‘anna missed’ pointed to a foreign policy piece sociology professor Jonathan Cutler published on Znet: Beyond Incompetence: Washington’s War in Iraq. It deserves some discussion, so here are the main points.
The neocons, Cutler argues, are not incompetent, but are persuing their own version of Realpolitik. He explains this by exploring the split within the imperialist camps of the rightwing policy establishment.
One group, the "Right-Arabists", were against attacking Iraq because they feared a rise of Shia Islam in Iraq. This would lead to intimate cooperation between Iraq and Iran and could in future stretch into the oil rich Shia east of Saudi Arabia. Bush sr., Snowcroft, Baker and Powell are arguing that position and therefor did not act to topple Saddam after the first Gulf war. They prefered and still want a united Iraq to balance Shia Iran domination in the Gulf. Their practise is "dual containment" of Iraq as well as Iran.
The other group are the "Right-Zionists". As an example Cutler cites David Wurmser’s 1999 neocon layout of middle east policy.
Wurmser argues that by establishing a majority Shia Iraq entity, a split could be engineered between the Khomeini followers who prefer the wilayat al-faqih — the rule of the jurisprudent, and the followers of Sistani, who does not support this concept. With that split established, Shia in Lebanon and elsewhere would follow the Najaf Sistani camp instead of the ayatollah’s in Quom. This would over time lead to a deminishment of clerical rule in Iran. A policy of "dual rollback" of Iraq and Iran.
Other neocons like Gerecht and Leeden agree. A "periphery" of non-Arab states, Israel, Turkey, Iran and Ethiopia would keep the Arab states in checkmate.
The "Right-Arabists" fear that this plan endangers their longtime ally Saudi Arabia. For the "Right-Zionists’", that is not a bug, but a central feature of their plan.
This split on Saudi Arabia, Cutler explains, started 25 years ago with Reagans support for selling sophisticated weapons to Saudi Arabia. This was critizised by ur-neocon and zionist Norman Podhoretz who feared it would lessen support for Israel.
While the "Arabists" supported Iraq (and thereby Saudi Arabia) during its war with Iran, neocon Leeden argued that Iraq and not Iran posed a threat against Israel and had therefor be supported.
The "Arabists" and oil money, favor Saudi Arabia as
proxy-state for the U.S. empire in the Middle East. They see Israel,
which the "Zionist" favor as the sole U.S. proxy, as a strategic
burdon.
Says Cutler:
In many respects, Right Zionist war plans for Iraq represents an audacious attempt to reverse the pro-Saudi tilt in US policy that developed in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution and deepened with the movement of US forces onto Saudi soil following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Make no mistake: the US invaded Iraq, but it went to war with the Saudis. The Iraqi political tilt toward Iran is not an accident — the unintended consequence of bumbling naiveté — so much as the heart of a future geo-strategic alliance with Iranian Shiites, if not the incumbent clerical regime.
Cutler closes with warning the anti-imperial left to laud the "Right Arabists" in their fight against the "Zionist-Right". The overall aim of both camps is continued direct U.S. imperial influence in the Middle East.
His view explains many of the seemingly irrational neocon plans,
especially the desire to split Iraq into three entities and their
stance on de-baathification.
In his blog he expands his thesis a bit to the democrat camp, where Biden and Gilb as "Dem Zionists" are now argueing for this split just while in the republican realm the "Right Arabists" are back gaining the upper hand.
As the neocon view of strengthening the "peripherie" demands an Israel friendly powerful Iran, but it requires regime change in Teheran. For "Right Arabists", an economical powerful and influential Iran may be seen as a danger to Saudi Arabia.
Thereby the powerplay Cutler describes with the main view on Iraq, is to be continued with regards to Iran.