The US Needs a Radical Change in Foreign Policy
Whether George W. Bush or John Kerry wins the US presidential election next November, a radical change of course in American foreign policy will be urgently required. The blunders of this administration, especially in the Middle East, have been breathtaking. They have spread mayhem around the world, gravely endangering the national security of the US and its major allies.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair bears a special responsibility for the disastrous state of affairs because, instead of restraining Bush - as he could and should have done on the key issues of Iraq and Palestine - he rashly followed in his wake, lending his seal of approval to America's follies.
The result is a revolt by Islamic militants, many of them ready to die for the cause, as has been seen in several terrorist outrages. The Sept. 11, 2001, attack is so far the most spectacular, but governments in many parts of the world are also in the firing line. No doubt the Islamic revolt against the arrogance and brutality of the West has been brewing for a very long time - perhaps ever since the carve-up of Arab Asia by Britain and France after World War I and the subsequent encouragement of Zionist colonization in Palestine - but actions in the past three or four years by the Bush administration and the Sharon government in Israel have poured fuel on the fire.
America's war in Iraq and its tolerance of Israel's destruction of Palestinian society have aroused unprecedented anger and protest in many parts of the world. In the Arab and Islamic world, the US and its Israeli ally are today seen as the source of all evil.
Even though the Middle East is a long way from US, the American public is at last waking up to the sharp deterioration in its country's international standing in a vital region, on which the US depends for its energy supplies. According to the Pew Research Center, foreign policy has displaced jobs and healthcare at the top of American concerns. A poll earlier this month revealed the most striking shift in American opinion since Vietnam: 46 percent of Americans consider foreign policy the most important problem, whereas only 26 percent give priority to the economy.
As casualties and costs soar, support for the war in Iraq is declining steadily. This awakening to the dangers of the outside world could have a considerable impact on the coming election, probably favoring Kerry. When he called for a more "sensitive" foreign policy in the "war on terror," Vice-President Dick Cheney ridiculed him. "A 'sensitive' war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans,' Cheney said. But it is precisely the hard-boiled approach of men like Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that has drawn America into a quagmire.
Forget, for the moment, the fraudulent reasons for waging the Iraqi war, the faulty intelligence, the poor planning for the post-war era, the gutting of the Iraqi state, the large-scale killing and wounding of civilians in Fallujah, Najaf and other places, the wanton material destruction, the use of heavy weapons against built-up areas, the sadistic torture of prisoners. These might be described as failures of execution, the blundering of a careless superpower, drunk on its bloated military budget and trapped in the belief that overwhelming force can solve complex political problems.
But events have shown that military means alone are unable to quell a shadowy, organization such as Al-Qaeda or a nationalist insurgency such as the US is battling in Iraq. No effective strategy for either type of conflict has yet been devised by the US. Instead, Bush's doctrine of preventive war - which favors armed intervention over containment and seeks to impose America's will unilaterally - has driven a coach and horses through international legality. It has estranged some of America's main European allies, triggering a crisis in trans-Atlantic relations that will take years to heal. It has also enraged the Muslim world.
At the heart of America's failure lies the administration's refusal to recognize that the contemporary roots of Islamic terror are to be found in American policies. Although the whole world sees terrorism as essentially a response to US policy, senior American officials - and particularly the neoconservative friends of Israel among them - angrily reject any such link. For them, hostility to the US is the product of backward Muslim societies, "failed states" and an inherently violent religion. It has nothing to do, they argue, with America's wars or Israel's brutal occupation. More effort should be made, they say, explaining American values to Muslim opinion!
The committee investigating the Sept. 11 attacks recommended that the US government provide "much larger resources" to support broadcasts to Muslim audiences; rebuild scholarship and exchange programs; help fight high illiteracy in the Middle East; do more to encourage economic development and trade - in fact do every thing except change American policies!
Not only is this approach fundamentally wrong-headed, but it provides the US with an alibi for not addressing the "roots of terror" - that is to say the anger, desperation and rampant political grievance which cause men and women to want to hit back against their tormentors, even at the cost of their lives. For example, instead of stopping Israel's infamous separation wall and its expanding settlements - as it alone could do - the US is doing the exact opposite!
The Iraqi war was clearly a terrible mistake that is continuing to infect the whole region. The American dilemma - which a future president will have to face - is that that it cannot afford either to pull out or to stay. Both courses are extremely perilous. In the meantime, battles like those in Najaf or elsewhere risk turning the mass of the Shiite population against the US, with potential repercussions far beyond Iraq.
The war in Iraq compounded the error of 13 years of punitive sanctions that shattered Iraqi society and brought the country to its knees. Future historians might well conclude that had the US - and Iraq's Gulf neighbors - handled Saddam Hussein more intelligently after the Iraq-Iran war, he would not have invaded Kuwait in 1990, and the whole cycle of violence and destruction might have been avoided.
Having contained Iran in a bitter eight-year war, Saddam wanted to be recognized as America's prime interlocutor in the Gulf. With skilfull diplomacy he might have been tamed and even converted into a responsible statesman. Overthrowing him was not a vital US national interest, and certainly not a British one. But Israel and others saw him as a threat to be confronted and brought down.
The US may be about to make a similar error in its relations with Iran. Many Iranians, including leading figures in the conservative camp, are ready for a serious dialogue with the United States. But, instead of engaging with Iran - the one power, with Syria, which could help stabilize the situation in Iraq - the US accuses Iran of meddling in Iraq and threatens it with sanctions, or worse, if it does not give up its nuclear ambitions. As in the case of Iraq, Israel seems to be inciting the US against Iran. Anxious to retain its regional nuclear-weapons monopoly, Israel has even hinted it may attack Iranian plants, in the same way as it destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. Amazingly, the US has failed to warn Israel publicly against such madness.
America is poorly served by its two major allies: Britain has done too little to influence American policies, while Israel has arguably done a great deal too much.
Patrick Seale, a veteran Middle East analyst, wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR
British Prime Minister Tony Blair bears a special responsibility for the disastrous state of affairs because, instead of restraining Bush - as he could and should have done on the key issues of Iraq and Palestine - he rashly followed in his wake, lending his seal of approval to America's follies.
The result is a revolt by Islamic militants, many of them ready to die for the cause, as has been seen in several terrorist outrages. The Sept. 11, 2001, attack is so far the most spectacular, but governments in many parts of the world are also in the firing line. No doubt the Islamic revolt against the arrogance and brutality of the West has been brewing for a very long time - perhaps ever since the carve-up of Arab Asia by Britain and France after World War I and the subsequent encouragement of Zionist colonization in Palestine - but actions in the past three or four years by the Bush administration and the Sharon government in Israel have poured fuel on the fire.
America's war in Iraq and its tolerance of Israel's destruction of Palestinian society have aroused unprecedented anger and protest in many parts of the world. In the Arab and Islamic world, the US and its Israeli ally are today seen as the source of all evil.
Even though the Middle East is a long way from US, the American public is at last waking up to the sharp deterioration in its country's international standing in a vital region, on which the US depends for its energy supplies. According to the Pew Research Center, foreign policy has displaced jobs and healthcare at the top of American concerns. A poll earlier this month revealed the most striking shift in American opinion since Vietnam: 46 percent of Americans consider foreign policy the most important problem, whereas only 26 percent give priority to the economy.
As casualties and costs soar, support for the war in Iraq is declining steadily. This awakening to the dangers of the outside world could have a considerable impact on the coming election, probably favoring Kerry. When he called for a more "sensitive" foreign policy in the "war on terror," Vice-President Dick Cheney ridiculed him. "A 'sensitive' war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans,' Cheney said. But it is precisely the hard-boiled approach of men like Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that has drawn America into a quagmire.
Forget, for the moment, the fraudulent reasons for waging the Iraqi war, the faulty intelligence, the poor planning for the post-war era, the gutting of the Iraqi state, the large-scale killing and wounding of civilians in Fallujah, Najaf and other places, the wanton material destruction, the use of heavy weapons against built-up areas, the sadistic torture of prisoners. These might be described as failures of execution, the blundering of a careless superpower, drunk on its bloated military budget and trapped in the belief that overwhelming force can solve complex political problems.
But events have shown that military means alone are unable to quell a shadowy, organization such as Al-Qaeda or a nationalist insurgency such as the US is battling in Iraq. No effective strategy for either type of conflict has yet been devised by the US. Instead, Bush's doctrine of preventive war - which favors armed intervention over containment and seeks to impose America's will unilaterally - has driven a coach and horses through international legality. It has estranged some of America's main European allies, triggering a crisis in trans-Atlantic relations that will take years to heal. It has also enraged the Muslim world.
At the heart of America's failure lies the administration's refusal to recognize that the contemporary roots of Islamic terror are to be found in American policies. Although the whole world sees terrorism as essentially a response to US policy, senior American officials - and particularly the neoconservative friends of Israel among them - angrily reject any such link. For them, hostility to the US is the product of backward Muslim societies, "failed states" and an inherently violent religion. It has nothing to do, they argue, with America's wars or Israel's brutal occupation. More effort should be made, they say, explaining American values to Muslim opinion!
