MideastWeb Middle East Web Log |
log | archives | middle east | maps | history | documents | countries | books | encyclopedia | culture | dialogue | links | timeline | donations |
Search: |
|
|
After the elections: US Policy in the Middle East11/13/2006 The stuff is about to hit the fan in this neck of the woods, if we believe any of our favorite or unfavorite Middle East commentators. Pundits in Washington, Beirut and Jerusalem mostly agree that changes are imminent. Many of them seem to believe also that the outline of those changes is at least barely visible. These changes, if they come, will probably not, by and large be due to the Democratic majority in congress. As Marco Vicenzino notes, congress does not make foreign policy. Congress could force the hand of the Bush administration by refusing appropriations for Iraq, for example, but that is unlikely. In any case, Vicenzino is about the only commentator who is not insisting that a big change is in the air.
Others insist that change is surely coming, as both Michael Rubin and Jim Hoagland note. and in Iraq that change will not be good, even though Rami Khouri, also anticipating change, insists that "the alternative would be to continue existing trends, the worst option for all concerned." Rami Khouri forgot that prior to the Bush administration, Lebanon was occupied by Syria. At least formally, that occupation has ended -- for now. But as Hoagland writes so trenchantly:
The point of Hoagland's article is that the Bush vision was right, but the implementation was faulty. Michael Rubin tells us that the solution that will be offered will be to bring back the old vision, which contributed greatly to the current mess. "Realism" or "pragmatism" seems to mean going back to the era of dirty deals with dictators and despots. It means ignoring little bitty problems like the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, which could be converted de facto into a Syrian-Iranian occupation through the proxy of Hezbollah, a process that may be happening before our eyes. Hoagland insists that James Baker is too smart to be a "realist," but in fact, as Rubin points out, Baker's rumored policy of "engaging" Syria and Iran will have to lead to deals that allow US acquiescence in Syrian and Iranian designs, in return for some real or vaunted cooperation in Iran. The appointment of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense is not a promissing sign. One of Gates' dubious achievements was his involvement in encouraging the Mujahedeen insurrection in Afghanistan -- an example of what happens when "realism" goes wrong. But Gates, will probably not lead policy in the way that Rumsfeld did. As Rubin points out, Saddam Hussein's career, like the Taleban in Afghanistan, was a product of "realism:"
The new model Rumsfeld is reformed, and no longer a "realist." What is replacing him is not a new adjustment to the dynamic realities of the Middle East, but an attempt to return to the past. But you can't put the Middle East toothpaste back in the realist tube any more. Rubin writes:
Assuming that the leak concerning the intended "engagement" of Iran and Syria is correct, it is amazing that nobody has asked the crucial question, "How is this going to solve the problem of Iraq?" Syria and Iran are very probably contributing factors in Iraqi instability, but it is hard to believe that they are the key factors. Let's suppose that in the familiar style of the Great Game, the US gives Lebanon to Syria and Iran, forces Israel to withdraw from the Golan heights and make "peace" with Syria, and somehow establishes a Palestinian state as well. Will this resolve the enmity of the Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunni in Iran? Will it stop Al Qaeda infiltration? Assume that Syria and Iran are allowing shipments of arms and supplies to Iraqi insurgents, if the US can't control the borders of Iraq, can Iran and Syria control the borders from their side? Despite the prognostication of Rami Khouri, the overall result may be worse. The consistent surmise is that Iraq will disintegrate into two or three states, as Monica Duffy Toft argues in the Washington Post. In that scenario, "engaged" Syria and Iran would in a position to carve out spheres of influence in Sunni and Shi'a Iraq respectively. That may be in fact the game plan, but not even James Baker could be expected to be that "realistic." Throwing parts of the carcass of Iraq to the hyenas in return for peace and quiet on other fronts is a plan so "realistic" that it is worthy of Joseph Stalin. On the other hand, the things that your liable to read in the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post, "they ain't necessarily so." There is no real evidence that the Baker-Hamilton group is going to recommend engaging Syria and Iran, dissection of Iraq or any other measure, and no evident that President Bush would adopt such recommendations. On the contrary, President Bush today reiterated his call for international isolation of Iran, at least for the benefit of visiting Israeli PM Ehud Olmert. Change must come. The slaughter and chaos in Iraq cannot and will not "continue to continue" indefinitely. Lebanon is undergoing political convulsions as Hezbollah bids for power, and PM Saniora defiantly passed a draft law approving the tribunal to try suspects in the assassination of PM Rafik Hariri. "Sister" Syria, and her supporters, the Hezbollah and pro-Hezbollah ministers who resigned from the government were not too interested in such a tribunal, for good reason. Above all, as always, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be the focus of events and change. The current impasse cannot continue. Israel cannot suffer rocket attacks indefinitely, and the Palestinians cannot suffer devastating Israeli retaliations, which include inevitable mistakes like the tragic killing of 19 innocent people in Beit Hanoun. Of course, when "mistakes" are inevitable, we have to ask if they are really mistakes. Israel is not going to allow kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit to remain in Palestinian hands indefinitely. Hostages are a dynamite issue that not even the totally insensitive government of Ehud Olmert can ignore indefinitely. Palestinians cannot remain "under siege" indefinitely, nor will Israel allow the continued smuggling of illegal arms, purchased with the money that Palestinians supposedly don't have. Palestinian unity talks are apparently going to succeed, and when that happens, Ehud Olmert promissed that he would negotiate with the resulting government. What will he offer? That is another matter. In Iran, the centrifuges keep whirling away, bringing it inevitably closer and closer to the day when it will become a nuclear power. And finally, Syria has sent clear signals that it isn't going to wait indefinitely to regain posession of the Golan heights. The US, Israel, the Palestinians and moderate Arab countries must set "real" realistic policies that will meet the challenges, rather than reverting to failed policies of the 1980s, favorite panaceas such as "engagement" or neocon slogans about "victory" and "democracy." We don't see it happening, and if it doesn't happen, things will get worse, Rami Khouri to the contrary notwithstanding. Ami Isseroff
Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000534.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission. |
|
Replies: 6 comments What exactly might these "real, realistic" policies be? Posted by Spike @ 11/16/2006 03:12 PM CST I think Michael Rubin distorts what realism really is. I disagree both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's Mujahadeen were products of the same vein as Rumsfield's pragmatism. The U.S. used Saddam as an a weapon against the Iranians just like Bush attempted to use Iraq as a model of Democracy to spread his vision. Sounds like the same garbage to me. The U.S. interfering in the Middle East creates a problem in itself as well as good. Second why should the West care for who rules the Middle East? As Michael Scheurer once put it the Arabs greatest anger are three things:
1. US support for Arab dictators Should the US continue to interfere where it is not needed? I think not. While making peace may hurt another front, assuming that every solution must be 100% perfect like this paragraph implies is a dream: Assuming that the leak concerning the intended "engagement" of Iran and Syria is correct, it is amazing that nobody has asked the crucial question, "How is this going to solve the problem of Iraq?" Syria and Iran are very probably contributing factors in Iraqi instability, but it is hard to believe that they are the key factors. Let's suppose that in the familiar style of the Great Game, the US gives Lebanon to Syria and Iran, forces Israel to withdraw from the Golan heights and make "peace" with Syria, and somehow establishes a Palestinian state as well. Will this resolve the enmity of the Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunni in Iran? Will it stop Al Qaeda infiltration? Assume that Syria and Iran are allowing shipments of arms and supplies to Iraqi insurgents, if the US can't control the borders of Iraq, can Iran and Syria control the borders from their side? Despite the prognostication of Rami Khouri, the overall result may be worse. The consistent surmise is that Iraq will disintegrate into two or three states, as Monica Duffy Toft argues in the Washington Post. In that scenario, "engaged" Syria and Iran would in a position to carve out spheres of influence in Sunni and Shi'a Iraq respectively. That may be in fact the game plan, but not even James Baker could be expected to be that "realistic." Throwing parts of the carcass of Iraq to the hyenas in return for peace and quiet on other fronts is a plan so "realistic" that it is worthy of Joseph Stalin.
Ami What happens should no excuse to not push for peace on other fronts and should not sacrifice the Iraqis in anyway. Posted by Butros Dahu @ 11/17/2006 02:15 AM CST "What happens should no excuse to not push for peace on other fronts and should not sacrifice the Iraqis in anyway." I meant to say: What happens in one conflict of the Middle East should be no excuse to not push for peace on other fronts and should not sacrifice the Iraqis in anyway. Posted by Butros Dahu @ 11/17/2006 02:18 AM CST It's all a simple matter of plant your imperialist armies in the backyards of your trade partners to ensure you get the most bang for your buck. It has been repeated throughout history by every imperialist nation. A little intimidation goes along way towards making sure your king of the hill. the US has troops in Afganistan and Iraq putting the squeeze play on Iran. We have Turkey by the nards dangling our endorsments just outside their reach. Syria isn't much of a concern other than pushing them around kind of pokes arabs in the eye as it is the historical home of Saladin. The US's presence in Iraq is only prolonging an inevitible civil war that will divide the nation into several states. But, that is not the US's concern, we are not there to help, we are there to make money. When we (we does not mean the people as we have already lost a fortune in blood and tax dollars, we = military suppliers) loose more than we make we will leave, but not before installing dictators who will do our bidding. Those are the simple facts, a nation reacts to world event based on how it affects it's financial status. An imperialist government is a cold ruthless creature that does nothing if not for profit, in the words of "Deep Throat" ...follow the money...policies = $$ Posted by OMFG @ 11/17/2006 06:59 PM CST btw...If we are at peace with arab nations, then we must respect them, that includes trade rates. It is not in the US's best intrest to have peace in the Mid-East, the barganing chips available, when at odds with a nation who is war torn and constant conflict are much more diversified. *Food for Oil*, Medical supplies for Oil, stop bombing you for oil....though I don't think they would really use that last one as the program name...a little too obvious. ;) Posted by OMFG @ 11/17/2006 07:06 PM CST How about ditching all the "political" nonsense lock-stock-and-barrel and taking a fresh honest look at the whole thing: http://www.truth-and-justice.info/2005/middle-east-settlement.html It would work and would be cheaper for all concerned. Posted by shams ali @ 12/04/2006 07:08 PM CST Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned. |
[Previous entry: "The Prospects of Palestinian Statehood and Peace After Hamas' Electoral Success: Challenges of Hamas victory and ways out"] Main Index [Next entry: "The situation in the Palestinian and the Israeli Arenas, and Ways Out"]
ALL PREVIOUS MidEastWeb Middle East LOG ENTRIES
Thank you for visiting MidEastWeb - Middle East.
If you like what you see here, tell others about the MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log - www.mideastweb.org/log/.
Copyright
Editors' contributions are copyright by the authors and MidEastWeb for Coexistence RA.
Please link to main article pages and tell your friends about MidEastWeb. Do not copy MidEastWeb materials to your Web Site. That is a violation of our copyright. Click for copyright policy.
MidEastWeb and the editors are not responsible for content of visitors' comments.
Please report any comments that are offensive or racist.
Editors can log in by clicking here
|