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 (/)

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


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.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share