US embassy cable - 05DHAKA1096

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 DHAKA 001096 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FOR I/FW, B/G, IIP/G/NEA-SA, B/VOA/N (BANGLA SERVICE) STATE 
FOR SA/PAB, SA/PPD (LSCENSNY, SSTRYKER), SA/RA, INR/R/MR, 
AND PASS TO USAID FOR ANE/ASIA/SA/B (WJOHNSON) 
 
CINCPAC FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ADVISOR, J51 (MAJ TURNER), J45 
(MAJ NICHOLLS) 
 
USARPAC FOR APOP-IM (MAJ HEDRICK) 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KMDR, OIIP, OPRC, KPAO, PREL, ETRD, PTER, ASEC, BG, OCII 
SUBJECT: Media Reaction: U.S. Human Rights Report on 
Bangladesh, Drug Trafficking; Dhaka 
Summary: A columnist of the "New Age" says by forcing Syria 
to withdraw troops from Lebanon, America and Israel have at 
the most won a Pyrrhic victory. Israeli territory and 
 
interests will continue to be under attack as long as it 
remains an illegal occupier of land. It will also bear the 
burden of opprobrium as being a pariah state. 
----------- 
Middle East 
----------- 
"Who Is The Pariah?" 
English daily "New Age" op-ed opine (03/13/05): 
By forcing Syria to withdraw troops from Lebanon, America 
and Israel have at the most won a Pyrrhic victory. Israeli 
territory and interests will continue to be under attack as 
long as it remains an illegal occupier of land. It will also 
bear the burden of opprobrium as being a pariah state, 
 
It is old hat and does not involve a brilliant intellectual 
pyrotechnics to say that America's strategic and geo- 
political interests in the Middle East are dictated by two 
main considerations. One is to secure the uninterrupted 
production and supply of oil from the oil producing 
countries there and the other is to ensure the security of 
Israel, its most trusted ally in the region and soul-brother 
by virtue of the Zionists lobby active in the country's 
politics. The foreign policy of America in the Middle East 
has long used these two motives as the catalyst and 
lynchpin. 
America's success in protecting its oil interest in the 
Middle East has been nothing short of spectacular. It has 
exerted influence over the oil producing Arab countries 
since oil started gushing out from the desert land of 
Bedouins. Libya and Iraq dared to challenge the hegemony for 
sometime but that is now history. One has capitulated 
unconditionally to America's military threat and the other 
has been ruthlessly occupied after a brutal war of 
aggression in spite of having no support from other 
countries and the UN. The occupation of Iraq war has served 
as a double entendre, serving both its oil interests and the 
security concerns of Israel. The war of aggression can be 
said to have been jointly planned and carried out by America 
and Israel in so far as there was sharing of intelligence 
and using the strategy of the `big fist'. 
 
Even while the Iraq was in full throttle, many predicted 
that Iraq and Syria were in America's sight and the two 
countries were part of America's greater strategy of regime 
change. In the event, America could not take on Iraq or 
Syria because of the ground swell of world public opinion 
against the imperialistic war and the unforeseen emergence 
of a ferocious and sustained insurgency inside Iraq soon 
after the fall of Baghdad. The failure to find weapons of 
mass destruction in Iraq was not only a great embarrassment 
and a public relations debacle but also a moral defeat for 
Bush administration, which forced America to rein in. 
 
America, however, did not give up its hostility and 
belligerence towards Iran and Syria. It carried on a 
relentless propaganda offensive against the two countries 
for allegedly giving sanctuary to the fugitive leaders of 
the Saddam regime and for fomenting trouble inside Iraq by 
sending foreign insurgents. No convincing evidence could be 
produced in support of this diatribe and so America and its 
minion Israel bided for time to justify the demonization of 
Iran and Syria. The nuclear power plant being built by Iran 
at Busheyr with Russian and other European countries' 
support proved handy to be used as the cudgel. Suddenly, 
America started a vigorous campaign for the discontinuance 
of Iraq's nuclear energy programmed alleging that it was 
clandestinely carrying out a nuclear weapons program or was 
about to do so in order to make nuclear bombs. Possible 
recovery of plutonium from heavy water reactor that Iron was 
installing was also pointed out to buttress the suspicion. 
Iranian authorities repeatedly assured that their country 
had no nuclear weapons program and allowed the international 
nuclear watchdog IAEA, to carry out necessary inspection on 
regular basis. But it strongly refused to abandon the 
nuclear energy program, considering it their national right. 
long as it remains an illegal occupier of land. It will also 
bear the burden of opprobrium as being a pariah state, 
 
Vice President Cheney mentioned in a speech that if Iran did 
not stop its nuclear program Israel might attack the 
installation. President Bush, on his part, has refused to 
declare that no attack against Iran is in the cards, further 
bolstering the suspicion that if Iran sticks to its decision 
to continue with the nuclear energy program there will be 
military attack against the country either directly by 
America or by Israel. This will be both for regime change 
and to destroy the nuclear facilities that have been built 
so far. According to recent news reports American commandos 
are already operating inside Iran, preparing for the attack 
or gathering intelligence. 
 
Thomas