Listen to Putin

AS VLADIMIR Putin embarks on a historic visit to Iran, the first by a Russian head of state in more than half a century, expectations are high. The Russian leader is seeking to effect an otherwise unlikely thaw in the frozen ties between Iran and the West.
This visit is not directly related to Iran’s nuclear crisis; Putin’s main itinerary being participation in the Caspian Sea heads of state summit. Yet, under the circumstances, world attention will be riveted on the nuclear issue. Russia is an inseparable link in the West’s engagement with Iran. Russia has trade and technological ties with Iran, and is involved in the building of a nuclear reactor in the Middle Eastern country.
No other European nation has been backing Iran as much as Russia. Moscow’s voice and veto power have been of help to Teheran in withstanding pressure from the US and the West.
The shrewd politician that he is, Putin knows where to hatch his eggs. His increasing clout in European affairs cannot be overlooked either; a reason why, before his Iran visit, Putin has had meetings with France’s Nicholas Sarkozy and Germany’s Angela Merkel. These meetings apparently helped prepare the ground for Putin’s discussions on the nuclear issue in Teheran.
One might not expect a unified European stand over a crisis like the Iranian one; yet, clearly, opinion across the continent is heavily loaded in favour of a negotiated settlement of the Iranian crisis as against Iraq-like misadventures.
As he heads for Iran, Putin is clear in his mind that Iran must be given more time to facilitate a settlement of the nuclear issue. He has rightly cited the example of North Korea, that till a few months ago was a hard nut to crack, but is now cozying up to the West. That was the result of sustained pressure and belated adoption of a positive attitude by the US. When war cries slowed down, peace prospects brightened.
The positive turn in North Korea is what gives hope for a similar change in respect of Iran. It has robbed the US of its moral high ground for a military assault on Iran. When talks can make the impossible possible, why a war? Also, the olive branch that the US has extended to Kim Jong Il has Bush eating his own words, uttered five years ago, when he invoked the “axis of the evil” theory. Now, over to Putin.

Serious indictment

TRICAERDO Sanchez knows what he speaks when he accuses the Bush administration of “incompetence” and “corruption”. From June 2003, the lieutenant general was for a year the commander of US forces in Iraq and was uniquely placed to witness the disastrous effects of the White House’s lack of any coherent post-invasion planning.
His scathing attack Saturday on his former commander in chief included the opinion that if Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the other neocons had been in the military, they would have faced court-martial for dereliction of duty. This is an extremely serious indictment. Sanchez went on to explain that among the chaotic administration errors was the exclusion of the State Department from any major input before or after the invasion. Thus Colin Powell, architect of the liberation of Kuwait in the first Gulf War, was during the Second Gulf War a powerless spectator as secretary of state whose seminal moment was holding up a vial representing anthrax at the UN, invoking the biological-weapons boogeyman clause of the argument for invading Iraq.
Expert advice from State Department officials who might have warned against the immediate demobilization of Iraq’s police and army; identified the tribal leaders with whom the occupation forces ought to make immediate contact; and recognized the danger that Iraq could provide a new front for Al-Qaeda, was never sought. In Bush’s ignorance and delusion, victorious American GIs would be greeted as liberators by a grateful Iraqi people who would form a government that would thereafter do America’s bidding in the region, especially regarding profit-sharing agreements for Iraq’s oil in return for the forgiveness of Iraq debt racked up by Hussein himself.
It is notable that Sanchez’s revelations, while widely reported, have not caused major political waves in Washington. He was merely adding detail to what is known or suspected of America’s humiliating failures. He admitted that he had made mistakes, something that the likes of Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are loath to do. He was obviously once a Bush believer, but underwent a rapid change of heart. Asked when things began to go wrong, he replied candidly: from his very first day in command. Sanchez passed one other very important judgment, that Iraq was a “nightmare with no end in sight”. This is probably an informed statement.
Even though retired for a year, Sanchez will be in touch with generals and senior officers still serving in Iraq. He is almost certainly articulating what these serving soldiers cannot. He may even reflect the real views of the present commander, Gen. David Petraeus and his staff. Officially the occupation commander insists that while there is much to do the surge is making progress. Herein lies the tragedy. Bush’s dream of reputation-saving success is in truth Iraq’s nightmare. The US can wake up any time and get its troops out. For Iraqis waking from and escaping from the nightmare is now by no means so easy.

—Arab News