US commander in Iraq General David Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker recently testified before the Senate and House Armed Services Committee about the situation in Iraq. Their testimonies did not come as a surprise, but their tough remarks regarding Iran's role in Iraq captured the attention of observers.
The two reports mentioned that Iran was the main source of all problems in Iraq, and that Tehran was the main reason behind Washington's inability to pull out of Iraq. Nothing was mentioned about America's grave mistakes in Iraq.
The testimonies of Petraeus and Crocker were the most significant escalation by the US against Iran. In turn, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced the assembling of 6,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium in Natanz, contributing to the tension between Washington and Tehran. This announcement coincided with the fifth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad.
The recommendations of Petraeus and Crocker, which were approved by President George W. Bush, entailed plans to reduce the "surge" combat forces. They also said that after the withdrawal of the last "surge" brigade combat team in July, the US should undertake a 45-day consolidation and evaluation mission. At the end of that period, an assessment to examine the conditions on the ground should be made.
Bush emphasised in his televised speech that Iran posed a danger to US national security. The "axis of evil" that Iran was a part of no longer stands, after North Korea pulled out of the nuclear race, and Iraq has ceased to pose a threat to the US and its allies in the region. Iran is the major preoccupation of the US, Israel and, lately, France.
Besides the nuclear issue, the US accuses Iran of fomenting violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and posing a threat to Israel's security. Iran is also accused of meddling in Lebanon, backing Hamas and foiling Israeli-Palestinian "negotiations".
Confrontation
So what has US strategy accomplished? How will the US deal with Iran, as it considers it a threat to its national security and on the same footing with Al Qaida?
The US administration believes Washington and its allies have to confront the Iranian strategic threat, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and controlling the region.
But the Bush administration is divided on what needs to be done to face the Iranian threat to US interests and allies in the Middle East.
Some observers believe the White House will use the policy of containment to defuse Iran's nuclear capability and reduce its role in the region.
Containment policies spring from the idea that isolation will lead to stagnation. The United States hoped containment would cause the fall of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The US had no other alternative then, as military action was not an option. America's containment policy lasted for half a century, during which the Soviet Union's internal situation deteriorated and led to its disintegration.
The US policy of "containing" Iraq for 13 years after the 1991 war was the major reason which contributed to its downfall.
Limited
The situation regarding Iran is somewhat different, as the US has been unable to contain Iran. The sanctions that were imposed on Tehran by the UN's Security Council were limited, because of the Russian and Chinese refusal to isolate Iran. The US also failed to put together a political coalition on regional and international levels, to isolate Iran politically and diplomatically.
It is evident containment has failed. Iran believes in its policies, which it sees as being in complete harmony with its interests. It is also stubbornly holding on to its controversial nuclear programme.
Petraeus and Crocker's reports contributed in strengthening the pressure inside the US administration to use force against Iran.
Dick Cheney, along with a group of hawks who served with Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, are also in favour of this option.
Dr Mohammad Akef Jamal is an Iraqi writer based in Dubai.
