[R-G] Bush blinks first as oil price dazzles

[Anthony Fenton]

Bush blinks first as oil price dazzles

What explains Washington's sudden softening attitude on Iran? Could it  
possibly be the economy?

     * Dilip Hiro
     * guardian.co.uk,
     * Monday July 21, 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/iran.usa

Is President Bush about to blink in his confrontation with Iran? Those  
who ask this question remember the episode concerning his father,  
George WH Bush 18 years ago.

In the aftermath of the United Nations economic embargo against Iraq –  
following Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 – Bush  
senior was in two minds about using force to Margaret Thatcher. "Don't  
go weak at the knees, George," she exhorted him over the phone. Thus  
fortified, Bush Senior acted. Yemen's government ended the operation  
mid-way through the unloading.

This time, Bush Junior's confrontation with Iran has not reached the  
pitch that his father reached following the universal condemnation of  
Iraq's invasion and occupation of a small Arab neighbour.

Those who accept the White House's explanation that, in the dying days  
of his administration, Bush is keen to leave behind a positive legacy  
regarding Iran are being gullible. They ought to be reminded: "It's  
the economy, stupid".

Military strikes against Iran will disrupt not only oil supplies from  
Iran – the second largest producer in Opec – but also the rest of the  
Persian Gulf region, which produces 40% of the global total. The  
subsequent price hike would make $200 a barrel appear "reasonable".

It is the soaring price of oil that has concentrated the mind of Bush,  
an oilman, albeit a failed one. The doubling of oil prices in a year  
has resulted in US carmakers and airlines losing billions of dollars  
and cutting thousands of jobs

Higher oil price has led to a spurt in the cost of everything, from  
food to consumer items, and caused inflation. The banking and mortgage  
sectors in the US are in such a sorry state that US Federal Reserve  
Bank and the Treasury are labouring flat out to avert recession.

Recent American history shows that when the country is in recession,  
the party in power in Washington loses. That is what happened to Jimmy  
Carter, a Democrat president, in 1980 – and to Bush senior 12 years  
later.

Bush senior's failure to win a second term as president rankled. And  
his son, Bush Junior, was reportedly determined to win the re-election  
in 2004. He was equally resolved to finish the job that his father had  
left unfinished by failing to march to Baghdad in February 1991 to  
overthrow Saddam Hussein – a mission not authorised by the UN Security  
Council.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, there was no debate in the upper echelons  
of Bush Junior's administration regarding overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

Iraq was the first item on the agenda of the US national security  
council at its first meeting on January 30, 2001 – as revealed by Paul  
O'Neill, Bush's treasury secretary for two years, in his memoirs. It  
was the same at the second NSC meeting.

Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney, and defence secretary Donald  
Rumsfeld were of one mind, while secretary of state Colin Powell was  
marginalised. The only debate that followed was on how quickly and  
efficiently should Saddam's overthrow be accomplished.

But this time, on Iran, the situation is quite different.

For starters, unlike Powell, secretary of state Condoleezza Rice  
counts. As someone who, as national security adviser, worked closely  
with Bush for four years, before being promoted as secretary of state,  
she is one of the four principals to forge US policy on Iran. She has  
a long-standing rapport with Bush that Powell never acquired. She is  
publicly and privately committed to pursuing a diplomatic path.

By co-signing the letter that Javier Solana, the European Union's  
foreign policy chief, submitted to Iranian foreign minister Manuchehr  
Mottaki last month, along with the EU's latest incentives to Tehran  
for suspending its nuclear enrichment programme, Rice overtly  
reaffirmed her commitment to diplomacy.

Unlike his predecessor, Rumsfeld, the present defence secretary Robert  
Gates is opposed to military action against Iran.

According to an article in the New Yorker by prize-winning  
investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, in an off-the-record lunch  
with the Democratic caucus in the Senate late last year – when oil  
price was well below $100 a barrel – Gates warned of the consequences  
if Bush mounted a pre-emptive strike on Iran:

"We'll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be  
battling our enemies here in America," he said.

So, of the four top policymakers in Washington, two are decidedly  
against military strikes on Iran. That leaves Dick Cheney as the lone  
warrior – with Bush junior in the same state of mind as his father was  
when an oil tanker started unloading its cargo into Aden's storage  
tanks. And 10 Downing Street is occupied by Gordon Brown, a Hamlet  
from Scotland.