Pressure Politics

by emptywheel

This won't be a very organized post. But I wanted to catalog, in one place (hopefully with updates) the many different levers of power that leaders around the world are trying to use to get Israel and the Bush Administration to agree to a cease fire. Thus far, it seems like everyone has whispered threats. But thus far, no one has acted on that threat. Who will act first? And when they do, how will it alter the power structure in the Middle East?

Israel Forces Condi to Prove She's Got Sway

After the Qana bombing, it appears that Condi tried to force Israel to accept a "pause." The IDF appears to have refused to announce the pause. And soon after Condi got Olmert's agreement to a "pause," he issued public declarations that the pause was not a cease fire; the cabinet approved expanded operations in Lebanon. Olmert seems to be calling Condi's bluff, challenging her to get Bush to take action himself. He surely knows Condi is losing credibility quickly, to the Neocons' advantage, and that by obviously ignoring her entreaties, he may be able to undercut any efforts to reel Israel in.

Abdullah Threatens Oil?

Saudi King Abdullah has now twice asked Bush to get more active in the peace process in the Middle East, and the Saudi Ambassador continues to call for action.

He noted that two months ago, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, brought a letter to Bush from King Abdullah, "advocating an end to the process (of Mideast peacemaking) and instead, an implementation of peace."

"We require a sustainable peace," Turki added.

"The President expressed excitement and willingness but, alas, there was no follow through," Turki said.

One week ago, Saud, again in Washington, gave Bush another letter from Abdullah "requesting he act to help save Lebanon and its people from the terrible ordeal they are suffering. The actions of the U.S. in this matter are of vital importance."

Saudi Arabia continues to press Washington and the United Nations for an immediate cease-fire backed by an international force but "cannot stand by as our neighbors and friends suffer brutal transgressions born of a war not of their own making" and has donated millions of dollars in aid, he said.

There have been Shiite protests in Saudi Arabia, which may pressure the Saudis to get more insistent with the US. But so far, even our oil dealer has yet to force the issue.

Mubarak Threatens to Turn against Israel

Hosni Mubarak obviously has less ability to pressure the US than Saudi Arabia. Though presumably his warnings that the "whole peace process" is put at risk by Israel's actions suggest he is willing (or will be forced to, by pressure in his own country) to back away from the peace it has with Israel if Israel continues its campaign.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned Monday that the entire Middle East peace process could collapse because of Israel's fighting in Lebanon.

"Egypt, which triggered the peace process, warns of the consequences of its collapse," Mubarak said in a nationwide televised statement. "The Israeli aggression undermines the opportunities to continue it and its success."

Mubarak has come under domestic fire from opposition groups for his refusal to revoke Egypt's 1979 peace treaty with Israel.

Meanwhile, Egypt is trying to broker a deal in Gaza (which seems to be having some success), as well as a deal with Syria's Assad, with more limited success.

Curiously, as far as I know, Israel's other peaceful Arab neighbor is not making the same threats, simply labeling Qana an "ugly crime," presumably because that King Abdullah has a lot less leverage than the Saudis and Mubarak.

All three "friendly" Arab countries, though, need to see progress or risk increasing instability in their own countries, to say nothing of a loss of influence to the Shiites in the region.

Sistani Threatens US and British Troops in S. Iraq

Meanwhile, the Ayatollah Sistani is trying to maintain his own sway over of the Shiite population in Iraq. Juan Cole provides an excellent summary here.

Sistani is taking such a hard line on this issue not only because he feels strongly about it (his fatwa against the Jenin operation of 2002 was vehement) but also because he is in danger of being outflanked by Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr's Mahdi Army is said to be "boiling" over the Israeli war on Hizbullah, since after all the Sadrists are also fundamentalist Shiites and they identify with the Lebanese Hizbullah. There have already been big demonstrations in Baghdad against the Israeli attacks, to which Sadrists flocked but probably also other Shiites.

Sistani cannot allow Muqtada to monopolize this issue, or the young cleric's legitimacy will grow among the angry Shiite masses at the expense of Sistani's.

Frankly, Sistani's influence should matter to us, seeing as how he's one force pushing for a secular government in Iraq, and how any power he loses would go to one of the more militant pro-theocratic forces in Iraq. More importantly, Sistani has some ability to increase US risks in southern Iraq.

