::::::::
On one hand the Bush administration has decided not to seize the opportunity of charging Iran in public addresses lately – which is a sharp turn from its usual behavior.
M K Bhadrakumar writes in the article US Moves Towards Engaging Iran::
A phase of subtle, reciprocal, conceptual diplomatic actions may be beginning. An indication of this is available in the two radio interviews given by Bush last weekend and beamed into Iran, exclusively aimed at reaching out to the Iranian public on the Persian New Year Nauroz.
[Ahead} of Bush's interviews, former secretary of state Henry Kissinger spoke…For the first time, Kissinger called for unconditional talks with Iran. That is a remarkable shift in his position…//….Kissinger's call was also echoed by Dennis Ross, who used to be a key negotiator in the Middle East, and carries much respect in Israel.
Bush's interviews with the government-supported Voice of America and Radio Farda, especially the latter, were a masterly piece in political overture. He held out none of the customary threats against Iran. This time, there was not even the trademark insistence that "all options are on the table". There were no barbs aimed at President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Least of all, there were no calls for a regime change in Tehran. Bush simply said something that he might as well have said about Saudi Arabia or Egypt. As he put it, "So this is a regime and a society that's got a long way to go [in reform]."
Bush spoke of the evolution of the Iranian regime's character rather than its overthrow. The criticism, if any, of Iranian government policies approached nowhere near the diatribes of the past.
Also in Information Clearing House, in the article The Secret American-Iranian Security Deal In Iraq, Roads To Iraq writes about the subtle indications that there are deals made between the US administration and the Iranian government that aims at keeping things low key in Iraq.
-Arab online newspaper published in London, is the only newspaper to report this a week ago but I waited few days to see if there is any development provides evidence to the newspaper claims, and the military campaign in Basra was what i am waiting for.
Arab online says that there are secret Iranian – American negotiations at Ahmadinejad’s visit to Iraq
Ahmadinejad offered to calm the situation in Iraq, using the three days attacks-free visit to Iraq as a demonstration of what can Iran do, the second offer is to accept the long term Iraqi – American agreement.
The deal would require certain concessions from both parties, but the driving force behind this overture from the US side seems to be to let the lame duck president leave office without having to deal with any new changes in the status of the US occupation in Iraq.
As M K Bhadrakumar writes:
The Bush administration's priority will be to leave it to the next president in the White House to decide on any major reduction of troops in Iraq. But that means the Iraqi situation will remain in focus all through the period of the presidential campaign till November. The Bush administration needs to count on Tehran's tacit cooperation with the US to use its formidable influence with Iraqi groups. Belligerence toward Iran is hardly the way the Bush administration can realize this objective.
However….
On the other hand the Iraqi government military force are engaging in a violent clamp down on the portion of the Iraq insurgency referred to as Iranian backed, which must have been at the least condoned – if not militarily supported – by the US.
In Basra, Iraqi army troops and Madhi Army gunmen loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr engaged in a firefight on Wednesday, the second day of heavy clashes. Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has given gunmen in the southern oil port city a three-day deadline to surrender their weapons and renounce armed conflict. Spiraling violence between warring factions vying for control of the center of the country's vast oil industry, located near the Iranian border, have claimed numerous casualties.
The New York Times reports:
President Bush praised Iraq’s government on Thursday for ordering the military assault in southern Iraq that has set off violence and protests across that country. Mr. Bush said the fighting demonstrated the willingness of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to impose order and defeat what he called “militia groups and fighters.”
The Real News Network makes the case for a more active US support of the Iraq government actions against the insurgents:
According to the Associated Press, a US bomb attack in the Baghdad district of Sadr City claimed at least fifteen casualties and wounded 100 after two days of fighting between US-Iraqi forces and fighters loyal to al-Sadr.
Who are these [fighters]?
They basically are Badr Organization, which is the armed wing of the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq. This is part of the government, along with the Dawa party and the Kurdish parties, and they are American allies. So these Iraqi government forces, they have been planning an attack against especially Sadrists and the Mahdi Army for months.
Now it's like they had the go-ahead to do it with American air power support. We could speculate—and if you read the Arab and Persian press, there's a lot of speculation….[that] this could have been a deal between Dick Cheney in his latest visit to Baghdad and the al-Hakim family.
The al-Hakim family controls the Supreme Islamic Council and the Badr Organization. They're part of the government. Their main rivals are the Sadr family, Muqtada al-Sadr's family, Mahdi Army.
So this is a family feud. It's very, very vicious, and it's the two most important religious families in Iraq battling for political and religious power at the same time.
This plays as well—this is crucial—into the US presidential campaign. It is by all means a war escalation.
