Right Web

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

U.S. Arms Trade: Maximizing Profits in the Middle East

When the United States sells state-of-the-art weapons systems to Arab nations, it invariably provides even more lethal and sophisticated arms to its...

Print Friendly

When the United States sells state-of-the-art weapons systems to Arab nations, it invariably provides even more lethal and sophisticated arms to its steadfast ally, Israel, in order to help counter the firepower of its neighbors.

So, when Egypt gets the M60A3 and M1A1 Abrams battle tanks, Israel gets the TOW-2A and Hellfire anti-tank missiles that could blow up the Egyptian vehicles in the event of a military confrontation between the two countries, which are currently wedded to the 1979 Camp David peace treaty.

Likewise, when the United States grudgingly provides McDonnell Douglas F-15 fighter planes to Saudi Arabia, Israel is armed either with Sidewinder and Sparrow air-to-air missiles or Hawk and Stinger surface-to-air missiles to bring down the U.S.-supplied Saudi aircraft.

Every U.S. government has ensured that no weapons sales to Arab nations would undermine Israel’s traditional "qualitative [military] advantage" over its perceived rivals.

Last week, the administration of President George W. Bush ran true to form when it announced its decision to simultaneously sell arms both to Israel and seven Arab nations: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.

The package, which is also expected to include one set of weapons to counter the other, includes equipment worth some $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and five other Gulf states, $30 billion in military assistance to Israel, and $13 billion in similar grants to Egypt, mostly for purchases of U.S.-made weapons systems.

The Bush administration has justified the whopping arms sales as an attempt to militarily strengthen Israel, Egypt, and the Gulf states against Iran. But academics, peace activists, and military analysts see a more sinister and commercial reason for unrestrained arms sales to a politically volatile region.

"The only ‘winners’ from this deal are U.S. weapons contractors," says Natalie J. Goldring, a senior fellow with the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.

"For the U.S. defense industry, this is Christmas in July," she added, pointing out that the Bush administration’s statements that these sales will somehow deter Iran aren’t convincing.

"Past attempts to label Iran as part of the ‘axis of evil’ only seem to have silenced moderate voices, and spurred the Iranian government’s conventional and potential nuclear weapons programs," Goldring told the Inter Press Service (IPS).

In addition, she pointed out, the U.S. government record at dissuading countries from developing nuclear weapons through military means is unblemished by success.

"Our past nonproliferation successes have been the product of political, economic, and diplomatic approaches, not military measures," she added.

During a swing through the Middle East last week, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the proposed arms sales will also "bolster the forces of moderation and support a broader strategy to counter the negative influences of al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran."

Goldring said Rice fails to effectively counter the argument that these sales are more likely to promote instability in the recipient countries because of hostility toward the United States.

Meanwhile, several U.S. congressmen, including Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), have threatened to block the sale—particularly to Saudi Arabia because the Saudis "have not been a true ally in further U.S. interests in the Middle East."

Whether they will have enough clout to deter the sale against the powerful military-industrial complex remains to be seen.

Frida Berrigan, a senior program associate with the Arms and Security Project at the New America Foundation, predicts that the proposed sale could indeed trigger a new arms race in the region.

She said new weapon sales to Egypt and Saudi Arabia will stoke Jordan’s need for new advanced weaponry.

"This move seeks to repair the damage wrought in the region by the disastrous war in Iraq by throwing more fuel on the fire—introducing more weaponry in a region already wracked by a civil-sectarian conflict that ripples outward in ever widening and devastating circles," Berrigan told IPS.

She also said this sends exactly the wrong message to the Saudi government.

"Quid pro quos in weapons sales do not work—witness the United States trying to shape and influence the actions of the Indonesian military regime through withholding spare parts of F-16s," Berrigan said.

But the United States is not even putting conditions on these sales and grants of military aid, she added.

Asked if it was prudent for the Bush administration to sell weapons to non-democratic regimes when it is trying to spread democracy in the region, Berrigan said that of the eight nations slated for significant increases in military aid, only one (Israel) is a full democracy.

"The law provides citizens with the right to change their government peacefully," according to the U.S. State Department’s 2006 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

In Egypt—despite its claims of democratic elections—the State Department found "limitations on the right of citizens to change their government" including "a state of emergency, in place almost continuously since 1967."

The rest of the countries are monarchies or sultanates where, in the words of the State Department’s annual report, there is "no right to peacefully change the government."

Goldring of Georgetown University said this sale perpetuates the myth that the U.S. government can predict the future and say with confidence that governments will be stable for two, three, four decades.

"Yet again, the Bush administration is failing to fully take into account the long-term implications of its actions," she said.

In the Middle East, she said, the United States is largely engaged in an arms race with itself. It seeks to "balance" its interests in the region with ever-increasing levels of weaponry and military aid.

And the U.S. government continues to argue that arms sales will stabilize the Middle East, despite the lack of evidence to support this assertion, she added.

"The administration claims that the majority of weapons it proposes to sell are defensive. But if they’re actually defensive, why does this deal reportedly include constraints on the weapons’ ranges and where they can be based?" Goldring asked.

"Adding insult to injury," she argued, "the administration is buying off Israel by increasing its military aid to more than $30 billion over the course of the next decade."

Berrigan of the New America Foundation countered Rice’s argument that billions in military assistance will "bolster the forces of moderation" in the region; the military assistance will go to countries that brutally suppress their own populations.

Berrigan said all eight nations named for the aid package, which could top $60 billion over 10 years, have "serious" problems with regards to human rights including: torture (Qatar, Egypt, and Israel, where reputable human rights groups allege that security forces use torture in interrogation of Palestinian detainees about 20% of the time); unlawful killings (Kuwait); flogging and other forms of corporal punishment (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates); and killings, abuse of women including female genital mutilation (Egypt).

Thalif Deen writes for the Inter Press Service.

Citations

Thalif Deen, "U.S. Arms Trade: Maximizing Profits in the Middle East," Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: International Relations Center, August 7, 2007).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Clare Lopez is a former CIA officer and rightwing activist who has argued that the Muslim Brotherhood and a shadowy “Iran Lobby” are working to shape Obama administration policy.


Michael Ledeen, a “Freedom Scholar” at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has long been obsessed with getting the U.S. to force regime change in Tehran.


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.


The daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney has emerged as the most visible advocate of hardline security policies in the Cheney family.


Bret Stephens is a columnist for the New York Times who previously worked at the Wall Street Journal and the neoconservative flagship magazine Commentary.


Joe Lieberman, the neoconservative Democrat from Connecticut who retired from the Senate in 2013, co-chairs a foreign policy project at the American Enterprise Institute.


Former attorney general Edwin Meese, regarded as one of President Ronald Reagan’s closest advisers despite persistent allegations of influence peddling and bribery during his tenure, has been a consummate campaigner on behalf of rightist U.S. foreign and domestic policies. He currently serves as a distinguished visiting fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


Print Friendly

Trump’s reorganization of the foreign policy bureaucracy is an ideologically driven agenda for undermining the power and effectiveness of government institutions that could lead to the State Department’s destruction.


Print Friendly

Spurred by anti-internationalist sentiment among conservative Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, the US is headed for a new confrontation with the UN over who decides how much the US should pay for peacekeeping.


Print Friendly

Decent developments in the Trump administration indicate that the neoconservatives, at one point on the margins of Washington’s new power alignments, are now on the ascendent?


Print Friendly

As the end of Donald Trump’s first 100 days as president approaches, it seems that his version of an “America-first” foreign policy is in effect a military-first policy aimed at achieving global hegemony, which means it’s a potential doomsday machine.


RightWeb
share