|
The
Crawford meeting was preceded by an
extraordinary "leak" in the New York Times, in
which a source close to the Saudis averred that it may be
time for the Arab world to use the "oil weapon" against the
US: unless and until the American President stopped kowtowing
to Ariel Sharon, the prospect of US forces being asked
to leave the Saudi peninsula was definitely on the agenda.
This anonymous "person close to the Crown Prince" further
opined:
"It
is a mistake to think that our people will not do what is
necessary to survive, and if that means we move to the right
of bin Laden, so be it; to the left of Qaddafi, so be it;
or fly to Baghdad and embrace Saddam like a brother, so be
it. It's damned lonely in our part of the world, and we can
no longer defend our relationship to our people."
Mr.
Anonymous also said that, if Abdullah didn't get a commitment
from the President to rein in Sharon, the Crown Prince would
cut his visit short, return to Riyadh, and convene an Arab
summit: the breach with the US would be out in the open, and
the Muslim world, under Saudi leadership, would brace for
a confrontation with Washington. However, "If Bush freed Arafat
and cleared Bethlehem, it would be a big victory, show a stiffening
of spine," said the source, who did not sound at all hopeful
that this would be accomplished. Now that at least half the
deal is in the bag, and given the swiftness with which the
President moved to pressure Sharon, it would appear that Saudi
pessimism was unjustified, at least in the short term. The
events of the past few weeks the new US initiative, Powell's
trip, the freeing of Arafat hold a lesson, and it is this:
the Israel-centric orientation of Bush's Middle East policy
has been effectively challenged, if not quite abolished.
BUSHIAN
CONTINUITY
Bush's
critics complain
that he has shifted his position, with the President veering
between statements that seemed to give unconditional support
for Sharon and outbursts of frustration "Enough is enough"!
– at the Israeli Prime Minister's intransigence. But
if we look at the President's actions, as opposed to mere words, it appears that George W.
Bush has indeed grown a spine. US policy in the Middle East under Bush II is turning
out to be remarkably similar to that of Bush I. All the while
protesting his absolute loyalty to Israel, the President has,
nonetheless, made a distinction between the political survival
of Sharon and the survival of Israel as a nation. In spite
of early indications that the neoconservative Israel-firsters
had gained the upper hand in this administration, the reassertion
of the Saudi factor as primary has clarified this Bushian
continuity and sent Sharon running to Washington to try
and salvage the situation.
ROPE-A-DOPE?
NOPE!
A
whole school of thought exists that sees in Bush's Middle
East initiative a "rope-a-dope" theory, with the Saudis being
the dopes. Oh, don't worry, says
Michael Barone, the President is really in Israel's camp:
after all, he's going after Iraq, isn't he? But Barone had
no sooner posted his fanciful rendition of the Bush-Abdullah
summit as an "agree-to-disagree meeting," when the Arafat
prison break was announced and a
more factual account of the meeting was published in the
Washington Post.
THE
PRINCE AND THE PRESIDENT
The
Crown Prince came well-prepared, not only with a concrete
proposal free Arafat and end the Bethlehem stand-off but
with videotapes of the fighting in Palestine, documenting
the depredations of the IDF, which the two of them reportedly
watched. The meeting went a few hours over its allotted time.
There was a personal "bonding," it was said afterwards, and
the two of them seemed to come to an understanding relatively
quickly. On the other hand, the President had an excruciatingly
bad time negotiating with Sharon. And herein lies the real catalyst for
the changing trajectory of US policy
WAITING
FOR YOSEF
After
a long two days of negotiations between intermediaries culminating
in a phone call between Bush and Sharon, the former finally!
