Those who think George W. Bush is only after Saddam Hussein and will be done with his fatuous phobia once Saddam is vanquished must think things over. Bush has other self-aggrandizing ambitions. He wants to be the empire builder of America’s 21^st century, and the Middle East is intended to be a prime building block for it.

The Christian Right, the Zionist and Jewish pressure groups, and other ultra-hawks that surround Bush have been egging him on since September 11; arguing that he has been given the chance of a lifetime to re-arrange the map of the Middle East in America’s favor. The powerful military-industrial complex is lending its full weight to the military juggernaut being primed by the Pentagon, to translate this dream into reality.

Much as the White House spin doctors labored to deny it, there is ample evidence available that a special meeting at the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas —at which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his Pentagon hawks were in attendance—put the final touches on the military plans against Iraq.

However, Iraq is intended to be just the opening gambit on the chessboard that Bush is laying for the Middle East. The net he and his “empire builders” are planning to cast around their target would eventually cover Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt.

A Pentagon Leak

Ample evidence to this effect was provided recently when the details of a highly classified briefing given to the top-notch Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon July 10 was “leaked” to the press. The story, broken by the Washington Post on August 6, referred to Saudi Arabia’s being described as an “enemy state” to defense policy planners. The choice of the recipient paper had a significance of its own, as The Washington Post is known for its hostility to Arabs and its closeness to the Washington establishment, especially proponents of an aggressive defense posture.

It is inconceivable that a high-security defense-oriented briefing could be ferreted out from the bowels of the Pentagon and leaked to the press unless the intention was for it to be made public. The motive could be none other than to serve as a warning to Saudi Arabia, and provide its leaders with some insight into the new mindset taking hold of the Bush administration. Incidentally, the leak became public only a day after the Saudi Foreign Minister, Saud Al-Faisal, had categorically informed the world, via Al-Jazeera TV, that his country will never allow its territory to be used against Iraq.

An unknown intellectual, Laurent Murawiec, conducted the Pentagon briefing, on behalf of the notorious Rand Corporation, a right wing think tank. The inspiration behind the whole exercise was none other than Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, who is an inveterate enemy of Muslims and Arabs, and one of the staunchest supporters of Israel in the Washington mafia surrounding Bush.

Most political pundits, taken by surprise by the “leak” and the virulence of the briefing against a faithful Washington friend and ally like Saudi Arabia, have since come to the conclusion that Perle not only commissioned the study, but also dictated its contours; he also, then, leaked it to his favorite paper to create the stir he always wanted to.

Saudi Arabia – the Enemy

Murawiec spewed all those virulent words at the select gathering presided over by Rumsfeld. He described Saudi Arabia as the “kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent” (of the U.S. and Israel) in the Middle East. This was an echo of George W. Bush calling Iran and Iraq the  “axis of evil.” He called for a revamped policy vis-à-vis Riyadh, which would warn the Saudi rulers to ban all religious charities (because they raised funds for “terrorism”) and crack down on all “propaganda” against the U.S. and Israel.

Having diagnosed the problem, Murawiec went on to prescribe a remedy for it. Tell the Saudis to behave, i.e. sign on Washington’s dotted lines, and act as America’s Trojan horse in the region. Failing that, he recommended to his interlocutors that the Saudi assets in U.S. —there are hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Saudi funds invested in U.S. securities and industrial ventures— be seized and Saudi oil fields occupied by force.

Murawiec was recommending this obvious blackmail of the Saudis to an audience that also included, among others, Henry Kissinger, the high pope of power politics in the American intellectual community. Kissinger was Secretary of State in 1973 when Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal imposed the first ever oil embargo against the west for its patronage of Israel.

Kissinger, then, like Maurawiec now, had recommended the seizure of Saudi oil fields, if OPEC and Saudi Arabia did not call off what he described as “this blackmail.” Faisal was soon made a horrible example for his temerity when he was assassinated by a Saudi mole in the royal clan within less than two years of the embargo.

