Alternative Insight
U.S. Middle East Policy ? A Road to Disaster
Isn?t
it time for the American electorate to channel its efforts to prevent
additional United
States
foreign policy debacles. Look at the record. From Vietnam to Angola to Nicaragua, Somalia and on to Iraq and Afghanistan, United States foreign policies degraded into military interventions
and proved counterproductive ? resulting in the very results the policies were
formulated to prevent.
Zero
in on U.S. interests in the Middle East
and we find them primarily confined to assuring sufficient oil supply and
combating terrorism from extreme Islamic groups. Research the status of the
policies for protecting these interests and we learn of growing failure and
misaligned perspectives, more counterproductive foreign policy debacles.
Isn?t
it useless to continue the ?same old,? ?same old? policies? Doing just the
opposite might be the solution to implementing a forward looking foreign policy.
The U.S. was the largest importer of Iraqi oil under the UN
Oil-for-Food program and the principal recipient of Saudi oil for decades. From
having almost a monopoly on Middle
East oil production, the U.S. oil industry now receives a diminishing percentage.
Reuters, BAGHDAD, Dec 13, 2009
reports there has been no boon for U.S. firms in Iraq oil deal auction.
?Critics
said the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was driven by oil, but United States oil
majors were largely absent from an Iraqi auction of oil deals snapped up
instead by Russian, Chinese and other firms.?
??Saudi Aramco, the world's biggest oil
producer, said it is exporting about 1M bpd of crude to China, more than to the US. The CEO, Khalid al-Faith, said the company will focus
on China in coming years.??
Failure to reduce dependence on Middle East oil has propelled the U.S. into
interference in Middle East nations. Misadventures have caused conflagrations, destruction, armed
conflicts and an immense number of local casualties. The same misadventures and
its immense number of local casualties have generated terrorism. How else can
the terrorism be explained? After all, China, Japan and a host
of other nations who have dealings with Middle East oil producers have not
encountered international terrorism.
U.S. unwarranted support for the Mujahideen during the Soviet/Afghan war led
to Taliban control of Afghanistan and installation of al-Qaeda training camps within the extremist Islamic
nation.?? The severe confrontations
between the Sunni civilian population and U.S. troops
after the invasion of Iraq propelled
foreign militants to Iraq.
If
combating terrorism and Radical Islam are the principal objectives of U.S. foreign policy, then modifying the nature of nations who
incite terrorism will be helpful. Until now, the U.S. has refused to properly engage Saudi Arabia and Israel (two antagonists), both of whom suffer from terrorism,
but have internal policies that promote international terrorism and Radical
Islam.
U.S. support for the repressive Saudi regime has assisted
Saudi royal family?s rigid political control and self-serving economic
policies.? The latter has aroused severe
resentment from radicalized Muslims who suspect the U.S. support maintains Saudi power. All American
administrations have ignored that Saudi Wahabbism
religion and Sharia law, the most fundamentalist
aspects of the Muslim religion, have developed an extreme ideology in Muslim
youth. Let us recall that most of the 9/11 conspirators were Saudi and many of
the al-Qaeda in Iraq militants proceeded from Saudi Arabia. Imagine if they originated from Syria? Would Syria even exist today?
U.S. support for Israel's expansionist policies and its oppression of the
Palestinian people has provoked Radical Islamic groups. Intentions to
incorporate all of Jerusalem into its territory have added fuel to fire. Although Israel receives funds, weapons and political support from the U.S., the generosity is rarely returned. Israel proceeds with disputed settlements, seizing of
Palestinian lands, constant violent actions across its borders and provocative
policies regardless of the wants and effects on its benefactor.
And
so, despite years of a war on terrorism, terrorist actions and elements around
the globe have grown.?
On the other hand, for no decisive reason,
the U.S. has strained relations with several nations who can be
helpful in pacifying the Middle
East. In these situations, the U.S. should re-evaluate its policies.
U.S. administrations consider Syria as an enemy ? but why? The Syrian government must answer
to its repressive attitude, and its relations with states and groups which the U.S. determines undesirable. Nevertheless, these negative
characteristics are not unique to Syria. China, Egypt and several other nations with whom the U.S. has close relations share similar attributes.?????
The U.S. can start resolving its differences and clarifying its
relations with Syria by understanding Syria?s position. Isn?t it natural for Syria to act hesitatingly with a nation who defends Israel, the nation which has apprehended Syria?s Golan
Heights? Wasn?t it obvious that
Syria would not welcome U.S. troops at its borders after the invasion of Iraq? The U.S. exaggerates Syria?s obstinate policies and does not credit Syria with its helpful policies.
After
Syrian President Bashar al-Asad denounced the 9/11 attacks, FBI agents
traveled to Syria in 2002 and investigated al-Qaeda activists who had been
in Syria or had maintained ties with Syrian citizens. Senior
American officials were quoted
as saying that the information provided by Syria helped prevent attacks on American targets in the Gulf
and saved many American lives.
