Washington Hasn't Lost its Options, But Seems to Have Lost the Compass
Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat - 25/02/06//
NEW YORK - The chief topic in discussions held by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Arab leaders during her trip to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates was the Islamic Republic of Iran. This topic has an important extension to the Palestinians and Hamas' taking up the formation of a government after its recent election victory. However, the more important extension leads to Syria and Hizbullah in Lebanon. Rice's trip was the first by a high-ranking American official to discuss Iran as part of the regional framework, and not just the country's nuclear program. Thus, the result of Rice's visit will be important, not just when it comes to what she achieved in the consultations, but also regarding Washington's practical options. It is now time for the US administration to take the initiative regarding Iran instead of tasking the Europeans with this matter, as Tehran has accelerated its aspirations for regional dominance. Washington is now being requested to clarify the scenarios it has in mind.
The level of regional and international trust in this administration is very low. Part of the prevailing suspicion about US policies is due to the personalities of some leading Bush administration officials, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. However, there are some core reasons for the loss of trust in the US and its policies toward the Arab region. Some of these involve America's mistakes in Iraq, while others involve the complete bias toward Israel as America's most important ally in the Middle East. One of the most important reasons for the White House's failure to reassure its friends lies in the reputation of US foreign policy over various administrations: abandoning commitments, lacking the patience needed to learn about certain issues and draw up long-range plans, vacillating based on temporary or narrow political considerations instead of thinking seriously about what is needed to radically reform US foreign policy.
Fixing US policy in Iraq - a policy spoonfed by Dick Cheney to George Bush via Condoleezza Rice, and implemented by Donald Rumsfeld - requires, first of all, an acknowledgment of the US' mistakes in Iraq. Second, fixing this policy requires a readiness for accountability, and therefore resignation after admitting to failure. Third, it should be acknowledged that the US war in Iraq served Iran, after Israel, by eliminating Iraq entirely from the strategic equation and completely "taming" the country.
Dick Cheney, the leading architect of the failed policy and most in love with the idea of a "Shiite Crescent," will not resign of his own will. He might be forced to later by the Republican Party to plead "health reasons" if he remains an impediment to the party's aspirations to retain the White House. However, Cheney is unable to submit his resignation by himself, since he doesn't recognize that he has erred, entangling America in Iraq and entangling Iraq in a war of terror and perhaps a sectarian war as well. If Iraq is partitioned, or disintegrates in a civil war, this is not an American failure, according to Cheney's thinking. On the contrary, the idea originally took into consideration "the benefits" of seeing Iraq partitioned or collapsing. This is part of the dreams and plans of an "oil belt" stretching from "Petrolistan", from eastern Saudi Arabia to Iran in the Fertile Crescent.
Cheney's Arab advisers encouraged him to be hostile to the Sunnis and practice friendship and alliance with the Shiites, not only based on their religious affiliation but also because Iran is a "nation-state," as opposed to its surrounding Arab environment. They told him that Iran is a state of institutions and ancient wisdom, hinting to him that the rule of clergy was not bad, and better than the rule of secularists or Arab generals.
What these advisors didn't tell Cheney was that what they really wanted was Iranian hegemony over the Middle East. They didn't expect the surprise election of a revolutionary president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who completely "stabbed them in the back" after they worked for years to prove "loyalty" in their blind support for Israel and drive to see it exempted from any suspicion or accountability. Ahmadinejad disturbed this desperate group and its "great" plans; there would be no way to live with the Iranian president's "provocative" style. He must go back on his denial of the Holocaust and his threat to destroy Israel, or there will be no way for this group to go ahead with its plans to achieve Iranian hegemony in the Middle East in some fashion.
This week, the Iranian foreign minister, Manushahr Muttaqi, began an attempt to contain the damage from Ahmadinejad's repeated statements; he acknowledged that the Holocaust was a fact and denied Tehran's desire to "wipe Israel off the map." However, Ahmadinejad's surprise alerted the White House to the dangers of its wager on the wisdom and experience of Iran and presenting Iraq on a silver platter to Iran's rulers.
In other words, the revolutionary Ahmadinejad inadvertently did away with the dreams and plans of the American neoconservatives and extremists. They manufactured a war in Iraq not only to help the Iraqi opposition topple Saddam Hussein and his regime. One of the basic objectives was to create a Shiite Crescent to guarantee Iranian hegemony of the Sunni-majority Arab region, based on the wisdom, awareness and balance of the clerical rulers in Iran. But the revolutionary Ahmadinejad turned up as an astonishing surprise, one that was not part of the original calculations. If Cheney were a responsible individual, he would have resigned because he misunderstood and miscalculated regarding his war in Iraq. If Donald Rumsfeld were a man of courage, he would have resigned for his role as the person supervising the military failure of the US in Iraq, and the racist and illegal policy of torture and detention.
The two are trying to show that they were right; that what they did in Iraq is now successful and will be a valuable investment in the region in the future. Cheney, the arch-concealer, and Rumsfeld, the arch-misleader, will not resign despite all of the calls for them to do so. They will not apologize; instead, they will continue their arrogance.
During a confrontation last week between Rumsfeld and this journalist at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, the Defense Secretary clearly showed his distaste for anyone who challenges him openly. As he lectured, he showed contempt for the media, accusing it of attacking the White House because the media didn't obey his orders regarding the war against terror. Rumsfeld claimed that "credibility" was his hallmark and that he only spoke "the truth," while in fact he was clearly misleading and deceiving, and in fact openly lying. When I told him that the Guantanamo detention facility was not open to all, as he said, and that the writers of a United Nations report were prevented from interviewing detainees, contrary to his claims, the "honest" Secretary lost his control over himself slightly, then gathered himself and returned to his style of prevarication, attack, and bullying.
