Zelikow: What does he know?

I’ve spent more time today wondering why, exactly, Phil Zelikow yesterday chose to resign from what looked like his dream job as Condi Rice’s “Counsellor”, and to do so in a way that was abrupt and woefully inadequately explained.
I have wondered, too, about the timing and other aspects of the peace overture that Israeli PM Olmert made to the Palestinians yesterday. Again, it looked fairly abrupt and ill-prepared, and was not discernibly part of any broader peace move in the region.
And I’ve wondered about why Bush, Cheney, and Rice all suddenly decided to start criss-crossing the Sunni Arab world in these particular days…
And then, over at this post on Badger’s “Missing Links” blog, I read his rendering of an article that Abdel-Bari Atwan has in Al-Quds al-Arabi… (scroll down some on Badger’s post there; for various reasons I don’t find the Zaman piece he quotes from at the top there particularly credible or interesting)… And I started to see that there is indeed a possible “single cause” that could explain all three of the above, slightly strange developments…
And that would be, that Zelikow might have learned (or deduced) that Bush and Olmert have reached agreement on a plan for the speedy launch of a military attack on Iran.
Yes, I know, I know, I know: no such attack can even possibly be said to “make any sense”, either militarily or politically. (That’s why, if he had learned of it, the intelligent realist Zelikow would have resigned.)
I also recall, with some pride, that in all the months leading up to the recent midterm elections, I publicly dismissed the fears that so many other commentators were voicing, that the Bushites might launch an attack on Iran as part of their pre-election campaigning.
I was right on that.
And I still think it would be a crazy, crazy, and very destructive thing to do. But Bush has fewer domestic political constraints against doing something extremely foolhardy now than he had before the election. He himself will, of course, never be running for re-election, and now it’s a long two years till any of his GOP comrades have to run again… And anyway, nowadays many of the Democrats coming into the majority in the Congress have already been baying for blood against Iran. So if a military strike is launched against Iran in the upcoming period, when that venture turns into the quite predictable and inevitable regionwide (and possibly global) debacle and when, as is extremely likely, the lives of hundreds of US service people in Iraq would end up being put at direct risk because of this attack, the Democrats will already be there in the majority positions on Capitol Hill and, with most of them having also joined the clamor for an attack against Iran, they will be be forced to take some of the responsibility for that aftermath.
But why the apparent hurry around whatever it is the Bushites seem currently to be planning?
Well, GOP “adult” Jim Baker and Democratic “adult” Lee Hamilton are about to come out with the recommendations of their Iraq Study Group. Which almost certainly will include a strong recommendation that the US needs to include both Syria and Iran in the diplomacy over how to de-escalate the situation inside Iraq. The Israelis absolutely hate that idea. So, I’m sure, does the chief asset whom the hardline Israelis still have as an ally within the Bush administration, Elliott Abrams. Abrams, remember, is now the number-two person in the National Security Council and in charge of all the NSC’s work on the Middle east, except Iraq. (So yes, that would indeed include Iran, and all those big Sunni Arab states… and Israel.)
In this article in today’s Newsweek, Abrams is described as perhaps being the neocons’ “best hope for keeping President Bush onboard”. The Newsweek writers also quote an un-named senior administration official as saying, “Bush has enormous regard for him.” (And as I recalled earlier today, there had been some reports recently that Zelikow had been angling for Abrams’ present position. But even his good friend and long-time collaborator Condi Rice failed to win it for him. So Bush must really like having Abrams there.)
… So maybe all the haste with which Olmert and the Bushites are acting these days has to do with them trying to pre-empt the recommendations that the ISG are expected to come out with? After all, once the relatively sage recommendations of the wise adults of both parties are out there publicly on the table, and framing the national debate, it would be a lot harder for Bush and Olmert to launch a military adventure against Iran, unconstrained by political realities.
(Bush and Olmert would have to create some kind of an immediate “pretext” for the attack. But doing that need not be hard to arrange.)
So maybe all the present visits by Bush and his high-level acolytes to Sunni countries are related not so much to planning regarding Iraq, but to some final advance planning for a military strike against Iran that may be fairly imminent?
In the event that such a plan is afoot, it is not clear to me whether the US or Israel (or both?) would actually launch the strike. But either way, getting overflight agreements and other arrangements worked out in advance with some key, large Arab states in locations like, for example, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, would be an extremely helpful part of the planning.
And whether Israel or the US (or both) do go ahead and launch any kind of a military strike against Iran, I repeat: the affair will absolutely certainly turn out very badly for the US and for US troops and allies throughout the whole region.
… Gosh, I certainly hope I’m wrong on this one. But many pieces of evidence do, suddenly, seem to be coming together in this very worrying direction.