What could he do if he were ignored? Sistani could call massive anti-US and anti-Israel demonstrations. Given Iraq's profound political instability, this development could be extremely dangerous. US troops in Baghdad and elsewhere are planning offensives against Shiite paramilitary groups, so tensions are likely to rise in the Shiite areas anyway. But big demonstrations could easily boil over into actual attacks on US and British troops. Both depend heavily on fuel that is transported through the Shiite south. Were the Shiites actively to turn on the US for its wholehearted support of continued Israeli air raids, the US military could be cut off from fuel and supplies. The British only have around 8,000 troops in Iraq, and they would be in profound danger if Iraq's Shiites became militantly anti-occupation.

As Pat Lang has shown, we maintain our supply lines in Iraq with the favor of the Shiites, so such instability could produce really a catastrophic situation in Iraq for our soldiers. This seems like a pressure point good Democrats and Britains ought to be pressing (beyond an appeal to strict humanitarianism). After all, everything Israel does in Lebanon may have terrible repercussions for our own soldiers. We need to be considering those consequences.

Syria Tries to Look Tough--or Effective

Meanwhile, Syria has put its troops on high alert. Partly, they've done this because Israel has gotten closer and closer to hitting Syrian targets.

Syria so far has stayed out of the Lebanon conflict, but Israeli air strikes have increasingly come closer, with repeated raids on the Beirut-Damascus highway that links Lebanon and Syria.

No doubt Bashar al-Assad also senses that his inaction has undermined Syria's standing in Lebanon.

Al-Assad said Syria was determined to support Lebanon and would not flinch under international pressure.

"All the threatening cries by the forces of hegemony that is backing the aggression will not hold us from continuing the course of liberation and supporting our brothers and the (Hezbollah) resistance," he said.

But I suspect Israel and the US only welcome any belligerent noises Assad makes, because it would offer an excuse to widen the conflict (and because the IDF would likely have more success against Syrian troops than against Hezbollah fighters).

Iran Still Up in the Air

It's unclear how active Iran has been in Hezbollah's actions thus far. For now, though, it seems to be biding its time on more active involvement. Iranians appear to be growing increasingly angry about the Lebanese attack. And the administration hardliners appear to be emboldened by it.

There are pockets of people who say they want to go to Lebanon and fight for the Islamic cause, and as the fighting spreads, their enthusiasm has grown.

The war in Lebanon has also fueled a growing anti-American sentiment, which barely existed on the streets of Tehran before.

Even so, many people here say they do not consider this to be their war. That has infuriated the country's conservative leadership, which has pinned its regional policy on the Israeli onslaught being viewed as a plot by Israel and the United States against Hezbollah and all Muslims.

But there still appears to be a good deal of disinterest in getting further involved in Lebanon.

There was a rumor going around the Internets that Iran, too, had put its troop on alert, but that claim was withdrawn, so it might be disinformation from either side.

Meanwhile, Iran rejected the UN demand that it cease its nuclear program.

"My words are the words of the Iranian nation. Throughout Iran, there is one slogan: 'The Iranian nation considers the peaceful use of nuclear fuel production technology its right,'" Ahmadinejad said.

Would they have done so without the Lebanese attack? Yes. But they wouldn't be offering Lebanon as a convenient excuse, and they would be more isolated at the UN than they currently are. It's unclear, then, whether Iran will decide to intervene, or use the Lebanon crisis as a break from the pressure it was under itself.

Annan Gets Straw to Threaten a Labour Revolt

Meanwhile, it appears that Annan is trying to force Blair to give up his support for Bush and Israel through his own political problems. Annan directly and privately contacted Blair's former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw (remember, Straw got ousted because he didn't support an Iran invasion), no doubt to request he use Labour party dissatisfaction with Blair to pressure the Prime Minister to moderate his support.

Kofi Annan told Jack Straw of his anger at Britain's stance on the conflict in a phone call last Wednesday to the former foreign secretary, it emerged last night. The UN secretary general rang Mr Straw hours after Britain and the US blocked a call for an immediate ceasefire at the Rome summit, and a day after Israel bombed a UN monitoring position, killing four observers.

Two days later Mr Straw broke rank publicly, attacking Israel's "disproportionate" actions.

The effort (and, presumably, the self-interest of the people involved) did get Blair's cabinet to pressure him before he visited the US over the weekend.

