Subscribe to Desicritics
The End of U.S. Dominance In The Middle East - What Dominance?
Liam Bailey
With the Baker Report suggesting America talks with its staunch adversaries Iran and Syria, and the public's apparent support for Baker's findings, it is beginning to look like Mr. Bush might finally be forced into --unthinkable for him-- acts of history validated by common sense. Since talking to Iran and Syria was first suggested by Blair after he gave evidence to the Baker Commission, analysts have been questioning the end of U.S domination in the Middle East.
The question should be: did the U.S ever dominate the Middle East? Sure, unconditionally supporting Israel ensured their influence in that conflict, IDF style. Bombing and shooting the Palestinians into agreement with the U.S' faddish peace plan at the time. Meanwhile the U.S exerted little or no influence in Israel's often ill-advised and frequently illegal actions. Israel currently has little or no influence in Middle East affairs anyway. It couldn't get by without U.S aid, let alone suppress the latest Palestinian Intifada.
There was a tradition of U.K and U.S influence in Iran's monarchical rule after we imposed a suitable Shah. The current stand-off over Iran's nuclear program, and its meddling in Iraq show how much things have changed. Not only recently but since the Iranian revolution in 1979, the hostages taken in the U.S embassy during the revolution flipped the bird to U.S influence in Iran. Iran currently showing disregard for U.S power is a facade to amplify its own strength and help their hegemonic aims.
Syrian diplomats have always adhered strictly to agreements reached with their U.S counterparts. But they have also been close to all-out war over the Israeli Lebanon conflict in 1983. The U.S, recognizing that Syria plays a central role in the Middle East and in global Jihad, attempts to exert its influence. And turn the "rogue state" from a supporter of terrorism to a supporter of democracy and U.S hegemony. They have and probably will never succeed in that aim.
The U.S has enjoyed 70 years of good relations with Saudi Arabia's monarchy, until 9/11 put a significant strain on the "special relationship". Saudi Arabia's condemnation of Israel during the Israel/Hezbollah conflict and rhetoric of going to war showed that the U.S doesn't hold much influence over Saudi Arabia.
In Iraq's case, we all know the current scenario. The U.S has as much influence in Iraq now as any of the rival militia factions. The same influence it has recently had over every other Middle East country, very little.
The U.S has had reasonable influence in Turkey since shortly after World War II, with the exception of the mid-late 70's when Turkey invaded Cyprus. The U.S' influence in Turkey crumbled in the build up to the Iraq war. Turkey refusing U.S forces entry to hit Iraq from the North, showed that --unlike Saudi Arabia-- Turkey's loyalty to their Iraqi Muslim brothers and sisters influenced their policy more than U.S relations. U.S aid was cut-off 2003. Except a small military grant, which I presume was necessary for Turkey's involvement in Afghanistan.
Relations fell apart in March 2005, when the U.S ambassador to Turkey resigned after two years. Because Turkey's government came out in support of their President's decision to visit Syria in early April that year, despite the U.S warning against it. Also for ignoring the ambassador's calls for Turkey to join an international coalition concerning Syria.
The U.S weighs its relationship with and influence of Egypt perhaps higher than any other Middle East country, because of its leadership role in the region. A role which was set when Egypt was actively fighting Israel and sought military aid from the Soviets. Several other Arab states shortly followed suit. U.S Israel relations improved after the 1979 peace treaty was signed with Israel. Since then the U.S has given billions of dollars in military and financial aid to sustain Egypt's moderate voice in Arab councils. Persuade less moderate regimes of the benefits of compromise and to maintain the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty.
The latter has been more successful than the other two by far. As the U.S failed to realize that the feelings of Egypt's leaders toward Israel's treatment of their Arab Palestinian brothers didn't change overnight. More likely they realized they would be in a much better position to help the Palestinians in every way with a whole whack of U.S aid.