– laid it on the line to this "man of peace." Oh, to
have been the proverbial fly on the wall during that conversation
or, actually, three separate conversations, according
to reports. In the end, whatever Bush said must have been
extremely effective, because Sharon went back to his Cabinet
and reversed his position completely, asking that they abandon
the campaign to delegitimize the Palestinian Authority, and,
instead, free Arafat. Sharon's ministers balked, and the first
vote was a tie, 13-13. Prior to the second vote, taken after
further consultations between National Security advisor Condolezza
Rice and Sharon foreign policy advisor Danny Ayalon, the five
ministers of the ultra-right Shas
party considered voting with Sharon, but first had to
consult with their spiritual leader, Rabbi
Ovadia Yosef. Unfortunately, the 81-year-old Rabbi was
sleeping, and couldn't be disturbed. Associated Press reports:
"American
officials were kept waiting on an open telephone line for
at least half an hour for an answer, asking what was going
on, as everyone waited for Yosef. Finally, at about 4 p.m.,
Yosef came on the line and approved voting in favor of the
U.S. proposal in order to avoid creating a crisis for Israel
in general and for Sharon in particular."
That
American officials have to wait on the pleasure of some right-wing
oracle, the Israeli equivalent of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell,
underscores the absurdity of a US policy that is increasing
held hostage by the Israeli fringe. This, after all, is the
same Rabbi Yoset who
caused an uproar when he announced that the 6 million
victims of the Holocaust "were reincarnations of the
souls of sinners, people who transgressed and did all sorts
of things that should not be done. They had been reincarnated
in order to atone." He also denounced the Palestinians,
in the same speech, as "snakes."
THE
DEAL
The
Rice-Ayalon telephone marathon -- the two were in constant
communication during Israeli Cabinet meeting -- apparently
resulted in a deal: the US will shield Israel from any meaningful
investigation into war crimes committed at Jenin, in exchange
for letting Arafat go. Well, I guess that settles, once and
for all, the question of whether or not there was a massacre.
What, after all, was the basis of this deal except the promise
of a cover-up? Clearly Bush had something on the Israelis:
how else can we explain Sharon's sudden turnaround, and the
expenditure of so much political capital persuading his shaky
coalition government to go along? Gee, it kinda makes one
wonder -- what was on those tapes Prince Abdullah brought
with him on his visit specifically to show the President?
IN
THE LAND OF THE NEOCONS
Barone,
Andrew Sullivan,
and the more pro-Bush wing of the neocons would much rather
lull themselves into a pleasant state of non-perception than
acknowledge the new turn in US Middle East policy. However,
the hardcore neocons the two Bills, Kristol
and Bennett,
and of
course Norman Podhoretz are more realistic, and more
willing to launch a frontal assault on the President. Look
for it in the week leading up to Sharon's visit. While many
conservatives support Israel quite strongly, they are unlikely
to break with the President over the issue. On the other hand,
the American Likudniks, who want to make America Sharon's enabler, unleashing
him to ethnically cleanse Palestine and annex the West Bank,
have a strategy of rule or ruin.
For
them, Bush's actions sending Powell to meet Arafat, and
now freeing the PLO chairman – amount to a "betrayal"
of Israel that cannot be forgiven or forgotten. To be bested
at the hands of the Saudis considered, according to the
neocon conspiracy theory, to be the secret
masters of world terrorism, and Israel's mortal enemy
is especially galling to these folks. They see Riyadh the
way they used to view the Kremlin: as the capital of an Evil
Empire that must be destroyed. "Moral clarity" is supposed
to tell us that Israel's fight is our fight, and that an alliance
of the US and Israel against the entire Arab-Muslim world
is the "new" post-9/11 reality. For the neoconservative element
in this administration, the invasion and conquest of Iraq
would be just the beginning of the "liberation" of the Middle
East and the elimination of Israel's enemies once and for
all.
THE
BIG FREEZE
Whatever
the extent of the President's personal attachment to and sympathy
for Israel, it is clear that, for the moment, the neocons
have been frozen out of the big policy-making decisions. Bush
senior and Colin Powell are now in the ascendancy, along with
two other important factors driving US policy in the region:
domestic politics, and the objective requirements of the US
national interest. I covered the domestic political angle,
to some degree, in
my last column, noting a budding alliance of the American
Likudniks and certain prominent Democrats. The latest wrinkle
in this aspect of the story is bound to be increasingly open
dissension within Republican ranks or, at least, as much
as the neocons can muster. Look for John McCain to make a
grab for the spotlight: his recent speech to AIPAC, every
line of which is an implicit criticism of the Bush tilt toward
the Saudis, has
already gained some attention, and we can expect more
of the same.