The Observer can also reveal that at a cabinet meeting before Blair left for last Friday's Washington summit with President George Bush, minister after minister pressed him to break with the Americans and publicly criticise Israel over the scale of death and destruction.

The critics included close Blair allies. One, the International Development Secretary, Hilary Benn, was revealed yesterday to have told a Commons committee that he did not view Israel's strikes on power stations as a 'proportionate response' to Hizbollah attacks.

But so far, Blair has managed to withstand the pressure from within his own party.

Chirac Tries to Broker

Meanwhile, France (which has the most, best troops available for a possible international force) is pushing a peace plan that more nearly matches those of all players except the US, Israel, and the UK.

Permanent members of the Security Council met yesterday to discuss the French text, ahead of possible amendments today. France is spearheading the calls for an immediate ceasefire, which were backed by most countries attending last week's Rome conference. It believes a US preference for sending in troops to remove Hizbollah's arms at the same time as calling a ceasefire is unworkable. "How can international soldiers do what the Israeli army failed to do?" asked one diplomat.          

French officials argue that a political agreement is essential if the Lebanese government is to have a chance of convincing Hizbollah to accept an international force and disarm, when it has not been militarily beaten by Israel. Since France is likely to lead any international force and other possible contributors think on similar lines, this is an important consideration.

The US and Israel have both agreed in principle to an international force, so it'll be interesting to see whether the likely source of such a force can exert some pressure on how it'll be used.

Neocons Demand Double or Nothing

The Neocons in the US, though, think they don't need any French troops. They're effectively working the airwaves, calling for double or nothing on their failed gamble in Iraq. And working politics, trying to undercut any influence Condi might have. It's not clear where they think we'd get the troops or the money to carry out their insane plans. But that didn't seem to bother them with Iraq, so why would they worry about it here.

Summary

So that leaves the following threats explicitly or implicitly in play:

• Oil
• The safety of our troops in Iraq
• Tony Blair's job
• Condi's influence
• Potential troops for an international force
• Egyptian (and other) peace with Israel
• Escalating war

So far, none of these threats appear to have been sufficiently strong to change US and Israeli action. Will someone make good on those threats or will the US continue to call the bluff of all those threats?

Comments

[al-Fubar]

The Iranian mullahs are sitting so pretty in all this. They may be annoyed that their own public regards Lebanon as not much their concern, but we and the Israelis are still doing some propaganda heavy lifting for them.

The Iranian nuke program has been pushed right out of world attention. The mullahs obviously don't want the program and their country to be on the receiving end of airstrikes, but how worried can they really be? Through their influence over the Iraqi Shia, they can make the US position in Iraq several circles of hell lower than it already is, to utterly untenable.

I don't know (does anyone really know?) how much direct influence - much less control - the Iranian mullahs have over Hezbollah. But Hezbollah is serving their interests, and they have no particular reason to rein it in even if they could.

If you are an Iranian mullah, what better proof could there be that God is on your side than that He has sent you utter fools as enemies?

[emptywheel]

If you are an Iranian mullah, what better proof could there be that God is on your side than that He has sent you utter fools as enemies?

How right you are. I'm wondering if even the Sunnis are beginning to believe that, that Allah is on the side of the Shiites.

[DemFromCT]

Condi losing credibility quickly? What a 'shock and awe' surprise. This is the first subsrantive thing she's been asked to do in some time.

As you know, I'm not a Condi fan.

[emptywheel]

DemFrom

I'm not a fan either. But if we lose her, then we lose any moderation on this administration, not to mention the vehicle for negotiation at the UN. I'll take a shitty Condi over a Dick without Condi any day.

I almost wrote a post today on, whether you were COndi and had been embarrassed as publicly as Israel just embarrassed you, whether you'd quit. If she can't get Israel to stop bombing for 2 days, she's just window dressing. But she's not in a Powell position. She's obviously mucking up the plans for empire to some degree. ANd if she quit, it wouldn't have the same impact as if Colin Powell had quit on February 4, 2003.

[Mimikatz]

Don't forget the Chinese. They (and the Japanese) hold our debt. The dollar is ultimately going to fall because we can't raise interest rates much more without causing a recession. Imports (including oil) will be more expensive. But China needs our markets, so they can't let us fall too far. This is more of a long-term card, but it should not be forgotten.

And Venezuela, where Chavez has made overtures to the iranians.

