As Bush slips in the polls no one can be sure what the increasingly panicked neo-conservatives will do, writes Hassan Nafaa* Most political analysts believed that President Bush's image as the champion of the war against terrorism would be the image that would remain foremost in the minds of the American voters, still haunted by the spectre of 11 September, when they vote in November. There are recent indications, however, that the image of the valiant warrior has begun to crack, gradually exposing another image -- that of the conman. There are also indications that "terrorism" may no longer be as crucial an electoral factor. According to recent opinion polls, although a majority of the American people still feel that Bush is the best candidate on the fight against terrorism, not only is that majority rapidly dwindling, Bush's rival is coming out way ahead on many other issues. In addition, it appears that many are beginning to question the integrity of the current administration. Because these doubts and suspicions are integrally related with events in Iraq, developments there are likely to be the prime determinant of the outcome of the US presidential elections in November. Until recently analysts attributed Bush's declining popularity ratings to the material and moral costs of the war in Iraq. The numbers of soldiers returning home in coffins are increasing by the day and the funding needed to cover the costs of the war seems to have no ceiling. But, as crucial as these issues are, it now appears that they are being overshadowed by the growing sense among the American public that it was deliberately duped into going to war. The US is, theoretically at least, powerful and wealthy enough to mount a military offensive against a country the size of Iraq and win, as long as the American people remain convinced that war is the only way to protect their national security and strategic interests. Now that the administration's justifications for going to war have proved unfounded, the American public has grown suspicious of the real motives behind the administration's decision to embroil their country in such an ill-reputed adventure. It took a year from Bush declaring that the war to rid the world of the Iraqi threat was over for the American public to learn that Iraq had not possessed the alleged WMD to begin with, that the Saddam regime had no connection whatsoever to Al-Qaeda or the events of 11 September and that, therefore, the war and its enormous death toll were unwarranted. As there had already existed strong opposition to the war in the US before it was launched, to which testify the massive anti-war demonstrations at that time, the American public eagerly awaited the outcome of the congressional investigations into the intelligence gathering process on Iraqi WMD and into the possibility that the White House had advance knowledge of the 11 September strikes. In spite of the suspicions many people had already entertained, the findings of the investigative committees still came as a shock. Although Bush tried to salvage the reputation of his administration with such claims as "the world is a better place without Saddam," he failed to counter the downward spiral in the credibility of his administration. Increasingly Americans came to the conclusion that if the administration could lie and cheat once, it would do so again and again. Perhaps Tony Gott, director of New York University's Rimark Institute, best portrayed the prevailing mood in the US. In an article in the Arabic edition of Newsweek (27 July), he said the confidence of America's allies in the most powerful democracy in the world had reached an unprecedented low and that no one (outside the US and Israel) has any trust left in the US and its president. He also estimated that at least a third of the American people have come to believe that Bush not only misled them in order to go to war, but deliberately lied. In addition, he said, many Americans had begun to fear the existence of a plan to delay the forthcoming presidential elections in the event of the likelihood that Bush would lose. Although he stressed that such an unprecedented and unconstitutional move would be "unimaginable", he found it disturbing that so many people believed it possible, which, moreover, was another important indicator of the public's eroding trust in Bush. But what can we expect from an administration that a large segment of the US public believes is willing to commit such an unconstitutional precedent? I, too, think it unlikely that this administration would resort to postponing elections, at least under normal circumstances. However, I do not rule out other possibilities or scenarios, including another military adventure. In "American options in Iraq", which appeared in Al-Hayat several months ago, I suggested that the Bush administration may attempt to escape its predicament at home by fabricating a crisis abroad, with Iran, Syria or both. The ideological delusions of the neo-conservative clique in the White House are such that they may be tempted to push the confrontation with Iran to the brink, casting Tehran as the "serpent's head" that must be severed in order to win the war against terrorism. When pushed to the critical point, they believe, the American people will always rally around the flag and their president, and even more so if the quarry is as big as Iran. Such was my distrust of the Bush administration at the time that I added, "Some might think that recourse to such an option is a form of madness possible only in an authoritarian government ruled by a pathological maniac...but not in a country with institutionalised checks on power and provisions for public accountability. I for one do not share this opinion." Apparently I am not alone. The mistrust and apprehension of what the Bush administration might get up to is now abundantly palpable inside the US, as is reflected in the writings of numerous commentators and scholars. And not without reason. The scenario I described above is not just a theoretical likelihood, but a concrete option on that administration's agenda. In a recent statement Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "A preventive attack against Iran is a possibility." It is still too early to tell whether the US will undertake this assault by itself or give Israel the green light to do it for it. Or, perhaps Israel will take the initiative to escalate the situation in the Palestinian territories or in Lebanon in order to lure Syria and Iran into a trap of its own devising, one that will goad the Americans into action on its behalf. But, however it plays out, the purpose of the scenario is to destroy the alliance opposed to the US and Israeli project of regional hegemony. This alliance consists of the Palestinian resistance, the Lebanese Hizbullah, Syria and Iran. If this analysis is correct, the world is in for a dangerously hot summer. Nevertheless, even if another war scenario has entered the realm of the possible, putting it into effect will not be as easy as some strategists in the White House or Tel Aviv imagine. The resistance alliance, regardless of the differences in the ideological orientations and interests of its components, still has some important leverage cards. It could, for example, transform Iraq and northern Israel into a hell for occupation forces and settlers. Also, it is unlikely that the US administration would want to embark on another military operation in the delicate run-up to election day, unless it could secure consensus among the American public that such an operation was a legitimate deterrent against a certain and imminent terrorist attack against the US. Given its dismal credibility ratings this administration would have a very hard time generating such a consensus, if only because no one would believe the information it furnished, even if that information were well-founded. On the other hand, perhaps this would not deter the Bush administration, whose recklessness and aversion to rational thought processes is becoming clearer by the day. Can we hope that the American people will act to restrain the belligerency of this administration, at least until they have their say as to whether it stays or leaves in November? Can we hope that the American people has the sense to oust this administration in the national polls? I have no illusions about the policies of an administration headed by Kerry. But at least that administration would be more rational and pragmatic, and not taunt the world with "Armageddon" diatribes and doomsday scenarios. * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