But a more jarring and mystifying element of Maurawiec’s putrid tirade against the Arabs was reserved, in its finale, for Egypt, which, under U.S. loyalist Hosni Mubarak, has been a pillar of strength for the U.S. in the Arab camp. Outlining his “Grand Strategy for the Middle East” Murawiec concluded that it was a three-pronged thrust with:

1. Iraq as the tactical pivot;

2. Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot; and,

3. Egypt as the prize.

His ludicrous notion of Egypt being the grand prize of whatever long-term military adventures Bush and company are planning for the Middle East has since had political pundits in a spin. What, exactly, did he have in mind, describing Egypt, which has been a facilitator of the highest order for much of the U.S. diplomatic thrust in the Arab world since Anwar Sadat’s historic journey to Israel in 1977, as “the prize”? Most unbiased and objective analysts were forced to conclude that Murawiec recommended his paymasters and patrons declare war on all the Arab countries, large or small. Obviously, he feels brazenly confident that once the three biggest and most powerful of Arab countries, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are forced to become U.S. satellites, a la post-Taliban Afghanistan, all others in the Arab camp will follow suit.

Dogs and Tails

The dogs of war in today’s Washington are convinced that the U.S. has a historic opportunity to redraw the political map of the Middle East to suit its 21st century agenda. They are frenetic that this opportunity must not be squandered. They are the ones determined that nothing should be allowed to thwart America’s military designs to topple Saddam Hussein, as the first move of what would become the 21st century Pax Americana. These dogs of war are being wagged by a number of tails.

First amongst these are the imperialist-minded hawks who want to stamp out any challenge, real or perceived, to America’s total domination of the world. Saddam, in their view, has teased and taunted the U.S. far too long. He is a nuisance whose demise would instil a fear of Washington into many other hearts. They are practitioners of what Samuel Huntington considered to be the clash of civilizations in the 21st century. They think they have a fellow believer in George W. Bush, and would be loath to give up this throw of the dice in their favor.

The second tail wagging the dog is that of the powerful military-industrial complex, which sees gold for itself in the prospect of Washington being endlessly engaged in overseas military adventures.

The third is the equally powerful and influential oil lobby, which feels a kinship with Bush on the basis of long association. The global strategy of the U.S. rests entirely on the premise that it must not be deprived of unhindered access to the oil resources of the world. The Middle East has two-thirds of the world’s proven oil reserves; Iraq is believed to have much more in potential reserves than known to date.

The world’s dependence on oil from the Middle East is calculated to double in the next twenty years. The two biggest suppliers could only be Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Iraq, under Saddam, has been troublesome. Saudi Arabia, under the ruling Al-Saud clan has been most helpful. But discontent against the U.S. has been on the increase there for years; definitive proof of it was given last September 11. Fifteen of the 17 alleged perpetrators of the “crime against humanity” were Saudis.  The bottom line that cannot be conceded for the U.S. is that the political geography and culture of both these largest oil producers must be so changed as to ensure U.S. domination over their huge oil resource.

The fourth, and perhaps the most decisive in the present political alignments in the Bush administration, is the “imperative” for friends of Israel to hog sensitive positions under Bush, to ensure the “long-term security” of Israel. This is a euphemism for an expansionist Israel, whose model has been cast by war-monger Ariel Sharon.

“The Cure”

Saddam Hussein’s Iraq has long been a thorn in Israel’s and the American Zionists’ side. Because of its huge resources, size, and potential, Iraq, in its present form and culture, will remain a danger to Israel. Therefore, it must be removed in order to make Israel feel absolutely secure. It does not matter whether Iraq remains whole or disintegrates.

Likewise, Saudi Arabia is becoming a hotbed of opposition to Israeli expansionism. It must therefore be brought in line behind the U.S. or dealt with in other ways to root out any element of danger or opposition to Israel. So too Egypt, which formally helped bring Israel out of its quarantine in the region by entering into diplomatic relations with the Jewish entity. However, these relations have remained nearly frozen since the second Palestinian Intifada. Egypt too is suspected of nurturing Islamist forces, an unpardonable sin in the post-September 11 American lexicon.

Warmongers in Washington are convinced that once they succeed in re-arranging the political map of the Arab Middle East, Iran, another member of the “axis of evil” in Bush’s book, will be encircled by U.S. satellites and will be compelled to fall in line. With Pakistan firmly hooked to the American apron strings and Afghanistan occupied by America for good, Iran will be at a loss for political space to keep its independence from Washington uncompromised.

The architects of Pax Americana under Bush are emboldened in their belief that theirs is a plan whose time of implementation has come.

The articles posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors. Views Archive Advanced Search Views & Analyses