The committee investigating the Sept. 11 attacks recommended that the US government provide "much larger resources" to support broadcasts to Muslim audiences; rebuild scholarship and exchange programs; help fight high illiteracy in the Middle East; do more to encourage economic development and trade - in fact do every thing except change American policies!
Not only is this approach fundamentally wrong-headed, but it provides the US with an alibi for not addressing the "roots of terror" - that is to say the anger, desperation and rampant political grievance which cause men and women to want to hit back against their tormentors, even at the cost of their lives. For example, instead of stopping Israel's infamous separation wall and its expanding settlements - as it alone could do - the US is doing the exact opposite!
The Iraqi war was clearly a terrible mistake that is continuing to infect the whole region. The American dilemma - which a future president will have to face - is that that it cannot afford either to pull out or to stay. Both courses are extremely perilous. In the meantime, battles like those in Najaf or elsewhere risk turning the mass of the Shiite population against the US, with potential repercussions far beyond Iraq.
The war in Iraq compounded the error of 13 years of punitive sanctions that shattered Iraqi society and brought the country to its knees. Future historians might well conclude that had the US - and Iraq's Gulf neighbors - handled Saddam Hussein more intelligently after the Iraq-Iran war, he would not have invaded Kuwait in 1990, and the whole cycle of violence and destruction might have been avoided.
Having contained Iran in a bitter eight-year war, Saddam wanted to be recognized as America's prime interlocutor in the Gulf. With skilfull diplomacy he might have been tamed and even converted into a responsible statesman. Overthrowing him was not a vital US national interest, and certainly not a British one. But Israel and others saw him as a threat to be confronted and brought down.
The US may be about to make a similar error in its relations with Iran. Many Iranians, including leading figures in the conservative camp, are ready for a serious dialogue with the United States. But, instead of engaging with Iran - the one power, with Syria, which could help stabilize the situation in Iraq - the US accuses Iran of meddling in Iraq and threatens it with sanctions, or worse, if it does not give up its nuclear ambitions. As in the case of Iraq, Israel seems to be inciting the US against Iran. Anxious to retain its regional nuclear-weapons monopoly, Israel has even hinted it may attack Iranian plants, in the same way as it destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. Amazingly, the US has failed to warn Israel publicly against such madness.
America is poorly served by its two major allies: Britain has done too little to influence American policies, while Israel has arguably done a great deal too much.
Patrick Seale, a veteran Middle East analyst, wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR
posted by R7 | 8/31/2004 12:16:00 AM
1 Comments:
Israel to US: Now for Iran
By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank
Sunday 29 August 2004, 14:00 Makka Time, 11:00 GMT
Having succeeded in getting the United States to invade and occupy Iraq, Israel is now making efforts to instigate the Bush administration to deal with the "Iranian threat".
This week, a high-ranking Israeli official urged the US "and the rest of the free world" to deal with the "Iranian threat before it is too late".
The remarks - reminiscent of the vitriolic propaganda campaign against Iraq prior to the Anglo-American invasion of the Arab country last year - coincided with the publication of an article by a leading Israeli military historian Martin Van-Creveld, suggesting that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon might very well order an attack on Iranian nuclear plants.
Writing in the Paris-based International Herald Tribune on 21 August, Creveld opined that an Israeli or American (or a joint Israeli-American) attack on Iranian nuclear plants may be carried out before the US November elections.
Israel reportedly possess a big arsenal of nuclear weapons - estimates range from 100 to 400 weapons and bombs - along with efficient delivery systems, including a fleet of long-range American-supplied F-15 fighter bombers as well as the medium range ballistic missile Yeriho.
Justification
Seeking to justify Tel Aviv's fixation on Iran, Israeli leaders are citing three reasons why Iran ought to dispose of its alleged would-be nuclear capability.
These include the Islamist nature of the Iranian regime, Iran's refusal to recognise Israel and the Islamic republic's alleged support of resistance groups fighting Israeli occupation and colonisation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Arab East Jerusalem as well as part of Southern Lebanon.
However, according to Abdul Sattar Qassem, Professor of Political Science at the Najah University in Nablus, these are only "pretexts".
"I believe that Israel is the most dangerous state in the world today. Imagine what state the stability and security of the world would be in if the messianic Jewish extremists of Gush Euminim reached power in Israel and suddenly found themselves in control of Israel's massive nuclear arsenal."
Maintaining supremacy
Qassem believes that the sole motive behind Israel's currently evolving showdown with Iran is the Israeli determination to "maintain its nuclear monopoly and strategic supremacy in this region".
"Israel simply wants to keep five hundred million Muslims in this region under the mercy of its nuclear arsenal. The appearance of any possible strategic deterrence would upset Israel's strategic calculations and might rectify the strategic balance of power in the Middle East."
