Foreign Policy Update

by Steve

There are several foreign policy issues of interest this morning. First, we can always count on John Bolton, he of the “Cuba has WMDs” fame to continually remind the world how arrogant the Bush Administration is. The Undersecretary of State said yesterday that the Bush Administration reserves the right to militarily strike at Iran, even as attempts by the Bushies to build international support for dealing with Iran’s nuclear capability falter. Lingering resentment by the world community over the US’s unilateralism with Iraq, coupled with Russia’s rejection of American efforts to line them up against Tehran, and the IAEA’s rejection of American efforts to have Iran condemned more strongly as a nuclear threat all contribute to the Administration’s difficulties. The Iranians are frankly smarter than Saddam, and have much more international support than the Iraqis did. They will do just enough to keep the IAEA happy. Their armed forces are better equipped and haven’t faced a decade’s worth of sanctions. But they also know that Russia and the rest of the non-EU world will not condone another American invasion in the Islamic world. More to the point, neither China nor India would condone it either.

So even though Tehran finds itself sandwiched between American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, they know that Bolton and Bush are barking at the moon because we frankly don’t have the means to place force of any significance into Iran, given that we are tied down in Bush’s first two “conquests.” In addition, in the absence of UN resolutions or international conventions that are being violated, both of which allegedly existed with Iraq, any US preemptive attack against Iran would clearly be a violation of international law, and the Bush preemption policy would run up against its illegal premise.

Second, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post writes this morning about how quickly Bush was cowed into changing his tune about Ariel Sharon’s recent attacks against Hamas targets. By whom? Tom DeLay, of course.

The shift in emphasis came about because of a variety of factors, according to diplomats, administration officials and others involved. The day after Bush's criticism of Israel, a Hamas-orchestrated bus bombing in Jerusalem that killed 17 checked the president's first, visceral reaction to Israel's attack on a Hamas leader. A dossier presented by Israeli intelligence operatives to U.S. officials made a case that the target was legitimate -- while Israeli officials reached a tacit understanding with Bush aides about limiting future assassination attempts.

And, not least, Bush faced a wave of protest from Israel's defenders on Capitol Hill and K Street -- including many of those at the dinner on the 11th. According to Republican sources, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Tex.), who declared that "America must stand by Israel as it fights its own war on terror," had a private meeting with Bush aides and threatened to promote a congressional resolution in support of Israel's actions if Bush persisted in criticizing Israel.

The brief episode illustrates the pressure Bush will be under as he seeks to implement his "road map" to Middle East peace, kicked off earlier this month with a summit meeting in Jordan between the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. The reaction to Bush's rebuke of Israel -- really just a mild expression that he was "troubled" by the attack -- brought Bush grief from his conservative supporters, and his dropping of the criticism served to confirm Arab fears that he would not pressure Israel.

It’s good to see that Tom DeLay and Grover Norquist are running our foreign policy along with Karl Rove.