The end of America's role in the Middle East?
Could it be that the United States is about to forfeit the pre-eminent position it has held in the Middle East for the last sixty years? Could it be that the United States is about to cede power in the Middle East to Iran? That's what Michael Young claims in Thursday's Beirut Daily Star. Looking at American policy, what do we see today? For starters, we see an Iran actively challenging America in the region. This may look like hubris, but the Iranians see little that is worrisome. Take Iraq, which the US fought long and hard over and ultimately stabilized after the spectacular blunders of the immediate postwar years in 2003-2005. Today, Obama’s stubborn priority is to withdraw, effectively denying Washington the primary terrain needed to contain Iran, but also to exercise its power over Syria and to an extent Saudi Arabia.Young goes on to raise the possibility that, having failed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the 'Palestinians,' Obama will go to war to protect his position in the Middle East.
Iraq’s election results provided an opportunity for the Obama administration. Iran’s closest allies lost ground, in contrast to the blocs led by Ayad Allawi and Nouri al-Maliki. Instead of trying to impose some compromise between the two men that could have created the basis of a more stable Sunni-Shiite order, therefore of a new strategic relationship between Washington and Baghdad, Obama did nothing. Iran saw an opening and is now helping establish a Shiite-led government that will doubtless favor Iranian interests.
Washington’s refusal to develop a strategic relationship with Iraq to hold back Iran, means the US will have to rely, instead, on the frail Gulf states to push back against the Islamic Republic. Not surprisingly, Iran sees very few serious obstacles coming from its Gulf Arab neighbors. And these would dissipate completely if Tehran were to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran has the added ability in places such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait, but also in Yemen, of being able to mobilize members of disgruntled Shiite minorities.
The impact of a Palestinian-Israeli settlement on the Gulf and Iraq, the critical playing field in the American-Iranian rivalry, would be relatively limited. The Palestinians have been a tool used by Iran, as has Lebanon, to protect its core objective: building up its supremacy in the Gulf. Iran’s priority is to progressively undermine America in the Middle East, with other regional tensions, in themselves of less immediate importance to Tehran, feeding into this. Hizbullah and Hamas act as useful shock absorbers for Iran while it develops a nuclear capability, the cornerstone of its bid for regional hegemony.
Which brings us to the shipwreck that is Afghanistan. Obama has locked himself into an impossible situation there. The president has set a deadline for the start of a withdrawal from the country in July 2011, and if he fails to win the midterm elections next November, which is probable, we can be sure that he will begin implementing his pullout before the next presidential election, unless there is a dramatic improvement in American fortunes. Until now the signs are not good. Washington finds itself fighting the Taliban while striving to find common ground between the conflicting objectives of its two major (and mistrusted) allies in the Afghan war, President Hamid Karzai and Pakistan. Add to that that Pakistan has no real desire to see the US succeed, preferring to reassert its own authority in Kabul.
This is excellent news for Iran. An Obama administration trapped in the tentacles of Afghanistan makes more likely American retreats in the Middle East. And if Barack Obama decides next year that it is time to wind down his Afghan adventure, the implications for America’s view of itself, and the world’s view of America, could be dramatic, particularly if Iran uses that opening to finalize a nuclear weapon. Obama will have presided over two major military withdrawals while allowing Iran to become a major adversary in the Middle East.
There's another possibility. True, Obama has blown the possibility of forming a strategic relationship with Iraq to hold off Iran, but there is another party with whom he can form a strategic relationship to accomplish the same purpose. It's a party that has been an American ally for most of its 62 years of existence. It's a party that will actually commit its own troops to fight, and whose troops would fight well enough so that all that would be needed from the US is the superior long-distance firepower that only the US has available. There are only two small problems: Obama doesn't like Israel and forming a strategic alliance with Israel would spell the end of his Muslim apology tour.
Decisions, decisions.... Ally with Israel or completely lose control of the Middle East. Which would you choose?
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:42 PM
4 Comments:
People can deplore Iranian influence but the article and those opposed to Iranian hegemony tiptoe up to expressing the view that this influence is somehow unnatural or easy to reverse as if it is this bizarre manifestation of an artificial intrusion from outer space to be repelled with the right techniques. Well, Iran ain't. It acts like a major regional player because it is a major player and has a whole lot of friends and connections in Lebanon, and Syria, and Iraq, and now the Palestinian territories which it works and works and works. Israel's strategic situation is delicate and defensive. If the idea is that the US will finally get off the fence and join Israel in an alliance joining American military power with Israeli technology to militarily combat Iran and the axis of rejection--ain't nobody in the United States who wants to do that. Maybe they should. But they don't--and it would be America providing the brunt of the resources for such a campaign--Israel would be the definitely minor partner.
Does Obumbler care?
No - he cares only about his image.
What could go wrong indeed
"If the idea is that the US will finally get off the fence and join Israel in an alliance joining American military power with Israeli technology to militarily combat Iran and the axis of rejection--ain't nobody in the United States who wants to do that.
The road has already been paved and all roads have led to this place in time.
Weakness and appeasement have been the soup du jour even from the 'big talkers' who spoke of the axis of evil but veered severely off track. The statement concerning those who "harbor and sponsor terror" sounded good but showed little results.
We went to Iraq and Afghanistan with big talk. We armed our boys with armaments and eventually they were ordered to wear 'tu tu's' and kid gloves.
Talk tuff? Act tuff, forget it.
We proclaimed, yum yum when the plate of corn was placed on the table then took our teeth out to eat it!
In the end, who really paid besides the boys who gave their lives and tax payers their $$$? Israel.
But that's where it is. The Pentagon's "counterinsurgency" program is a nation-building sorta military sorta hearts and minds sorta lets-be-nice-to-Islam template and they so do not want to confront Iran. Obama so does not want to confront Iran and seems to be considering doing a 180 and getting Iran all warm and fuzzy by imposing NTP disarmament on ... Israel. Is a US strike against Iran all things considered the best of a bad situation for the US short-term? Frankly I don't know but the political system here won't consider it any more than it considers what happens if you spend borrowed money you don't have for 50 percent of your budget.
Israel might want to look for alliances with other ex-friends of the US who are left out in the cold.
Post a Comment
<< Home