An Unholy Triangle: George Bush, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and al Qaeda
ILJ posted this a few days ago, but I think it needs more attention. Some discussion for the prospects of a war with Iran might be interesting talk for this weekend. - Promoted by Specter
The topic below was originally posted on my blog the Intrepid Liberal Journal as well as The Peace Tree,
the Independent Bloggers Alliance
and Worldwide Sawdust
.
Foreign Affairs published a sobering article by Bruce Riedel in their May/June issue entitled, “al Qaeda Strikes Back.” Riedel, a Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution retired last year after 29 years with the CIA.
Essentially, Riedel outlines al Qaeda’s resurgence while the Bush Administration has undermined our geopolitical position with their foolish war in Iraq. Hardly a dove, Riedel believes it is essential to our national security for al Qaeda to be “decapitated.” I agree with him. al Qaeda is a clear and present danger as a manifestation of radical Islam.
Among the failings of the Bush Administration is how their incessant fear mongering has jaded Americans about the very real dangers of terrorism that still exist. What’s required is tough minded, realistic leadership that neither exaggerates dangers for political gain nor ignores threats as President Bush did in August 2001. The last thing this country should do is hand our enemies what they want: war with Iran. Riedel issues the following warning:
“The biggest danger is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a ‘false-flag’ operation, say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing. The United States should be extremely wary of such deception. In the event of an attack, accurately assigning blame will require very careful intelligence work. It may require months, or even years, of patient investigating to identify the plotters behind well-planned and well-executed operations, as it did for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the 1996 attacks on the U.S. barracks at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton were wise to be patient in both those cases; Washington would be well advised to do the same in the event of a similar attack in the future. In the meantime, it should, of course, continue do its utmost to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and from fomenting violence and terrorism in the Middle East by using tough diplomacy and targeted sanctions. And it should not consider a military operation against Iran, as doing so would only strengthen al Qaeda's hand -- much as the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have.”
I have a different take on Riedel’s warning. To be blunt, the Bush Administration will not be “deceived” by a “false flag” from al Qaeda. Rather, Bush and Cheney are hoping for a pretext to avoid a humiliating withdrawal from Iraq. With Republicans ready to jettison the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy in September, a war with Iran would be quite timely and convenient.
Another false flag may be weapons smuggling into Iraq through Iran by operatives sympathetic to al Qaeda. Either way it is important to remember the antipathy that exists between Iran and al Qaeda. Iran has sponsored al Qaeda’s rival Hezbollah in Lebanon. After 9/11, Iran cooperated with Washington against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan out of their strategic self-interest. They view al Qaeda as a threat to their hegemony as well as potential catalysts to instability on their borders.
Tragically, the world is at the mercy of an unholy triangle as the motivations of Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Bush Administration and al Qaeda are converging. Ahmandinejad is besieged with problems. He’s terrified of dissent as domestic dissatisfaction with his regime intensifies. A war with the “Great Satan” would be a welcome distraction, as Iranians will surely rally to him if attacked.
al Qaeda of course thrives on instability, chaos and any act that reinforces America’s image as an imperialist at war with the Islamic people. They’re laying in the high weeds to capitalize on instability in Gaza and Lebanon as well as exploit vulnerabilities in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is sucking wind and hemorrhaging support. The Republican Party is poised to pull the plug on Iraq in September. Bush and Cheney are desperate to avoid withdrawal and defeat in Iraq on their watch. A war with Iran would make extricating ourselves from Iraq nearly impossible. Of course our military, stretched to their limit in Afghanistan and Iraq is in no shape to prosecute any war with Iran. But the Bush Administration may be thinking that a controlled air war can be managed and strengthen their political position.
As we’ve also seen, the Bush Administration is not overly concerned with details such as blowback, the fog of war and the heavy lifting of managing the aftermath once hostilities are initiated. Perhaps they’re also hoping war with Iran will distract from the publicity surrounding their scandals. These people are eminently capable of deluding themselves that a controlled air war is viable and just the tonic for their problems.
Ultimately what I’m wondering is this: is America stupid enough to allow it? At this point I have little faith in the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership. It also doesn’t appear that the frontrunners for their party’s 2008 presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton nor Barak Obama possess the intestinal fortitude to stand up to aggression against Iran. They’ll sit back and see which the way the wind blows.
I don’t like cynicism and believe it’s important to work for a truly progressive majority that is sensible and mature. I will not abandon my efforts as an activist to accomplish the ideals I believe in. However, as much as I prefer optimism, we’re on a collision course with calamity. It’s like watching a pile up happening in slow motion on the freeway while George Bush, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bin Laden crash their cars after binge drinking at an all night keg party.
- Intrepid Liberal Journal's diary
- Login or register to post comments

Comments :
Nice work
as always. Sorry this is not getting more attention.
I think going to war with Iran is a risky proposition for the republicans. Wars traditionally garner public support of our leaders (used loosely), but in this circumstance, I don't think the populace would accept the rationale. There would be a huge reaction from the public that would reverberate through to the next election. Unfortunately, the democrats are looking more spineless as you mention, and I fear that they may face consequences at the polls also, not only for their lack of defiance against the Iraq war and their inability to end it, but for their ignoring the set-up for the next war. What is a voter to do without viable choices?
Anyway, nice job.
Thanks For Putting ...
this on the frontpage. I just realized it now.
Intrepid Liberal Journal
I dont think September will change a thing.
Why? Well, as you stated this Administration won't do one thing to remove American troops from Iraq themselves. In October (we all know the report will be delivered Sept 30th) some Republican Senators will moan and bluster, and a couple will vote against the President, but they won't be able to get 60 votes to stop a filibuster. They'll never get 67 votes to over ride a veto.
I wonder why the Republican Senators don't see that they are writing their own epithat protecting dubya/Darth's ego and their dreams of holding Iraq's oil? It's a lose/lose. They lose their seats (many of them) and we lose the oil when we no longer occupy Iraq.
The Iran thing is off the table though. bushco will still try to drum up support for an attack but there's enough resistance from everyone now that they just can't ride in and do it on their own.
My question
Is it more likely that Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, etc officially or not are funding the Sunni insurgents as they would not like a powerful Shiite Iraq in their backyards?
It seems so unnatural for Iran to destabilize Iraq when the govt is Shiite--Iranian loving Iraqi govt is now already in place.
I just cannot seem to believe that Iran is destabilizing Iraq and going againsts its nature.
Discussing Iran
here is article by Norman Podhoretz from June Commentary:
The Case for Bombing Iran
It may be true that Al Queda will attempt to provoke war between US and Iran, however IMO it does appear that provocative actions and statements by Iran show true intent.
name the enemy, win the war
Saudi funding of Iraqi insurgents--link
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20061208_saudi_links_to_iraq...
So why are we just talking about Iran when even our friends are doing it?
If that's the case, then the United States is taking the bait.
How stupid can George W. Bush get??
Another Iran Aerial Photo worth seeing.
Aerial Photo
courtesy of townhall.com
name the enemy, win the war
Funny
in a creative way, but most Iranians are pro-west. It is the government
including the Imams (Council of Guardians) and Ayatollah (Supreme Leader) along with their president that is holding the country back.
The Iranian youth have actually made Iran the country with the fourth most bloggers
in the world.
Funny picture still (in its own way).
My point, exactly, Specter.
The above-mentioned quote from your post is an excellent reason for not going and invading Iran. Dubya would have to be a damned fool to risk alienating a pro-Western ally like that, meaning the people. Nothing like turning yet another country against us, not to mention totally laying waste to yet another country and its people and bankrupting the United States furthur.
This does not bring comfort
uh-oh...