The Bush regime in offering 20 billion of arms to Arab states is trying to counter Iran and Syria, says Condoleeza Rice in her talks with Saudi Arabia.
Ewen MacAskill writes for The Guardian:
"The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, increased pressure on Iran yesterday when she identified it as the biggest strategic challenge to America and the target of a proposed $63bn (£31bn) arms package. US officials portrayed Iran as a growing spectre that was engaged in aggressive expansion and destabilising the region.
"The Bush administration announced on Monday the huge arms sales package to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf state allies aimed at creating a bulwark against Iran. Speaking before a Gulf state conference at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, Ms Rice said: "There isn't a doubt that Iran constitutes the single most important single-country strategic challenge to the United States and to the kind of Middle East that we want to see."
The question is, why is Iran perceived as the most important strategic challenge to Bush & Co.? Because it is non-Arab? Because its population is mostly Shia muslim rather than Sunni? Because it is disliked by Sunni Arab states on the basis of both race and religion? Because Bush and Cheney want to curry favor with Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia and other such oil producing states so as to assure the U.S. a continued long-term supply of oil?
Why not base foreign policy on making friends with Iran rather than antagonizing and baiting Iran? Is Iran that bad and "evil" that the U.S. cannot coexist in a peaceful productive relationship? What would the U.S. gain from destroying Iran's nuclear facilities that Iran claims are for peaceful purposes? There is no way that a U.S. military strike would make the world more peaceful or re-create the Middle East into an association of harmonious countries. Rather, it would have the opposite effect. From any angle, a strike by the U.S. on Iran would be even more catastrophic and disastrous than Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq.
So Iran is justified in its concern about this latest Washington caper of arming Sunni Arab states. Writes MacAskill for The Guardian:
"Iran, which expressed alarm over the sales, accused Washington of creating an arms race to help the US defence industry. Syria, an ally of Iran, echoed this, with its foreign ministry saying yesterday: "He who wants to make peace does not start out with an arms initiative." "
The U.S. continues to portray Iran as the antithesis of American values, whatever that means. MacAskill reports:
"Nick Burns, the US undersecretary of state who is to follow Ms Rice and Mr Gates to the region, shrugged aside the Iranian and Syrian criticism: "These countries stand for everything we stand against.""
Ewen MacAskill writes for The Guardian:
"The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, increased pressure on Iran yesterday when she identified it as the biggest strategic challenge to America and the target of a proposed $63bn (£31bn) arms package. US officials portrayed Iran as a growing spectre that was engaged in aggressive expansion and destabilising the region.
"The Bush administration announced on Monday the huge arms sales package to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf state allies aimed at creating a bulwark against Iran. Speaking before a Gulf state conference at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, Ms Rice said: "There isn't a doubt that Iran constitutes the single most important single-country strategic challenge to the United States and to the kind of Middle East that we want to see."
The question is, why is Iran perceived as the most important strategic challenge to Bush & Co.? Because it is non-Arab? Because its population is mostly Shia muslim rather than Sunni? Because it is disliked by Sunni Arab states on the basis of both race and religion? Because Bush and Cheney want to curry favor with Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia and other such oil producing states so as to assure the U.S. a continued long-term supply of oil?
Why not base foreign policy on making friends with Iran rather than antagonizing and baiting Iran? Is Iran that bad and "evil" that the U.S. cannot coexist in a peaceful productive relationship? What would the U.S. gain from destroying Iran's nuclear facilities that Iran claims are for peaceful purposes? There is no way that a U.S. military strike would make the world more peaceful or re-create the Middle East into an association of harmonious countries. Rather, it would have the opposite effect. From any angle, a strike by the U.S. on Iran would be even more catastrophic and disastrous than Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq.
So Iran is justified in its concern about this latest Washington caper of arming Sunni Arab states. Writes MacAskill for The Guardian:
"Iran, which expressed alarm over the sales, accused Washington of creating an arms race to help the US defence industry. Syria, an ally of Iran, echoed this, with its foreign ministry saying yesterday: "He who wants to make peace does not start out with an arms initiative." "
The U.S. continues to portray Iran as the antithesis of American values, whatever that means. MacAskill reports:
"Nick Burns, the US undersecretary of state who is to follow Ms Rice and Mr Gates to the region, shrugged aside the Iranian and Syrian criticism: "These countries stand for everything we stand against.""
