Deadly Middle East Arms Race
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
The arms deal, which still requires the approval of the Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress, is one of the biggest ever. It offers a package of 20 billion US dollars to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, 13 billion dollars to Egypt and 30 billion dollars to Israel over 10 years. Items include advanced fighter jets, smart bombs, computer systems and missile boats.
''It is an ill-advised strategic approach for geo-strategically containing Iran,'' said Steven Wright, associate professor at Qatar University. ''It is a flawed logic for Washington to see the arms sales as a means of strengthening its position against Iran and enhancing regional security.''
''Selling more arms to the Gulf countries, along with Israel, will only serve to make Iran's security concerns more acute and increase regional insecurity,'' the Doha-based specialist on Gulf-US relations wrote over e-mail. ''On the other hand, it will likely prompt Iran to devote more of its state budget towards defence expenditure.''
Supporting the anxiety about an arms race in the region are reports indicating that Russia is planning to sell 250 Sukhoi jets, including 30 of the most advanced jets it has, to Iran. Further, on Aug. 5, Iran unveiled its new fighter jet -- 'Azarakhsh' (Lightning) -- said to be modelled on the American F-5, but using indigenous technology.
The proposed aid announcement was followed by a visit to the region by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates, last week.
During the visit, Rice dismissed suggestions about shifting the military balance or starting a new arms race or the military aid to the Gulf countries being a ''quid pro quo'' to get their assistance in Iraq. ''We are working with these states to fight back extremism,'' she insisted.
But Iran accused the U.S. of trying to create fear and mistrust in the Middle East and aiming to destabilise the region.
A Washington Post report went a step further suggesting that ''the United States and Iran are now facing off in a full-fledged cold war ... The Bush administration is trying to drape a kind of Green Curtain dividing the Middle East between Iran's friends and foes. The new showdown may well prove to be the most enduring legacy of the Iraq conflict.''
In its Aug. 2 editorial, the Dubai-based Gulf News said: ''Their (U.S.) purpose is clear: to raise the stakes in the threats against Iran primarily, but also Syria, Hezbollah and al Qaeda, the bete noire of the current US administration.''
However, it questioned why the GCC countries have to ''blindly follow the wishes of the US?'' Without naming the UAE, it added, ''Some GCC nations have had territorial disputes with Iran...and have deliberately avoided using the military option in the belief that the issues can be resolved through talks and mediation.''
The London-based Arabic language newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi on Aug. 1 interpreted the promised military package as confirming ''Washington's abandonment of democracy in favour of preparing for war.''
Questioning if the ''sale of U.S. weapons to the Gulf countries in the past (acted as) a deterrent to Iran or any other country,'' the paper asked: ''Can the deal be a reward for the Saudi policy that is deepening the US quandary in Iraq?'' or ''is it a blatant and theatrical motive for making relations between Riyadh and Tehran tense as part of a regional umbrella for a U.S. political and media, and probably military, escalation against Iran?''
The aid proposal also came amid U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad accusing U.S. allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, of pursuing destabilising policies in Iraq by funding Sunni militants against the mainly Shiite government in Baghdad. ''Saudi Arabia and a number of other countries are not doing all they can to help us in Iraq,'' he was quoted saying last week. ''At times, some of them are not only not helping, but they are doing things that are undermining the effort to make progress.''
In fact, a growing cadre of U.S. congressmen is resisting the Bush administration's Middle East arms plan. Within five days after the proposed sale was announced on July 27, 114 members of the House, including 18 Republicans, informed President George W. Bush that they intend to vote against the plan.
U.S. policies in the region during the last few years, according to Prof. Gary Sick of Columbia University, is a ''marvellous example of political jiu jitsu. ... The United States made possible an emergent Iran by eliminating its Taliban rivals to the east and its Baathist rivals to the west and then installing a Shiite government in Baghdad for the first time in history.''
Sick told a Web-based forum of Gulf experts that, ''Having inadvertently increased Iranian strength and bargaining power that frightened U.S. erstwhile Sunni allies in the region and undermined U.S. strength and credibility, Washington now proposes a new and improved regional political relationship to deal with the problem, and, incidentally, to distract attention from the U.S.'s plight in Iraq while reviving America's position as the ultimate power in the region.''
The new U.S. policy, according to Sick, includes providing ''military cover for the Arab Gulf states as they take a more confrontational position vis à vis Iran, which of course produces some juicy profits for the U.S. aerospace industry, but also provides a framework for getting Israeli (and U.S. congressional) acquiescence for selling some significant new military technology to the Arabs.''
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlohaTerry on Aug 9, 2007 5:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But then, when HAS the Bush MisAdministration EVER done anything that was SANE or PRODUCTIVE? I can't think of ONE time...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Only if you assume their purposes are what they SAY they are.
Posted by: Malcolm Calder
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Aug 9, 2007 6:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: phatkhat on Aug 9, 2007 6:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember when the US armed Iraq because Iran was our mutual "enemy". We forgot about Iran because we decided Iraq was our enemy.
We destroyed Iraq, rediscovered Iran, and now want to arm countries (that likewise hate our guts) because we have a mutual "enemy".
Why oh why do we want to encourage an arms race among nations that would as soon stab us in the back as not? I cannot believe the stupidity, shortsightedness, and inability to learn from history that reigns in Washington.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Malcolm Calder on Aug 9, 2007 9:00 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
''It is an ill-advised strategic approach for geo-strategically containing Iran,'' said Steven Wright, associate professor at Qatar University. ''It is a flawed logic for Washington to see the arms sales as a means of strengthening its position against Iran and enhancing regional security.''
