‘Catastrophic’ US interference in the region and beyond

The US has had a long history of overthrowing regimes it does not like.

Among the most dramatic examples are Mexico in 1910, Guatemala in 1954, the failed 1961 attempt in Cuba, Chile in 1973, Nicaragua in the 1980s and Panama in 1989-1990.

The first 20th century coup engineered in this region by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was in 1949 in Syria, propelling Colonel Adib Shishakli to power at a time of great political upheaval in that country.

The second was, of course, the 1953 coup mounted at Britain’s instigation against nationalist Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. Iranians have never forgiven the US for ousting Mossadegh.

Some argue that if secular nationalists had ruled, rather than the Pahlavi shah, there might well have been no Iranian revolution in 1979.

The US propensity for coups d’état has been massively destructive since George H.W. Bush mounted his 1991 attempt at regime-change-by-war in Iraq following its invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

It is necessary to go back to his war, firmly opposed by King Hussein, to understand what has happened since.

Bush senior’s war was a “war of choice”. As he deployed troops in Arabia, Baghdad offered a series of alternative climbdowns, culminating in an offer by Iraqi president Saddam Hussein to withdraw his forces in exchange for a pullout of foreign troops, agreement on the Palestinian problem and dismantlement of Iraq’s and Israel’s weapons of mass destruction.

Washington either dismissed or ignored Baghdad’s proposals, particularly since Saddam tried to link a pullout from Kuwait to Israel’s withdrawal from Palestinian and Syrian territory occupied in 1967.

In a belated bid to halt the march to war, France submitted to the UN Security Council a resolution calling for Iraq’s full withdrawal from Kuwait in exchange for the convening by the international community of a conference to resolve the Palestinian problem.

This resolution was supported by Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Morocco, Tunisia and non-aligned countries. The US, UK and the Soviet Union rejected it, Baghdad did not respond.

George H.W. Bush was determined to have “his” war.

One has to remember that he had, briefly, been director of the CIA. Before waging war on Iraq, Bush had removed the military dictator of Panama, Manuel Noriega.

Saddam was a more difficult subject. While the stated aim of the war on Iraq was to drive his forces out of Kuwait, the unstated objective was regime change from within Iraq.

This became clear when, after the war, Bush personally urged Iraqi Kurds and Shiites to revolt with the aim of forcing the military to oust the Iraqi leader.

Instead, the army crushed the rebellions and Saddam stayed on.

Bush responded by declaring a “safe haven” for the Kurds and “no-fly zones” to protect Shiites from air attacks mounted by Baghdad.

These policies had highly dangerous consequences: the establishment by the Kurds of a nearly independent region in three Iraqi northern provinces and encouragement of opposition forces to unite and strive for the ouster of Saddam.

Ahmad Chalabi formed the expatriate CIA-backed Iraqi National Congress (INC) and Iran established the Shiite Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq to lead the political struggle against Saddam.

The Iran-founded Shiite fundamentalist faction became dominant in Iraq after the 2003 war waged by George W. Bush (junior).

The Kurdish entity stoked Ankara’s fears that Turkish Kurds belonging to the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), who had been demanding self-rule since 1978, would soon secure autonomy or independence.

These fears became paranoia when the pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party won seats in parliament in last June’s election, denying the ruling Justice and Development Party its expected majority.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan responded by ordering a new election, breaking off peace talks with the Kurds and attacking PKK forces in southeastern Turkey and Iraq.

The latest development is, of course, Turkish bombing of Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection units fighting Daesh in northern Syria.

Bush senior was succeeded by Bill Clinton who maintained pressure on Iraq but did not invade. He was followed by Bush junior.

The INC and US neoconservatives successfully lobbied the second Bush administration for a second “war of choice”, providing “cooked” intelligence and phoney “experts” testifying to the presence of banned weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The INC became the model for the Ankara-formed Syrian National Council/Coalition (SNC) that is regarded as the main political opposition to Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Although it has no real political support inside Syria, the SNC and armed insurgent groups are calling the shots on talks with the government on a ceasefire, transitional government, new constitution and elections.

After conquering Iraq, the new Bush administration demobilised its army, dismissed experienced members of the administration and installed a pro-Iranian Shiite fundamentalist regime that has isolated and persecuted the country’s Sunnis and secularists and alienated the Kurds.

The scenario that followed is well known: Iraq became the regional hub of Al Qaeda, which attacked US forces and Iraqis, and formed Al Nusra Front and Daesh to enter the Syrian conflict.

Shiite-ruled Baghdad has stirred concern among Sunni states that have supported Sunni radical fundamentalists fighting in Syria and Iraq.

The depth and persistence of US ignorance of the area was demonstrated recently by US envoy Brett McGurk, who praised the efforts of Iraq’s Shiite militias in the fight against Daesh.

If there had been no Shiite fundamentalist government in Iraq and no Shiite militias, there would have been no Daesh or Al Nusra.

One may recall that shortly before the 2003 war, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz tried to justify this second “war of choice” by saying that the war and reconstruction would largely pay for itself.

In the event, the Iraq war cost $1 trillion and rising, and about $60 billion was spent on reconstruction, a great deal of which has been lost to corruption.

Thirteen years after the second Bush war, Iraq remains an economic and political basket case where radical rebellion continues to thrive and to infect neighbouring Syria.

The two Bushes have been disastrous. A third Bush (Jeb) would be catastrophic.