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.