Der Irak-Reporter des New Yorker, George Packer, hat ein grosses Stück über die Pläne und Szenarios für einen amerikanischen Rückzug geschrieben, den man lesen sollte („Planning for Defeat“). Packer hat auch ein interessantes Blog. Da veröffentlicht er Auszüge aus Gesprächen, die er nicht verwenden konnte – etwa mit Lee Hamilton (vom Baker-Hamilton-Report) und mit Zalmay Khalilzad, dem ehemaligen Afghanistan-Berater der Bush-Regierung und US-Botschafter im Irak, heute UN-Botschafter der Vereinigten Staaten. Khalilzad, der letzte verbliebene Neocon (der allerdings Kreide gefressen hat), sagt ein paar kluge (und beängstigende) Dinge in dem Interview:

And the region is so important for the world now. I compare it to Europe in the first part of the twentieth century, when most of the world’s security problems came from that dysfunctional region, and now we’ve got this region that’s causing all these difficulties.

Würde man heute so auch nicht mehr machen: Khalilzad beim Chef, 2003 Foto: White House

The ultimate beneficiaries of a regional war might be radical Islamists, whom Khalilzad sees as representing a tendency that’s at the heart of Islam itself:

This sort of scenario could strengthen a streak within Islam which is present in its doctrine but is not shared by everybody who is Muslim. In this time, when there is a crisis of Islamic civilization about how to cope in this world and why Muslims are situated the way they are right now, there is a stream which says, “We have to go to a kind of puritanical Islamic rule and fight against the Christians or others until the world is Muslim. There cannot be peace until we have converted everybody to Islam.” That streak exists in the doctrine; if you do a hermeneutical analysis of the texts it is there, but it is not dominant. It depends on the interpretation. The question is, Is it a reasonable, moderate, rational, civilized interpretation, or is it barbaric, extremist, uncivilized? But there is in Islam that element, and that element is assisted by some of the things that are happening to be more pronounced. And I believe that this crisis of Islam at the present time—and what we talked about in Iraq in particular—goes beyond Iraq. This is the issue of our time, geopolitically. It’s not a handful of people; it’s a huge crisis. I think that this affects a lot of people around the world, not only us. This is a threat to Europe—there’s no question they are afraid of Islamic extremism in Europe.

Norman Podhoretz, führender Neocon der ersten Generation, weiss einen Ausweg aus dem Irak-Krieg und aus dem Dilemma um die iranischen Atomanlagen. Er rät dem Präsidenten in einem umfangreichen Essay in Commentary:

„As we know from Iran’s defiance of the Security Council and the IAEA even while the United States has been warning Ahmadinejad that “all options” remain on the table, ultimatums and threats of force can no more stop him than negotiations and sanctions have managed to do. Like them, all they accomplish is to buy him more time.

Norman Podhoretz (rechts) mit einem befreundeten Ehepaar

In short, the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force—any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938.

Since a ground invasion of Iran must be ruled out for many different reasons, the job would have to be done, if it is to be done at all, by a campaign of air strikes. Furthermore, because Iran’s nuclear facilities are dispersed, and because some of them are underground, many sorties and bunker-busting munitions would be required. And because such a campaign is beyond the capabilities of Israel, and the will, let alone the courage, of any of our other allies, it could be carried out only by the United States.“

The ONION hat die beste Geschichte über Bushs Niederlage im Kongress und die Folgen:

WASHINGTON, DC—President Bush announced Monday that his administration will permanently sever ties with the democratically controlled United States Congress, ending a nearly 220-year-old alliance between the two governmental branches.

After six years of cordial relations between the executive and legislative branches of government, tensions flared up in January when Congress came under the control of „hostile new leadership.“ After a dramatic standoff last week over American policy in Iraq, the president openly denounced Congress, refused to accept calls from majority leaders, and returned Congress–approved legislation unsigned and unread.

In addition to his decision to cut off all communication, collaboration, and trade of ideas with the House and Senate, Bush also issued an executive order, effective immediately, removing all White House officials from the U.S. Capitol. Most prominent among those recalled was Vice President Dick Cheney, who also serves as the President of the Senate several days per year. Cabinet members who had been giving testimony before Congressional committees were quickly ushered to the roof of the Senate wing of the Capitol, where they boarded Marine One, the presidential helicopter, and were flown back to the White House.

