What if We Leave the Middle East? (We Won’t Be Missed)
We’re all familiar with this cliché-ridden story line. A successful husband dumps his middle-aged and supposedly feeble wife for a younger woman. The estranged wife’s friends are worried that after so many years of being dependent on her spouse, she won’t be able to make it in the real world as a single woman. But to the surprise of everyone, she goes to college, gets a degree and then opens a small but profitable business. And after dieting and working-out in the gym, she looks great and starts dating attractive and successful guys. In fact, her life has become much better now that he husband isn’t around anymore.
In a way, many of the doomsday scenarios that try to envision what would happen in the Middle East if the U.S. were to decide to withdraw its military troops from and end its diplomatic engagement in the region, assume that being dumped by the powerful American superpower, the region, starting with Iraq, and continuing with Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Palestine, and Egypt, would degenerate into an all-out and never-ending war between nation-states (Iran vs. Saudi Arabia), ethnic groups (Arabs vs. Kurds), religious sects (Sunnis vs. Shiites), and tribal groups (you name them).
In a Middle East sans America, we are being told by the members of Washington’s Foreign Policy Establishment, the pro-U.S. regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan would instantly collapse and Iran and its proxies would emerge as the ultimate winners. Oil would cease to flow from the region which would eventually draw in other global players, like China, Russia and the European Union (EU) that would start fighting over its resources and divide the region between them. Everyone would then recall the good, old days of Pax America in the Middle East and would wonder. What were we thinking when we bashed American interventionism in the region? There was no way that the Middle East would have been able to survive without U.S. wise guidance and effective protection. Right?
Wrong. A counterargument would start by drawing attention to the devastating consequences of American diplomatic and military intervention in the Middle East during the first eight years of the twenty-first century. The ousting of Saddam Hussein and the occupation of Iraq that destroyed the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and strengthened the power of Iran and its Shiite proxies in the region, not to mention the humanitarian and economic costs of this American disastrous misadventure, including the death and destruction in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of refugees, and rising oil prices (and we are mentioning here the huge costs for the American people).
And lest we forget, a somewhat bizarre mix of an American crusade for democracy and an ambitious strive for hegemony brought about the election of Hamas in Palestine followed by an effort to isolate and punish it and the Palestinian people who elected it, and the strengthening of the power of the Hezbollah in Lebanon followed by Washington giving a green light to Israel to bomb Lebanon back to the stone ages.. The result of the American policy has been more bloodshed between Israelis and Palestinians, growing instability in Lebanon, and rising tensions between Syria and Israel, and the never-ending chatter about the U.S or Israel strikes against Iran.
If we apply our earlier analogy, we could argue that it is the wife (the Middle East) that has concluded that the time has come to dump the husband (Uncle Sam), and not the other way around. It is from this perspective that we w need evaluate some of the dramatic developments that have been taking place in the Middle East as some of the leading players in the region, operating based on their interests, have decided to disregard U.S. guidance and embrace independent action.
First, the Shiite controlled ruling and opposition parties in Iraq have all strengthened their ties to the Shiite regime in Tehran while raising objections to continuing American military occupation of their country. Indeed, it was Iran, and not the U.S., that played a critical role in mediating a cease fire between the government of Nouri al-Maliki and the forces of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The liberated Iraqis, it seems, are trying to liberate themselves from American rule and get closer to the Iranians (who according to Washington, are trying to destabilize Iran).
At the same time, the Saudis who have been harshly critical the decision to topple Saddam Hussein and recognize the constraints operating on U.S. power in the region are using their economic and diplomatic power to strengthening the Sunni regimes in the region while trying to appease Iran, hoping to create a stable balance of power in the Persian Gulf.
The sidelining of American power in the Middle East has been even more evident in the Levant, where leading American allies–Israel, Egypt and Turkey have been pursuing policies that run contrary to stated American policy.
Hence, while the Bush Administration and its neoconservative ideologues have depicted the secular Ba’ath regime in Damascus as an unofficial member of the Axis of Evil and part of the Islamo-Fascist threat, Turkey and Israel have been raising strong objections to this American dogma by arguing that the Syrian current partnership with Iran is tactical and not strategic and that Damascus is interested in negotiating a peace agreement with Israel and could be co-opted into a moderate pro-western bloc in the region.
Despite strong American opposition, the Israelis have decided to start to negotiate with the Syrians under Turkish auspices--and both sides have expressed satisfaction with the first phase of the talks in Turkey. Filling the vacuum that has been created by the American refusal to support the Israel-Syria talks has been France, with President Nicolas Sarkozy inviting Assad, together with all other Mediterranean heads of states, including that Israel, to attend the inaugural meeting of the “Mediterranean Union” in Paris on July 13. The French leader is hoping that Israel and Syria would become part of a new “Mediterranean Union” to complement the EU.
France could also play a constructive role in dealing with another consequence of the U.S. policy in the Levant. The Americans have been critical of the recent deal, backed by Syria and Iran, that was reached between the Lebanese government headed by Fouad Seniora and the Hezbollah movement that seemed to strengthen the power of the Shiite group. Sarkozy whose government has had maintained historic ties to Lebanon and Syria and could help facilitate a détente between the two countries that reflects the new balance of power in the region.
