Conflicting conflicts

Ever since the US has had a Middle East policy, basically since WW II, it has had difficulty balancing conflicting aspects of their policies. The strategic US Middle East policies, interests and objectives have at times been in conflict and at times been completely opposed. Some would argue that “strategic” and “US Middle East policy” are not words that should be used in the same sentence. I have maintained that Osama Bin Laden has an advantage in his conflict with the US since he has a strategy and the US is completely focused on tactics. The US has even declared war on a tactic, the so called “war on terror”, but that is another story. After 1945, America’s primary objectives in the region were securing Western access to Middle Eastern oil, preventing the Soviet Union from reaping political or strategic advantage in the area, and ensuring Israel’s security. Pursuing the last of these objectives often complicated the pursuit of the other two. Washington’s close relations with Israel generated anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, providing the Soviet Union with opportunities to increase its political influence in the region. Similarly, during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, President Richard M. Nixon’s decision to airlift military supplies to Israel prompted oil-producing Arab states to impose an embargo on oil shipments to the United States and some European countries, causing major dislocations in the global economy. As the Cold War drew to an end, the imperative of containing the Soviet Union gave way to two new objectives: combating international terrorism and preventing so called "rogue" states—such as Libya, Iran, and Iraq—from challenging U.S. policies in the region. Both of these objectives have acquired fresh urgency following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but Americans disagree over whether the two goals can, or should, be pursued simultaneously. While President George W. Bush argued that the necessity of disarming Iraq and overthrowing its government as well cannot be separated from the effort to defeat Osama bin Laden’s al-Qa‘ida network, others insist that Bush’s preoccupation with Iraq has diverted precious energy and resources from the war against al-Qa‘ida. As in previous decades, Washington finds no easy formulas for pursuing its diverse objectives in the Middle East. A good example is occurring in the region as we speak. The US has objectives in the region of containing and disrupting Iranian influence, supporting the Kurdish regional government in Iraq as a poster child for positive results from the US invasion and occupation and cultivating good relations with Turkey as a moderate Islamic state, a bridge to the Middle East and a conduit for oil and natural gas flow to the west. In order to help accomplish the first objective, the US has supported and armed the Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK) and their affiliate the PJAK in their attacks on Iran. (For this story, click here) This has created the problem that the PKK has used this support and the arms to attack Turkey. (For this story, click here) After numerous deadly cross border raids Turkey has asked the Iraqi central government, the US, and the Kurdish regional government to crack down on PKK bases in Iraq and prevent the attacks across the border. The Iraqi government has no ability to accomplish this as they have limited resources and those that they do have are not allowed to operate in Kurdish areas. The US is unwilling to do anything because they support the PKK attacks on Iran and are reluctant to risk destabilizing the only part of Iraq that shows any signs of progress. The Kurdish regional government has no desire to do anything because their long range objective is an independent greater Kurdistan incorporating the Kurdish areas of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. The result of all this is that our erstwhile ally, Turkey, and our erstwhile enemy, Iran, are meeting to discuss how to work together to solve their common problem. (For this story, click here) A fine mess, good luck in resolving it.

The Empire Strikes Out

After the recent story of the cancellation of a talk by Archbishop Desmond Tutu (See the story below) it was good news that Father Dennis Dease, President of Saint Thomas, decided that he had made a mistake and reinstated the invitation. (For the full announcement, click here) The initial cancellation was the result of pressure by Jewish/Israel lobby organizations like the Zionist Organization of America. The large number of emails, letters and phone calls from individuals and organizations like Sabeel and Jewish Voices for Peace persuaded Father Dease that he had made a mistake. He said: “I did not have all the facts and points of view. I do now.” The bad news is that I did not help. Shortly after I posted on this subject, I received a call from a friend who had read it. She said: “This is an outrage. You need to write St. Thomas.” Unfortunately I said to myself “What difference will one email from me make?” I was wrong. Tom Friedman’s latest column talks about the power of one involved individual to make a difference. (For the column, click here) I promise to get involved next time.

Do we really pay these guys?

This week The News Hour on PBS did a piece on Iran’s influence in Iraq. The commentators were Ray Takeyh, an Iranian American who is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and Peter Rodman former Assistant Secretary of Defense and fellow at the Brookings Institute. (For a transcript of the conversation, click here) Mr. Takeyh and Mr. Rodman did not agree about much as to how the US should deal with Iran regarding Iraq. Mr. Takeyh took the position that the situation was very complicated, but with careful and sophisticated diplomacy, some agreement was possible. Mr. Rodman, for the most part, repeated the US government policy that Iran was responsible for the bad things happening in Iraq and a policy of threats and sanctions was appropriate and necessary. Surprisingly, the one thing that they did seem to agree on was that there was a great amount of convergence between the strategic goals of the US and those of Iran with respect to the situation in Iraq. The US government would like to see a federal state as outlined in the Iraqi constitution with a relatively weak central government and relatively strong provincial or regional governments. They would like to see the democratically elected and Shia dominated government of Prime Minister Maliki succeed in stabilizing the country. They also would like to see the US troops come home. (Maybe) These are essentially the strategic goals of Iran. For 60 years the Israelis and the Palestinians have been unable to reach agreement on their broader goals. Because of this failure all the efforts to talk about process have come to nothing. Here we agree on the broader goals and what remains is to agree on is how to accomplish them. It seems to me that this is what we pay our State Dept. diplomats to do. Instead of laying down a list of a priori demands and insisting that the other party accedes, as US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker did in his recent meetings with Iran, our diplomats should be looking for the common ground. If these people did their job as poorly for me in business as they do for me as part of the government, I would fire the whole lot and start over. Maybe the American people should try that.

The Empire Strikes Back

Last week the Jewish/Israel lobby tried but were unsuccessful in preventing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from speaking at Columbia University. They were successful in getting Columbia President Bollinger to rudely attack President Ahmadinejad during his introduction. Since they were unsuccessful in New York, they decided to pick on someone smaller and less powerful than Columbia. This week, they succeeded in preventing Nobel Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu from speaking at St. Thomas College in Minneapolis. (For this story, click here) The grounds for this boycott of Archbishop Tutu were his alleged anti-Semitic remarks at a conference in Boston. The right wing Zionist Organization of America has not only twisted the words of Bishop Tutu, but also those of Jimmy Carter and Professor Norman Finkelstein to achieve their goal of silencing Israel’s critics. (For the full transcript of the speech, click here) It is disappointing that this episode should take place at St. Thomas College, a Catholic school named for a saint who was honored for being willing to question conventional wisdom even religious dogma. During our recent trip to Israel/Palestine my wife and I commissioned an icon of St. Thomas for our church whose name also honors St. Thomas. Those who have gone with us to Israel and the West Bank usually return questioning the conventional wisdom that they have received from the US media and politicians. They tend agree with the words of Bishop Tutu and Jimmy Carter comparing what is happening in Israel/Palestine with what happened in apartheid South Africa. The nun in Jerusalem who painted the icon added the biblical quote “blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” Perhaps this applies to those who have not seen Israel with their own eyes but still campaign for peace and justice in this region.