Trying to tame journalists and accusing them of treason are the fashion in the White House, just as it is in the Arab region. Strategies are set down in various parts of the world to submit members of the media to the authorities' threats and subjugation when they refuse to take instructions. When it comes to Syria and Lebanon, some people carry out the mission of intimidation, threat and accusations of treason just like the governments, militias and "readers" who suddenly appear to defend the Arabism of Syria or the resistance of Hizbullah. They make accusations that the other side is made up of agents of foreign powers and promise their rivals a fate similar to those who have been assassinated.
Using journalists - whether as the bullet or the target - in wars of polarization, terror and assassination is merely a type of extortion with no beneficial return. America's mistakes in Iraq won't disappear for the peoples of the region, whatever strategies are set down by Rumsfeld. The Syrian and Iranian transgressions via Hizbullah in Lebanon will not pass without seeing people held accountable or tried in court, no matter how many "unknown individuals" are mobilized to issue threats and curses. The media does not create policies; it certainly affects public opinion and sometimes the policies of states. But the media does not create history, it is the witness to history.
Those who make history have the responsibility of the present and future of their countries and peoples; they are politicians in government and the opposition. However, those who permit or obstruct politicians in their work are the peoples of the region, whether they are aware and have a presence and exercise their citizenship, or are asleep and exercise the stupidity of the herd.
What is taking place in the Arab region and the Middle East requires people to stop being carried away by emotion and traditional thinking, since the coming challenges and confrontations are dangerous ones.
The Bush administration is confused in some matters and skilled in others. The assumption that it is weak and cornered, with no options for Iran, Syria or Iraq, is a mistaken and short-term view. So is the assumption that the administration has a well-studied plan. This administration is floundering in its policies toward because it hasn't settled its policies toward Iraq. However, this does not mean that it doesn't have the option of settling things with Iran, militarily, diplomatically, or economically.
The most important procedure in the decision to confront Iran is an early withdrawal from Iraq. Then, Iraq will be an Arab or Iranian problem, or an "Islamic" problem, regarding the wars of mosques, al-Qaida, and Zarqawi and his followers, who are using Iraq as a front in the war on terror.
Zarqawi and al-Qaida, and perhaps the resistance in Iraq, will claim that the American withdrawal was a victory for them. The answer is, "So be it." The claim of victory or defeat in a war such as this is absolutely meaningless. In such a war, a victory is not a victory if the other side is completely crushed. Anything else is a won battle here or a lost battle there. This war cannot be won because it won't end with the complete destruction of the other side. Yes, there are long-term strategic considerations. If America's interest in the region requires using every tool to change the regime in Iran after it was laid bare by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the US military will not pay attention to what Ayman Zawahiri calls a victory or defeat in a silly chase. Striking the backbone of Iran, if the need arises, is much more important than chasing Zawahiri in the mountains of Pakistan or Afghanistan.
During her recent trip to the region, Condoleezza Rice spoke to Arab leaders about strategic issues that go beyond complaints about Cheney's policy toward Iran or Rumsfeld's mistakes in Iraq. She is creating options with the region's leaders on the Iranian issue, in its regional, and not nuclear aspect. Washington has temporarily handed over the Iranian file to its European partners. Rice's trip was an indication of new thinking in Washington, which says that dealing with Iran will not be limited to the nuclear issue; it's time for a complete showdown over Iran's extension of influence in the region.
Rice erred in rushing to isolate Hamas and allowing her visit to focus on urging Arab leaders to cut aid to Hamas, so the movement will choose politics over armed struggle, violence or terror. It's still too early to go to Plan B with Hamas. It would be better for the US Secretary of State to await the completion of Plan A, before bringing Plan B into the mix. The issue is not completely dependent on Hamas. Israel must also take steps that match any change by Hamas. As long as the US Secretary of State heads to the region handcuffed due to American influence and impact on Israel, she will only be met with apologies from her Arab interlocutors when it comes to meeting her demands. The White House and the Israeli government have only one option: truly enabling and empowering Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas so that he can influence Hamas, one way or another. Anything else is nonsense.
If Rice spoke secretly to Arab leaders about how to compensate for the financial shortfall in the Hamas government, in order to end the movement's dependence on Iran, she will have truly thought strategically and discussed ways to weaken methods of Iranian influence on Palestinian and Arab decision-making.
Hamas is an important piece of the strategy of dismantling Iran's regional power. Hamas can move away from the Iranian grip if there is an alternative that is better for the Palestinian people. Thus, the White House should think about attracting, and not isolating Hamas. The military and political wings of Hamas should be split and there should be efforts along with Arab and Muslim leaders to prompt Israel and Hamas to recognize each other.
As for breaking Iranian influence in the region, exercised through Syria and Hizbullah in Lebanon, a part of the difficulty here is Arab. There is chaos on the Arab scene regarding Syria and Lebanon, represented by the "no mediation" and "no initiatives" coming from more than one Arab player. Some of these are a mix between "cooling down" and ensuring that certain parties are "quieted," on the pretext of maintaining stability - this is wrong. No Arab state has the right to tell parties inside and outside Syria or Lebanon that stability can't be achieved unless they remain quiet. This is an attack on the democratic, patriotic right to expression and also contradicts the arguments about adhering to international resolutions.
|