Syria?s most meaningful assistance to the world community and
to the United
States is
its operation as a safety valve for refugee displacements. Syria has housed several hundreds of thousand Palestinian
refugees for decades and granted them almost full rights. It has hosted two
million Iraq refugees. What would have happened if Syria refused entry to these refugees?
Responding to U.S. and UN demands, Syria has removed its troops and authorities from Lebanon. Has Israel responded to UN requests to leave the West Bank?
Unlike Israel, who bombed the U.S. ship USS liberty during the 1967 war, has denied entry
to and imprisoned many U.S. citizens, and been complicit in the deaths of several Americans, the Syrian regime has never harmed any American.
Doesn?t responsive to UN dictates and behavior to American
citizens count in the formulation of foreign policy?
The U.S. regards Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist and radical.
However, Hezbollah has played a significant role in stabilizing Lebanon and has been responsible in its parliamentary duties. Its
acceptance as a legitimate expression of a constituency has been echoed in a
recent declaration by Lebanese Sunni Prime Minister Hariri,
who complained about Israel flights over Lebanese territory and vowed, "There
will be no division in Lebanon. We will stand against Israel. We will stand with our own people."
Hamas was criticized from refraining entering Palestinian
politics. After it won the national election, it has been vilified for? for
winning the election.
Hamas and Hezbollah are more dedicated to an
Islam of social services and political representation rather than to a
conspiratorially driven Radical Islam. They both represent major
constituencies. Since their formal formations, neither of these two
Islamic organizations, as organizations, engaged in any violent acts against
the U.S. government, its citizens, and its institutions.
Overlooked is that both of these Islamic organizations have been instrumental
in preventing al-Qaeda from gaining support in Lebanon and Gaza. Al-Qaeda brands both of them as enemies of the Islamic
world.
During the week of August 12, 2009, the media reported that Hamas crushes 'al-Qaeda uprising.?
Since then, Hamas has
consistently fought al-Qaeda elements, many of whom are responsible for the rocket attacks
against Israel. From the New York Times, Oct. 27, 2009:
Armed Salafis
are challenging the authority of Hamas, the Islamic
party that rules the Gaza Strip and has fought Israel for two decades. Gaza Salafis
say Hamas surrendered its credentials as an Islamic
resistance group when it declared a unilateral cease-fire after a 22-day war
with Israel that ended Jan. 18. Hamas?s
Health Ministry said 1,450 Palestinians were killed in the conflict. The
Israeli Army put the toll at 1,166 Palestinians and 13 Israelis.
Arrests began after an
Aug. 14 Hamas raid on a mosque in Rafah,
where armed Salafis belonging to a group called
Warriors of God had gathered. The group?s leader, Abdel-Latif
Musa, had proclaimed an Islamic emirate in Gaza, directly challenging Hamas
rule, according to a transcript published by the Middle East Media Research
Institute, a Washington-based translation and analysis organization. Mr. Musa and 21 other people, including six civilians, died in
the raid.
?In Lebanon, Hezbollah is also a declared enemy of al-Qaeda and Salafists who have close ties to and support from Saudi Arabia.
Vanguards at War:
Hezbollah and Al Qaeda
Bilal Y. Saab, Research Assistant
Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow, Foreign
Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy International
Herald Tribune
Al Qaeda follows a Manichaean ideology that sees Shiite Muslims as the lowest
of the low, even worse than the Jews and the "crusaders." For Al
Qaeda, Shiites are rawafidh (rejectionist
Muslims) and should be fought like all other infidels. A week before he was
killed by a U.S. air strike, the Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, issued
a fiery statement accusing Hezbollah of acting as a protective buffer for Israel. Hezbollah, generally reserved in its comments on
internal Islamic issues, first commented on Al Qaeda and its ideology soon
after the 9/11 attacks when Hassan Nasrallah, the party's secretary general, described it as
an "entity trapped in medieval ages and bent on killing innocent
Muslims." In June 2006, Nawaf al-Musawi, the
director of Hezbollah's external relations office, replied to Zarqawi's allegations by accusing him of being a tool of
the United
States
and Israel against Arab resistance groups and by viewing his
criminal acts as solely intended to ignite civil wars and sectarian fighting.
Contrary to Al Qaeda, Hezbollah has accepted the political process and has been
legitimately engaged in participatory and competitive politics (notwithstanding
of course the controversial nature of its paramilitary wing). While Al Qaeda is
bent on destroying Arab regimes and their allies and on replacing them with
Taliban-style systems of governance, Hezbollah aims to work within the Lebanese
system. As revolutionary as it is, Hezbollah indirectly negotiates and makes deals
with its enemies (evidenced in the several prisoner exchanges with Israel over the last decade). In sum, contrary to Al Qaeda,
Hezbollah can be engaged.
