Fwd: [ NOLA_C3_Discussion] The Pin in the Grenade

[Guest guest]

The Pin in the Grenade

 

 

 

The Pin in the Grenade

By William Rivers Pitt

t r u t h o u t | Perspective

 

Monday 24 July 2006

 

There is no way to tell exactly how this Middle East upheaval is going

to unfold, and making any sort of prediction is a dangerous game. There are,

however, a number of disparate factors threaded through this situation that,

if allowed to coalesce, will create an unspeakably dangerous convulsion that

will be felt all across the globe.

 

Any first step toward this dangerous convulsion would involve other

Middle East nations besides Israel and Lebanon actively becoming involved in

the conflict. Syria, which shares a border with both Israel and Lebanon, is

a prime candidate for this possible entry.

 

The New York Times reported on Sunday that Israeli ground forces have

pushed deeper into Lebanon as they press their fight against Hezbollah

guerrillas. Israeli defense minister Amir Peretz said, " The army's ground

operation in Lebanon is focused on limited entrances, and we are not talking

about an invasion of Lebanon. "

 

Also on Sunday, Syrian information minister Moshen Bilal told the

Spanish newspaper ABC, " If Israel makes a land entry into Lebanon, they can

get to within 20 kilometers of Damascus. What will we do? Stand by with our

arms folded? Absolutely not. Without any doubt Syria will intervene in the

conflict. I repeat, if Israel makes a land invasion of Lebanon and gets near

us, Syria will not stand by with arms folded. It will enter the conflict. "

 

This warning was leveled within the context of a cease-fire discussion

proffered by Syria by way of Spain. The discussion would require direct

talks between Syria and the United States, something the Bush administration

has thus far dismissed, and would further require Israel to return the Golan

Heights to Syria, something Israel would almost certainly balk at. The

offer, in short, appears to be a non-starter, even as Israeli forces push

deeper into Lebanon despite Syrian threats of open involvement.

 

If conflict between Israel and Syria breaks out, the fighting will in

all likelihood not stay between them alone. Syria and Iran signed a mutual

defense pact not so long ago, which means fighting one could be tantamount

to fighting both. While Israel's military capabilities are undeniably

substantial, a war against Syria or Iran, or both, would be no simple task.

 

Beyond the dangers involved in such a clash lies the potential for a

widened conflict that draws the United States in. Iran's batteries of

Sunburn missiles, if unleashed from their mountainous shoreline overlooking

the Persian Gulf, could attack heavy American warships patrolling those

waters. The Sunburn has the capability of defeating Aegis radar systems, so

damage to the American fleet could be severe. Iran likewise has the ability

to, overnight, bring their fight against Israel to the American soldiers in

Iraq; Iran's Shiite allies all across Iraq can introduce a whole new front

in that struggle.

 

There are also economic ramifications to consider. If Iran is attacked,

or if their government chooses to squeeze the Western world, they could

decide to turn off the petroleum spigot. Gas prices in America climbed again

through the middle of July, but a disruption of petroleum distribution on

this level would send those prices skyrocketing and badly shake the global

economy.

 

Syria, if pressed into a corner by Israel's effective attacks, could

choose to break the seal on the final and most dangerous option: their

stockpile of chemical weaponry. If gas bombs are used against Israeli

troops, and explode within Israel's borders, the situation will spiral

completely out of control. Israel would erupt in rage and visit a terrible

retribution on both Syria and Iran.

 

Today, across the Middle East, anger at Israel's military actions in

Lebanon and America's unconditional support for this seethes in every

capital city. The San Jose Mercury News has reported, " Even in the Christian

sections of Beirut, which are largely immune to the violence, anger at

Israel is growing. 'If they keep targeting civilians like this, they're only

hurting themselves,' said Riad Khattar, the Christian owner of an Internet

cafe in Beirut. 'Even the Christians are now starting to support Hezbollah.

This was not the fact before the war. By killing civilians, they are making

Hezbollah stronger and stronger.' "

 

Should Israel envelop Iran and Syria in a massive retaliatory attack,

that seething anger could boil over. Even the Arab governments who chastised

Hezbollah would be forced to choose between opposing Israel or being

themselves toppled by the swell.

 

Here, then, we reach one of the most frightening possibilities in all

this. If such an eruption of anger reaches Pakistan, , whose hard-core

fundamentalists are umbilically and spiritually tied to their Taliban

neighbors in Afghanistan, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf could be

faced with a sudden revolution. Such a revolt would come both from his

population and from within the ranks of his Taliban-friendly military. If

his government is toppled, the world will be faced with the fact that a

nuclear power has been overthrown by Islamic extremists.

 

There is today in Pakistan an American special forces unit whose sole

purpose is to secure and remove that nation's nuclear arsenal in the event

of revolt. If that unit loses the race to get hold of the weapons,

Pakistan's nuclear weapons will be loose amid a hellbroth of anti-Israeli

and anti-American rage all across the region.

 

If this last bit involving Pakistan seems too farfetched, someone should

let the editors of the Los Angeles Times know. The following appeared in the

Opinion section of their Sunday edition: " Al Qaeda has had Pakistani

President Pervez Musharraf in its sights for years, and the organization

finally gets its man. Pakistan descends into chaos as militants roam the

streets and the army struggles to restore order. India decides to exploit

the vacuum and punish the Kashmir-based militants it blames for the recent

Mumbai railway bombings. Meanwhile, U.S. special operations forces sent to

secure Pakistani nuclear facilities face off against an angry mob. "

 

At this point, the scenario becomes unutterably grim for the Americans

who think this fight does not involve them. It was, after all, the violence

between Israel, Palestine and Lebanon back in the 1980s that inspired men

like Ramsi Yousef to attack the World Trade Center in the first place. The

Bush administration would be largely powerless to stop these attacks,

because anti-terror funding has been redirected to bean festivals in Indiana

instead of major capitols and seats of infrastructure, and because our

first-warning intelligence services have been savaged in an ideological

purge.

 

The exact kind of violence taking place today is what brought terrorism

to our shores. If it is allowed to continue or expand, there is no guarantee

that it will not return here again. If the scenario involving the fall of

Pakistan becomes a reality, everyone between Portland ME and Portland OR

will be hiding under their beds.

 

The Bush administration has proven to be allergic to any negotiations or

cease-fire talks that would come close to returning matters in the Middle

East to what they call the " status quo. " While it is true that a cessation

of violence at this point would amount to little more than putting the pin

back in the grenade, this is far more preferable course than allowing the

grenade to go off.

 

This isn't just about them, over there. This is about us, over here, as

well. The nightmare scenarios here must be avoided at all costs.

 

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling

author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know

and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence.