March 29, 2007
The US and the Middle East
One of the many ironies of the Bush presidency is that George W came to power determined to spend less time on the Middle East. Well the US is now heavily engaged on all fronts – Iraq, Iran and the Middle East peace process. I spent last week in Washington talking to administration officials - and others – and this is where things seem to stand:
Middle East Peace Process: The US has been saying for months that the administration is determined to make a big new push. But they still haven’t resolved the problem of what to do about Hamas. Asked about the possibility of US officials talking to Hamas, a senior American diplomat says firmly that – “We don’t do Hamas, we do Abu Mazen.” The trouble is that large numbers of the Palestinian people definitely “do Hamas”; and America’s European allies are also increasingly impatient with the policy of not talking to Hamas. So the Americans have advanced an inch – they will talk to the non-Hamas members of the Palestinian government, provided they are acting in a non-governmental capacity. Or something like that – it’s all pretty tortured.
The Americans admit that their favoured partners on the Israeli and Palestinian side – Ehud Olmert and Abu Mazen – are both very weak at the moment. But they claim that they new Bush push for peace (if it can be characterised in that way) is different from the Clinton approach in one crucial respect. Rather than treating the Israel-Palestinian problem as a discrete issue, they now see it as part of a wider regional problem – and think that the Egyptians, Saudis and others can play an important role in pushing it along. Which is fine, except that the Americans are clearly uncomfortable with the Saudi peace initiative, partly because of the role it assigns to Hamas.
Iraq: The administration people claim to be cautiously optimistic about the “surge” and the new security plan for Baghdad. But they think it can only work if the Iraqi army becomes more effective and if there is progress on political issues – like the new oil law and a new approach to “de-Baathification”. The consensus seems to be that we will only be able to judge the “surge” properly in about six months time. One analyst sketches four possible scenarios for next September: 1) The surge has worked and political progress has been made – in which case “Bush looks pretty good”. 2) The surge has failed and the Americans go back to embrace the proposals of the Iraq Study Group, led by James Baker – the key elements being “regional talks” and a phased withdrawal of American troops. 3) Things are too far gone, even for the Baker approach, and Iraq begins to split apart. 4) The surge has failed and President Bush decides to “up the ante” by confronting Iran. Once you get beyond people who are closely connected to the Bush administration, I’m afraid that the consensus seems to be that option three is the likeliest outcome
Iran: The crisis over the British sailors being held in Iran was only just breaking when I left Washington. But before its full importance had sunk in, the Americans were sounding pretty optimistic about the possibility of making diplomatic progress. They claim that “four to six months ago” – in the aftermath of the Lebanon and then the American congressional elections – “Iran was riding high.” President Bush’s decision to reject the Baker-Hamilton report was, in part, motivated by a desire not to talk to Iran, at a time when the Iranians were feeling confident. The decision to dispatch aircraft carriers to the Gulf, to arrest some Iranians inside Iraq and to push for tougher sanctions were all part of a determined “push-back” against Iran. Rather than being a preparation for war, this was a preparation for diplomacy. (That’s the line anyway). It was important that the Iranians feel less secure, before diplomatic feelers could be put out. The Americans are particularly pleased with the success of “targeted sanctions” – hitting at the finances of the Iranian government and top Iranians. This involves freezing the funds and the bank accounts of particular people or Iranian entities.
Unlike the Israelis who say that Iran is 18 months away from crossing the threshold to acquiring nuclear weapons, the Americans put the date at “beyond 2010”. There is still time for diplomacy to work. And we will know “in short order” if it can work.
And if diplomacy fails? That question is left open. The analysts’ consensus in Washington is that an American military strike on Iran has become less likely in recent months. But the decision will ultimately rest on the gut feelings of President Bush. A re-assuring thought on which to end.
Dear Readers,
Please know this is all part of the US and UK plan to prepare the world for war against Iran. Why? Because that is what AIPAC wants. Two years ago, Mr Bush created a US agency with the aim of creating international outrage against Iran through a massive negative media campaign aimed at vilifying Iran thorugh fabricated or exaggerated news. We have seen the fruits of their labour with the mistransalation of Ahmadinejads comments and most recently the pubic circus made of the 15 british sailors capure by Iran which has convincable turned the previously passive European attitude now against Iran. With most of Britain now calling for Tehran to be nuked, I would argue that that Mr Bush’s plan has worked. All that is left now is for the bombs to drop on Iran, to the sound of cheers all over Europe and the US.
Posted by: Baz (Iranian) | March 30th, 2007 at 2:50 am | Report this commentOBJECTIVE: an Iraq that is stable, functional, progressing;
OBJECTIVE: an Iran without illicit nuclear programmes;
OBJECTIVE: an Iran constructively assisting in the region, and productively interfacing with the developed world;
OBJECTIVE: release of Iran’s UK prisoners…
EU STATES SHOULD EXHIBIT COHESION TOWARDS IRAN- BUT NOT KNEE-JERK ADVERSARIAL COHESION.