[John Casper]

Great post emptywheel, organized, focussed, everything the TM doesn't do. We need the Joint Chiefs to explain the facts of life, oil, to Rummy. No, I did not intend that as a joke, but I can understand why readers might laugh.

[tryggth]

I'm beginning to toy with the idea that what we are seeing is the implementation of the real US ME policy.

Perpetual turmoil.

Why such a policy? Should the Israeli's and Arabs embrace each other rather than kill each other it would be game, set and match for global domination for the next 100+ years. Not China. Not the EU. Not SE Asia or the US. The ME would be unstoppable.

[mommybrain]

Ugh, reading Michael Ledeen is an impossible task for me. Thanks for doing it there so I don't have to do it here.

It has occurred to me that Condi is making deliberate doublecross moves. While she is in over her head, she at least seems to finally understand they've gone too far down the wrong road. Are she and Powell allies?

I'm officially nervous.

[John Casper]

From the Wall Street Journal, no charge to read it
"U.S., Israel Start to Diverge As Casualties Mount"
Peres Says Several Weeks
Needed to Crush Hezbollah;
Rice Presses for Cease-Fire
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115432690634322029-7q3XK_qkQ2fzUtV5fRa_blZjCaU_20060831.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
It's the U.S. markets that should be screaming telling Bush, Rummy, and Cheney to cave.

[Lamont]

Isreal is invading Lebanon and bombing Syria. Cease fire? The radical retired generals and intelligence officials who started this war are going to lose. It is already a lost war.

I thought the Saudis owned America's dollar?

[Sally]

While we're at it, let's threaten to free Cuba with Bush-style democracy. Rumsfeld can send in the Minutemen on the U.S. border and totally wreck the Cuban infrastructure in a day or so. And if that's not enough, send in Caleb McCarry who was named as Cuba transition coordinator of which he says, "My function is to be the senior U.S. official in charge of planning and supporting a genuine democratic transition in Cuba, and to work on it now." (For more of McCarry's unbelievable chutzpah, see The New Yorker, 31 July 2006, Letter from Cuba, Castro's Last Battle, by Jon Lee Anderson. Wikipedia also has some [scary] facts on McCarry.)

[merciless]

I thought the Saudis owned America's dollar?

Nope, just GW's heart. It's China that holds the lion's share of our debt, and they also have a big interest in acquiring Iranian oil.

If the neocons succeed in their plans to nuke Iran, China and Russia are going to be very, very unhappy. Of course, that's never stopped the neocons before, but now they'll be facing adversaries who hold real cards.

And I agree with emptywheel: As useless as she has been, Condi still has the ear of the Prez. That's why Cheney and Rummy want her out. If she goes, stock up on canned goods, is all I'm sayin.

[William Ockham]

Sistani is the one who matters. One word from him and we'll be forced to actually cut and run. At the moment, Sistani prefers for us to remain, but as Juan Cole has outlined, that can change quickly. Bush and crew have blundered themselves into a situation where one man holds their fate in his hands. I doubt they even realize that. They certainly don't realize how effectively they've been played by Iran.

[Dick Durata]

Good summary, EW. I haven't been able to decide if Condi is acting, or truly a dupe. It probably doesn't matter.
Blair seems to offer his
blessing upon the big war to come. Hold on tight.

[DemFromCT]

From First Read on Condi:

Bloomberg casts the current Middle East conflict as the biggest challenge of Rice's service: "None of her earlier missions has been as prominent or risky as Lebanon, and a failure could impair her standing at home and abroad... Rice -- who is usually spared the sharp criticism leveled at Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, especially for their handling of the Iraq war -- has found herself on the receiving end of barbs."

[Not usually spared by me. ;-)]

But the Financial Times notes that while a "growing number of moderate Republicans and former Bush administration officials are alarmed by what they call [Rice's] 'uneven-handed diplomacy' in the Middle East," "...after months of disillusionment, America's neo-conservatives have fallen in love again with the Bush administration." The story points out that "Mr Bush is largely insulated from a political backlash by the muted stance of the opposition Democrats, who are nervous of being painted as weak on national security in the build-up to mid-term elections in November."

[emptywheel]

Once again, we're afraid of saying "Boo" or, even smarter, "What a fucked up counter-productive war Israel is waging, it doesn't even help Israel keep itself safe." And our fear will probably cost us a bunch of potential seats in what should otherwise be a good election year.