It could have been a gift by Dick Cheney to the al-Hakim family, but it could go way beyond that.
It could be part of a deal between Cheney and the Iraqi government…[where] Cheney said, “Look, I'll support the crackdown that you want against the Mahdi Army and you want this for a month, okay. We'll support you with this. But you have to back off from your close ties that you have with Iran.”
You know, the essence of this battle of Basra, which is spilling over into the battle of Baghdad, is that it plays directly into the US presidential election.
You may bet that John McCain is going to use this as cover for his assertion that US needs to stay in Iraq for 100 years to fight terrorists
Backing the Iraqi government’s military offensive against forces at least passively supported by the Iranian government, risks creating scenarios in which the case for Iranian involvement in fomenting violence and hampering progress in Iraq can be more decisively made. An attack on Iraqi or US troops that can be linked to Iran can make the case for an official expansion of US military activities against elements of the Iranian society.
While some officials representing the view of the US administration has toned down their public hard-ball stance and military approach to Iran, McCain and Vice President Cheney seem to be involved in doing the exact opposite.
Real News Network Senior editor Paul Jay spoke to Babak Yektafar, editor-in-chief of WashingtonPrism in Washington, DC.
In a foreign policy speech John McCain made 26 March, he severely denounced Iran This came in the wake of Vice President Dick Cheney's recent visit to the Middle East.. Critics there claim Cheney's intention was not just aimed to foster peace between Israel and Palestine, but to shore up regional support against Iran.
This seem to be supported by the interview Cheney made with ABC in which he focused on the idea that Iran is a threat to these Arab regimes themselves.
BABAK YEKTAFAR: Well, first of all, I think it's interesting that in the past couple of months, two or three months, we've seen so much heightened activity by the administration, with the president, secretary of state, and now vice president, as well as secretary of defense, have been traveling to the region….I think this shows a great deal of concern among the folks at the White House that they feel compelled that they need to travel personally to try to somehow put together this coalition [against Iran].
PAUL JAY: Now, Cheney, in this quote from the ABC interview, he really focused on the idea that Iran is a threat to these Arab regimes themselves. It's not just a question of America's interest; these regimes' future is threatened by Iran….//….The McCain election strategy and the Bush-Cheney strategy seems to be pretty clear: to connect Iran with the word "terrorism." And even McCain tried to connect it with the word al-Qaeda—whether that was a mistake or not I guess one can speculate. But the connection of Iran and the war on terror seems to be what the election campaign's going to be about. And Cheney's been trying to drum up support for that in the Middle East. Is he getting it?
YEKTAFAR: Yes, absolutely…//…I don't see that much difference between what's going on right here and what went on with Iraq. It's these little words that kind of creep into these speeches. And, you know, you put these words in there just as it happened in Iraq, and eventually, you know, your hope is that you're going to turn public opinion. And once that is turned a little bit, then it's easier to kind of get the leaders of these countries on your camp to form this sort of a barrier coalition against Iran.
What is one to make of this seemingly contradictory approach taken by US officials?
I would like to suggest that, whether by design or as an unintended consequence, it might all benefit the chances of McCain winning the US Presidential Election.
It seems that the Bush administration may want to sit out the rest of the term, while the presidential hopeful McCain take its’ place as the man taking its’ place as going after Iran. This is a clever strategy, as any disappointment and insecurity resulting from a perceived “softening” in the US stance on Iran will result in powerful groups backing McCain as the man to represent their interests in the region.
Roads To Iraq again:
[The} “Iran - American” deal raised concerns in Israel. Therefore they invited McCain, the Republican candidate to visit Tel Aviv and asked him to visit Baghdad to be informed about what has been achieved [by] talking with the Iranians. [They} promised him that if the mission is successful, then he will get the support of Tel Aviv and the Zionist lobby in America presidential election.
The suspected readiness of the US government to make deals with Iran, and the quieting down of the militaristic rhetoric, will likely result in many Israelis and Israeli supporters in USA coming to McCain to push for what they see is his agenda in the Middle East – carrying on the reshaping of the region.
This is also true for those political influential groups that find the Bush administration did not go far enough in the region with the agenda of spreading what they see as “American values” to “rouge states”.
.
Judging from what McCain has made his core issues in this campaign, playing on the fears of Americans of the intents of other nations, is likely to be the primary strategy to win the election.
Creating a situation in Iraq which either provokes Iranian actions, or where violence can be attributed to Iran, will make it even more likely that McCain will win support.
For a candidate like McCain, this close to an election it would be very convenient to have a situation such as the one now in Iraq, where ongoing violence can be held out as proof of Iran’s threat to national and international security.
