Is all the impeachment politicking really about why Clinton was not candid with Congress? The subsurface reality shows that this is perhaps the greatest power struggle between the President and Congress since the Union was formed -- and the direction of foreign policy is a key part of it. PNS editor Franz Schurmann, a professor emeritus of history and sociology at U.C.-Berkeley, is author of numerous books on world affairs.

Soon after he termed the Vietnam War an American "quagmire," the historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called Lyndon Johnson an "imperial president." Bill Clinton is now showing himself to be one on an even greater scale.

In what is perhaps the greatest power struggle between the President and Congress in U.S. history, Clinton is bombing Baghdad not just to blunt Congress' impeachment offensive. He is using the immense power of the American presidency to force political settlements on Israel, Iraq and Iran.

Just a few days ago the Republican dominated Congress thought it could cut down Clinton's power -- maybe even cut down the president himself. In the Watergate crisis Nixon sought to placate Congressional power by ousting Vice President Agnew and replacing him with House speaker Gerald Ford. But this time Clinton is not giving in. He is responding with a massive counter-attack to bring stability to the Middle East -- a course he has determined is in the best interests of the American public.

Clinton knows well that his popularity pivots on the fact that just about every wage and salary earner in America directly or indirectly depends on windfalls from the market. He bet heavily that the markets will respond positively to his onslaught on Baghdad.

Oil producing countries hope the initial jump in oil price could reverse a downward trend which is more destabilizing than any of their local conflicts. Dramatic, too, was the sudden rise in U.S. stock prices. So was the mild reaction to the onslaught in the Arabic-language media.

This last reaction is significant. In contrast to most English-language coverage which reported his visit to Israel and Palestine as a failure, the Arab-language media reported it as a qualified success. For the first time since the establishment of the Israeli state in 1948, the U.S. de-positioned itself as an ally of Israel. The new American position is that it operates as a neutral broker between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

For its part, the U.S. Congress has never wavered from its total identification with Israel and its disdain of the PLO-led Palestinians. Time and time again, it has voted overwhelmingly to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. And time and time again the White House, whether Republican- or Democrat-controlled, refused.

Nor has Congress wavered in its determination to oust Saddam Hussein -- whereas George Bush refused to march on Baghdad in January 1991 and more recently Bill Clinton has waffled on that stance. Even as cruise missiles hit Iraqi targets, Washington continues to avoid any clear-cut mention of toppling Saddam Hussein.

For over a year, the White House has been pursuing an opening up to Iran even as Congress has remained highly suspicious, even antagonistic. Recently an American delegation, officially described by Teheran as tourists interested in "Iranian culture," visited Iran, but observers noted lots of businessmen and experts in the delegation. No one doubts the White House needs Iranian cooperation to bring about stability in the region.

Plummeting oil prices mean only one thing to the Washington foreign policy establishment: spreading trouble in the Middle East. As the Arab-language media continue to stress, the weaker America becomes, as a result of the presidential crisis, the more prices will continue to drop.

For better or worse, Clinton has clearly decided that an imperial presidency can gain in the Middle East what Congress -- dependent on special interests for its elections and reelections -- cannot. Just what is it he is trying to achieve in Israel, Iran and Iraq? In Israel, he hopes that the Israeli public, like the American public, will finally force Netanyahu or his successor to accept the brokered peace Clinton has offered both sides. In Iran he hopes that both the moderate president Khatemi as well as the hard-liner Ayatollah Khamenei will accept the new relationship with the U.S., just as Communist China did during the Watergate period. As to Iraq, Clinton hopes that Saddam will stop playing games with Russia and France and start working with both the U.S. and Iran to bring order back into the explosive world oil scene.

Congress has a big advantage over Clinton on moral, but not on foreign policy grounds. Yes, he may end up killing many Iraqi children, women and men. But historians know full well that if a ruler brings back victories, the murdered are quickly forgotten. That's the way power politics works.