21 thoughts on “Zelikow: What does he know?”

  2. This scares me. Israel tried to get the US to turn immediately east after invading Iraq, at least partly by using double agent reports to charge Iran was using Hezbollah, both against US forces in Iraq and to train Shia forces which would later fight the US in Iraq. Why Iran would find Hezbollah so necessary to train troops who had spent years in Iran was never addressed, save for the suggestion that Hezbollah had a certain eclat having driven Israel out of South Lebanon — an argument strengthened by this summer’s Hezbollah victory.
    The Bushies may not be smart enough to see what will happen in Iran. That’s not an illigitimate Arab government. It used half-armed divisions of boys against the Iraqis, and worse will await us if we invade. Our already depleted forces will get crushed by large and organized guerrilla forces that will make Iraq look like a Texas vacation, while our current enemies sharpen their knives and IEDs for wider use and Isael learns what happens when guided missles fall. Meanwhile we’ll find ourselves with no supporters, save possibly the Marshall Islands. What a disaster you’vre imagined! Surely we have people smart enough to prevent it!

  3. In Para. 11, you wrote “Syria and Iraq” instead of “… and Iran”.
    Did the Saudi’s summon Cheney to try and talk him out of it?
    What really does not make sense, though, is that this notion is completely at odds with the notion of tilting toward the Shiites in Iraq. Surely Bush would not be meeting with Maliki to inform him of plans to attack Iran.
    The Iraq invasion did not make sense, of course; but this “bombing Iran” thing makes no sense in an even more perverse way.

  4. I hope you’re wrong also, but …
    What would be Jordan’s reason for participating? I think the King, no radical lefty, has been pretty critical of the Iraq war.

  8. Helena,
    With the Baker-Hamilton report due next Monday or Tuesday (as per Carter on the radio), I don’t think they have enough time to pull it off. The fact that Abrams is one of the frontmen pushing for it is plausible, but with Cheney being the most ardent advocate of “going to Tehran”, I don’t think they need anyone to convince the White House. The Democrats and Congress are also onboard, so all that remains is the American public. And for that you can expect a little Tonkinoid scare, and leave the rest to Blitzer et al. I know nothing more than what is pubic, but am convinced that this will happen in 2007, with the wishful assumption that they will manage to do some of the clean-up by November 2008.

  9. Bloggers, politicos, journalists and academics all try to determine Bush’s intent according to various frames of logic. But Bush has never in his life done anything because of logic. His drive is for his own personal self-enhancement in his own eyes. Very early in his Presidency he made a statement to the effect that once (any) action is taken, others have to deal with this new reality that has occurred, This strategy has always worked for him. Fall out doesn’t matter; it matters even less for him now.
    I’m afraid that the world is in for some horrendous times.

  10. And, another reason why it is improbable: The DoD is in flux, and from what we read, is presently quite an administrative mess. The transition period wouldn’t seem like the best time to take such a big bite.

  11. There does seem to be a certain scary scenerio involved in the Bush/ Cheney visits to the middle east. There are obviously messages being conveyed that can only be delivered by face to face contacts between the very highest levels (considering the Bushites penchant for secrecy). The only logical conclusion is some kind of move against Iran, especially considering their moves towards being a moderating force in the crisis. It is indeed a frightening thought that only an idiot would undertake under the circumstances, but from day 1 , George W has been the classic “useful idiot.” I shudder to think where we are headed, but we are all powerless to stop the move.