Jordan's monarchy has perhaps the best relationship with the U.S. The U.S began providing Jordan with economic and military aid in 1951 and 1957 respectively. Relations were slightly soured by Jordan's reluctance to participate in the first Iraq war to liberate Kuwait. Relations improved throughout the 1990's as Jordan began to take a more favourable view of normalization of relations with Israel. Over the years the U.S has provided billions of dollars [PDF] in aid to Jordan. In return Jordan provided logistical support in the Afghanistan war, and, informally the same in the current Iraq war, although the monarchy was publicly opposed.
King Abdullah's policies of normalization with Israel and alliance with the U.S cause much unrest from Jordan's Islamic fundamentalist groups. Like the Jordan Muslim Brotherhood, an influential part of the political mainstream. It also causes unrest in parts of the Palestinian communities, and in prominent professional and trade organizations.
The Middle East and its rich oil reserves have always been at the fore-front of U.S policy. So much so that they have taken their eye off the ball elsewhere; allowing China to become the main influence in Asia and enter the fight for global supremacy. The North Korean nuke test is another example of the Bush administration taking their eye off the ball.
Given all this focus on their Middle East policy it is ludicrous that it has descended into such a farce.
Little wonder as it is largely the world's most backward foreign policy. Unconditionally supporting a country surrounded by enemies --Israel--, while hoping to exert influence over its enemies. Is like a boxer's coach shouting orders at the opposing fighter. Stupid. Previously however the U.S had tried to exert their influence over Israel's enemies by diplomacy in the main. Bush Jnr coming in with his complete ignorance of foreign policy and its relation to even recent history, alongside his policy of never talking to your adversary. Combined with the backward policies above, are perhaps the main reasons for the current state of the Middle East.
Something else I find laughable however is Bush Snr, responsible for another reason for the current mess. Coming in now and telling his son what he needs to do in Iraq. If he had honoured his statements to the Iraq's Shia and Kurdish populations, by ordering U.S forces to go on into Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's regime, in the first gulf war 1991. Embracing the uprising started by the Shia in the south and driving Iraqi forces into the Kurdish uprising in the North. Both of which were started because of Bush's suggestion of support.
Saddam would undoubtedly have been easily defeated. As he was 2003, but the occupying U.S or U.S/U.N forces would have probably had the support of the Kurdish minority and Shia Majority. Giving the Sunni's no choice but to join the new diplomatic efforts or be left out of Iraq's democratic future. As oppose to miss-trust for Bush Jnr by Shia and Kurd's after being lied to by his dad before him. And resentment because of the massacres his lies led them into.
I believe had Bush Snr done this Iraq would have been a stable democracy by now, certainly closer than has been for decades.
In closing, the U.S never really had much influence in Middle Eastern affairs. The little it did have from supplying financial aid to needy countries in prominent positions. And U.S and Israel's superior military force were sufficient to secure the things they really needed and manipulate affairs to ensure no-one else gained more control.
The Iraq war in 2003 showing that U.S military force was useless against sporadic Jihad's guerrilla warfare. Accelerated the rate at which the little Middle East influence the U.S had is disappearing. All that remains is moderate influence in return for heavy aid to countries with even less influence --than the U.S-- in Middle East affairs.
The rich and influential Middle East countries are exploiting the exposed weakness to secure their own hegemony.
It will be interesting to watch the changing political and military landscapes in the coming months. Especially if a serious U.S strategy shift in Iraq coincides with a policy shift in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
The End of U.S. Dominance In The Middle East - What Dominance?
RSS:
- Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feeds for:
- » Comments on this article
- » Politics
- » Culture: History
- » Politics: US
- » Politics: World
- » Desicritics.org articles by Liam Bailey
- » Liam Bailey's personal weblog
- » All Opinion articles
- » All Desicritics.org articles
Sanjay
December 17, 2006
03:26 AM
Now that the US has removed the Baathist establishment from power, it has uncorked the genie from the bottle. Now Iraq is doomed to fracture no matter what. All the King's horses and all the king's men won't be able to put Iraq back together again. And in truth, it was never a real unity state to begin with, but merely a patchwork forced together under a colonial shotgun wedding.
the idiot
URL
December 17, 2006
05:48 AM
Bailey Said: "Saddam would undoubtedly have been easily defeated. As he was 2003, but the occupying U.S or U.S/U.N forces would have probably had the support of the Kurdish minority and Shia Majority. Giving the Sunni's no choice but to join the new diplomatic efforts or be left out of Iraq's democratic future. As oppose to miss-trust for Bush Jnr by Shia and Kurd's after being lied to by his dad before him. And resentment because of the massacres his lies led them into.
