The US in the Middle East

 


Middle East experts Robert Malley and Peter Harling have published an article entitled " Beyond Moderates and Militants" in the Foreign Affairs, September/ October 2010 issue. The subtitle of the essay is " How Obama  can chart a new course in the Middle East". 

For those of us interested in the region and in foreign policy matters, some of the most thought provoking statements in the article are quoted here.

" Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union: US policy makers stuck to a cold war era approach to foreign policy: dividing the world between faithful friends and well-defined foes, anchoring diplomacy in a relatively stable bilateral relationships, and relying on allies to promote clear-cut interests and contain enemies". 

" Ironically, the United States has proved far more successful over the past decade in reinforcing the cohesiveness of its foes than it has in maintaining the unity of its allies". 

" The West's tendency to adopt the Middle East policies that have already outlived their local political shelf lives is occurring once again today: despite its laudable attempt to rectify the Bush administration's missteps, the Obama administration is hamstrung by flawed assumptions about the regional balance of power. Washington still sees the Middle East as cleanly divided between two camps: a moderate, pro-American camp that ought to be bolstered and a militant, pro-Iranian one that needs to be contained. That conception is wholly divorced from reality".

" In the absence of a more forceful US leadership, the Middle East is fast becoming a region of spoilers, nations whose greatest imperative - and sole possible accomplishment-   is to prevent others from doing what they themselves cannot do. Egypt is trying to thwart Turkey's efforts to reconcile the rival Palestinian groups and get Israel to lift its blockade of Gaza. Syria hinders peace efforts that come at the expense of its allies. Saudi Arabia is intent on blocking Iranian advances  in Iraq. Practically no country has a positive agenda or is in a position to successfully advance one. Of course, despite the rise of its rivals, the United States still enjoys veto power over virtually all significant regional initiatives. But that is small consolation. To be spoiler in chief is a sad ambition for Washington and would be a depressing legacy for Obama".  

Finally, on an issue that I am touching frequently in Vienna in the IAEA, this quote on Iran's influence in the region: 
 
"The George W. Bush administration's approach to the middle east and it's response to the 9/11 attacks fundamentally altered the region's security architecture. By ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban and Iraq of Saddam Hussein, Washington unwittingly eliminated Tehran's two overriding strategic challenges, thus removing key impediments to Tehran's ability to project power and influence across the region".

Nuclear capabilities in the Middle East

Another long and tedious week at the IAEA Board of Governors. I have already commented on Iran, and the same goes as far as the Middle East and Israel. Deja vu! There is however, something developments worth noting. Those countries who lead the Third World are questioning the independence if the Agency and its new Director General, Amano.

Egipt, Cuba, Algeria and others are leading the pack in subtle attacks to reports and actions undertaken by Amano and his staff. Now, it is clear there are obvious loops in the new administration of the Agency. The choice by the countries who proposed and defended Mr. Amano as Director General to succeed the very political Al Baradei,was and is to have a mediocre leader, perhaps to reinforce the technical role of the IAEA. But the trend to question his ability to be independent is of concern.

And at the end of the day, if a country is sincere in its policy of non proliferation, and has nothing to hide or will never have nothing to hide regarding nuclear weapons, there should be no dispute about the role of the Agency and its procedures. So the question remains, do Arab countries really want to leave the door open to the future development of a nuclear bomb? If that is so, they are definitely doing a good job, with the help of Cuba, Venezuela and others.

Iran, the nuclear weapon and the World

What is going on this week at the IAEA in Vienna has a distinct flavor of "Deja vu". Nothing I can see has changed after the latest resolutions of the UN Security Council, or of other international and regional bodies.

The West is demanding Iran to comply with international law. The leaders of the Third World, either real or self proclaimed, are putting into question the international verification system. The silent majority of moderate countries still have not built up the courage to side with the cause of non proliferation.

But the reality is difficult to hide. If Iran has no intention of building a nuclear weapon, why defy the international community and contribute to the legitimate concerns of whole sectors of the world population who believe that further nuclear weaponry only endangers the world as we know it and what we are trying to construct for future generations.

And there is no denying that Iran is worried with the new sanctions it has to suffer. Monies and banks are targeted this time round. This really will affect not only the people of Iran,but also their leaders. This is a whole new matter.

There is something else I cannot understand. Why does the Arab world side with Iran? If nuclear proliferation by Iran is a threat to someone it is first and foremost to the Arab countries. Not to mention Pakistan and other far eastern Muslim countries. As a matter of fact, if Iran manages to finally get the nuclear weapon, the Arabs will, in turn, scramble to get theirs as soon as possible. They have the financial capabilities to buy it from any willing seller. That would really be a danger to the world we live in. That would be a real disaster.