Cheney, speaking from an undisclosed location, said the White House’s policy toward a Democratic Congress has always been regime change.

„These people acted as though they had control over domestic issues, and were threatening to affect international policy, as well,“ Cheney said. „It was clearly time to put a check on this antiquated, ineffective system of checks and balances.“

Bush also increased the presence of Secret Service personnel stationed at the checkpoints connecting the Capitol to the White House.

Ein Alarmruf des amerikanischen Kritikers Danny Postel: In der Debatte um den Iran fällt die demokratische Opposition im Iran zwischen die Ritzen. Die Linke (nicht nur sie) ist in Gefahr, sich im Widerstand gegen Kriegspläne zu verschleissen und die reiche Szene von iranischen Liberalen zu ignorieren, die keinen Krieg wollen, aber auch das Regime im Iran bekämpfen. Ganzer Artikel hier:

What the neocons want in Tehran is a pro-U.S. and pro-Israeli regime; whether it’s a democratic one or not is an entirely secondary matter to them. And Iranian dissidents know this, which is why they want nothing to do with the neocons. Note that the funds the State Department earmarked last year for democracy promotion in Iran met with a resounding thud among dissidents, who see right through the neocons and their agenda.

This is not only a critique of the neocons, though; it’s also a challenge to those on the Left who have bought into the neocons’ Big Lie about being the bosom buddies of Iran’s dissidents. Due to intellectual laziness, a preference for moral simplicity, existential bad faith, or some combination thereof, lots of leftists have opted out of even expressing moral support, let alone standing in active solidarity with, Iranian dissidents, often on the specious grounds that the latter are on the CIA’s payroll or are cozy with the neocons. Utter and complete tripe. Perhaps, as I say, understandable in the past, when it wasn’t as transparent what empty hogwash the neocons’ posturing was. But now that the neocons’ real cards are on the table and their pretense of solidarity with Iranian dissidents has been shattered, the Left can no longer use the neocons as an avoidance mechanism.

Danny Postel hat ein Buch über die demokratische Linke in Iran geschrieben, mit dem schönen Titel: „Reading Legitimitaion Crisis in Teheran„.

Wer sich über das Ausmass der Blauäugigkeit der amerikanischen Planungen für den Irak-Krieg informieren will, kann jetzt die Power-Point-Folien einsehen, die im CentCom (Central Command) der amerikanischen Streitkräfte für General Tommy Franks angefertigt wurden, damit dieser im August 2002 Präsident Bush briefen konnte.

Wie auf der obigen Grafik ersichtlich, sollte in Phase IVc („Transition“) 18 Monate nach der Inavasion ein nahezu völliger Rückzug der US-Truppen stattgefunden haben. Nur 5000 Soldaten (5K) wären dann noch im Irak.

Eine Website der George-Washington-Universität hat das Material zugänglich gemacht. Link hier.

Diese und andere hilfreiche Hinweise und aufsehenerregende Materialen (wie auch die schönen Elvis-Nixon-Fotos samt Briefverkehr zwischen König und Präsident) finden sich auf den Seiten des National Security Archive.

Francis Fukuyama, Theoretiker des „Endes der Geschichte“ und reuiger Ex-Neocon

Der Politikwissenschaftler Francis Fukuyama, ein anfänglicher Befürworter des Irak-Kriegs, der sich zum scharfen Kritiker der Bushies entwickelt hat, mischt sich jetzt auch in die amerikanischen Strategiedebatte über Iran ein.

Bei einem einem Auftritt vor der Iranischen Lobbyorganisation NIAC (National Iranian American Council) plädierte er für eine Rücknahme der Maximalforderungen gegenüber Iran (Aussetzen der Anreicherung als Bedingung für Gespräche) und für ein „ernsthaftes politisches Angebot“ seitens der USA an Iran. Ich finde, er hat Recht. Link hier.

