This article was published by "Arab Center For Research and Policy Studies", 25\9\2011.
Tensions, rapid events, and succeeding statements have created misconceptions and confusion over the backgrounds of certain policies, as well as their true aims. This statement can be applied to US policy in the Middle East during this phase. US decision-makers are participating in this confusion, as are the region's ruling parties and large sections of the population. Richard Betts, author of Enemies of Intelligence: Knowledge and Power in American National Security, the best-selling book within the intelligence community, believes that the biggest challenge for the intelligence community, and consequently for American policy, is identifying the nature of the movements currently happening. Betts is inclined to believe that, "We [Americans] don't know much about this." He considers that this knowledge gap is partially caused by a lack of knowledge and fluency in other languages, based on the false assumption that everyone speaks English.In order to understand the truth about US positions and policies in the region at this complicated, changeable moment, one must understand the essential core of American beliefs about what forms the hub of their strategic interests in the Middle East. It is useful to step aside, for a moment, from the tumult of events, and to look at what kinds of discussions are taking place in Washington's corridors. For this reason, we have studied a number of testimonials to the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations, as well as the opinions of key scholars of US foreign policy.
Based on what we have already said about confusion and complications, Michael Makovsky mentioned before the Senate Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs, in April 2011, that one of Winston Churchill's key qualities was his insistence on specifying goals within priorities and aiming to achieve them at the cost of less important matters, concluding that this "is precisely what the United States needs at this particular moment". Following his own logic then, Makovsky proceeded to specify what he considered the United States' priorities to be: ensuring the secure production of petrol, committing to a safe Israel, and weakening and vanquishing Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. However, "there is one threat that could endanger these three interests, one above all others: a nuclear Iran." For this reason, ensuring that a nuclear Iran would never see the light of day "must be the primary goal that leads our policy in light of the current, confused events." While freedom must inspire American policies whenever possible, the priority, for Makovsky, is to confront the Iranian challenge that threatens America's strategic interests.
According to Makovsky and Suzanne Maloney of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Iranian challenge has generally been the most prevalent of the Arab changes, except for the case of Syria. Furthermore, its Arab allies' (for example, the Arab Gulf states) increasing lack of trust in Washington could push them to become closer to Tehran, a matter which mandates the fast rebuilding of confidence. Makovsky believes that the conflict in Libya diverted attention away from the Iranian nuclear threat, which has not been stopped by sanctions, computer viruses, or the assassinations of scientists; in fact, its capacities continue to develop. Therefore, he argues that the US must focus on applying more sanctions on Iran, and give serious credibility - and visibility - to the military option, and that it must prepare public opinion for such a scenario. In short, Makovsky reiterates: "We must, as much as possible, support the liberation movements in the region, but our reaction to developments must primarily focus on the need to prevent Iran from developing military nuclear capabilities, since this is the major strategic threat to us."
| |
The infamous John Bolton has decided that one of his responsibilities at this particular juncture is to remind the public of the fact that the Iranian nuclear threat takes priority over all the developments in the region, and that this threat should remain at the forefront of events, which he has done by highlighting a number of estimates and studies that discuss the fact that time has run out for dealing with Iran, and emphasizing that there is a secret nuclear cooperation between Syria and Iran. In his testimonial on June 23, 2011, titled "Iran and Syria: The Next Steps," Bolton did not touch upon any of the events currently underway in the Middle East, for fear that it would draw attention away from Iran, except for when he criticized the Obama Administration for not exercising the military option in Syria, as it had done in Libya.
At the same time, Robert Satloff, Director of the Washington Institute, stated that the "pressing issue when it comes to Syria is not whether the Syrians can succeed in toppling the Assad regime, or whether the regime may survive, but rather, it is the dealing of a sharp blow to the anti-Western, anti-democratic, anti-peace axis that passes through Damascus" (i.e., changing the strategic results to confront Iran). On the topic of Iran, Satloff warns that the developments in the Arab world have drawn attention away from the Iranian threat, a matter that must be avoided at any cost. He also warns that the Iranian nuclear threat has now become more serious than it was before the "Arab Spring". He raises fears of the international community becoming used to the idea of a nuclear Iran, which would make it accept the situation, and attempt to coexist with it once it occurs.
Further proof of the existence of an American tunnel vision, viewing the entire Middle East as Iran, is encapsulated in a report to The New York Times titled, "The Biggest Competition in the Middle East: Iran," which argues that the United States' position on the developments and revolutions across the Arab world is limited and confined by the effect this could have on the US's strategic calculations about containing Iranian power in the region. This conclusion is confirmed by the head of the National Iranian-American Council, who in his recurring meetings with officials in the American administration affirms that, "the main concern about the ongoing transformations in the Middle East is the extent of their effect on the US-Iran confrontation." From an Iranian perspective, the United States is attempting a rapprochement with the Middle East, which deeply affects how it is forming its policies of response to the "Arab Spring".
Scott Lucas, researcher in Iranian affairs at Birmingham University, also critiques this narrow American view towards the Middle East, which leads the US to ignore both the internal affairs of the region's nation-states and the people's need for political legitimacy. The US attitude to Egypt is nothing but a reflection of this policy, which continues to think of the region's states and its peoples merely as pawns in the game against Iran. In sum, Americans realize that this is not the moment of big decisions for President Obama, who is already preoccupied with the next presidential elections and addressing or improving the declining economy, which he knows is the magic key to winning the hearts and minds of the American electorate in the upcoming elections. For the foreseeable future, there will not be any major moves on Iran, which right-wing American analysts believe is steadily continuing to progress towards nuclear capacity. They believe that since the direct confrontation is not an option at the moment, there can be no escape from focusing on complex, winding policies as long as they focus on Iran, and that they don't affect or impede the march of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. For this reason, Washington is dealing with the Arab transformations according to the following tripartite division:
1- Allied regimes that have collapsed (Tunisia and Egypt): The US is trying to intervene in forming the transformation, whether through economic intervention (direct intervention, or through international organizations or Arab allies), or through political influence, or influencing civil society.
2- Allied regimes that are being confronted with popular challenges (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Jordan): Washington is trying to encourage some reforms that could guarantee the stability of these regimes, while simultaneously avoiding harsh, public criticism of them. The difficulty in dealing with this group, for Washington, lies in the fact that it places announced American values at odds with American interests, which contributes to the tarnishing of America's image as a sponsor of democracy regionally and internationally.
3-Antagonistic regimes (Syria and Libya): Here, Washington seems to be strongly involved because of the bitter regional struggle, particularly at a time when America's military options in the region are declining.
The decline in America's foreign policy capabilities and resources as a result of the financial crisis will force American policymakers to focus their resources into the more significant challenges, the most important of which is Iran, at the expense of America's other interests in the region. For this reason, the Americans will become more extreme in their attempt to steer the Arab transformations towards their own interests, even if these clash with the local population's ambitions. They will attempt to use this in order to compensate for the absence of military and economic tools that the US can use in its confrontation with Iran. Americans have always excelled in their absolute pragmatism, which has unleashed various ills upon our region. Those who are after freedom and democracy at this Arab moment must make sure that their movement will not be used or co-opted in Washington's struggles in the region, or else their "spring" will turn into a bitter winter.
Hosam Matar
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق