PJ: The author makes excellent points regarding the importance of the Middle East while side-stepping the impact a republican president is likely to have in the region. Decades ago the reality of a republican administration vs a democratic administration made little difference to the region. Things changed dramatically more than a decade ago when the Bush administration (further) alienated many Arab states (along with much of the world) with its unnecessary aggression in Iraq. It may take decades to repair the damage done. Now, years later, the current crop of GOP contenders have publicly demonized Arabs and Muslims by lumping the people and the faith in with terrorists. In the last few years they have joined with far right voices in fighting the construction of mosques; they have encouraged racial profiling and one time front-runner Herman Cain is on record as saying that he would not appoint Muslims to positions of power in his administration. Of course, Mr. Cain is no longer in the race but his comments made a lasting impression. In addition, all the GOP presidential wannabes have gone to extraordinary lengths to show their dedication to Israel while further demonizing that country's Arab neighbors who they see as a threat to Israel's security. The current front-runner, Newt Gingrich, even went so far recently to say that the Palestinians "are an invented people", a comment not likely to win many hearts in the Middle East.
A foreign policy that reduces an intense concentration on the Middle East for economic opportunities and security issues with Asia are hardly as dangerous as the demagoguery against Arabs and Muslims practiced by the GOP today.
The Economist
Lexington
The wretched Middle East
A region that an American presidency turns away from at its peril
AT THE end of this month the last American troops will leave Iraq, marking the conclusion of an eight-year misadventure in which some 4,500 American soldiers and many, many more Iraqis lost their lives. On December 1st Vice-President Joe Biden told American and Iraqi troops in Baghdad that even after its soldiers had left, America would be a loyal partner of the new Iraq and stay “deeply engaged” throughout the region. Back home, however, a subversive new idea has taken hold among the makers of foreign policy. Isn’t it time for America to turn away from the scorpions’ nest of the Middle East and pivot towards Asia?
Since the wish is father to the deed, the supposed “pivot” has started already. Barack Obama declared last month that America had made “a deliberate and strategic decision” to be “all in” in the Asia-Pacific arena in the 21st century. Nobody in the administration thinks that the superpower can turn away from the wretched Middle East immediately, but a certain theory of the case is doing the rounds. Not right now, but soon, it is argued, America might at least be able to lower its profile there.
The thinking runs something like this. First, the Arab awakening gives America a chance to align its interests with its values: instead of supporting the rulers against the street it can at last go with the grain of history. Second, Mr Obama has Iran well and truly “contained” by sanctions. Third, the dictatorship of Bashar Assad is about to collapse, and that will pull down the evil axis of Iran, Syria and Hizbullah. Fourth, as America’s influence wanes, Turkey’s is growing—and Turkey is a NATO member and American ally. Last, America no longer imports more than 10% of its oil from the Middle East, so it can afford to take a more relaxed view than it once did of the region’s combustible dynamics.
All these points have some merit. But to see in them a case for America to lean back as it turns to Asia you have first to plant a pair of rose-tinted spectacles on your nose. As Britain discovered after withdrawing from east of Suez nearly half a century ago, great powers that think they can leave the Middle East behind them are sooner or later sucked back in.
Start with Iraq. Despite Mr Biden’s breezy optimism, the politics of Iraq remain as volatile as gelignite. Many analysts fear that the departure of American troops makes it far likelier that an Iraq which has failed to resolve its internal rifts will fall back into sectarian war. As for the Arab awakening, it is true that Mr Obama did a fair job in February of using America’s influence over Egypt’s army to prevent a bloodbath. But now that the army that defended the revolution looks tempted to steal it, and radical Islamists of all stripes have prospered at the polls, the trick of aligning America’s interests with its values looks a bit harder to pull off. American energy independence? That is still an aspiration, not a reality. Oil is a globally traded commodity, which means that if the supply from the Gulf is pinched the price will rise in America, even though America buys most of its oil elsewhere.
Into Iran?
Apart from oil, the other issue that anchors America in the region is its bipartisan commitment to the safety of Israel. And Israel right now believes that it is facing an extraordinary threat, in the shape of Iran’s nuclear programme.
Mr Obama has worked harder on Iran than he gets credits for. Tom Donilon, his national security adviser, noted last month that Mr Obama had persuaded allies to impose “unprecedented” sanctions that have left Iran boxed-in and isolated. If sanctions fail, Mr Donilon added, Iran should remember that America had taken no “options off the table”. In other words, the president who sent SEALs and drones into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden and decimate al-Qaeda might in the end use force in Iran too.
It is a good story. The trouble is that nothing America has done or may have done—not the sanctions, not the threats, not a mysterious campaign of assassination and sabotage—has yet stopped Iran from continuing defiantly to enrich uranium. And it is not only Iran that seems to doubt whether Mr Obama will ever take military action against it. Plenty of Americans, some glum, some relieved, have reached the same conclusion. In the Weekly Standard, the parish magazine of the Republican Party, Thomas Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute argued recently that, contra Mr Donilon, Iran is probably pretty satisfied with the course of events. America was leaving Iraq and about to “bug out” of Afghanistan too. Iran has silenced its internal opposition and the Arab spring has plunged its Sunni foes into disarray.
To judge by its public agitation, Israel too is losing faith in Mr Obama. Yes, the president has shown that he is not afraid of military action. But he also wants to be re-elected, and pushing Iran too hard could hoist the oil price and hurt the recovery on which his re-election depends. A meeting last weekend of the Saban Forum, an annual colloquium in Washington of high-ups from Israel and America, saw sulking, scolding and mixed messages from both sides. While exhorting Israel to “just get to the damn table” with the Palestinians, and mend relations with Turkey, Leon Panetta, America’s defence secretary, said a military attack might delay an Iranian bomb for only a year or two, at the price of a regional war. That statement hardly makes it sound as if the military option is genuinely still on the president’s table. Little wonder that Israel, unsure whether Mr Obama would in fact ever strike Iran, is debating whether a tight election year, one in which the Republicans are in full cry against Mr Obama’s alleged “betrayal” of the Jewish state, might be the very time to do so itself.
A pivot to Asia? Of course. That, says Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institution, a former ambassador to Israel, is where the great game has moved. Even so, this is decidedly not the moment for America to relax its vigilance in the Middle East.
http://www.economist.com/node/21541397
No comments:
Post a Comment