  12. the peace overture that Israeli PM Olmert made to the Palestinians yesterday […] looked fairly abrupt and ill-prepared, and was not discernibly part of any broader peace move in the region.
    It’s possible, with many fewer strokes of Occam’s razor, to explain the first premise and dispute the second. The peace overture was made less than two days after an unexpected Gaza ceasefire. It’s natural that Olmert would want to respond positively to the ceasefire (which was essentially a Palestinian move although Peretz was involved in some of the groundwork), and equally natural that a response made within 48 hours might seem rough and unprepared. For that matter, Olmert’s proposal was a pastiche of at least three prior initiatives, so it didn’t really require very much preparation – the most important thing was to make an opening bid quickly, not to deliver a polished and comprehensive program.
    And as for “broader peace moves,” there are several diplomatic threads in progress if one looks for them. The ceasefire itself is one of these, as are the ongoing negotiations over a prisoner exchange, the attempts to resolve internal Palestinian divisions, yesterday’s EU-Arab-Israeli meeting, the increasing discussion of an international force in Gaza, etc. None of these is earthshaking in itself, but they’re all pieces of the same puzzle.
    This brings us to an alternative explanation of the events taking place on the Israeli-Palestinian front: that Olmert, Abbas and Haniyeh are all in a position where diplomatic progress is critical to their continued political relevance. In other words, all three parties (rather than the usual two out of three) have coinciding interests in de-escalating the conflict and returning to diplomacy. And maybe, just maybe, the parties involved, both Israeli and Palestinian, deserve some credit and encouragement.

  13. Helena, I am an American living in Beirut. I read JWN regularly, and value your ideas and opinions. This time, I pray that you are wrong. Sadly, however, you have connected all the dots and the image revealed is truly disastrous. How can we avert this catastrophe?
    Robert

  14. Jonathan, I am always prepared to give full appreciatin to anyone who wants to find negotiated ways to resolve differences, and this certainly includes Olmert (and Abbas and Haniyeh.) But if Olmert is also preparing to participate in– and continuing to instigate– a US-coordinated military attack against Iran, then that is a policy that I think needs to be strongly opposed.
    This is why it’s always important to try to separate the actions one opposes from the perpetrator. (“Love the sinner while hating the sin.”)
    It’s possible that Olmert is trying sincerely to pursue both policies. But good intentions and even good actions in one sphere don’t in any way excuse belligerent intentions and possible belligerent actions in another…

  15. Cheyney’s mission was to to assure the Saudi’s that the huge refugee flows engendered by the complete chaosification of Lebanon, disintegration of Iraq, and the impending attack on Iran, don’t overrun their borders as Syria, Jordan and Iran’s will surely be.
    He’s also prepping them for the need for Saudi taps to be opened up to mitigate the global economic crisis that will surely follow the attack on Iran, no doubt with a promise that Iranian oilfields, or at least the terminals in the Gulf, will be attacked during retaliation for the inevitable Iranian retaliatory attacks on U.S. forces in the Gulf. (This assurance will last as long as the true state of Saudi reserves – or rather lack of them – as depicted in Simmon’s persuasively detailed technical analysis of them in Twilight In the Desert, don’t leak out.)
    Co-ordinating the immense profit making opportunities in the disrupted oil markets is also as much a priority as is preparing for the local response to further Israeli depredations in the name of “security” under cover of total regional chaos. O course, Cheyney is certainly lining up further post-2008 sinecures for the gang that couldn’t shoot straight as well, should it be necessary to install the other wing of the U.S. Money Party in government in 2008 for domestic reasons.
    In any event, the attack will be coming much sooner than later in the all important electoral cycle – presuming elections even occur if Iranian retaliation in the U.S. homeland is not enough of a scare to sell the further suspension of democracy and the martial law FEMA’ing that awaits on the books.
    Calls reported today to suspend parts of Turkey’s ascension to the E.U. will surely cause large parts of Turkish society to look east rather than west, as Turkey and Iran consider which parts of the Kurdish territories each shall grab.
    There will be no derailing of Bush/Israel’s implementation of their ontological imperatives at home or abroad. Bush’s re-nomination of absurdly extreme fellow travellers for judicial appointments will give the chattering classes in and out of legislatures a distraction to work on in the interim.
    Enjoy your SUV’s while you don’t have to decide between food or fuel while you still can.

