The Bush Administration’s Final Surprise?

A History Channel television marathon last week profiled US presidents from George Washington to George W. Bush. Each brief profile began with bullet point summaries of each president’s unique attributes and demeanor. The profiles ended with over-arching themes of each administration. Lincoln’s theme and celebrated his ability to rise to successive challenges presented by slavery and the civil war. Theodore Roosevelt’s was that of an enigma. Teddy was the big game hunter who became the father of the ecology movement and national parks system. Herbert Hoover’s spectrum ranged from his early, but unsung, triumphs feeding Europe before and during WWI, and success as Commerce Secretary. Overshadowing all was his fall as the scapegoat for the Great Depression.

George W. Bush’s profile was entirely unflattering. The forty-third president was the only be judged intellectually incurious but strong-willed, and highly religious in his bullet points. The History Channel profile reasonably left open the defining themes of president George W. Bush, since his term is not over. Here is a prediction; the Bush theme will be that of a President who was constantly surprised by entirely predictable challenges, most of his own making.

Bush will be remembered as the president who was hand-delivered presidential briefs warning of impending attack by al Qaeda, but who chose not to act until it was too late. He is the president of the administration that was unwilling to budget reinforcement of levies against the destructive power of entirely predictable hurricanes, a mistake that contributed to the destruction of much of New Orleans. Bush is the presiden that declared the end of the Iraq war when it was in its initial stage. Bush is the president surprised and undermined by the criminal prosecution of corrupt operatives of the political machine and spoils system that brought him into power.

Bush’s biggest surprise yet may be just around the corner. Like the other “challenges” it will largely be a disaster of his own making: both highly predictable, but nevertheless devastating. Bush’s fatally flawed Middle East policies may drive either Russia or China to base nuclear missiles in Iran. China might do it, in order to maintain needed access to natural gas and petroleum reserves. China could also benefit from offering a “strategic nuclear umbrella” in the region as a checkmate to the US’s forward Pacific naval deployment and maneuvers, endless administration rhetoric about Taiwan, and pressure for not doing enough to reign in North Korea. Chinese missiles in Iran would be a not-too-subtle rebuke to the US, simultaneously reaffirming sovereignty and the legitimacy of Chinese national interests without creating a direct threat to the US homeland.

Russia, for its part, might wish to create a “nuclear stockade” around territory it does not wish to see turned into another Iraq or radioactive slag heap. By basing short and intermediate range nuclear missiles in Iran, Russia could send the unmistakable message that it is unwilling to see yet another seething mass of violence and destruction created in its back yard by the US. It would create a standoff with Israel’s nuclear missiles, many of which are believed to target Russian cities. Russia’s key interests in deployment are the continued long term access to the Iranian market for engineering services and large scale projects as well as the protection of military exports. A Russian “sphere of influence” in a willing Iran would counter and balance the expected permanent US military presence in Iraq.

Russian or Chinese missiles in Iran would create a global standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. It might even end Iran’s uranium enrichment by eliminating the need to develop its own nuclear weapons. Such a move would also undercut the Bush Administration’s stated designs for a “New World Order” of its own making. A post Cold War realignment in the form of a Sino or Russian-Iranian military alliance would be a regrettable, but realistic great power response to the failed regional policies of neoconservative ideologues. It would be the final failure of the aggressive, but naïve, policies of an administration that has been constantly surprised by its own shadow.

Grant F. Smith is director of research at the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) in Washington, DC. He is the author of the new book, “Deadly Dogma: How Neoconservatives Broke the Law to Deceive America“.



More articles by:
Weekend Edition
March 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Michael Uhl
The Tip of the Iceberg: My Lai Fifty Years On
Bruce E. Levine
School Shootings: Who to Listen to Instead of Mainstream Shrinks
Mel Goodman
Caveat Emptor: MSNBC and CNN Use CIA Apologists for False Commentary
Paul Street
The Obama Presidency Gets Some Early High Historiography
Kathy Deacon
Me, My Parents and Red Scares Long Gone
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Rexless Abandon
Andrew Levine
Good Enemies Are Hard To Find: Therefore Worry
Jim Kavanagh
What to Expect From a Trump / Kim Summit
Ron Jacobs
Trump and His Tariffs
Joshua Frank
Drenched in Crude: It’s an Oil Free For All, But That’s Not a New Thing
Gary Leupp
What If There Was No Collusion?
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: Bernard Fall Dies on the Street Without Joy
Robert Fantina
Bad to Worse: Tillerson, Pompeo and Haspel
Brian Cloughley
Be Prepared, Iran, Because They Want to Destroy You
Richard Moser
What is Organizing?
Scott McLarty
Working Americans Need Independent Politics
Rohullah Naderi
American Gun Violence From an Afghan Perspective
Sharmini Peries - Michael Hudson
Why Trump’s Tariff Travesty Will Not Re-Industrialize the US
Ted Rall
Democrats Should Run on Impeachment
Robert Fisk
Will We Ever See Al Jazeera’s Investigation Into the Israel Lobby?
Kristine Mattis
Superunknown: Scientific Integrity Within the Academic and Media Industrial Complexes
John W. Whitehead
Say No to “Hardening” the Schools with Zero Tolerance Policies and Gun-Toting Cops
Edward Hunt
UN: US Attack On Syrian Civilians Violated International Law
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Iraq Outside History
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Long Hard Road
Victor Grossman
Germany: New Faces, Old Policies
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
The Iraq Death Toll 15 Years After the US Invasion
Binoy Kampmark
Amazon’s Initiative: Digital Assistants, Home Surveillance and Data
Chuck Collins
Business Leaders Agree: Inequality Hurts The Bottom Line
Jill Richardson
What We Talk About When We Talk About “Free Trade”
Eric Lerner – Jay Arena
A Spark to a Wider Fire: Movement Against Immigrant Detention in New Jersey
Negin Owliaei
Teachers Deserve a Raise: Here’s How to Fund It
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
What to Do at the End of the World? Interview with Climate Crisis Activist, Kevin Hester
Kevin Proescholdt
Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke Attacks America’s Wilderness
Franklin Lamb
Syrian War Crimes Tribunals Around the Corner
Beth Porter
Clean Energy is Calling. Will Your Phone Company Answer?
George Ochenski
Zinke on the Hot Seat Again and Again
Lance Olsen
Somebody’s Going to Extremes
Robert Koehler
Breaking the Ice
Pepe Escobar
The Myth of a Neo-Imperial China
Graham Peebles
Time for Political Change and Unity in Ethiopia
Terry Simons
10 American Myths “Refutiated”*
Thomas Knapp
Some Questions from the Edge of Immortality
Louis Proyect
The 2018 Socially Relevant Film Festival
David Yearsley
Keaton’s “The General” and the Pernicious Myths of the Heroic South