So, I was quite flattered the other day when a friend told me that he was suprized that I hadn't commented on the recently announced arms deal between the US and various ME countries. The reason I hadn't commented is because I had been completely and totally out of the loop in regards to all things news. When I read what was going on, I was (unfortunately) not surprised, but was definitely scared.
For those of you who don't know, the US just announced, via a tag team tour of the region by Rice and Gates, that it would increase aid to 8 ME countries by over $60 billion over the next 10 years - IN THE FORM OF MILITARY AID. Essentially, we're giving them money with the understanding that they will turn around and purchase tanks, planes, missiles, bombs, etc from US companies. And just in case you thought Bush was turning meek in his lame duck days, he's claiming that these guns will help "empower the moderate voices in the region."
Wow.
If I'm ever asked to make a list of noteworthy moderates, I don't think that Charles Bronson or Tony Montana would make the list. Maybe I'm just being naive, but I tend to think that moderates can do almost all of their work WITHOUT TANKS. Does Bush really watch the news and think "Geez, if only the moderates were better armed they could make a real difference."
Not that our actions in Iraq are moderate by any stretch of the imagination, but nobody is as well-armed as we are, and all we've accomplished is the picking of a giant sandy scab. It's gonna decades to heal, if it ever does, and more guns is not their problem. In fact, the 190,000 guns that we've distributed to the bad guys hasn’t really made the place any safer.
In trying to actually figure out what could be the real reason for this deal, I figured that I had at least two options from which to choose. Option 1, the Bush Administration is completely corrupt and this $60 billion dollar donation to US arms manufacturers is simply that—a handout to ‘friendly’ countries for personal and/or political gain. Option 2, the vacuous Whitehouse braintrust actually thinks that by arming Iran’s neighbors they can intimidate Iran into backing down. (Note: see ‘arms race,’ ‘MAD,’ and ‘pipedream’)
Now, even I am not cynical enough to believe option 1. I don’t think that Dubya has enough to gain from such an arms deal that he would risk such a front page-bound move. Plus, he has certainly proven himself capable of such naivety in regards to easy fixes to complex problems. (Note: see ‘Iraq,’ ‘Afghanistan,’ ‘education,’ ‘AIDS,’ ‘Medicare,’ ‘tax reform,’ ‘social security,’ and ‘Al Gonzalez’) So, I think that it is most likely an unfortunate combination of options 1 and 2. He (Cheney) thinks that more guns can actually create peace, and the military industrial complex helped make the decision anything but complex for him.
Let’s, if just for a moment, look at this from Iran’s point of view. (I realize that if talking to Iranian leaders is unpatriotic that looking at things from their point of view is likely to get me shot for treason.) This map, which is oversimplified and pretty bad, but the only one I could really find,

shows the crazy number of permanent US military bases in countries that border Iran. Again, this map is rather vague, but the number from a map that appeared several months ago in The Economist put the number at 15. So, the US occupies two countries on your border, and has 15 PERMANENT military bases and two carrier groups well within striking distance of you. What do you do? You look remember that the US has never attacked a country with nuclear weapons and you start cranking the bitches out. As fast as you can.
Iran is only acting in its own interests, that is clear. I’m not sure in whose interests we are most interested. Looking at this map, I hardly think the region is suffering from a shortage of guns. I think that Dubya's legacy as a peace monger might be in jeapardy here.