How Likely Do You Rate the Chances of a US military Confrontation with Iran?

Although I don't think Bush is entirely stupid, clearly he doesn't have the breadth of understanding of Islamic history to be aware of such distinctions. In other words, No. I don't think what you refer to as the "classic struggle between Arabian and Iranian Islam" plays any part in Bush's rhetoric.

As for Bush's relationship with the House of Saud, that -- along with vested US interests in close relations with the Saudis -- has definitely shielded them from some of the embarrasment and negative fall out you would expect given their role in funding the Wahabi movement as well as the fact that many of the 9/11 hijackers were indeed Saudis. Of course, it is also true that despite Saudi Arabia's role in encouraging that barbaric theology, they are themselves threatened by its more recent political militancy. More so when they allowed American troops to camp in Saudi Arabia in the build up to the first Gulf war, as many of these Wahabis began focusing some of their anger at the House of Saud as well.

 

Section 106,

Nah, don't worry about the Saudis in those regards. They are a corrupt lot, mostly worrying about keeping what they have. Even their past support for Wahabism, though partly influenced by the antecedent legacy of the House of Saud, was to large extents to counter Iranian influences. The Saudis are no adventurers and what motivates the Bush administration is not found in Michael Moore's version of events either.

The Bush administration is influenced by what wins politically; by the alliances that have emerged and show powerful in the Republican party; as well as by the ideology of some who are referred to as neoconservatives. The latter have an agenda that is primarily about power: American imperial power, albeit serving (incidentally or perhaps quite intentionally) a Likudnik vision of Israel.

Some of the prominent neocons were ex-Democrats: Jewish intellectuals that saw the Soviet alliance with the Arab world, as well as growing sympathy among some in the left for the Palestinian cause following the 1967 war, as providing good grounds to change parties and shift focus. That is because while the Democratic party was and is the bastion of mainstream Jewish groups, its dovish attitudes on the Soviet Union and its leftist alliances didn't auger well for this group who shared the vision of the Likud -- which itself was rising in power and influence in Israel in the 1970s, challenging and then supplanting Labor's past dominance of Israeli politics. Hence, these Jewish intellectuals not only became Republicans, but became stauch anti-Soviet militarists as well.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, and as the Likud-Labor divide in Israel became more prominent in the wake of the Oslo peace process, these folks came up with a swell idea! First, they promised the Republicans inroads into the traditional Jewish vote and money by forging an even stronger alliance with Israel: one with the Likud faction in that country, as opposed to Labor. That sounded good to Republican political strategists.

Second, by arguing that Israel's enemies, including so-called militant Islam, were America's new enemies, they provided the so-called Military-Industrial Complex and the national security lobbyists a new agenda to feed their coffers and their sense of self-importance. Those folks certainly didn't mind!

Third, they found that their peculiar ideas about Israelis interests could find a receptive audience in another part of the emerging Republican party coalition: evangelican Christians. The latter believed in helping along Bible prophesies that made the Likud positions appear moderate!

Lastly, and importantly, these folks knew that regardless of internal differences, when push came to shove, they could even count on some support from traditional (democratic) Jewish groups as well.

Add the inroads these folks have made in media outlets, from FOX, to the American Spectator, as well as many so-called think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (among many others), they became a powerful force in American politics. In this equation, 9/11 was an unexpected God send for these folks, allowing the vision they had articulated in PNAC and the policy paper prepared for Netenyahu to be actually implemented. And since these folks don't always play "nice" and "clean", and are pretty good at character assasination, and with the hysteria that emerged from the 9/11 tragedy, the neocons became the power brokers in Washington.

The neocon vision is stuck in the quagmire that became Iraq, although they didn't totally lose in their objectives and prescriptions either. Central to their quest was undermining American respect/support for international institutions such as the UN as well as traditional allies in Europe (both seen as restraints on American power, as well as being unfriendly to Likud's Israel). They managed some success in that regard, even if they didn't enjoy the total rout they might have hoped. Additionally, they have managed to frame debate for who knows how long as revolving around the "US versus Militant Islam/Terrorism - and anyone else who dares to speak out against the US/Israel ("You are either with us or against us").

Of course, if all this happens to help some corporations and feed in the coffers of friendly industries and companies, that is not something they mind either. But economically, there is far more money to be made by a different set of policies, both for the US, as well as even for some of these companies. Politically, the House of Saud is as nervous about what is going on with American politics, as anyone else. While in the past the Republicans were seen as friendly, and the Democrats hostile, today they see the Republicans have dangerous ideas while the Democrats have even more hostility than before!

 

The issue is not about whether the US has reason to be concerned about radical Islam. The issue is how the problem has been sold to the American public? And to what end? Otherwise, long before Bush and the rise of influence of neocons, much of US policy has focused on combatting the spread of radical Islam. At least those aspects of which were encouraged by the Iranian revolution, which incidentally left the part encouraged by Saudi/Wahabi money go largely unnoticed until 9/11.

I have no problem with the US fighting "radical Islam" on behalf of its true ideology: one that emphasizes democratic government under rule of law. One that respects rule of law in international relations as well as tries to foster it in domestic politics of various nations. But the agenda of neoconservatives only takes some of these slogans, and then diverts them to very different ends. The long term objectives are laid out in PNAC. The immediate plans and the tactical nuances are suggested in the position paper written for Netanyahou ("Securing the Realm..."). The biases are found in numerous writings by these groups for several years, where they were busy (as busy as Islamic radicals) in makings sure Oslo process fails. Their Republican party coalition and alliances are equally clear and openly forged. None of it is a real conspiracy, in the sense that was undertaken secretly.

If you want international law and international institutions to be undermined; if you believe the American's traditional European allies are whimps that get in the way; if you want the US to establish an imperial presence in the Middle East, accepting only Israel (and countries friendly to it) as friends and everyone else as present or future enemies; if you want to give Israel a free hand to do as it pleases in the region; if you want the US to engage in a "long war" in the name of terorrism but which actually encourages its growth and practices its methods; if you think America's interests is found that sort of a direction, then you should be happy with Bush and company.

In the meantime, just because many conspiracy theories are stupid, it doesn't mean an actual plan that is laid out in writring by prominent figures in and around the Bush administration, which has a propoganda machine led by FOX, and which is being carried out with the help of events, doesn't exist.

 

One thing I must add is that in the wake of 9/11, the fight against "radical Islam" was within America's grasp to win. And win decisively. The world was united at the time to root out the real problem. Even in Iran, with the reformists hoping the events would help undermine the hardliners, the signs were good and promising. But all that goodwill, and the opportunities it presented, were thrown out the window in the quest to serve a different agenda regardless of the slogans.

That agenda is the neocon agenda. Even the wide use of that label in American political discourse, including the mainstream press, as well as its avowed and unapologetically stated objectives, should tell you that this is no exercise in "conspiracy" theory.

 

I did not say "George W. Bush" is a "neoconservative". I have outlined the neoconservative agenda, and how that agenda crept in American (Republican party) politics - as well as how it eventually found inroads in US foreign policy. Their influence and counsel, though not without dissenting voices, is in the direction laid out by their own writings. That direction is the one I have suggested, while a passionate focus on Israeli interests (in reality Likud's vision of it) is a central tenet of neoconservative thought. That is not in dispute; it is part of any basic definition of what it means to be a neoconservative these days. The kind of definition you would find in such radical papers as the Christian Science Monitor.

As for what goes on in the mind of George W. Bush, that is an exercise I leave to others. Except to note that, in the arena of foreign policy, whatever his personal motivations, the policies he adopted were (largely) the ones the neoconservatives were advocating.