Bush II, the second lap

Apropos of the editorial, 8216;Rice and the realism test8217; IE, February 8, it appears that Washington is planning for a non-military ...

Apropos of the editorial, 8216;Rice and the realism test8217; IE, February 8, it appears that Washington is planning for a non-military confrontation with Iran. The US president8217;s 8216;State of the Union8217; as indeed recent statements of US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, suggests this.

Iran and Syria are America8217;s greatest concerns because of their proximity to Iraq. His government is of the strong opinion that both these countries are actively obstructing the creation of a new post-Saddam Hussein order in that country. Both the US and Iraqi officials believe that foreign fighters are coming across the Syrian border and have been trained in Syria to fight in the insurgency.

Washington had accused Syria in the past of sending military equipment to Iraq during the US-led invasion last year and of WMD proliferation. Now it appears that Bush has identified his priorities more clearly and is not as concerned about WMD proliferation as Iraq and Palestine. Although, in his address, Bush made a rhetorical demand that Iran should dismantle its nuclear programme, his blaming of Iran appears to be more of a warning that Iran should not meddle in Iraqi affairs. Interestingly, he has refrained from identifying with North Korea in spite of recent evidence of their uranium supplies and Libya linkages. He did this probably because that trail leads to Pakistan and he does not wish to rake up the issue at this juncture.

Bush8217;s Syria concerns have an added dimension. Syria is now the only Arab challenger to Israel8217;s hegemonic ambitions in the region. Even though Syria closed down the offices of the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Damascus last year under US pressure, the Americans believe that Syria continues to support the Hamas covertly.

From all indications, Iraq will dominate Bush8217;s second term as well. But the president8217;s State of the Union address failed to give clear pointers about the likely withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. While he did not signal a radical shift in his foreign policy, he indicated that at least for the time being he is not going to depend entirely on military options. After the Iraq war, Bush has probably realised that in order for diplomacy to work the US would need a lot of cooperation and support from a wide array of countries and that it may be useful to invest a little in this effort. Rice8217;s travels also seem to underline this shift.

In the end, the question is: how is the American president going to handle Iran and Syria? Initially, he may opt for new economic and diplomatic measures, particularly against Syria. But his major problem is Iran 8212; mainly because of its considerable influence over Iraq. Politically and militarily the Americans are in no position to conduct operations against any other state. So, the major issue is how is America going to regain its influence in a region where it lost out 26 years ago 8212; at the time of the Iranian revolution.