I believe had Bush Snr done this Iraq would have been a stable democracy by now, certainly closer than has been for decades."
It's a gem of a thought. Keep up Mr. Bailey. You have a great future in the career you are after.
Ruvy in Jerusalem
December 17, 2006
04:40 PM
I'm sorry Liam.
You write with the typical ignorance of most journalists who have never been here. There are a number of basic facts that you need to understand before attempting to tackle issues in this part of the world.
1. You need to understand the tribal and clan nature of Arab society.
2. You need to understand the background, purpose and role of the Council of Foreign Relations in the United States and its sister think tank in the UK in terms of the foreign policies of the two countries.
3. You need to understand how Moslem society is divided, and how Islam is really divided and what streams of thought flow from what sources to create what ideologies.
4. You need to understand the hierarchical nature of American society and the role that its "great families" (i.e Tafts, Roosevelts, Rockefellers) play in its polity and how that relates to its economy.
5. You need to comprehend the role that historical hatreds and animosities play in any society. In this instance, writing for Desicritics is very helpful; you have Hindus who still are resentful of the Moslem dominance of their country centuries ago, and Moslems who feel very defensive on the one side, and proud (of having a Moslem state or two on the Indian sub-continent) on the other. And you have centuries of built-in resentments on both sides.
This is just a tiny bit of the nature of the knowledge you need at your fingertips to begin an intelligent survey of how things work here.
Once you have all that at your fingertips, you need to look at the idea that religion and politics can be combined and sometimes you can get belief driven politics.
I'm not szaying you necessarily need to agree with me on all these things. But their lack is evident in the writing.
HIT THE BOOKS, KID!
Sanjay
December 17, 2006
05:01 PM
Ruvy, as always, Europe has been the main scales-tipper to decide whether or not the Islamists succeed or fail.
As the Romans say -- who profits?
Europe has been the prime beneficiary of the rise of Islamist extremism.
Europe is the one supporting Iran from the shadows, despite the latter's ever-increasing meddling in Iraq and Lebanon.
Europe continues to see Islamism as a flanking weapon against its adversaries and rivals. Europe will continue to support the rise of Islamism, until Europe itself begins to feel its adverse effects. By then, it will probably be too late for them. As the architects of 2 World Wars, the Europeans have an uncanny knack for getting themselves in over their heads, and then having to be bailed out of trouble from outside. This time will be no different.
Liam Bailey
URL
December 17, 2006
05:25 PM
Ruvy,
Firstly this article and others of mine have been published by Arabic Media Internet Network and Garowe Online Somalia. The editors of two Arab publications may just be better judges of how much I need to learn. My articles on Middle East and Arab affairs have also been published the Palestine Chronicle, the Palestinian Return Centre, Aayaha and many more, check out my blog (linked to my name) for my full port-folio.
Secondly, when you criticise an article of you give examples from the text of where, in this case further learning would be beneficial to the article. It lets people see that you're criticism's are based on something more than you're own somewhat entrenched and some would say bigoted views. You and I have had a good relationship in the past, but you're comment is the most condescending claptrap I have ever read. I mean hit the books Kid, come on.
Ramzy Baroud, an excellent Middle East writer and Palestine Chronicle editor advised me not to share my age with my readers because I come across as a good journalist and should not be judged based on my age. He also said I am an excellent writer, who should and will be much more widely read. You're comment showed me what he meant. Older people who read and don't agree with my article, but can't actually find anything wrong with it have a simple area to aim for, my inexperience. I will admit I have a lot to learn, but who knows everything. What is clear from my rapidly growing port-folio is I know enough and am open enough and quick enough to learn sufficiently to write competent articles. What more does a writer, of any age, need?
the idiot
URL
December 17, 2006
10:08 PM
Liam, Good to see your articles being published in so many Arab/Islamist media outlets. Your articles would surely be snapped by al-Jazeera for good money, which is one of the most popular and rich news media. These, with those of the Islamic world, are the only media that represent the sole truth and rational views which goes exactly opposite to most of the stupid and lies-ridden media of the West. So, good to see many from the West, frustrated with the lies, stupidty and hypocrisy of the Western media, are allying with the honest, rational and truthful media of the Arab world. In monetary terms also, they beat almost any other.