Al Qaeda has demonstrated its hatred of Hezbollah over the years by launching a
number of attacks against the Shiite group. In July 2004, Jund
al-Sham, a Qaeda ally in Lebanon, claimed responsibility for the murder of an Hezbollah senior official, Ghaleb
Awali. In December 2005, in an attempt to implicate
Hezbollah in an attack against Israel, four fighters of Al Qaeda in Iraq launched 10 Krad rockets from
southern Lebanon into Kiryat Shemona in northern Israel. Finally, in April 2006, the Lebanese authorities foiled
a plot by a local Salafist jihadist
network to assassinate Hezbollah's secretary general, Hassan
Nasrallah.
Lumping Al Qaeda and Hezbollah in the same basket will only do disservice to
the global counterterrorism campaign. Each entity poses a distinct set of
challenges to the Unites States and the West. Leading a successful campaign against
these entities will require individual strategies tailored to address the
distinctive threats they pose.
Encouraging the animosity of one toward the other and underscoring their
differences serves the global war on terrorism better than creating a sense of
solidarity between them.
Then there is the
Islamic Republic of Iran.? U.S. and the entire
world community have issues with Iran ? especially its
failure to meet the aspirations of its own people and its abysmal human rights
record. However, these are internal issues that cooperation could resolve and
are not issues to be used to undermine a nations? authority.? U.S. strident propaganda
against Iran belittles state
department efforts to resolve its differences with the Islamic state. After the
intervention in Afghanistan, this U.S. adversary was
helpful to the NATO action.? Iran contributed funds
and materials and was instrumental in forming the present Afghanistan government and in
combating the Taliban.
U.S. administration
rhetoric portrays the Islamic Republic as being responsible for destabilizing Iraq, preparing to
attack U.S., being a principal
organizer of international terrorism and a nation led by the deranged. Note
that antagonistic U.S. troops now border
western Iran from Iraq and are also present
in the eastern bordering country of Afghanistan. There are no
Revolutionary Guards in Mexico or Canada. Iran has legitimate
interests in Iraq and the Middle East, which includes a
natural relationship with Shia clerics and
populations in neighboring nations. Is it possible that Iran senses it must
defend itself and the best defense is an offense, and the best offense for a
nation that has a weak army, navy and air force is the nuclear bomb? Has a U.S. militant attitude
provoked the Ayatollahs to seek the nuclear alternative??
It is
well known that Britain, France and the United States assisted Israel in
development of its nuclear bomb. None of these nations encouraged Israel?s compliance with
nuclear related agreements or with nuclear inspections. Coupled with U.S. and Israel?s antagonistic
attitudes toward the Islamic Republic and Israel?s incorporation of
all Jerusalem into its
boundaries, isn?t it conceivable that Iran will want a nuclear
device to offset Israel?s advantage? If an
aim is to solve a problem, then it?s wise to start with the source of the
problem. The source of Iran?s defiance is the
British, French and U.S. cooperation with Israel in developing the Dimona bomb. The western nations should look to their role
and to Israel?s role in provoking
Iran?s nuclear
developments. Ask Iran: ?If Israel did not have the
bomb, would the Mullahs stop their intent to crash the atom? The answer might
be surprising.??
Has the
U.S. militant attitude
achieved anything it desires from Iran? One achievement is
lowering Iran?s potential oil and
gas production, two scarce resources, which need increased production to lower
gasoline costs at the pump and heating costs in the home.
No
definitive proof of any major involvement of Iran with the
instability and militancy in Iraq has been provided.
No definitive proof of any major involvement of Iran in the last decade
of international terrorism has been disclosed. Iran has not harmed any
Americans beyond its borders. And while ?stable? U.S. leaders attack
nations throughout the world, causing massive death and destruction, the U.S. accuses Iran?s leaders of being
deranged
Despite
its quirky and dismal character, The Islamic Republic can play a decisive role
in stabilizing Iraq and pacifying much
of the Middle East - an opportunity
which awaits U.S. policy makers and
an opportunity they will undoubtedly neglect.
Positive interaction with Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas can
diminish terrorism, including in Israel, and can deny support for Radical Islam. This does not
imply that the U.S. approves these governments or the Islamic organizations.
It signifies the U.S. recognizes it owes a duty to its own citizens to follow
all avenues that can assist in the wars against terrorism and Radical Islam.
The turnaround for a successful Middle East
policy is for the U.S.
to re-evaluate relations with its self-made enemies, remove the blinders that
guide its relations with its dubious friends, and proceed with a foreign policy
that guides others and is not driven by the needs of others.??
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East
is linked to Israel?s policies, which are guided by an ?all or nothing?
solution. Israel no longer indicates it wants peace. It wants surrender.
Since Israel?s expansion only leads to collisions with enemies, how
will the confrontations end? Will ?push come to shove? propel Israel to use its most powerful weapon, the nuclear
alternative? If so, the U.S. will be the godfather to massive destruction of the Middle East.
? the most severely destructive of all
counterproductive U.S.
foreign policies.
Quote Abraham Lincoln: ?I rid myself of
enemies by making friends with them.??
?
alternative insight
march 1, 2010
HOME
PAGE MAIN PAGE
alternativeinsight@earthlink.net