Highlights

 
Quotable
Brute force is not our salvation, especially as directed by State central planning and done with little regard for the innocents...
Anthony Gregory
Original Letters Blog US Casualties Contact Donate

 
July 31, 2008

Peace Not Near on Middle East's 'Time Horizon'


by Leon Hadar

Members of Washington's band of foreign policy realists are high-fiving each other these days. First there was the news that the Bush administration decided to have Undersecretary of State William Burns sit in the same room in Geneva with Iranian nuclear envoy Saeed Jalili and high-ranking diplomats from five other countries and try to negotiate a deal to suspend Tehran's plan to continue with uranium enrichment.        

And then came reports that Bush agreed to set a general "time horizon" for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq as part of a long-term security accord that Washington is trying to negotiate with Baghdad.

If these moves seem odd, it's probably because they came from the administration of President George W. Bush, the man who just recently compared those who would engage Iran to the "appeasers" who talked to Adolf Hitler in Munich. In the past, both Bush and the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), have taken swipes at presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), for proposing that the United States and Iran hold direct negotiations – the same kind now being conducted in Geneva. And Bush and his supporters in Congress and the media have also long derided as dangerous any timetable for troop withdrawal, adamantly fighting efforts by congressional Democrats and other "defeatists" to impose what he described as "artificial" timelines for a U.S. force pullout that would supposedly play into the hands of al-Qaeda and deprive America of its "victory" in Mesopotamia.

These surprising moves by Washington took place just after Israel in an uncommon step exchanged Lebanese prisoners with Hezbollah for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers. And there have been other indications that diplomacy may be replacing military force as the tool of choice in the Middle East. Israel and Syria have been holding talks under Turkish auspices that could lead to a peace agreement under which Israel will return the Golan Heights to Syria. Egypt has succeeded in brokering a temporary cease-fire between Israel and the Hamas-led government in Gaza. And Hezbollah and the pro-Western government in Beirut have agreed, thanks to Qatar's mediation efforts, to cooperate in bringing political stability to Lebanon.

But despite all the recent progress in the Middle East, there is no real reason to think that peace is anywhere near at hand. The important common denominator of all these diplomatic openings in the Middle East has been the Bush administration's strong resistance to them, based on the principle that the United States and its allies don't negotiate or make deals with what Bush might describe as "Hitler equivalents" – members of the axis of evil, terrorist groups, or rogue states. Hence, talking with Iran and its partners – Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas – equals appeasement, while setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is tantamount to defeatism. That Israel was engaging in this kind of behavior was remarkable, but that Bush administration officials have been pursuing the same kind of policies that the president decried is nothing short of startling.

Indeed, pundits in Washington are also intrigued by the fact that these officials were pursuing diplomacy with Iran and discussing dates for troop withdrawal from Iraq in the same week that Obama, whose support for such approaches was decried by both Bush and McCain, was visiting the Middle East. Some pundits suggested that the views of the two presidential candidates on Iraq and Iran were converging in the form of a consensus on the need to start withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq and deal diplomatically with Iran.

The signs that the realists may be winning the foreign policy debate in Washington, including in the Bush administration – where Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pushed for talks with Iran despite opposition from Vice President Dick Cheney – came as very bad news for the neoconservatives. "Just when you think the administration is out of U-turns, they make another one," said former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, who was critical of the administration's change in policy on North Korea. Bolton adding: "This is further evidence of the administration's complete intellectual collapse."1

And Michael Rubin, a leading neoconservative intellectual with the American Enterprise Institute, opined in the Wall Street Journal that, "President Bush's reversal is diplomatic malpractice on a Carter-esque level that is breathing new life into a failing regime."2

But it's too early for realists in Washington to celebrate victory or for neoconservatives to mourn. Realism is not necessarily on the march, and peace is hardly breaking out in the Middle East. First, much of the regional news from earlier this summer – including Israeli and Iranian war exercises, Israeli threats to strike Iranian nuclear military sites, and Tehran's counter-threats of retaliation – indicates that the chances for a new war in the Persian Gulf remain quite high. Indeed, in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Bolton advised policymakers in Washington to give a green light to an Israeli strike against Iran,3 while Israeli historian Benny Morris insisted in the New York Times that such an Israeli military move was all but certain.4

Although Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and other members of the national security bureaucracy may be opposed to a U.S. seal of approval on an Israeli attack against Iran, it's important to remember that President "Buscheney" retains enormous power in foreign policy decisions and setting the political agenda in Washington. It's also unlikely that Democrats would be willing to oppose an Israeli decision to attack Iran that would be spun as a necessary defensive move against the Holocaust-denying mullahs in Tehran.

Unlike the Bush administration decision to resolve the nuclear crisis with North Korea through a broad diplomatic accord, it's not clear that the White House is ready to take that step with Iran. The administration is still demanding that Tehran freeze its uranium enrichment program as a precondition for broader negotiations that would include, in addition to the nuclear problem, discussion over the future of Iraq and Afghanistan (where Iran maintains enormous influence) as well as the two governments' interests in Lebanon and Israel/Palestine. When Bush and Rice decided to make a diplomatic deal with Pyongyang, they dispatched Amb. Charles Hill to hold face-to-face talks with a North Korean diplomat in Europe. A similar move toward Iran on the part of the administration would amount to the kind of "reversal" that Bolton and other hardliners and neoconservatives are decrying.

Hence, it's quite possible that Bush and his aides have decided that they don't have enough political support to pursue either a grand diplomatic bargain with Tehran or a military confrontation with Iran, concluding that a short-term deal with Iran is the most cost-effective way of managing the current crisis and leaving the next U.S. president to deal with the issue in the context of his own strategy for the Middle East. Combined with the news that the United States plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Iran for the first time since the 1979-1981 U.S. Embassy hostage crisis, it suggests that there won't be a U.S. and/or Israeli strike against Iran before the Oval Office sees a new occupant.

Or perhaps Washington's apparent symbolic concessions toward Iran are nothing more than a diplomatic smokescreen that will allow the Bush administration to claim – before it takes military action against Iran – that it had gone out of its way to placate Iran and give it a chance to reach a peaceful agreement; Tehran, therefore, would be responsible for any ensuing conflict.

Similarly, the notion of a time horizon for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq is very different from drawing up a concrete timetable for pulling out U.S. forces. The idea is probably part of an effort to help Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki burnish his nationalist credentials before the upcoming Iraqi provincial elections.

Moreover, much of the diplomatic steps taken by the various Middle Eastern players in recent weeks should not be confused with a search for peace. After all, the Middle East is an area of the world where nothing is what it seems to be, where yesterday's enemy is tomorrow's ally, where commitments are made to be broken, and where "peace" is nothing more than a long cease-fire. It's not a pretty picture, but it's reality, and outsiders should not impose their wishful thinking on it.

In a way, much of what is happening in the Middle East should be regarded as efforts made by regional players to fill the diplomatic vacuum resulting from the erosion in the U.S. influence in the region, as they wait for the U.S. presidential election and the subsequent policy decisions of the new White House. It's part of a game of wait and see – waiting, in part, to see if Bush will attack Iran – and not a sign that peace is imminent.

Sources:

1. Elaine Sciolino and Steven Lee Meyers, "Policy Shift Seen in U.S. Decision on Iran Talks," New York Times, July 17, 2008.
2. Michael Rubin, "Now Bush Is Appeasing Iran," Wall Street Journal, July 21, 2008.
3. John R. Bolton, "Israel, Iran, and the Bomb," Wall Street Journal, July 15, 2008.
4. Benny Morris, "Using Bombs to Stave off War," New York Times, July 18, 2008.

Reprinted with permission from Right Web

comments on this article?
 
Archives

  • The Pillorying of Charles Freeman and America's Loss
    3/20/2009

  • The Return of Realist Interventionism
    2/2/2009

  • Islam and the West:
    The Myth of the Green Peril
    11/5/2008

  • Israel's Not-So-Future Perfect
    10/24/2008

  • Beware of Big Ideas
    10/15/2008

  • Peace Not Near on Middle East's 'Time Horizon'
    7/31/2008

  • Who Lost the Middle East?
    5/28/2008

  • Military Humanitarianism Won't Help Myanmar
    5/21/2008

  • Need a (Nuclear) Umbrella? Call Hillary
    5/1/2008

  • Futile Surges and Bailouts
    3/19/2008

  • The Pitfalls of Forecasting Foreign Policy
    3/14/2008

  • Balance of Power Is Continuing to Shift From the US
    12/29/2007

  • Bye, Bye Tora Bora; Hello Subprime Mortgages
    12/22/2007

  • Neocons Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Iran 'Threat'
    12/19/2007