And finally, after President Bush’s visit to Israel during which he bashed diplomatic negotiations with rogue regimes and terrorist groups as “appeasement,” Israel has agreed to finalize a deal with the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip, mediated by Egypt, which could create the basis for a long-term cease-fire between the Israelis and the radical Islamic group which the Bush Administration has refused to engage and vowed to diplomatically isolate.
While some experts in Washington are suggesting that the Americans should support and even take part in the negotiations between Israel and Syria as well as between Israel and Hamas. In fact, one reason that these diplomatic engagements proved to be successful, has to do with the American disengagement from these processes which tend to provide incentives for the Middle Eastern players to take care of their respective interests.
Indeed, one could imagine the noisy opposition that an American involvement in talks with the Hamas and Syria would have ignited on Capitol Hill and other centers of political power during this heated election season and lead to the collapse of those talks. Moreover, the Syrians, the Palestinians and the Israelis would have probably tried to extract diplomatic and financial goodies from the American in exchange for their “painful” concessions that they would have had to make anyway.
There is a certain lesson that the new American president could draw from these recent developments when he considers reassessing American presence in Iraq. A gradual U.S. disengagement from that country – and from the entire Middle East—could actually put pressure on the main political forces in Mesopotamia as well on the other governments in the region to work together to protect their strategic and economic interests by ensuring that Iraq doesn’t disintegrate and the balance of power there remains stable. Indeed, these Middle Eastern players might all surprise Washington by doing better without American military interventions and futile “peace processing”. Indeed, dumping the Middle East – could end up being a great bargain for the both the Middle Easterners and the Americans.
Comments
Excellent post. This sums up what Ron Paul said in regard to Israel, that they are maintained as a vassal state by the U.S. and prohibited from seeking peace with their neighbors. He maintained that left to their own devices without American intervention the Israelis would make peace with their neighbors as it is in their long term interests to do so.
The wife getting dumped is also a great analogy. So who will be the sexy new wife after the middle east gets dumped?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Good post. A question: if the plain, middle-aged wife is already blossoming and finding handsome new suitors, why is she so adamantly opposed to a divorce?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Say what? I’m afraid it’s just the opposite. The United States is a vassal of Israel! And it ain’t gonna change. Just look at the way both Obama and McBush bent over to their masters at Aipac. Both candidates are bought and paid for just like every president in the last 100 years!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@j smith,
I agree but AIPAC doesn’t represent the average Israeli anymore than it represents the average American. The U.S. government likes to pretend that they need to protecct Israel and certain special interest groups enforce this concept.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Kudos to both LH and takimag for this article. So the Framers’ vision may gradually take hold of US foreign polciy in the ME. Many DC rentseekers will have their rice bowls broken if a sensible policy were to be put in place.. The tide may be turning - Bushco has lifted key sanctions on the N Korean gov (a tip of the hat tto Bushco foor this wisdom).
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You’ll forgive me for being skeptical that Iran played a benevolent or even a major role in negotiating a cease ire.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
And the fall of Lebanon back into the Syrian-Iranian orbit suggests that a nuclear Iran would not dominate the region?
The fact that China, already working with Iran and Sudan to foil the US, wants more influence in the region is ignored.
And the Olmert junta represents Israel how?
Mr. Hadar, please stop cherry picking.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ron L. The Olmert Junta is probably more representative of Israel than the Bush Junta. If you read my piece, the point was Iran and its proxies have succeeded to emerge as winner thans to the policies of the Bush Junta in Iraq and elsewhere.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hmm, let me sharpen my question a little bit. If the middle-aged wife is so opposed to a divorce, and if she’s famously shrewd, realistic, and hard-headed about her position in the dating world, then perhaps the husband’s reasoning is incorrect? Perhaps the husband is actually rationalizing--"she’ll be just fine"--when he should just have the guts to say, “Screw her, I’m leaving.”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The US/Israel ties are unique in a sense because they represent role reversal in the dog/tail wagging proverb! Here we have a situation where the tail not only wags but dictates the dog’s agenda too. Read Douglas Reed’s “The controversy of Zion”.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I certainly agree. US meddling in the Middle East has been so harmful that its effects rather resemble those of French meddling in Germany during the Thirty Years’ War.
Presumably this is unintended, though most Arabs I’ve spoken to assume it’s all part of a wicked plot by the Great Satan to do them down.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Like it or not, the USA can’t leave the Mideast, because our monetary/economic system is
based on the Petro-dollar, propping up our “free market” economy. The US economy works
something like this: we give China our paper dollars, and they give us manufactured goods.
Since the US produces nothing that China wants, the Chinese have nothing to do with these
paper dollars but lend them back to us to finance our occupation of the Mideast.