OBSTACLES
TO THE WAR PARTY
As
for the objective requirements of US policy, the neocon stance
of isolating the US from every country in the Middle East
except Israel, Turkey, and perhaps Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman
would amount to a strategic disaster for the US. In the midst
of his "war on terrorism," the President would lose most of
his allies, including the Europeans and the economic consequences
of an "oil shock" would send his domestic political prospects
into a tailspin. These same factors, of course, bedevil his
announced policy of overthrowing Saddam, and imperil the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz
plan to launch a US invasion of Iraq. The chief obstacle to
the War Party on this front has been Crown Prince Abdullah,
now quite visibly taking the reins of his kingdom firmly in
hand, openly stating that a US invasion would be unacceptable.
While the US is already transferring its bases to Qatar, Bahrain,
and some of the smaller Gulf states, Kuwait is the key. But
Iraq recently recognized
Kuwaiti sovereignty, with Saddam
and the Emir reaching an understanding, and it is by no
means certain that the Al
Sabah clan would allow their realm to be used as a launching
pad for US military action an uncertainty that makes the
whole invasion project iffy, at best.
DEATH
OF AN URBAN MYTH
In
spite of all the talk about invasion plans, with various timetables
being bandied about, the Saudis say they have been assured
by Washington that the decision for or against a "regime change"
in Iraq or the means to achieve it – has yet to be finalized.
With the last alleged Iraq "link" to 9/11 exposed
as an urban myth it turns out that Mohammed Atta didn't
meet with that Iraqi agent in Prague after all the rationale
for Gulf War II begins to unravel.
(Oh,
but don't worry: they're ready with a
new conspiracy theory. It was Saddam, and not Tim McVeigh,
who blew
up the Oklahoma City federal building. Uh huh. Oh yeah,
and he's
responsible for the anthrax attacks, too, in spite of
overwhelming
evidence that the probable perpetrator
is an
American scientist who worked
for our own government. No word yet as to whether Saddam
is also to blame for those
recent tornadoes.)
With
Osama bin Laden still running around loose, an Iraq war scenario
begins to make even less sense. And while the US calls for
UN inspectors to be let into Iraq and given unlimited access
to all sites, many Americans may begin to wonder why UN inspectors
are not being let into Jenin.
ISRAEL'S
NATTERING NABOBS OF NEGATIVITY
Unlike
the Israelis, whose stance is consistently rejectionist,
the Saudis have presented a
positive paradigm for peace. The Saudi plan calls for
Arab recognition of Israel in return for withdrawal from the
occupied territories and the creation of a viable Palestinian
state with a shared capital in Jerusalem. Sharon and Benjamin
Netanyahu, his even more intransigent right-wing rival, waiting
in the wings can only say "No!"
Aside
from grating on the nerves of the Bush administration, this
negativism is not going to go over big with the American public.
Israel has accumulated quite a lot of moral and political
capital over the years, but its present rulers and their
apologists in this country are spending it fast. George
W. Bush has been very patient with Sharon, and has
done everything humanly possible to accommodate the American
Likudniks in his own party. But events have pushed the President
to choose between the interests of his own country, and those
of a favored ally. So far, at least, George W. Bush seems
to be making all the correct choices: he is stumbling, uncertainly
and tentatively, onto the right path.
Oh,
and one more thing: If I were the War Party, I wouldn't be
so smugly complacent about the certainty of war with Iraq
by next year: if Sharon gives Bush much more trouble than
he already has, it may be time to shelve the war plans indefinitely.
Please
Support Antiwar.com
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or Contribute Via
our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
Your contributions
are now tax-deductible
|
