WASHINGTON, Sept. 2 (UPI) -- America's Persian Gulf policy has always been about our national interests, regardless of what some might call "moral niceties."
The emerging policy, formed after the attacks on America on Sept. 11, is no different. This time at least, U.S. action in the Gulf is necessary for the collective good.
U.S. policy changed immediately and dramatically when President George W. Bush pledged regime change in Iraq. "He's thinking about it (how to topple Saddam Hussein)," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld confirmed last week. "We are doing things diplomatically, we are doing things economically and we've got some military activity...."
Though the historically salient issue was oil and it is still true that oil is power. The old policy relied upon a chess game of shifting alliances to block any one radical movement from controlling all the oil, and thus, all that power.
In the chess game known as "balance of power" doctrine, the United States constantly sought to play one nation against the other.
In 1980, the United States announced its neutrality in the burgeoning Iran-Iraq war. A State Department official explained in 1983: "We don't give a damn as long as the Iran-Iraq carnage does not affect our allies in the region or alter the balance of power."
In fact the United States seized upon a number of positive opportunities provided by the war.
Baghdad needed arms, money and friends. To cozy up to Gulf states that were U.S.-friendly, Iraq moderated several problem policies. Tehran needed arms, money and spare parts for weapons previously supplied by the United States. The realities of war made both nations more willing to restore diplomatic relations with Washington.
The fog of war possibly increased U.S. ability to carry out covert operations in the region. Turmoil in the Gulf possibly made other regional powers more willing to cooperate with the U.S. militarily.
Recently, the New York Times posed questions regarding the moral nicety of the United States' balance-of-power chess game in the Gulf.
An Aug. 18 article alleged the existence of a covert Reagan administration program that provided Iraq with critical assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew Iraq had the capability to employ chemical weapons that were, in fact, used in the last, decisive battle of the Iran-Iraq war.
Apparently, the United States supported Iraq in order to keep Iran from winning the war and spreading radical Islam throughout the Gulf -- or, as we now know so clearly by experience, the world. With the United States playing both sides, the eight-year war was a stalemate.
This outcome was good for civilization, but at a heavy cost. Close to 600,000 Iranians and 400,000 Iraqis were left dead, plus tremendous economic losses that led to suffering for millions.
The old policy of shifting support between Iran to Iraq maintained the status quo. That policy now is going through a major change though the outcome, as always, is motivated in part by oil and the power to hold the world hostage.
The new changes are also motivated by the threat posed by Iraq, this time directly to America, not just to U.S. allies in the Gulf.
It may have been a cost of balancing power in the region to fail to intervene when Hussein used poison gas against Iran in the 1980's. Now that poison gas, or worse, might be turned on American interests, Bush's national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, says the threat justifies "regime change" in Iraq.
The United States no longer can ignore Iraq's exploits.
Hussein has extended his reach beyond the Gulf. He threatens the United States and indeed the world. Manipulating Iraq against Iran and visa versa is now, as wonks say, inoperative.
The fact is that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is hegemonic. Maniac. He harbors and supports terrorists. He is rapidly expanding his deadly weapons of mass destruction.
The Bush administration believes, rightly, that Saddam will destabilize the region for the foreseeable future.
On Aug. 8, the 14th anniversary of the end of the Iraq- Iran war, Saddam held Iraq up as the only viable counterbalance to that other regional bad boy, Iran.
The continuing threat of weapons of mass destruction and two Twin Towers blasted into cosmic dust later, however, the United States is disinclined to accept Saddam's counterbalancing services. Rather, the United States is willing to absorb some measure of regional destabilization in order to gain long-term security.
Still, the need to counterbalance Iran remains. Now, however, that will be accomplished without Saddam.
Post-Saddam Iraq, for example, will undermine Iran's radical regime by bolstering the Iranian people's growing pro-democracy movement. Iraq's majority Shiite population, who will lead a free Iraq, will connect with Shiites over the Iranian border.
Fueling Iranian dissent, Bush's July 12 address on the subject of Iran declared, "The people of Iran want the same freedoms, human rights, and opportunities as people around the world."
The United States, he said, will stand "alongside people everywhere determined to build a world of freedom, dignity, and tolerance....America affirms...its commitment to helping those in captive nations achieve democracy."
The United States' new Gulf policy is emerging because a number of opportunities are aligned. Russia will pick up any dip in global oil production. The terror threat posed by Iraq makes the past Iraq-Iran dance obsolete. Finally, a democratic Iraq could be very helpful in toppling the terrorist stronghold of Iran.
Robert L. Maginnis is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who is a frequent analyst for television and radio networks. He is also a vice president for the Washington-based Family Research Council.