  16. Helena, I could be wrong, but you seemed to be arguing that the suddenness and ill-preparedness of the Olmert speech constituted evidence that it was a feint designed to lay the groundwork for (or distract attention from) an attack on Iran. My response was that there were other explanations that were at least equally plausible and had nothing to do with anti-Iranian designs. I apologize if I misconstrued your argument.
    One thing I might add is that neither the Gaza ceasefire nor the Olmert speech appear to have been coordinated beforehand with the United States. In fact, Condi wasn’t even planning to meet with Israeli or Palestinian leaders on her current Mideast trip, and changed her plans only after the ceasefire was announced. It doesn’t seem that these particular dots are connected.
    I agree, of course, that any attack on Iran would be an unwise and destructive move. I just don’t see all the current ME maneuvering as a sign that an attack is being planned.

  17. “unwise and destructive?” Jonathan you have a gift for understatement. And no, an attack is not being planned. The attack planning has been complete for some time now.
    There are two things one needs to know about Bush: he is a gambler and an alcoholic. I’m sure that if he were to honestly tell us what he considers his greatest accomplishment, it would be his presumed 20+ year abstinence from alcohol. His method of achieving victory over the bottle has informed all aspects of his leadership philosophy. Focus all your attention on the goal you have set for yourself. Ignore all those other voices in your head (and your ears). Never give an inch. Stay the course. As gamblers go, Bush is a poor one. He doesn’t know when to hold and when to fold. He believes in luck and angels. When faced with a choice between doubling down or cutting his losses, he goes for broke. Ergo, onward to Iran. Cheney wants it. Abrams wants it. Bolton wants it. AIPAC wants it. Dobson wants it. Half the Democrats want it. The old man thinks it’s too risky. But where was the old man when W. was kicking the booze all by himself, huh? All he needs are Laura and Barney. Everybody else can go to hell.
    My $0.02.

  18. Helena,
    I’m with on this one. I’ve been concerned for the last 2 weeks and have noted that the more intelligent regulars at Col. Lang’s site have also bee alarmed. Col. Gardiner has been of the opinion that strikes on Iran would require 3 aircraft carriers, so I’ve been monitoring the carrier readiness situation. Yesterday I found this:
    http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=26695
    which seems to show the Stennis and Reagan training for deployment as a 2 carrier strike group. Since the Eisenhower is already on station, these 2 would, if deployed, make 3. The article is about 2 weeks old and I’ve seen nothing since. I sent the link to Jeff Huber, who is a retired Navy Commander with lots of carrier experience but no word as yet as to whether this means anything. The Reagan just came from deployment but is the newest carrier in the fleet so might be able to redeploy. The article sounds as though the 2 ships have formed a new unit. Ominous.

  19. While I can’t say that you are wrong because I know better than to underestimate George Bush’s potential for sowing disaster around the world, I’d like to play devil’s advocate if I might:
    1. why would any Arab country participate in any way with this unbelievably foolhardy venture? Even if nations like Saudi Arabia or Jordan detest Iran as I’m sure they do–the fallout fr. such an attack will be huge in the Arab world & anyone seen cooperating in even the remotest way will be in for one helluva Arab hot foot.
    2. Bush appointed the ISG. Would he stick a finger in its eye by destroying its reason for being & attacking Iran? Would he risk destroying forever any relationship he has with Jim Baker who would be made to look an utter fool if we attacked Iran shortly before he was about to recommend engaging with it?
    3. While it is entirely possible that Congressional Democrats would roll over & play dead if we attacked Iran (as they did regarding Iraq), I’d like to think they would’ve learned something fr. the last disaster. Maybe you know something I don’t, but I don’t see or hear Democrat “baying” for action against Iran. Have I missed something?
    But I do agree w. you that Zelikow’s leaving is curious to say the least. I thought he’d make a great UN ambassador in a reconfigured (if such a thing is possible) Bush Administration–that is, if Baker & his views really take over–once they finally dump Bolton. But maybe the poor guy, like Colin Powell, was just tired of tilting at Cheney windmills. Could you blame him?

  20. I must be missing something here because I cannot for the life of me imagine what it is that the Bushites, despite their lack of logic or even sanity at any level, believe they would gain by attacking Iran.

Comments are closed.