[John Casper]

ew, I thought this was a really good response to your post, so I took the liberty of commenting it over here.
Hugh @ 65

John Casper from last thread but strangely on topic here.

My take on emptywheel's article is that it reflects the fact that the whole world outside of Israel and the Bush Administration oppose what Israel is doing in Lebanon and that opposition weakens us.

Syria and Iran aren't doing anything right now because they don't have to. It's not like they forced Israel to overreact in the violent and pointless way it has. Israel's brutality and impotence are making all their points for them and they don't have to do a thing.

Regional allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are dismayed in public and infuriated in private. They don't like Hezbollah and would not have minded Hezbollah being taught a lesson but Israel's main target has not been Hezbollah but Lebanon. The wanton destruction there has forced them into the uncomfortable position of supporting a group they would rather oppose and underlines the wrongheadedness of the Bush Israeli approach.

Europeans are also conflicted. The European public doesn't like what Israel is doing in Lebanon. Most of the governments don't either and those that disagree most strongly are precisely those who are expected to contribute most to any international force for the area. Sort of a how not to win friends and not influence people.

So in brief there is a lot of anger, frustration, and some gloating over the mess the Israelis have created and that the US is condoning. The result is our standing in the world is further diminished, which is pretty amazing considering Iraq. Our relations not only with our allies but our opponents are complicated. We are perceived in the world not as a force for good but as a loose cannon. We may be powerful but we are not reliable. And being so, how can we expect to lead or for any to follow us? Bush talks a lot about spreading "freedom" and "democracy" throughout the Middle East but what he has had the most success in doing so far is in spreading hate of us.

So when emptywheel talks about levers, I agree that there is pressure being put on this Administration and Rice may be feeling some of it, but Bush not so much and with the neocons? They relish the opportunity to tell the world to go f*ck itself.

[emptywheel]

Thanks for posting it John. It's a great comment.

[vachon]

Condi is being played for a chump and Powell is laughing his ass off.

Innaresting post, ew.

[Powerpuff]

I would like to see the rest of the world impose sanctions on the US until it suspends all military aid to Israel. An oil embargo by OPEC, a calling in of loans by China and other major exporters to the US, and a dumping of US equities by Europeans, Arabs and Asians. That should cause sufficient pain to make the US change some of its policies or start nuclear war.

[John Casper]

Powerpuff, I like your thinking, but we owe everyone money. IMO, the Bush WH is betting the farm on their relationship with the Sunni Monarchy in Saudi Arabia. If the Shiites in Saudi Arabia who work the oil fields ever overthrew the monarchy or cut oil production, the U.S. economy would suffer an incredible jolt. I'm sure there are other scenarios, but at least for the moment our indebtedness is sheltering us from the consequences of the WH's extreme recklessness.

[maxcrat]

Wow, Powerpuff - that is a scary fantasy. Much as I share your frustration and desire to see the Bush Administration disciplined and chastised, a U.S. embargo would hurt the whole world economy and leave everyone - not just Americans - worse off. In fact, most Americans don't realize this but they could fall a long, long way and still be better off economically than most places in the world.

One other lever for the list might be China's vote on the UNSC. If they get too upset they may not go along with the future Security Council resolutions authorizing more war, threats, etc. agains Iran and who knows who else that the Bush people are probably already drafting.

[emptywheel]

maxcrat

That may not be enough, though. It's not like we got the permission of the UN before we went into Iraq.

IMO we'll begin to see more of what we've seen from Putin--sending oil contracts preferentially to others in a clear snub of the US. It'll begin to hurt our economy, and eventually the corporations will either get rid of the Republicans or leave the country.

But I'm not ruling out something like a few day oil boycott to send the US a lesson.

[maxcrat]

I agree with you - I've been expecting to see gradual shifts away from foreign central bank purchases of U.S. securities for some time. Gradual, because they have their own economic issues to manage. Even a gradual shift away from buying our debt could have a substantial effect here - especially coupled with oil prices.

Re the oil boycott for a few days - it could be salutary in waking people up, but I don't think OPEC is sufficiently united and robust to pull it off. Iran, however, could achieve something similar just by cutting back - and if we keep pressing them, they may resort to it.

I keep expecting the roof to fall in in Saudi Arabia, too, with totally unpredictable outcomes for us and the world.

[John Casper]

My understanding was that the US doesn't get any oil from Iran?