The Osterley Times: Bush: Alone and Never More Dangerous

Bush's isolation over his new plans for an escalation in Iraq could hardly be more complete. Indeed, the fact that Blair is backing his plan has now become irrelevant. Bush could rely on such fig leafs when he controlled both Houses, but that is a luxury that is now denied him.

For the first time in six years, Bush actually has to play politics, and the swaggering arrogance of the last six years with it's "My way or the highway" imperialism should be designated to the past. However, there are no signs that Bush has realised just what unchartered waters he has now entered. He continues to talk of bipartisan politics, by which he means Democrats doing what he tells them to do. Indeed, his whole approach in escalating the war through the deployment of 21,500 new troops flies in the face of the Baker Report, the advice of his own Generals and the wishes of the Democrats that he claims to want to play non-partisan politics with.

It's as if he hasn't realised that the game has changed at all. However, his new plans have gone down like a cup of cold sick.

The wave of scepticism and outright hostility that greeted the president's new strategy to pacify Baghdad and other parts of Iraq with a beefed-up US force marks a significant change in America's attitude to Iraq. A Washington Post-ABC poll carried out after Mr Bush's televised address on Wednesday showed that 61% opposed the plan, while just 36% backed it. In another poll by Associated Press and Ipsos, 70% of Americans said they were against sending more troops.

Tony Blair yesterday welcomed the decision to send more troops to Iraq, saying it "makes sense", but reaction otherwise was overwhelmingly negative.

And there are signs that Bush could lose any votes cast on the issue through a Congress that has virtually been his rubber stamp for the past six years.

Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, said: "In choosing to escalate the civil war, the president virtually stands alone."
Mr Reid said he had the votes of about 10 dissident Republican senators, and predicted that the passage of a resolution, with bipartisan support, would mark "the beginning of the end of the war".

For the first time, and directly as a result of his own arrogant actions and inability to listen to any opinion that does not coincide with his own, this President is beginning to look holed under the waterline.

This is now, unmistakably, Bush's war. He has dispensed with many generals and advisors who did not share his messianic vision. The new Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, stressed just what was at stake:

He [Gates] added that, whatever the differences over the decision to go to war in 2003, "there seems to be broad agreement that failure in Iraq would be a calamity for our nation of lasting historical consequence".

This has always been understood by both the supporters of the war and those of us who opposed it. The real question is whether an additional 21,500 troops makes that defeat more or less likely. I happen to think the latter and think that the Baker Report offered Bush the only face saving way out of the quagmire that he has ensconced himself in.

Bush, however, does appear to have given himself an escape route that seems to have been written in some neo-con den. Blame Iran.

But Mr Bush's Iraq policy speech on Wednesday night marked the opening of a new, far more aggressive phase which could extend the conflict into Iranian territory for the first time since the 2003 invasion.

Mr Bush's choice of words constituted an unmistakable warning that US forces may in future conduct hot pursuit operations into Iran against terrorist suspects or their backers. "These two regimes [Iran and Syria] are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq," Mr Bush said. "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Asked on CBS television yesterday whether that meant US troops could be sent across the Iranian border, secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said that option was on the table. "We have to recognise that Iran is engaging in activities that endanger our troops."

This escalation in rhetoric cannot be underestimated. Both Bush and Rice are now claiming that Iran are actually targeting American forces. This is almost tantamount to a declaration of war.

Now, we all know that a war with Iran would be the stupidest and most counterproductive strategy that Bush could possibly embark on but it is already one that Kristol and the other neo-con hawks have been calling for. And, until now, Bush has always followed their tune.

I am reminded of Israel's disastrous foray into Lebanon in the summer of last year and the support Olmert enjoyed from Bush - who not only failed to see that an attempt to destroy Hizbullah was destined to fail - but he actually sought to expand that campaign into Syria and Iran.

We now find Bush, again, making similar confrontational moves.

Mr Bush's more confrontational stance also involves the deployment of a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf and the supply of Patriot anti-missile batteries to Sunni Muslim Arab allies fearful of the rise of Shia Muslim Iran. In a sign of things to come, US forces yesterday raided an Iranian consulate in Irbil, in northern Iraq, detaining five diplomats.
According to a policy document amplifying Mr Bush's statement, the White House's approach to Iran in the context of Iraq has undergone a "key operational shift". The aim now is to roll back Iranian influence wherever possible - despite the probably negative reaction that might produce among Iraq's majority Shia population.

There could be no more direct repudiation of the Baker Report's findings than the news that the White House has just announced. Nor is his aggression towards Iran limited to his military build up.

This week saw the expansion of US financial sanctions on Iranian banks that Washington links to weapons proliferation. European and Asian banks and companies are coming under increasing pressure not to do business with Iran, on pain of punitive unilateral action against them by US regulators. And all this comes on top of UN sanctions designed to halt uranium enrichment by Iran.
"By putting additional pressure on Iran, Bush is in tune with his domestic constituency," said Alastair Newton, senior political analyst at Lehman Brothers in London. "But he is also responding to the concerns of America's allies in the region, including both the Arab states and Israel."

So Bush appears not only intent on escalating the war within Iraq, he now appears to be considering widening it to include Iran. This suicidal policy would be unthinkable with anyone else in the White House, but based on Bush's past record it must seriously be considered.

The pressure he is piling on to Iran seems almost designed to cause a breaking point. Indeed, the seizing of Iranian diplomats is, in itself, an international outrage.

A leading UK-based Iran specialist, Ali Ansari, said the incident was an "extreme provocation". Dr Ansari said that Mr Bush's speech on future Iraq strategy amounted to "a declaration of war" on Iran.
"The risk is a wider war. Because of the underlying tensions, we are transferring from a 'cold war' into a 'hot war'," he said.

Bush has always been a gambler, and a bad one at that. Now, with his back to the wall, there is no knowing where this messianic little man will lead us. I would hope that a Democratic Congress, backed by some Republicans, could halt this madness.

But, when I look at some of the actions Bush is engaging in, I also fear that he is manufacturing a set of events that might spiral beyond Congress's reach. For instance, what if Iran should react to some of his more outrageous provocation's? What if the US actually strikes within Iran?

We already have Israel threatening to use nuclear tipped missiles within Iran, in what is said to be a move to force the US to step up to the plate, so how can we guarantee that Bush - surrounded by pro-Israeli neo-cons - won't heed their call?

As I say, Bush is now holed under the waterline, and that means there is no saying where this cornered rat will now go. That should be a worry for everyone.