  • The Mideast Strategic- Consensus Fantasy
    12/8/2007

  • Look Who's Downplaying Iran's Nuclear Threat
    11/22/2007

  • US Cannot Force Regime Change in Pakistan
    11/16/2007

  • The Tunnel at the
    End of the Light
    11/7/2007

  • When Reel Tales Rewrite
    Real History
    10/30/2007

  • The Costs of Isolating Myanmar
    10/3/2007

  • The Surge Scam: Getting Rid of the Goat
    9/14/2007

  • Dangerous Delusions
    8/23/2007

  • Hayek's Insights Apply to Iraq War as Well
    7/26/2007

  • Time to Ignore the Middle East?
    6/9/2007

  • The Wolfowitz Touch – or How to Lose US Credibility
    5/18/2007

  • Iraq War May End With an Isolationist US
    5/4/2007

  • The Bush Legacy:
    Headed for Hisses?
    4/26/2007

  • Another Victim of the Anti-Neocon Revolution?
    4/18/2007

  • Is Washington Being Sidelined on the Middle East?
    2/22/2007

  • The Axis of Evil: And Then There Was One
    2/20/2007

  • Listen to the Foxes, Not Hedgehogs, on Iraq
    2/8/2007

  • Expanding the War to Iran: Another 'Urban Legend'?
    1/27/2007

  • A Military 'Surge' to a
    Political Nowhere
    1/17/2007

  • Brace Yourself for 2007
    1/3/2007

  • The Right Men, the Wrong President
    12/21/2006

  • The Baker-Hamilton Recommendations: Too Little, Too Late?
    12/13/2006

  • A Losing War, a Failed President, a Weak Dollar: We've Been Here Before
    12/7/2006

  • Rumors of Neoconservatism's Death Exaggerated
    11/16/2006

  • Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword
    11/11/2006

  • Can Jim Baker Save the American Establishment?
    11/9/2006

  • The Humbling of the Hegemon
    10/21/2006

  • A New Kind of Neocon?
    10/12/2006

  • US-Iran Shootout Is Inevitable
    9/23/2006

  • Has the Hegemon Been Humbled in Lebanon?
    8/30/2006

  • And the Loser Is... Everyone
    8/24/2006

  • Playing Cowboy – and Falling Off the Horse
    8/22/2006

  • Baghdad, Beirut, Doha
    8/7/2006

  • The US Can't Run the Show in the Middle East
    8/2/2006

  • 'Birth Pangs of a
    New Middle East'?
    7/27/2006

  • All Hell Breaks Loose in the Middle East
    7/21/2006

  • Is Anyone Still Listening to the Flaming Bush?
    7/19/2006

  • Israel's Failed Strategy: The Writing Is on the Wall
    7/14/2006

  • Nationalism: The Last Refuge of the Political Loser
    7/5/2006

  • The Ever Elusive 'Tipping Point' in Iraq
    6/17/2006

  • US Stumbles Onto Road to Diplomacy With Iran
    6/10/2006

  • Iraq Like Water Off a Duck's Back to Bush, Blair
    6/2/2006

  • Why Can't the US Apply Its New North Korea Policy to Iran?
    5/25/2006

  • US-Iran Ties: Is the Pen Mightier Than the Sword?
    5/17/2006

  • Bush's Slow Race
    in the Last Lap
    5/11/2006

  • If Only Bill Gates
    Made Foreign Policy
    4/28/2006

  • The War on Terror Is Over,
    and China Won
    4/21/2006

  • From the China Lobby to the Israel Lobby
    4/13/2006

  • 'Democratizing' Iran:
    A Case of Déjà Vu
    3/30/2006

  • Muddling Through
    3/23/2006

  • Saying Good Bye to Dubai; Bidding Adieu to Globalization?
    3/17/2006
  • Leon Hadar is the author of Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East (Palgrave Macmillan). He is the former United Nations bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post and is currently the Washington correspondent for the Singapore Business Times. Visit his blog.

    Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
    without written permission is strictly prohibited.
    Copyright 2014 Antiwar.com