The whole system is based on the willingness of China and our Asian neighbors to accept our paper dollars in exchange for their manufactured goods. Without the US dollar as the reserve currency, big corporations could’nt export our manufacturing base to China, and the American consumer couldn’t enjoy the consumer
“capitalist” treasures of cheap manufacturing goods that fill the gap between their
declining wages and their “American Dream”. Big trade deficits need big Federal Budget
deficits to make the whole ponzi scheme work.
To paraphrase Will Rogers, US foreign policy is an open book---a check book that is. The
US desires only the good will of other nations---and their oil, their minerals, their
manufactured goods, their gold, and anything else of value that the US might find useful.
No, the “war for democracy” is actually a proxy war with China and Europe. We can’t leave
or our <snicker> “free market” economy would collapse.
It’s sort of ironic that the anti-war right is just proving that Marx and Lenin were right all along, Imperialism needs constant war to make it work. Of course, the message of the original “libertarian"---
Adam Smith--was proving that imperialism never works...the cost of military occupation
always is more then the additional economic activity can generate in tax revenue to sustain
it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ploni Almoni: Well, I think that inertia is part of the reason for the wife’s initial anti-divorce sentiments. Like any client-state it benefits from the favors of the superpower that like the husband has more available options.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Joe populist: You make great points. But the issues you mention lie at the center of the problems the U.S. is facing in the Mideast: rising costs military and economics that make it it more difficutl to maintain this grand strategy. British Empire faced the same problems.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Excellent article. The same goes for the situation in Georgia, Ukraine and the Baltic States which are all being stimulated by the US to quarrel with Russia rather than establish sensible relations.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Fine. It supports the following:
US Government and its people are the real cause of the problems. They are imperialist.
Arabs’ terrorism is fully justified.
Kill Bush and all Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are included since it was Truman (a Democrat) who started the Israel Policy and made the Arabs hate the Americans. Recall 1948 history (please don’t use revisionists’ views - they are all biased). Burn all New York Times paper. It was the one who twisted the knife stabbed by Truman to the Arabs when they were defeated by the Israelis - publishing Israel won the War - while Arabs trying to convince their people that won the War.
In conclusion, kill all the Americans since they were descendants of people who killed and humiliated the Arabs. Maybe leave the Asians and Hispanics and other new immigrants. They are not really part of the history.
WILL THAT MAKE YOU HAPPY? WILL THAT GIVE YOU JUSTICE. IT IS OKEY TO BE ANTI-WAR. IF ALL THE COUNTRIES WILL BECOME ANTI-WAR. IS EVERYONE HEADING TO THAT DIRECTION? OR ONLY ANTI-WAR AMERICANS AND SOCIALISTS.
YOUR ARE SUFFERING FROM NARCISSISM. ONE THING THOUGH: YOU CAN NEVER CHANGE THE HISTORY.
BOTTOMLINE: EITHER YOU ARE PRO-AMERICA OR ANTI-AMERICA.
IT WILL BE THAT WAY FOR A LONG LONG TIME. WHY RELATIVE PEACE NOW? BECAUSE THERE IS A DOMINANT, BULLYING SUPERPOWER. WHEN THERE ARE TWO (COLD WAR), THERE ARE WARS. IF THERE ARE THREE OR MORE SUPERPOWERS, EXPECT MORE WARS!
IF AMERICA IS GONE, SOMEBODY WILL TAKE HER ROLE.
BASIS: HISTORY, ANCIENT AND MODERN.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Leon: I loved the article. I believe the State of Israel more accurately reads the
landscape than the More-Catholic-than-the-Pope crowd at AIPAC. There is no Arab
counterweight to AIPAC--and no penality--for appeasing them. Hence, the Congressional
herd grazes at their conferences.
As to the Arab options, the next round of weapons purchases--or refusal to buy weapons--
will give us an accurate measure of how much more time we can stay in the region. If the
Arab states don’t buy T-bills or weapons, the US economy will not be able to finance a
continued pressence in the region.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks for the kind words!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks for the response, Mr. Hadar. Don’t you see the irony in Pat Buchanan’s book,
which shows that WWI/WWII was all about stripping Germany and Italy of it’s colonies,
and expanding the British Empire? ‘Cause that’s what Marx and Lenin said, WWI was an
“imperialist” war.
That’s one major disagreement I have with you “libertarians”, the idea that “free trade”
and economic interdependence create conditions for world peace. Which is a nice theory,
but the fact is where the dollars flow, the soldiers follow. By making American dependent
on foreign oil and foreign manufactured goods, we have created the conditions for constant
war. America’s economic security is tied to foreign oil and foreign manufacturing. To
preserve it, the US MUST dominate the Mideast, and dominate the oil that the world
economy needs. Again, we have Lenin’s theory of Imperialism that seems operative, not
Friedrich Hayek’s quaint theories in his “Road to Serfdom”.
The freedom and economic security the US has achieved was by the judicious use of state
power to plan and enact a industrial policy that made is “independent”, not dependent.
I started out 40 years ago, believing all the “libertarian” theories, but events have
proven that “free trade” and “war for democracy” are as much a utopian fantasy as anything
that the socialists and communists dreamed up.
That’s teh
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.