Andy Rowell, 22 October 2007 

The Bush administration is once again stepping into the volatile politics of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict by hosting a peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland next month.

Over the next few weeks, the world’s press will increasingly focus on how Bush and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice will be trying to broker a solution to the intractable conflict.

However, all the indications are that it is far too little far too late for this Administration to achieve anything meaningful for the Palestinians. Already there is talk that the conference will be postponed because the chances of any real success are slim. Arab states say they do not want to attend if the meeting is just a “photo-opportunity”.

This has not stopped the Bush Administration trying – at least on the surface. Last week-end Condoleezza Rice made a trip to the region to try and find “common ground” between the Israelis and Palestinians. Negotiating teams from both sides were meant to be meeting this week, setting out proposed topics for discussion.

However, it might be better for all parties to boycott the event. The Bush Administration is still playing a two-faced game over the conflict and the wider Middle East. On the one hand it organizes a peace conference on the other there are those in the Administration who are still arguing that the US should attack both Syria and Iran.

Rice has also refused to condemn or even comment on the recent unprovoked attack by Israel on a believed Syrian nuclear facility on the 6^th September. Although the attack occurred six weeks ago, we are only now finally beginning to find out what happened. All the indications are the Israel undertook a preemptive military strike against Syria, an illegal act under international law.

We now know that in the early hours of 6 September a number of Israeli jets entered Syrian airspace from the Mediterranean Sea. Later, unidentified fuel tanks were found over the Syrian border in Turkey, potentially indicating that American fighter planes flew over Turkish airspace after the raid. But what was the raid about?

For the last six weeks there has been wild speculation in the international press. Everyone knows the Israeli military is not going to win the Nobel peace prize for openness and transparency, but even by its own draconian standards it has gone to extraordinary lengths to hide the truth of what happened.

When reports first circulated of the attack, the Israeli military spokesman's office issued a statement: "It is not our custom to respond to these kinds of reports." Then the Israeli press was banned from publishing information about the attack.

For some two weeks after the raid, the Israeli military said nothing, throwing a “news blackout” around the raid. When the Israeli chief of military intelligence appeared before a powerful Parliamentary Panel, he was ordered not to say anything.

It was only earlier this month that Israel actually admitted that a raid had actually taken place. "The military censor has authorised for the first time the publication of the fact that Israeli combat planes attacked a military target deep inside Syrian territory on September 6," Israeli radio said. “It is the only element that the censor allowed to be published.” Even after the “censorship” was lifted, Israeli army officials and prime minister's office refused to say why the raid had taken place.

Finally, last week-end The New York Times reported how, according to American and foreign officials, the air strike “was directed against a site that Israeli and American intelligence analysts judged was a partly constructed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel.”

The paper suggested that “Israel carried out the raid to demonstrate its determination to snuff out even a nascent nuclear project in a neighboring state”. Even the Bush administration was said to be divided about the wisdom of Israel’s strike, with some officials saying it was premature as the reactor was years away from producing weapons-grade plutonium.

It is important to understand the potential consequences of the Israeli raid. Firstly it could derail what flimsy chance there is of any purposeful negotiations at the peace summit next month. Secondly it could undermine the US negotiations with North Korea, if it emerges that the Koreans have been supplying military nuclear technology.  A year ago, Bush warned “the transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable.”

Thirdly and most importantly is the looming question of Iran and how once again the mistakes of Iraq seem to be repeating themselves. In undertaking the raid, the Israelis discussed with America the nature of the threat and what would happen if a military strike was carried out. “There wasn’t a lot of debate about the evidence”, admitted one American official with a comment that should send alarm bells ringing. It is worth repeating that: “There wasn’t a lot of debate about the evidence”, said one official.

You would think that after the fiasco of the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and all the carnage and in Iraq that has followed, that intelligence officials would be rather interested in the “evidence” presented in front of them. You would think that the “evidence” – or lack of it –would be keenly debated before any such strike would occur. But that is not the case.

This is an extremely worrying development. Not least because Israel’s attack on Syria could well be the precursor to an American attack on Iran: both have the same objective – to stop “hostile” states from developing nuclear technologies.

About a year ago, few people in the international community thought that a plan would garner support, but some kind of American strike on Iran is gaining international allies, notably from its old friend Britain.

In April 2006, when rumours of an American military strike first surfaced, the then British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw , said that military action against Iran was "inconceivable". The British government was opposed to it he said. “I have made clear the British Government's position on this time and time again which is widely shared across Europe”, he said.

Some eighteen months on and the British government has made a spectacular U-turn that has not really generated the publicity or condemnation that it deserves. Earlier this month it was reported that Gordon Brown, Britain’s Prime Minister, had backed a plan by the Bush administration to launch military strikes against Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

According to veteran investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, who broke the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, rather than conduct an unpopular all-out assault on Iran's nuclear facilities, the US was planning limited air strikes. These, it will argue, are needed to defend American soldiers in Iraq. Hersh said: “The bombing plan has had its most positive reception from ... Gordon Brown".

Over the last ten days, there have been other reports circulating that Brown would back an American attack if he thought it necessary. Vincent Cannistraro, a former White House intelligence chief said last week: “The British understand there's a possible need to strike — not strategic bombing of nuclear sites but facilities in Iran in support of Iraqi elements. This understanding was reached shortly after Brown took office.” So over the last few months, the “inconceivable” has become “conceivable”.

America and Israel will be emboldened by the largely muted response from the Arab world over the Syrian attack. They will be emboldened as one pre-emptive military strike has supposedly proved successful. So, the hawks will argue, if we taught Syria a lesson, and no one complained, then we can attack Iran.

Finally, the American public is wakening up to what might happen and an attack on Iran is becoming a key issue in the race for America’s next President. Even a change of President might not resolve the issue though. A leading Republican candidate, the former New York mayor, Rudolph Giuliani is on the record that “We will use a military option if we have to,” against Iran.

Meanwhile the Democratic front-runner, Senator Hilary Clinton and wife of ex-President Bill Clinton, has also said she would use force to remove Iran’s nuclear programme. She is also under fire for voting last month for a bill branding Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terror group. This vote, her critics argue, could be used as a pretext for a US strike on Iran. “Her vote opens the door for the president to attack Iran”, says another Democratic candidate, John Edwards.

And the lesson from Iraq is, if you open the door to George Bush, he will go charging in without thinking about the consequences of his actions.