Wie will man den Eiszeit-Kurs gegenüber Iran noch länger rechtfertigen, wenn man nun selbst mit einen Horror-Regime wie Nordkorea einen Deal macht? Die US-Politik gegenüber Iran blickt auf mehr als ein Vierteljahrhundert Totalversagen zurück. Zeit, etwas Neues zu versuchen.
Zitate:

Fukuyama challenged America’s unilateral approach to Middle East foreign policy over the past 6 years, criticizing the Bush administration’s reliance on: overwhelming military might; preventive war as a nonproliferation strategy; democratization as a method of securing strategic goals, unilateralist approaches to international affairs; and what he called a lack of competence in carrying out policy objectives.

Asserting the importance of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Fukuyama reasons that stepping up economic pressure on Iran can only work if the US also pursues a „path out that involves a serious political offer.“

The theory that Iran would not respond to a deterrence strategy was questioned by Fukuyama, who described Iran as a cautious regional actor in its approach to national interests, „Iran has actually been quite pragmatic,“ he said. Fukuyama referenced the country’s dealings in the past with Israel to support his view.

Cautiousness and skepticism about forging a US-Iran alliance was expressed by the nationally renowned academic; nevertheless, he supported the advancement of more positive incentives or „carrots“ coupled with greater sticks to achieve US strategic aims with respect to Iran. For example, he preferred the forswearing of the US’s regime change ambitions in Iran and a restoration of diplomatic relations, rather than the Security Council and Germany’s (the P5+1) proposal preconditioned on a suspension of enrichment even before the talks begin.

Tiefe Einblicke ins Raumschiff Bagdad: Rajiv Chandrasekaran, ehemaliger Bürochef der Washington Post in Bagdad, erzählt Fareed Zakaria, dem Chefredakteur von Newsweek International, wie das Leben in der Grünen Zone läuft. Zitate:

„Mehr als die Hälfte der Beamten, die in der Grünen Zone in Bagdad bei der CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) arbeiteten, haben zu diesem Zweck zum ersten Mal einen Reisepass beantragt“
„Die Neokonservativen in der amerikanischen Regierung betrachteten die Arabien-Spezialisten im Aussenministerium als nicht hinreichend begeistert für die Sache der Demokratie“
„Es gab keinen der üblichen Diskussionsprozesse zwischen verschiedenen Ministerien. Alles wesentlichen Entscheidungen wurden von einer kleinen Gruppe im Pentagon getroffen“
„Mittlerweile gibt es innerhalb der völlig vom Stadtleben isolierten Grünen Zone weitere Grüne Zonen, die ihrerseits völlig abgeriegelt sind. Dort leben nicht nur die amerikanischen Beamten, sondern auch die meisten Mitglieder der Maliki-Regierung – vollkommen abgeschnitten von dem Leben der Menschen, die sie regieren sollen“

Der göttliche Bill Maher sagt alles, was man sagen muss, über die Neocon-Thinktanks und ihre falschen Voraussagen über den Irak-Krieg. Und wie sich die ganze Chose nun im Bezug auf Iran zu wiederholen droht. Click hier.

Der frühere amerikanische Sicherheitsberater (1977-1981, unter Jimmy Carter) hat heute vor dem Auswärtigen Ausschuss des US-Senats folgende scharfe Warnung an die Bush-Regierung zu Protokoll gegeben:

Zbygniew Brzezinski

It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:

1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America’s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America’s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.

2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a „defensive“ U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Der volle Text hier.

Der prominente Neokonservative hat am Sonntag bei der Sicherheitskonferenz im israelischen Herzliya gesagt, Präsident Bush werde den Iran angreifen, wenn es „ihm deutlich scheine“, dass das Land atomare Waffen erwerbe.

Die israelische Zeitung Haaretz gibt Pearle so wieder:

„President George Bush will order an attack on Iran if it becomes clear to him that Iran is set to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities while he is still in office, Richard Perle told the Herzliya Conference on Sunday. Perle is close to the Bush administration, particularly to Vice President Richard Cheney.

The leading neoconservative and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute addressed the session on Iran’s nuclear program. He said that the present policy of attempting to impose sanctions on Iran will not cause it to abandon its nuclear aspirations, and unless stopped the country will become a nuclear power.“

Das klingt schon sehr wie eine Ankündigung. Spricht Pearle als Emissär des Präsidenten? Will Bush seine Amtszeit mit einem dritten Krieg beenden, statt mit einem schmählichen Rückzug?