U.S.A. and Iran

September 24, 2012

 

U.S.A. and Iran

Pankaj Mishra, author of "From the Ruins of Empire: "The Intellectuals Who Remade Asia", wrote in the September 24th edition of the New York Times:

"There is little doubt that years of disorder lie ahead in the Middle East as different factions try to gain control. The murder of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in Libya, the one American success story of the Arab Spring, is an early sign of the chaos to come; it also points to the unpredictable consequences likely to follow any Western intervention in Syria — or Iran.
As in Southeast Asia in 1975, the limits of both American firepower and diplomacy have been exposed. Financial leverage, or baksheesh, can work only up to a point with leaders struggling to control the bewilderingly diverse and ferocious energies unleashed by the Arab Spring.
Although it’s politically unpalatable to mention it during an election campaign, the case for a strategic American retreat from the Middle East and Afghanistan has rarely been more compelling. It’s especially strong as growing energy independence reduces America’s burden for policing the region, and its supposed ally, Israel, shows alarming signs of turning into a loose cannon. "

In the last 35 years American foreign policy in the Middle East seems to have revolved around two poles: stability, to keep the oil flowing unhindered; support for Israel, no matter what. But the Arab spring swept away or severely crippled the dictatorial regimes through which the Americans worked. Political change came in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Syria, and, yes, Iraq. The political climate was especially affected by events in Egypt, long an American ally, and the cultural leader in the Arab world - most Arab movies, for example, are made in Egypt. Thus the sudden upheaval throughout the region has threatened the first pole: stability. Simply put, if democracy as such comes to the Middle East, it will mean war with Israel, whom the Arab masses hate and despise, mainly because it is viewed as a colonial power.

The second pillar of American Middle East policy, unswerving support of Israel, is undergoing transformation, if only because Netanyahu is clearly trying to influence an American presidentlal election. It must be stated here that the foreign policy goals of the United States and Israel are not, and never can be, congruent. It is not in the interest of the United States to fight in Iran. Not only would this be more destablization, but it would starkly reveal Israeli influence on U.S. actions. Basically, Netanyahu has said "Let's you and him fight." Israel does not want another nuclear power in the Middle East (It possesses an estimated 50 atomic weapons and 3 thermonuclear devices). Of course, Israeli claims that these devices would only be used in defense. But this is the precise argument that Iran makes too. And it must be noted that the U.S. does not attack opponents armed with nuclear weapons - another reason that Iran quietly cites for its pursuit of A bombs.

As Mr. Mishra states, years of disorder lie ahead in the Middle East. Keeping the peace and satisfying legitimate Arab demands for equality and justice will try the U.S. foreign policy establishment as never before.