A Formula for Armageddon: Bush, Democracy, Oil and the Muslim World

By Allen J Duffis
Published: January 31, 2006

As a small child capable of understanding only the most simple of precautionary lessons, my parents instructed me to never play with matches or to touch hot things. The very first time I disregarded that warning and burned myself, I fully understood the wisdom of those teachings.

Judging by the precarious state of Middle Eastern affairs at the present time, and our deep involvement, it would appear that our 43rd President, George W. Bush, was never so instructed by his parents.

This is quite surprising, since his father was Ronald Regan’s Vice President for eight years, and was at the helm on his own for four years as our 41st President. During his tenure in office he demonstrated a clear understanding of Middle Eastern politics.

In the Gulf War of 1991 he effectively quashed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions, and did so without rendering the area a diplomatic and social shambles ripe for terrorism. He also managed to accomplish that feat without leaving a large American death toll in the wake of his actions.

So how and why, when dealing with the same area of the world, did his son foul up so badly?

Well, one has to give Bush junior credit for effort; pulling defeat from the jaws of possible victory is not always an easy task. All along the way he had to, forcefully, avoid the pitfalls of learned advice from more experienced sages: many who were the caliber of his then Secretary of State, Colin Powell, the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his father’s administration.

As journalist Bob Woodward relates in his 2004 book, “Plan of Attack”, Powell’s consul to Bush as to the wisdom and advisability of invading Iraq was: “You break it, you own it!”

Of course we all know Bush didn’t take this sound advice, and we do ‘now own it’: at a very high and escalating cost in money and blood: both American and Iraqi. And there was no “Plan” to the attack.

In fact there weren’t enough troops, nor appropriate body armor for them or their vehicles, and there was ‘absolutely’ no planning for the possibility of any sort of vigorous or sustained insurgency.

So, instead of heeding this well-advised call to caution, Bush chose instead to allow the actions of 19 Islamic fanatics to set the tone and direction of American diplomacy for the remainder of this century. And so the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq morphs into the War on Terrorism.

All of that however is water under the bridge. We cannot change the past. It’s done! What we now have to concern ourselves with the is the future, and at the moment that future comes down to two tactical questions:

(a) Where are we now?

And most critically,

(b) Where do we go from here to what comes next?

George W. Bush does not appear to understand three very fundamental points of the Science of Middle Eastern Diplomatic Engineering:

(1) Democracy as seen through the eyes of a Muslim, is not the same concept as that envisioned within the western mind.

(2) There is no firm ground for the foundation of Christian principles in the
Middle East.

(3) A ‘suicide bomber’ seen as a terrorist by us in the West, is regarded by the Muslim world as a patriot to their nationality and sacred religion beliefs.

The surprising victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections is a clear sign that Democracy in the Arab world is voting for the despot or despotic party of your choice.

Always keep in mind, however, that such an outlook is credible within that society: we in the West differentiate between good and bad leaders ‘within’ a political party, they differentiate between good and bad leaders ‘period.’

Muslims do not like political choices where, after the election, one has to figure out who is really in charge. They like the party who won the election to tell them who is in charge, and they do; that’s why they elected them. In the Palestinian territories, like it or not America and Israel, Hamas is in charge!

In the aftermath of the unexpected outcome to this exercise in Middle East democracy, the critical point that should not be lost to America (and the White House) are the underlying reasons why the Palestinian Party founded by the late Yasser Arafat, Fatah, lost the election: their defeat was fueled by ‘political corruption’ and ‘cronyism.’

In any case, America and Israel must now deal with Hamas, and that organization has military, financial and philosophical connections to not only Iran, but to Hezbolah in Syria as well. And “connections” is the name of the deadly game we are now involved in.

The Bush administration seems to be inordinately concerned about national security in this new post 9-11 world. But security is far more than guns, airport x-ray machines, and electronic eavesdropping on citizens (referred to by the Bush administration as Terrorist Surveillance).

True security does not stem from only understanding your perceived enemy and his cause, but also his relative ties to other organizations and states and their political agendas. And in matters of the Middle East, in the end, all sides meet in a common field of “oil.”

There is a cold equation as to how oil will affect, not only the politics of the Middle East in the coming months and years, but the world in general. The “Oil Equation” is the underlying factor that is drawing the world together to a ‘critical mass’ that, eventually, has to explode.

                                “The Oil Equation and How It Works”

(1) The oil from the traditional large supplier, Saudi Arabia, is running out. Other sources (with the exception of Iraq) are of known finite reserve levels.

(2) The developed world requires a minimum of 50 years to develop alternative energy sources and supplies to replace petroleum.

(3) A key petroleum producing country, Iran, is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon capability.

(4) A second key petroleum producer, Venezuela, is actively encouraging ties with other oil producing countries to form a cartel to counter perceived U.S. power and interests. In other words, they now know that they can use the supply of oil as an effective weapon against the United States. To such ends they are actively courting the Chinese, who want more influence in that part of the world – as well as a steady supply of oil for their growing economy.

(5) As a renegade nation with a rapidly developing nuclear capability, that also desperately requires a steady supply of inexpensive petroleum, North Korea, is actively selling nuclear weapon technology to other states that can pay the price – in this case, Iran.

(6) Foolishly, unlike other presidents who have danced around the “hot” political potato of actually referring to Israel as an ally, George H. Bush has not been so politically astute. In a recent speech, he has recklessly and foolishly taken the diplomatically tenuous relationship between the two countries from ‘our friend in the region, Israel, to our ally. Therefore, any future military action carried out by the Israelis, against any Arab state, will be viewed by all other Arab states as a joint U.S. / Israel operation. And once that critical diplomacy gap has been breeched, there’s no turning back, even for future U.S. presidents.

(7) Israel with the effective loss of Ariel Sharon will drift toward hard-line ultra conservative political leadership. Such leadership will never tolerate the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon. It is important to note the Iranians are also well aware of this point, but continue such development in spite of it’s obvious inherent dangers. One has to wonder - why?

The big move on the Middle East chessboard is coming, and it’s only a matter of when - not if. Once the Arab world has a nuclear potential to match their oil power, they will become, overnight, a formidable world force.

Both American and Israeli interests, politically, economically and strategically have grave interests in not allowing this status come about, even though America is effectively tied down in the Iraq Theater.

Meanwhile, the Israelis have only airpower to hit, but not the ability to occupy. And any air strike on the Iranians, even a combined massive one by both the U.S. and Israel will, at best, simply slow them down, not stop them.

It should also be noted that the Iranians have not only had ample time to prepare for such an eventuality, but also possess a fully developed, highly effective, medium range missile capability that can easily hit Israel in retaliation.

All of this begs the question; can matters become any worse or more urgent? Yes they can and may already have.

On January 19th the long silent, Osama Bin Laden, released an audio taped message in which he warned of plans for an impending attack on America.

On the January 29th his second in command, Ayman al Zawahiri, released a clear, professionally prepared video in which he offered the Bush regime a truce in the Middle East, in exchange for America leaving the area.

Spokesmen for the Bush White House, immediately, labeled the offer as proof their War on Terror is succeeding. I don’t think so!

Bin Laden has never before played the bluff game. And after so long an absence, he would stand to lose his hard won credibility in the Arab world if he did not act on his threat.

Personally, I don’t think he’s bluffing!