Anamika
URL
December 18, 2006
04:35 AM
Liam - agree with your editor. Your age should not be mentioned because unfortunately you will be judged by that instead of the quality of your writing. And that is a shame!
Ruvy - "tribal and clan nature of Arab society"?
Which "Arab" society will that be? Jordanian, Palestinian, Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian or Saudi? Or is that Druz, Bedouin, etc? Strange how such a HUGE number of cultures, traditions, histories are essentialised as "Arab" society?
ALL societies have divisions and relationships but the use of tribe/clan seems to be limited to those "othered" by the West.
The same "clan and tribe" features distinguish the Jewish populations as well - not only in Israel but elsewhere in the world. "Clan and tribes" are major issues in Europe - as the dissolution of Yugoslavia showed us. And as ethnic tensions in various western European countries also proves - Spain, UK etc have all faced "white" clan/tribe tensions - of course these get classified by the West itself in other terms. Because clan/tribe is the preserve of nonwhite, "backward" people? US has its own system of clan/tribe differences and heirarchies.
To apply "tribal and clan" solely to nonwhite, nonWestern societies is an act of hypocrisy and implicitly racist.
Finally - Liam, given AIPAC's strength and tightly interlocked politics/funding nature of US polity, don't think we will see any change in US positions on Israel/Palestine issue although we will probably see US finding ways to pull out of Iraq. But here's hoping.....
Ruvy in Jerusalem
URL
December 18, 2006
01:12 PM
Liam,
I'm not commenting on your age at all. The best announcers and newsreaders in a generation, Bob Edwards and Carol Stamberg of National Public Radio in the United States, started when they were 25 or so.
One of the best selling books of 1969, "The Strawberry Statement," was written by a college student at Columbia University. It became a movie from which the only memorable line was an anonymous crowd repeating endlessly, "the whole world is watching, the whole world is watching," while cutting to the view of a camera.
Nevertheless, I agree with Ramzy Baroud. You should pull your age off of your bio. That is solid writing advice from a pro.
You come across as a good journalist. You are a good writer. I'm trying to be helpful here, not critical. If I were just trying to be critical, I would have taken issue with what you had written in the article (to the degree that I felt I disagreed). I haven't done that at all.
The Arab publications that have published your work like your editorial perspective. That is why you are there.
As for different streams of Islam, try visiting the site of Sheikh Professor Abdulhadi Palazzi, a Sufi scholar.
I'm not sure where you can get good information on the tribal and clan nature of Arab society. If you live here, you learn very fast that various Arab villages are usually composed of one clan. When I studied Iranian and Arab politics, it was made clear to me that tribal chieftains play a large role in Arab society, and therefore Arab politics. In some instances it is seen in the structure of the government. For example, "consultative assemblies" or "consultative councils" in Arab sultanates usually started out as collections of tribal or clan chiefs that the sultan (or whatever the ruler is called) had called together to consult on issues of state.
As to all the other subjects I mentioned, you can google up the subjects and get data, plenty of it.
As I told you, you needn't agree with me - that is not my goal. But you should have a solid background of knowledge behind you.
Anamika,
There are Jewish tribes and clans, but in Israel (and the rest of the west) clans have no formal acceptance and little informal importance. The Jewish clans that lived in Iraq and elsewhere in Arab or Turkish ruled countries had more formal authority. A lot of that authority has disappeared here in Israel, for good of or for ill.
I'm sorry, Anamika, but I do not have time to be racist or condescending when trying to help a fellow writer, and that was my purpose in writing to Liam.
I do not know if you notice, but I generally make very few comments at DC about events that occur in the sub-continent, and try to keep them away from the huge body of details I am ignorant of.
Add your comment