Look at Iran as a schoolyard bully… a troubled person with behavioral problems… a person not used to the conventions of person-to-person (developed world nations’) interactions… someone who is- due to a defensive ego, personality difficulties & upbringing-> loud, brash & in your face-ish… when (for the umpteenth time) this schoolyard bully, although not hungry, takes another’s lunch (read: 15 British hostages)
- what is the most effective LONG TERM strategy for the lunch-owner/allies to use to deal with this person??…
1) responding hostilely & inflexibly with only one objective- “getting the provocatively taken lunch back”?
After which, the problemmed schoolyard bully will not have changed- “been cured”- & his bullying/baiting behaviors will continue repeatedly in the future. The mind-set which was behind him taking lunch(es) will be unchanged, & will likely be amplified due to the circumstances of his being impelled to return the stolen lunch;
2) or, while ensuring that getting the stolen lunch back is paramount, looking at the bigger picture & simultaneously attempting to address the underlying factors behind the schoolyard bully (Iran) having oppositional relationships with others (the west) & taking lunches (i.e. illicit nuclear programmes/mischief in Iraq /unnecessary prisoner taking) in the first place??
Facilitating Iran’s (& similarly positioned countries like N Korea’s) constructive, cohesive incorporation into the main streams of the developed world?s political, technological & economic structures would be a far more likely to be successful strategy to deal with them & their ?acting out? + the nuclear-proliferation issues they?re connected to, than confrontational, hostile rhetoric or imposing destructive sanctions &/or embarking on costly military campaigns.
This calls for setting national “directions of development” through VOLUNTARY international structures & agreements.
Led by the UK & the US the developed world ought to:
- Offer Iran the 2012 Olympics, with guaranties of significant logistical & financial support. Other states in the region could be approached for participation, with a regional Olympic games the optimal objective. Recently progressing states like the UAE, Dubai & Saudi Arabia would make good locations for certain events.
- Offer both Iran & N Korea the rights to be exclusive locations for the International Thermonuclear Energy Research project (ITER, in planning stages, recently awarded to Cadarache, France, www.iter.org ).
The ITER project is, by its design & nature, international in function, thereby enabling competent oversight, precluding Iran or North Korea from misusing the project’s resources. Publicly, offering Iran & N Korea the ITER project would, in effect, call their bluff about needing secretive nuclear technology development programmes.
It would also neutralize their basis for alleging many developed-world nations? harbour unseemly motives for being against their development of advanced nuclear technology.
- Additionally, offer to pay for, & partner in the building of significant infrastructure for N Korea, & possibly Iran, of a type that will instill national-prestige, as well as facilitating an improved connectedness-both physical & psychological-to the outside world.
Japan?s new Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, advocates more assertiveness & a greater global role for his country. These objectives could be amply accomplished, productively, by Japan supporting strategies like ITER & the 2012 Olympics, & participating in the paying for & construction of a Japanese-type high-speed “bullet” train to connect the 2 Koreas? capitals: Pyongyang & Seoul.
Pan-Korean peninsula high-speed rail links could only contribute to, & make more permanent the existent but very limited, trade & industry connections between the troubled North & prosperous South.
If accepted by N Korea & Iran, altruistic overtures such as the ITER project, the 2012 Olympics & high tech infrastructure projects, would enable global stages where these two egotistically defensive country’s (& many Islamic nations) could feel that they can show their positive potential & achievements & as well- meeting the developed world’s political objectives- would effectively require these countries to “fit”, & “work with”, the world community.
Furthermore, & most importantly, offering N Korea & Iran the ITER project & the 2012 Olympics + simultaneously committing to pay-for & partner in the building of much needed infrastructure would go a long way to eliminating their (+ many Islam nations/people?s) perceptions of threat from developed world & “Judeo Christian” country’s- removing their leaders’ main argument for alleging a requirement for nuclear weapons & long-range missile programmes.
Roderick V. Louis
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | March 31st, 2007 at 12:11 am | Report this comment(near) Vancouver, Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
Nice comments Roderick V. Louis.
But what if the bully is mentally so crazy that he can’t be cured?? People in Iran are taught from the young age to hate the USA and Israel. How can we persuade them to like the West?? If we give them the Olympics etc, they might think ‘Oh they use their money to help us. They are corrupt people. Lets use their money against them’. The roads sponsored by US AIDS in Palestine are called after Saddam Hussein. Doctors don’t treat untreatable bullies.
Posted by: John Ospanov | April 1st, 2007 at 7:24 pm | Report this comment