tick tick tick...

[Guest guest]

what was i saying about comparisons to WWI....

 

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.

 

 

If George Bush said that the Earth was flat, the headline would read, " Views

Differ on Shape of the Earth "