Right Web

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

Bush in the Middle East

(Inter Press Service) Hezbollah’s recent rout of U.S.-backed forces in Lebanon has cast a shadow over President George W. Bush's tour of the Middle East this week....

(Inter Press Service)

Hezbollah’s recent rout of U.S.-backed forces in Lebanon has cast a shadow over President George W. Bush's tour of the Middle East this week. After all, it was only three years ago that Bush hailed Lebanon’s "Cedar Revolution" as vindication of the kind of regional democratic transformation that he insisted the U.S. invasion of Iraq was designed to launch.

Three years and a brief war with Israel later, Hezbollah, an Iranian- and Syrian-backed group, appears more powerful and entrenched than ever. Although the group alienated sectors of Lebanese society because of the violence of its recent offensive, the government's decision to rescind the order to dismantle Hezbollah's communications network at Beirut's airport—the act that provoked last Friday's offensive—demonstrated that the group has virtual veto power over government decisions.

Hezbollah's Sunni Islamist ally in the Palestinian Territories, Hamas, also remains solidly in control of Gaza. Hamas is growing in popularity in the West Bank in major part due to the apparent lack of progress in peace talks—formally initiated by Bush at the Annapolis meeting last November—between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government.

"The politics on the ground are absolutely miserable," Jon Alterman, a Middle East specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., told the New York Times Sunday. "It's hard to remember a less auspicious time to pursue Arab-Israeli peacemaking than right now. U.S. power and influence are at low ebb in the region," he added.

Bush traveled to Israel on Tuesday to celebrate the 60th anniversary of its founding. He planned to then fly to Saudi Arabia, presumably to appeal—as he did in January when he last traveled to the region—for a major increase in oil production to bring some relief to the United States, and then to Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, where he will address the World Economic Forum and meet with a collection of Sunni Arab leaders, including Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordanian King Abdullah.

Apart from Israel, to which Bush has been by far the most indulgent U.S. president in the Jewish state's history, he is likely to get his warmest—if most anxious—reception when he meets with the assembled Sunni leaders, many of whom are as concerned about Shia Hezbollah's show of force as is Israel.

Like Bush himself, not to mention Israel, they see Hezbollah's victory as another in a series of advances by Iran in its effort to shift the balance of power in the Gulf and the wider region against Washington and its allies there. It is an impression that Bush, somewhat ironically, will be eager to reinforce, if only to revive the dying embers of his hopes for a de facto U.S.-Sunni Arab-Israeli coalition against Tehran, even without a viable Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

"To me, it's the single biggest threat to peace in the Middle East, the Iranian regime," he told an interviewer from Israel's TV Channel 10, according to a partial transcript released Monday. "Their funding of Hezbollah—look what's happening in Lebanon now, a young democracy trying to survive.... [I]t's in Israel’s interest that the Lebanese democracy survives. You need to be concerned about Iran, and you are concerned about Iran and so are we."

Indeed, five years after Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, virtually all analysts here agree that almost everything Bush has done in the region—from invading Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein and then rejecting an Iranian offer to negotiate a settlement on all outstanding issues; to pressing for the total isolation of Hamas after it won (U.S.-backed) democratic elections in the Palestinian Territories and egging on the Israelis in their attack on Lebanon and Hezbollah in 2006—has undermined U.S. standing and influence, even as it enhanced Tehran's.

Even in Iraq, recent U.S. attacks on Muqtada al Sadr's "Mahdi Army," particularly in Baghdad's Sadr City, appear to have bolstered the government factions with the closest and most long-standing ties to Iran—the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and its Badr Organization, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Da'wa party.

The fact that Tehran played a key role in brokering the truces between Sadr and the government in both Basra last month and in Sadr City last weekend underlines the degree to which Iran is effectively challenging Washington in what neoconservative hawk Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute admits "is the only arena (in the region) where the administration is capable of moving effectively against Tehran."

There is little evidence that Washington played a role in pushing the Lebanese cabinet to order the dismantling of Hezbollah's communications network at Beirut's airport. Yet its staunch support for the "March 14" Coalition; its deployment of a U.S. naval destroyer off Lebanon's coast as the political crisis in Beirut intensified in March; its supply of some $400 million in military aid and training to the Lebanese Army and security forces (which stayed out of the fighting); and its covert backing (with Saudi Arabia and Jordan) of Sunni militias intended to counter Hezbollah no doubt contributed to a grave miscalculation by the Lebanese government.

"These Sunni militiamen proved a complete failure, and America's proxies in Lebanon barely put up a fight despite their strident anti-Shiite rhetoric," noted Nir Rosen, a regional expert at the New America Foundation who described Hezbollah's offensive as "the death throes of the Bush plan for the 'New Middle East.'"

"Now it is clear that Beirut is firmly in the hands of Hezbollah, and nothing the Americans can do will dislodge or weaken this popular movement, just as they cannot weaken the Sadrists in Iraq or Hamas in Gaza," he said.

Still, some observers believe Hezbollah's victory may yet serve the administration's ends, if only by reminding the Sunni leaders with whom Bush meets later in the week that, in Gerecht's words, "Tehran is on a roll" and they need the United States and even Israel to contain it and roll back its influence.

Indeed, some analysts believe the weekend's events may add to the gradually growing clamor by hawks in and outside the administration to take military action—if only, for now, limited strikes on weapons factories and training sites inside Iran allegedly used by the Revolutionary Guard to train "terrorists" in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Territories to "put Iran in its place."

"The next couple of days may be critical," said one former senior CIA officer with expertise on the region, who added that any decision to strike “will actually motivated by an irresistible urge, stemming from pure frustration over continuing American impotence throughout the region, just to do something ... even though the actual positive gain in this case would be minimal, while the downside risks are enormous."

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to Right Web. He blogs at read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe.

.





Citations

Jim Lobe, “Bush in the Middle East,” Right Web, with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
https://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4914.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Public Research Associates   Latest Comments & Conversation Area
Editor's Note: IRC editors read and approve eachcomment. Comments are checked for content and to a lesser degree forspelling and grammatical errors. Comments that include vulgar language andlibelous content are rejected, as are comments that do not directlyrespond to the published IRC article.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share