Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Blowback, from Palestine to Pakistan

Four years after the emergence of the first signs of a serious insurgency in Iraq, President George W. Bush finds himself beset with major crises...

Print Friendly

Four years after the emergence of the first signs of a serious insurgency in Iraq, President George W. Bush finds himself beset with major crises stretching from Palestine to Pakistan.

With U.S.-backed Fatah forces routed by Hamas in Gaza last week, Bush’s five-year-old vision of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict now looks more remote than ever, while a new Pentagon report on Iraq suggests that his four-month-old "surge" strategy is failing in its primary objective of reducing the violence there.

Meanwhile, Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to whom Washington has provided virtually unconditional support since al-Qaida’s 9/11 attack, faces growing popular revolt, while much of his country’s tribal border regions have come under the control of forces allied with Afghanistan’s Taliban.

And Iran, which senior U.S. officials last week accused of arming the Taliban, as well as Shiite militias in Iraq, has continued to defy Washington’s demands that it halt its nuclear enrichment program, while Tehran’s regional allies, Syria and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, not to mention Hamas, appear to have successfully withstood intensified U.S.-led efforts to isolate them.

Recent events in Gaza, in fact, are also likely to have dealt a heavy blow to U.S. hopes of forging an anti-Iranian coalition consisting of Israel and the "Arab Quartet" led by Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. Indeed, Saudi King Abdullah appeared to have grown disillusioned with Bush even before the U.S.-backed dissolution by Palestine Authority President and Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas of the government of national unity, whose birth was personally midwifed by Abdullah last March.

"There’s a strongly held view among our Arab friends that we don’t know what we’re doing," observed retired Amb. Daniel Kurtzer, Washington’s chief envoy to Israel during Bush’s first term and now a professor at Princeton University, early last week before Hamas’s takeover of Gaza.

Al-Qaida, which continues to enjoy the protection of its allies in Pakistan and has made the U.S. military occupation in Iraq its primary recruiting ground, has also benefited enormously from the backlash against Washington’s policies throughout the region, according to most experts.

"Al-Qaida today is a global operation—with a well-oiled propaganda machine based in Pakistan, a secondary but independent base in Iraq, and an expanding reach in Europe," wrote Bruce Riedel, a former high-level CIA analyst, in Foreign Affairs last month.

In the article, entitled "Al-Qaida Strikes Back," Reidel, the senior director for Near East Affairs in the White House from 1997 to 2002, predicted that the group would likely set up new operations in northern Lebanon and Gaza and eventually try to provoke "all-out war" between the United States and Iran as part of a "grand strategy" aimed at "bleeding" Washington in much the same way that U.S.-backed mujahedin and their Arab allies bled the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

Indeed, like Jason of Greek myth, Bush has sown dragon’s teeth throughout the region with a predominantly military policy, particularly his decision to unilaterally invade and occupy Iraq, even as he encouraged right-wing governments in Israel to indulge their propensity for using force to resolve problems with their neighbors.

But, unlike Jason, it looks increasingly doubtful that Bush can subdue the militant forces that have sprouted from those seeds and appear to grow stronger with each passing day.

Israel, which last year fought a disastrous war in Lebanon that was promoted and prolonged at the behest of Washington’s hawks and now faces a Hamas-dominated Gaza on its southern border, also appears increasingly vulnerable.

Regional specialists, including Riedel and Kurtzer, have long argued that resuming a credible Israeli-Palestinian peace process that could offer Palestinians tangible hope for gaining their own state in the not-too-distant future—or what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called a "political horizon"—could be the single most important step toward reversing the region’s radicalization that Washington could make.

So the big question now is how the United States and Israel will react to the latest events in the Palestinian territories—a subject that will almost certainly top the agenda when Bush meets with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert this week. Of particular importance is whether they will adopt the same harshly punitive policies against a Hamas-dominated Gaza that they have applied to the Palestinian government since Hamas defeated Fatah in the January 2006 elections.

Already, neoconservatives and other hawks are clamoring for a tough policy consistent with that of the past five years, insisting not only that Washington lead a diplomatic and aid boycott against Gaza, but that it also shelve any plans for resuming a peace process, even with Abbas.

"[S]ince Palestinian politics have clearly returned to a pre-1993 status, so must Western and U.S. policy. This means no Western aid and no diplomatic support until their leaders change policies," wrote Barry Rubin, director of a Likudist think tank in Jerusalem, in last Friday’s Wall Street Journal.

"Hamas is the enemy, as much as al-Qaida, because it is part of the radical Islamist effort to seize control of the region, overthrow anything even vaguely moderate, and expel any Western influence," he argued.

But others insist that such an approach would play into the hands of the region’s radicals, including al-Qaida.

"The U.S. needs urgently to rethink its failed policy in the Middle East," said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator who directs the Middle East Initiative at the New America Foundation in Washington and who has decried the administration’s efforts to weaken and eventually overthrow Hamas.

"In its failed effort to pursue regime change in Palestine and prevent Palestinians from embracing Hamas, the United States is driving them instead into the arms of al-Qaida," he said.

Americans for Peace Now, a Jewish group, also called for the administration to resist the hawks’ advice and reassess its policy. "We urge the United States, Israel, and the international community to not repeat the mistakes of the past 18 months, with policies predicated on the now clearly discredited notion that the Hamas failure in government will lead it to disappear from the Palestinian political scene," it said.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/).


Jim Lobe, "Blowback, from Palestine to Pakistan," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, June 20, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.