Bush Must Develop Realistic Plan for Middle East

Hossein Askari

It is generally accepted that Iraq has become a mess that the President and his top advisors did not predict. Many people did predict much of what has happened, but the Administration was far too busy reading its own printing press to pay any attention. What is now at center stage is how to put an end to the hemorrhaging. The Administration is in danger of relegating even greater disaster to the next administration in order to save a “presidential legacy.” The United States cannot afford such ostrich-like behavior. The future of the country and of humanity is far more important than one man’s legacy. To have a reasonable chance for a turnaround, the US must try to understand the Middle Eastern view of how we got here and try to change that mindset.

While most Americans can find little time for an examination of what the US has done in the past and face the brutal facts about the US image in the world, it is a painful requirement in the present situation.

First, the justifications for the invasion of Iraq can best be described by a Middle Eastern phrase, “uphill spit.” The US argued that Saddam was an evil dictator, but it was the US who had supported Saddam in the 1980s in the name of realpolitik while he invaded Iran and also routinely murdered his own people. Yes, Saddam was a dictator, but the US continues to support all manner of dictators in the Middle East even today. The US argued that Saddam had WMD. Yet the US knew that what may have remained in Saddam’s arsenal was sold to him with the full knowledge of the US by US, French, German, British and Dutch entities. The US argued that Saddam was a danger to his neighbors with his WMD, yet the US encouraged him to use them against Iran. He killed over 500,000 Iranians and the US said nothing. Initially the US even said nothing when Saddam used WMD against Iraqi Kurds. The US argued that he could use his WMD and specifically nuclear weapons on the US, but the US knew full well that he had no means of delivery. The US said that Saddam was connected to Al-Qaeda and 9/11, yet there was not a shred of evidence to support this assertion. When the US could not persuade the United Nations to support the invasion of Iraq on the basis of the above self-serving and self-incriminating arguments (aka uphill spit), the nation that professes the importance of the rule of law invaded Iraq anyway. The US then argued that it would bring democracy to the Middle East while it continued to support most of the dictators in the region and for “democracy” in Iraq the US imposed a group of exiles who had done little to fight, much less alleviate, Iraqi suffering under Saddam Hussein during the period of his brutal rule and who had little credibility.

The US image has been further tarnished by the conduct in the war. The US has participated in kidnappings and torture. How can the US expect to hold the moral high ground against Hamas or extremists in the future? Now that American casualties have topped 2,000, the US is worried about human suffering, yet the US ignores the estimated death of over 100,000 civilian Iraqis since the start of the conflict. This is not a record that any nation could be proud of. With every passing day there are more Iraqi casualties and more extended Iraqi family members who become anti-American, there are more Muslims who are persuaded of the illegal basis of the war and its “Crusader” motif, and the abyss between the US and the average Middle Easterner becomes less reparable.

Reconciliation with the Middle East and the Muslim World must incorporate much more than a speedy US withdrawal from Iraq. Iraq’s future, including whether there will be an Iraq as we know it today, will depend on its relations with all of its neighbors, who will continue to be there well after US troops have gone home. A US withdrawal today, in six months or in two years is NOT the strategic solution to the broader Middle East problem the US faces, including the war on terrorism. US “talks” with Iran through its ambassadors in Baghdad and Kabul, as announced in late November, will do little to address broader issues in the region; while Iran may be critical in helping the US in Iraq and in Afghanistan, the Iran-US rift is multi-faceted and Iran will do little to genuinely help the US now that it believes it has leverage over the US and that the US is merely looking for a “quick fix” for its quagmires. In short, the US is in desperate need of a broad-based Middle Eastern policy that looks at the region as a whole and does not have as its basis a fix here and there.

The past points the way to a better future if the US can shed the cloak of hubris, admit failures, and, as candidate Bush used to say, be more humble in its conduct of foreign policy. The US needs the total involvement of all of the countries in the region and of the other permanent four on the UN Security Council. Here is such a broader prescription:

1. For the foreseeable future, anything that happens in the Middle East must happen in an Islamic context. The Middle East has suffered for many years under the tutelage of tyrants who, in most cases, have been supported by outside powers to promote their own selfish short-term interests. The average citizen has in desperation turned for hope to Islam. True Islamic teachings, as outlined throughout the Quran, uphold social and economic justice as the second most important goal of an Islamic community; with governance entrusted to a just ruler who is selected by the community.  Anyone, any group, or any outside power that bashes Islam may buy some short-term respite with local tyrants but will be doomed thereafter. A tyrant’s greatest defense is the claim that if he is overthrown, Islamic fundamentalist, aka fanatics, bent on destroying the world, will replace him. If the US continues to support and defend tyrants, then the tyrant’s deceit will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The US must immediately refute its support of dictators.

2. Wars and conflicts have trumped any and all economic progress in the Middle East. The Middle East needs a long, assured dose of peace. To help the region achieve long-lasting peace that enables a true blossoming of economic and social progress requires a number of simultaneous elements (not merely US withdrawal from Iraq). The United Nations (the Security Council), each Permanent Member of the Security Council and every country in the Middle East, individually and collectively, should guarantee the territorial integrity of every country in the region. This security umbrella should also be extended to Israel, and this leads to another essential element. The “two state” solution for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli dispute should be adopted immediately; wherein Israel keeps nothing of the West Bank unless it trades Israeli territory for it on a basis acceptable to the Palestinians; an international fund is set up to compensate Palestinians for their lost homes and land; in the aftermath of such confidence building measures, the status of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees can then be resolved over time through peaceful means. Other existing territorial disputes in the region must be resolved under UN auspices.

3. There should be a total arms embargo to the region, with the exception of riot and civil control equipment. It must be recognized that whenever arms are acquired, they will eventually be used no matter what; arms always reduce available economic resources for development and growth; and arms kill people and destroy infrastructure and other valuable economic assets. In the case of nuclear weapons and all other WMD, all countries (no matter whether or not they are signatories to the NPT) must give up their arsenal if they want to be beneficiaries of the guarantees offered above and if they want to avoid UN sanctions, sanctions that should automatically be applied if they do not comply.

Economic growth requires stability and stability requires economic growth; the two are inseparable. The outside world, especially the United States, cannot say it wants peace and prosperity while it sells arms and WMD to client states in the region or allows others to keep their nuclear arsenal and WMD. A heavy-handed approach to securing regional peace would be the biggest gift to the Middle East.

4. All the permanent members of the Security Council should emphatically state that they will not interfere in the internal affairs of any country in the region. There is a great deal of mistrust and suspicion in the Muslim World of Western, especially US, intentions toward the region. Such a public pledge will go some distance in restoring trust, especially if it is also honored in deed.

5. Western powers can support, but they cannot dictate, change and progress in the region. This the Western powers, especially the US, can do by endorsing the four fundamental and indispensable propositions outlined above and by adopting some additional policies toward the region: (i) the Western powers will cooperate, both economically and politically, with any regime that reflects the wishes of its people (usually, but not necessarily, determined by Western-style elections), that respects human rights at all times (including the rights of women and minorities), and that does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, (ii) the Western powers will treat all countries in the region in an even-handed manner and will not isolate countries, such as Iran or Syria, as long as they uphold the above, and (iii) the Western powers will list and express sincere regret for all past transgressions toward countries in the region. This latter point may be the greatest test of the extent of Western and US hubris toward the region but it is crucial that it be addressed. Such an open admission will win more Muslim hearts and minds than Karen Hughes could hope to touch in over a thousand years! Yes, it is tough for a superpower to show remorse but to most Middle Easterners it will be seen as strength, not as weakness, while cutting the flow of blood to terrorists and to dictatorial governments.

One thing is clear: time is running out for the US if it wants to see a prosperous and peaceful Middle East and better relations with the Muslim World. The stakes are sufficiently high that a little humility, admitting to past transgressions and taking a broad long-term approach to the region, should not be that hard to swallow, especially for a superpower that wants to remain a superpower.

Updated 12/6/05