By PHK
I’m not sure that Richard Haass, the director of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, has the Middle East completely right, but his op-ed “a troubling and troubled part of the world” in the October 17 Financial Times which is a condensed version of his article “The New Middle East” in the November/December 2006 Foreign Affairs seems far more on target than what continues to spew out of the W administration like molten lava rolling down the sides of Mt Pinatubo. W’s “review” of U.S. tactics in Iraq in the face of rising casualties, increasing criticism at home and a widening Iraqi insurgency not withstanding.
Here are a four of Haass’ points that resonate with me:
1) The US needs to talk with the Iranians and the Syrians rather than stiff them which seems to be this administration’s visceral response to any foreign regime with which it disagrees. I would also include that attempting to destabilize these –and other - governments through clandestine means will likely backfire. Haass would add that bombing Iran’s nuclear sites is likewise counter productive. (Just as we said here on WV in April.)
2) the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer weakened, not strengthened Israel’s position in the Middle East. Israel, according to Haass, will be less of a regional player than before and its weak government will be in no position to negotiate a settlement with the fractious Palestinians. The US will still be an important player in the region but is losing its preeminence to the EU, Russia and China as a result of its misbegotten invasion and post-invasion operations in Iraq, Israel’s mistaken summer invasion of Lebanon and the administration’s refusal to play honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as all previous U.S. administrations have done in the past.
3) the pie-in-the-sky idea of democratizing the Middle East is unattainable and not a good idea – mature democracies take decades to develop and democratic government does not necessarily reduce or eliminate terrorism. Instead, Haass argues the US should be looking to help “to reform schools, promote economic liberalization, encourage Arab and Muslim authorities to speak out in ways that de-legitimise terrorism and shame its supporters, as well as address social and economic grievances that motivate young men and women to take up terrorism.”
4) Oil prices will remain high benefiting mostly the Saudis and Iranians. The increasing demand from India and China will see to that. Until the US is willing to invest in research, real energy conservation and substitution of alternative energy sources for petroleum then we will be beholden to governments and leaders we may not like. Prices will remain high because the US may be the most wasteful consumer but we do not have the only economy that runs on imported petroleum.
Many of Haass’ points highlighted above are foremost pragmatic truisms – but since this administration has yet to get the message or at least act on it – I guess they need to be reiterated yet again.
Whatever happened to Turkey?
As I also indicated, however, I don't totally agree with Haass’ assessment of the Middle East. A couple of examples: It’s amazing to me that when discussing an Iraq solution – if that’s the right word – Haass fails to mention the need to engage Turkey except in one brief mention in Foreign Affairs. It’s as if this country of 71.5 million people scarcely existed. Yet, Turkey is literally – and figuratively – a bridge between Europe and Asia and shares a long border with northern Iraq. Ankara has a stake in what happens on its southern border and Haass’ all but ignoring the Turks is either an oversight – or a mistake.
This large mostly Sunni Muslim country whose forbearer, the Ottoman Empire, once ruled Iraq and points south has a substantial military and abuts the Iraq’s Kurdish region. Further the Turkish government has made it clear that a three part partition of Iraq that includes an independent Kurdistan is not acceptable to Turkish interests. Or maybe I missed something.
Iranian pretensions versus Iranian reality
Second, Haass’ description of a monolithic, threatening major-power Iran intent on reconstituting its ancient Persian – or even its 17th century Savafid Empire is likely overblown. Iran is a medium-sized Middle Eastern power with regional influence and pretensions of becoming a nuclear power, but it also has a myriad of problems including a burgeoning youth population and sizeable minorities that could become restive. Gary Sick’s review essay “The Truth about Iran” of Ray Taketh’s recent book Hidden Iran in the same issue of Foreign Affairs is far more enlightening than Haass’s analysis of this troubled country. Somehow I just don’t think that reconstituting Cyrus’ Persian Empire under the banner of a Shiite Islamic theocratic state is going to happen - W's "axis of evil" rhetoric to the contrary. And I’ll bet many Iranians are realists enough to know it despite Ahmadinijad's crowd-pleasing verbiage.
Regardless, how many of Haass’ words of advice will also find traction in the Baker Iraq Study Group report to be released after the November 7 elections will be interesting to see – I hope a number are. It would also be nice if the administration took them to heart.