Basic research project the Corporate Media has neglected: find out who's planning this stuff, and how their historical records enlighten their current pronouncements.
Global dominance of the World Order by America[n business/investor class].
"Full-Spectrum Dominance"
The Project for the New American Century.
Etc.
Read all about it!
(And stop using the neutral-positive "Mainstream Media" [MSM] for the Corporate media, eh?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Aug 10, 2007 5:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Damnit!
Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: Waht U smokin?
Posted by: babs
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 10, 2007 7:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Aug 10, 2007 8:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The answer is easy. We Stop Producing,Selling and distributing Arms throughout the World. I know there's someone reading this saying to themselves' It can't be done! If we stop making gun someone else will and they will come and get us' Typical, 'I'm scared of the school bully' mind set.
Time for a new paradigm.
Maybe honesty and fair trading would be a start. Maybe even honoring our own deals,would be a better start. The biggest gripe about the US in Afghanistan is from the country People who are asking " Where is our paved roads,in house electricity,internet and flush toilets?" Seems like a pretty sim[ple request to me. If a flush toilet is enough to make a Friend,I say GIVE IT TO THEM.
The time for killing is over! Now co-operation and openness is what we need. To end the arms race in the middle east and elsewhere.
Draft Jeffrey7 for Prez...the only vote that counts
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Aug 10, 2007 1:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.sirchartsalot.com/article.php?id=65
There's a quid pro quo. The Mid-East oil princes lower the price of oil and we send them weapons. They knocked almost 8 bucks a barrel off the price, and that ain't chump change. If we want cheap oil (or at least cheaper oil), the princes are calling the tune.
Can they keep a lid on this? All it takes is one good hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, and oil is back to $100/bl. Even I have to feel sorry for our Idiot-in-Chief. Guns for oil may end up giving him nothing but trouble and no oil.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: donl51 on Aug 10, 2007 4:09 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FDPN on Aug 10, 2007 5:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Aug 10, 2007 5:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2) Why, oh why, aren't the specific names of the potential US corporate beneficiaries listed?
General Dynamics looks to do well, for example, as does LockheedMartin Quiz: what do Lockeed and Exxon have in common? Their majority shareholder, Barclays UK.
Of course, this goes on and on and on. For a list of the key British-American players, see Transatlantic Business Groups.
3) What's remarkable is that John Edwards is calling for Congress to halt the Saudi arms sales. Notice how Edwards gets attacked and ignored by the corporate media for not supporting the US-British corporate agenda?
However,
``If there's one thing that can trump Saudi-bashing in Congress, it's Iran-bashing,'' said Henri Barkey, a former State Department policy planner who is chairman of the international relations department at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. ``The sale will go through, in part because people understand the real motivation behind it.''
The administration hasn't specified what weapons will be in the package; as a result, it isn't yet clear which defense contractors will benefit. A Pentagon official told reporters last week the Saudi deal alone would be at least $20 billion and include air and missile defense system upgrades, naval improvements and hardening the Saudis' energy infrastructure.
History suggests Barkey is right about the sale's prospects in Congress. While most such deals have been controversial -- most memorably when President Ronald Reagan proposed selling sophisticated AWACS reconnaissance planes in 1981 -- Congress has never vetoed one.
The real purpose is probably to increase US exports, and what export items other than weapons does the US produce anymore?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: poppop_schell on Aug 11, 2007 1:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ganttbarb on Aug 11, 2007 4:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
August 10, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this
I support Tom Tancredo on bombing Mecca and Medina and on illegal immigration enforcement.
Moderate Muslims HAVE to make a stand and HAVE to become vocal as to their aborrence against the radical interpretation of the Koran. Otherwise, ALL Muslims will go down together in this “War against Terrorism”. Moderate Muslims have to decide what their interpretation of the Koran means. Moderate Muslims have to make a choice for democracy and deplomacy or for their Muslim tribal connections. This is the problem. Muslims have to make a choice.
By Barbara
August 10, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this
Melanie Phillips Author from Britain speaks in the US to try and help America not make the same mistakes as England. The erosion of nationhood is caused by too much tolerance for immigrants that want to change America and make America morph to their ethnicity. Are you Mexican American? Or, are you American Mexican? Are you Muslim American? Or, are you American Muslim?
America’s freedom has to make some complex decisions of protectionism. The US has to quarantine radical Muslim. America can not become Islamic nor Hispanic. America’s founding was for freedom for all. And now America has to make serious choices against immigrants that do not want to assimilate.
This is why moderate Muslims have to make a choice as to radical Koran interpretation or moderate Koran interpretation. Right now Muslims want to sit on their ethnic fence at the same time they are immigrating to the US. Same as Hispanic immigrants that want to protest in the streets carrying Mexican flags.
Britain made that mistake of being too liberal with immigrant’s rights. America should not become fascist. America should become smarter.
By Barb Gantt
August 11, 2007 6:59 PM | Link to this
Do you Americans really believe the U.S. can survive spending 30 Billion a month for 7 years? Should China and Japan own the U.S. through all the foreign debt extensions? Doesn’t anyone out there in America remember the depression?….H E L L O….
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Barb Gantt
Posted by: DCBeltway
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Aug 12, 2007 1:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
My Experience with a Psychedelic Plant That Thousands Have Used for Release from Severe Addictions
Is Using a Checklist the Answer to All Your Problems?
On Anniversary of Iraq Invasion, Time to Rethink Anti-War Activism




