Brazil Gets It
Yesterday, I posted on a more adult approach to foreign policy that would actually involve diplomacy. An opinion piece in Brazil's O Globo not only agrees with need for such an approach, it explains why it is necessary.
The best way out of Iraq for the defeated George W. Bush is to speak with his worst enemies. The advice given by Tony Blair was the genuine helping hand of a friend: come to an understanding with Syria and Iran. It is a gesture that would demand considerable political courage, but that could get back some maneuvering room for the American government.
It isn't necessary to like or support the regime of the Ayatollahs in Teheran to recognize that Iran has become the region’s principal power, with direct influence that extends to Herat, Afghanistan and Baghdad, Iraq, passing through a good part of Lebanon, via Hezbullah.
Excluding the noise made by the long-winded President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is barely third in Iranian hierarchy, Iranians are much more cautious than the Americans when dealing with questions involving the Middle East. They are still a good distance from having The Bomb (which the Americans tolerate in the cases of India and Pakistan). What the Iranians want, mainly, is an end to financial and commercial sanctions in exchange for what the Americans most want in Iraq: some kind of stability.
While Iran thinks big and has time on its side (excluding a surprise Israeli attack), Syria is in a desperate situation. The political isolation of Damascus is grave, since the U.N. fingered the Syrian secret service as the principal mastermind of the assassination of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. The event, which was carried out in Beirut, led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon after 29 years of occupation.
The Syrians have no oil or a nuclear program to use as a bargaining chip or pay their military expenses, but they are essential in coming to any sort of long-term understanding between Israel and the Arabs. Syrian influence in the Palestinian territories is heavy, and the major radical Palestinian groups fighting Israel, including Hamas, operate out of Damascus. In other words, Syria could contribute greatly to providing a relief in tension between the Arabs and Israelis.
...The Middle East is complicated above all by the fact that no question (the Iraqi conflict, the Arab-Israel conflict, or Islamic radicalism) can be treated in isolation, yet no comprehensive solution is possible without each isolated conflict being resolved. Bush would now need extraordinary political audacity to put the breaks [sic] on his friends and start talking to his enemies. But so far he has shown only the impetuousness of ignorance. [Emphasis added]
William Waack, the author of this piece, has wisely shown the connections amongst the various problems in that region of the world. The US cannot hope to engender the kind of trust it needs to get the other Middle East countries on board a plan for Iraq until it returns to a more even-handed approach in the Palestine-Israel conflict, which means the end of blind support for everything Israel does. And it is clear that the US will need the assistance of Iraq's neighbors to restore stability to that country, a stability desperately needed by the region.
The trick is to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. So far, the Bush administration has not shown the capacity for such sophisticated diplomacy, although it does have the swagger part down. It is possible that with the resignation of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, the State Department will have a greater role in how we approach the problems in the Middle East, but it may very well take a stronger voice than that of Condaleezza Rice.
It would help if the new Congress understood the interconnections of the Middle East issues, and its members might very well do so. The problem is that if Social Security is the third rail of domestic policy, Israel has that same position in foreign policy. Few, if any, members of Congress will be very aggressive in light of this country's long-standing support of Israel. That means it's up to the president.
At this point, my optimism is a cut below cautious, even if the neocons are losing influence.
The best way out of Iraq for the defeated George W. Bush is to speak with his worst enemies. The advice given by Tony Blair was the genuine helping hand of a friend: come to an understanding with Syria and Iran. It is a gesture that would demand considerable political courage, but that could get back some maneuvering room for the American government.
It isn't necessary to like or support the regime of the Ayatollahs in Teheran to recognize that Iran has become the region’s principal power, with direct influence that extends to Herat, Afghanistan and Baghdad, Iraq, passing through a good part of Lebanon, via Hezbullah.
Excluding the noise made by the long-winded President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is barely third in Iranian hierarchy, Iranians are much more cautious than the Americans when dealing with questions involving the Middle East. They are still a good distance from having The Bomb (which the Americans tolerate in the cases of India and Pakistan). What the Iranians want, mainly, is an end to financial and commercial sanctions in exchange for what the Americans most want in Iraq: some kind of stability.
While Iran thinks big and has time on its side (excluding a surprise Israeli attack), Syria is in a desperate situation. The political isolation of Damascus is grave, since the U.N. fingered the Syrian secret service as the principal mastermind of the assassination of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. The event, which was carried out in Beirut, led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon after 29 years of occupation.
The Syrians have no oil or a nuclear program to use as a bargaining chip or pay their military expenses, but they are essential in coming to any sort of long-term understanding between Israel and the Arabs. Syrian influence in the Palestinian territories is heavy, and the major radical Palestinian groups fighting Israel, including Hamas, operate out of Damascus. In other words, Syria could contribute greatly to providing a relief in tension between the Arabs and Israelis.
...The Middle East is complicated above all by the fact that no question (the Iraqi conflict, the Arab-Israel conflict, or Islamic radicalism) can be treated in isolation, yet no comprehensive solution is possible without each isolated conflict being resolved. Bush would now need extraordinary political audacity to put the breaks [sic] on his friends and start talking to his enemies. But so far he has shown only the impetuousness of ignorance. [Emphasis added]
William Waack, the author of this piece, has wisely shown the connections amongst the various problems in that region of the world. The US cannot hope to engender the kind of trust it needs to get the other Middle East countries on board a plan for Iraq until it returns to a more even-handed approach in the Palestine-Israel conflict, which means the end of blind support for everything Israel does. And it is clear that the US will need the assistance of Iraq's neighbors to restore stability to that country, a stability desperately needed by the region.
The trick is to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. So far, the Bush administration has not shown the capacity for such sophisticated diplomacy, although it does have the swagger part down. It is possible that with the resignation of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, the State Department will have a greater role in how we approach the problems in the Middle East, but it may very well take a stronger voice than that of Condaleezza Rice.
It would help if the new Congress understood the interconnections of the Middle East issues, and its members might very well do so. The problem is that if Social Security is the third rail of domestic policy, Israel has that same position in foreign policy. Few, if any, members of Congress will be very aggressive in light of this country's long-standing support of Israel. That means it's up to the president.
At this point, my optimism is a cut below cautious, even if the neocons are losing influence.
Labels: Iraq War, Middle East
posted by Diane at 3:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home