Creveld tacitly agrees, saying that "Iran would be crazy" not to try developing a nuclear capability, given Israel's aggrandising nuclear armaments, including the reported deployment of nuclear-equipped submarines in the Mediterranean, the Arabian Sea and perhaps the Persian Gulf.
Israel reportedly makes nuclear
weapons at its Dimona reactor
"It all depends on Ariel Sharon - an old war-horse who back in 1982 led Israel into a disastrous invasion of Lebanon. One can only hope that this time he will think twice," the military historian said.
In the public relations battle, Israel argues that Iran is dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state, a claim that is much less than true since Iran has said repeatedly that it would accept any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would be acceptable to the Palestinians.
Furthermore, Iran could also make a similar argument, quoting statements by Israeli ministers and officials calling for the extermination of millions of Muslims.
No easy target
Israeli strategists recognise that attacking and destroying Iranian nuclear installations would not be an easy job.
These facilities, they admit, are widely dispersed, well-guarded and housed in underground bunkers.
"It wouldn't be as easy as the attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor," said Ephraim Ascolai, a nuclear weapons expert at the Jafee Centre for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv, alluding to the Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor in 1981.
But in an interview with Aljazeera.net, Ascolai pointed out that an Israeli attack on Iranian facilities was not unthinkable.
He argued, however, that the "Iranian nuclear crisis" was not an exclusively Israeli problem, but a world problem.
"You see, this is not only between Israel and Iran. The US, Australia and Europe have a vital interest in stopping Iran from going nuclear," he said.
Facing retaliation
Israel faces a host of problems carrying out a successful attack on Iranian nuclear plants, not the least of which being the would-be expected Iranian retaliation.
Iran Defence Minister Shamkhani
has warned Israel of retaliation
Iranian Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani has said on more than one occasion that Tehran would carry out a massive retaliation if Israel attacked Iran.
In a recent interview with Aljazeera, Shamkhani warned that his country would not sit down idly awaiting an Israeli strike and would resort to a pre-emptive option against Israel and the US.
"The concept of a pre-emptive strike is not an American exclusivity," he said.
True, Shamkhani's statements do have a large rhetorical content since a non-nuclear Iran possesses no strategic deterrent against a supposedly nuclear Israel, backed by its guardian-ally, the US.
But it would be utterly naive to assume that the Iranians would do nothing in the face of a flagrant and unprovoked Israeli or American attack on their country.
Leaving to US
In addition, Israel would have serious logistical problems carrying out an attack on the Iranian installations.
Turkey, with its at least nominally Islamic government, is unlikely to allow Israel to use its airspace to launch attacks on a neighbouring Islamic country with which Ankara has been seeking to improve and upgrade political and economic relations.
Moreover, using the "Jordanian-Iraqi conduit" would further enforce convictions, already salient among most Arabs and Muslims, that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq was carried out first and foremost to serve Israel's regional strategic interests.
"I think the safest thing for Israel is to let the Americans do it"
This, coupled with US brazen support of Israel's settlement expansion in the West Bank, would likely bring American credibility in this part of the world to an all-time low.
In that light, Israel's most workable approach would be to leave it to the Americans, according to Ira Sharkansky, Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
"I think the safest thing for Israel is to let the Americans do it," he told Aljazeera.net.
And Israel, directly and through its powerful lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has been making strenuous efforts to get Washington to "do something" about Iran.
Repercussions
It is not clear yet what the repercussions of the reported FBI apprehension of an Israeli spy operating in the Pentagon will be for Israel's efforts to get the US to attack Iran.
The alleged spy - reportedly Larry Franklin, who worked in the office of Undersecretary of Defence Douglas Feith - is said to have passed sensitive documents pertaining to Iran, to Israel via two AIPAC representatives.
He reportedly had a close association with two Pentagon Jewish officials, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, both of whom are strong advocates of a tough American policy on Iran.
"We will not see an immediate effect, but many American officials ... would think twice before deciding to have too-close relations with Israel"
And Iran's alleged nuclear programme was said to be the main focus of Franklin's activities.
Israeli analyst Allan Pappie of Haifa University believes the Franklin affair will deal "a very serious blow" to American-Israeli relations at the intelligence level.
In an interview with Aljazeera.net, Pappie said the affair would have a long-term negative effect on US-Israeli relations and on the way Israel and its supporters in the US are perceived.
"We will not see an immediate effect, but many American officials, especially at the intelligence and defence levels, would think twice before deciding to have too-close relations with Israel."
Tel Aviv's most immediate and serious concern, however, may be whether the scandal will scuttle its efforts to persuade Washington to attack Iran's nuclear sites.
Aljazeera
Post a Comment
<< Home