Right Web

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

Obama’s Mideast Mess

President Obama’s decision on a host of problems spanning the Greater Middle East could well determine his foreign policy legacy.

Inter Press Service

When Barack Obama arrived home from his weeklong tour of East Asia, awaiting him was a growing list of ever more urgent problems in the Greater Middle East that he inherited from George W. Bush’s “global war on terror”.

From Palestine to Pakistan, Obama, who also faces a major fight in getting his top legislative priority – health care reform – through Congress, must make a series of critical decisions within a relatively short time.

Some of those decisions could well determine Obama’s foreign policy legacy, specifically whether he can pull the U.S. out of the hole Bush dug for it in the region or whether, inspiring rhetoric notwithstanding, he keeps digging.

While deciding on his strategy in Afghanistan – and how many U.S. troops will be needed to implement it – is at the top of the list, the apparent impasse on Iran’s nuclear programme has strengthened forces here that favour imposing “crippling sanctions”, if not military action, against the Islamic Republic, sooner rather than later.

At the same time, the sharp deterioration over the past several weeks in prospects for renewed peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians has suddenly put into serious question the continued viability not only of the Palestine Authority (PA), but also of the two-state solution on which Washington and other members of the Quartet have long based their policies.

It was just three weeks ago that Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. James Jones, identified the Israel-Palestinian conflict as the “epicentre” of U.S. challenges in the Greater Middle East and the one crisis the administration would prioritise if it could “solve any one problem” in the region.

Yet, with Israel’s latest defiance of U.S. demands that it halt settlement expansion in the West Bank and, specifically, in East Jerusalem, a solution now appears more remote than at any time since Bush ended Bill Clinton’s peacemaking efforts in 2001.

Obama’s Asia tour, which took him to Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea, garnered mixed reviews here. Right-wing critics accused him of excessive deference, especially toward his Chinese hosts and the Japanese emperor (to whom he was accused of bowing too deeply). His defenders insisted that his modesty marked a welcome contrast to Bush’s “cowboy” swagger, especially in countries that have become Washington’s biggest creditors by far.

Many of Obama’s top foreign policy advisers firmly believe that U.S. relations with Asia – where China is fast emerging as a true global power, and recent elections in Japan, Washington’s closest regional ally, have launched a major political transition with serious foreign policy implications – require far more attention than they received under Bush, a point underlined by Obama’s reference to himself as Washington’s “first Pacific president”.

That the administration has been forced to focus most of its attention on the Greater Middle East is a source of both regret and resentment to many of these same aides who blame the Bush administration’s incompetence, Manichean worldview, and contempt for diplomacy for the crises they face in the region.

Of those, Afghanistan, the subject of a major review that is well into its third month, has drawn the most attention and may turn out to be the most momentous.

Obama’s top military commander, apparently backed by the Armed Forces chief of staff, and Defence Secretary Robert Gates, has asked for as many as 40,000 new U.S. troops to add to the 68,000 already deployed there in order to repel Taliban advances and gain time for Washington and its NATO allies to build up the Afghan Army and police so they can hold their own.

They are reportedly opposed by Vice President Joseph Biden and several of Obama’s top political advisers. Worried about growing opposition to the war among Democrats and polls showing that only about one-third of the public favour adding troops, they have argued for a much more modest escalation, if any at all.

They have been strengthened in recent weeks by published accounts of gross corruption on the part of the government of President Hamid Karzai, his brother and their cronies, and by the leak of a cable from Washington’s ambassador in Kabul. Ret. Gen. Karl Eikenberry expressed great scepticism in that communication over whether adding troops would make any difference in the absence of wholesale – and, in his view, highly unlikely – changes in the government’s performance.

Reports about the estimated costs of additional deployments – estimated at one million dollars per soldier per year – have also bolstered Biden’s position.

Obama, who ruled out withdrawing U.S. troops last month, is now reportedly weighing several options – ranging from adding 10,000 troops to granting the Pentagon’s full request.

He is also reportedly insisting that additional U.S. assistance be tied to “measurable” improvements in the government’s performance, a message conveyed personally by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who attended Karzai’s inauguration in Kabul Thursday.

In an interview Wednesday with CNN, Obama, who has been accused by right-wing critics, notably former Vice President Dick Cheney, of “dithering” over his decision, said he was “very close” to making one and expected to announce it “in the next several weeks”.

On Iran, Obama pledged last spring that he would pursue his “engagement” policy with Tehran through the end of the year before assessing whether it should be continued.

With less than 45 days before the new year, however, Iran has failed to confirm an agreement in principle reached last month in Geneva between it and the so-called P5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany) that would lower tensions over its nuclear programme.

The plan called for Tehran to export most of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Russia and France for reprocessing into fuel rods to be used for a research reactor in Tehran. Recent statements by senior Iranian officials that appeared to reject the plan have contributed to growing pessimism here that the deal will be accepted.

As a result, the so-called “Israel Lobby” and its allies in Congress have rallied behind a series of bills that would impose unilateral sanctions against Iran and third-country companies that do business with it.

With time running out, Obama himself appears to be putting greater emphasis on sticks rather than carrots, warning Thursday in Seoul that, “over the next several weeks, the (the P5+1) will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take that would indicate our seriousness to Iran”.

The group is scheduled to meet Friday in Brussels. While Obama said he was “pleased” with what he called “the extraordinary international unity that we have seen” over the issue, Russia and China have repeatedly indicated their reluctance to impose sanctions. If maintained, their stance will impose very difficult choices on Washington very soon.

On top of all this, events in Israel and the Occupied Territories – most recently, Israel’s approval this week of the construction of 900 housing units in the Palestinian neighbourhood of Gilo in East Jerusalem – has dealt a perhaps fatal blow to the Oslo framework that has guided the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” since 1993.

Coming after threats by senior Palestinian officials to resign in protest over Washington’s refusal to back up its earlier demands for a halt to all Jewish settlement expansion, Obama himself warned Wednesday that the latest action by the Netanyahu government “embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous”.

Even before the Gilo announcement, experts here were warning that a third intifada could break out at any time, with potentially disastrous consequences not only for Israeli-Palestinian peace prospects, but also for Obama’s efforts to restore Washington’s image throughout the region.

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

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