W.O.T. Grand Strategy

In an extraordinary op-ed piece, the most knowledgeable Islamic scholar in the most conservative major US publication predicted that WWIII may start on August 22 - next week! - as a nuclear war.  Bernard Lewis in The Wall Street Journal believes that Iran will respond to recent moves by the US, Israel and moderate Islamic nations by doing something dramatic on one of the most honored dates in Islam - the date when Mohammed ascended to Heaven from the Far Mosque (Jerusalem).   Iran may even pop off a nuke.  Whether this is popped in the desert or on Tel Aviv remains to be seen. 

How did it come to this?  The recent exposure of an Islamic plot in England to use liquids to blow up flights to the US is just the latest in a series of very public signals by the US, moderate Islamic nations and Iran.  A possible Grand Strategy for the War On Terror (WOT) is emerging out of the wreckage in Iraq, and it is directed at Iran. The story of the last few months is a remarkable geopolitical drama unfolding before the whole world, if we only have the eyes to see it. 

For the analysis that follows, I am indebted to John Mauldin, whose newsletter occasionally includes reports from Stratfor, a group of analysts of geopolitical events that have done marvelous analyses since the Iraq War. John sent around a report entitled "Breakpoint in Iraq: What Went Wrong" by By George Friedman.

The story begins with the Iran revolution in 1979. In the 1980's, the US backed Saddam as a Sunni counterweight to Iranian Shi'ite ambition. The traditional policy of empires is to have the states at the edge fight each other so they don't gang up on the center. The bloody Iraq/Iran war in '80s was a consequence, and Iran was momentarily blocked. Saddam's ego overcame his sense, and he invaded Kuwait. First Gulf War. Bush Sr, one of our most geopolitically experienced Presidents, was not stupid enough to go into Iraq afterwards. My brother, who is a senior US diplomat and at the time was seconded to the Bush (Sr.) White House as a press liaison, told me that Bush knew that we could go in, but not get out. It would also potentially destabilize the region and undermine our counterbalance strategy against Iran.

The nexus of the WOT shifts to Al Qaeda from Iran. Clinton dithers. Bush Jr takes over and before 9/11 planned to invade Iraq. Bloodlust? His invasion has destabilized the region. No Sunni counterbalance to Iran. The nexus of terrorism shifts back to Iran.

Now, the key events. The Sunnis signal they are satisfied in Iraq - and out the #2 of Al Qaeda. We signal our support, and announce a troop withdrawal. Both sides wait for the Shi'ites in Iraq, and Iran throws in a monkey wrench by unleashing Hezbollah on Israel. As Stratfor put it:

[T]he fundamental question was whether the Sunnis would buy into the political process in Iraq. We expected a sign, and we got it in June, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed -- in our view, through intelligence provided by the Sunni leadership. The same night al-Zarqawi was killed, the Iraqis announced the completion of the Cabinet: As part of a deal that finalized the three security positions (defense, interior and national security), the defense ministry went to a Sunni. The United States followed that move by announcing a drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq, starting with two brigades. All that was needed was a similar signal of buy-in from the Shia -- meaning they would place controls on the Shiite militias that were attacking Sunnis. The break point seemed very much to favor a political resolution in Iraq.

It never happened. ... Rather than reciprocating with a meaningful political gesture, the Shia intensified their attacks on the Sunnis. ...

Part of the explanation is undoubtedly to be found in Iraq itself. ...

But there was also another factor that appears to have been more decisive: Iran. It is apparent that Iran not only made a decision not to support a political settlement in Iraq, but a broader decision to support Hezbollah in its war with Israel. In a larger sense, Iran decided to simultaneously confront the United States and its ally Israel on multiple fronts -- and to use that as a means of challenging Sunnis and, particularly, Sunni Arab states.

Iranian ambition is a threat to moderate Islamic states: Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Pakistan. With the loss of Iraq, where is the counterbalance? With Lieberman losing to Lamont, and the Democrats suddenly sounding like anti-war doves, they could no longer count on US resolve. How would they react? Would they pull back, or signal support of the US?

Pakistan outed the London bombers the day after the Lieberman defeat to signal back. They back US efforts to oppose Iran. Suddenly progress is made towards a cease fire in Lebanon, and we call off the Israelis.

The next shoe to drop is Iran.  Will Iran blow up a bomb, or back down? Watch on August 22. 

After that, if Iran does some dramatic, in-your-face event, let me predict the next signal: Pakistan to out Bin Laden, who is holed up in the mountains of Pakistan. Presumably they have known where he is, but are playing both sides. Now they have to choose.

Given all of these moves, we can now pull together a Grand Strategy on the War On Terror, which looks a lot like the strategy of the Cold War:

• Containment of Iran and the Islamo-fascist movement
• Marshall Plan to bolster economies of moderate Islamic states - Turkey to enter EU
• Bipartisan support - meaning Republicans plus the Clinton wing of the Democrats
• Coalition of the West, including Europe and Russia
• Cut and stay in Iraq - leave troops in Iraq in bases as potential threats against Iran, Syria.

Is Bush Jr up to this? Condi appears to be. If Bush fails to pull this off, look for the political tides to shift. Hillary in 2008?

Comments

[rdneu56]

I propose to give Saddam a clean shave, put him in a nice suit and place him back at the controls, in order to claen up this mess in Iraq. The balance of power in the Middle East would be restored at once.

[Dow Predator]

Wave 2 could have ended on my Fibonacci date of August 18-21. (Posted on your blog by Dow Predator before the STU, like 2 weeks ago).

The August 22 date could be important because Wave 3 of 3 down should be starting. Time will tell, but I think it is extremely dangerous to be long in this market. On waves 3 down, the "bad news" come along with a collapse on the market.

Lets patiently wait for the outcome.

Dow Predator

[Dow Predator]

The August 22 date might have been important. Time will tell but this date migth have been the last opportunity to sell. The Dow Jones made a top on August 22 and has not been broken so far.

Dow Predator