Middle East
Crisis: Is The US Part of the Problem?
By Dr Muqtedar Khan
University of Delaware
& Non-Resident Fellow
Brookings Institution
We are presently witnessing in Lebanon the third
humanitarian disaster in which President Bush
has had a direct or indirect hand. In Iraq over
50,000 are dead and dying thanks to President
Bush’s decision to invade and occupy it
without the number of troops necessary to secure
the country.
In New Orleans, the administration’s incompetent
preparation and slow response exacerbated the
humanitarian crisis. And now hundreds of innocent
people are dying in a war in Lebanon that could
be stopped by the international community if it
was not handcuffed by the US President Bush who
is determined to allow Israel enough time to devastate
Lebanon while it seeks to destroy Hezbollah. We
may recall that Israel failed to undermine a much
weaker Hezbollah even after 18 years of warfare
and occupation of southern Lebanon [1982-2000].
Why do we expect success now?
The US has so far achieved only two things in
the two weeks since the conflict in Lebanon began,
indeed in the month since the kidnapping of an
Israeli soldier prompted Israel to unleash its
ruthless war machine.
One, it has acted to ensure that no effort by
the international community would succeed in stopping
the mayhem in Lebanon. Three times the US has
subverted the processes of peace, at the UN, at
the G-8 summit and at the Rome conference, where
it was apparent that if it was not for Tony, “the
poodle’, Blair, the US would have been completely
isolated from the rest of the humanity on this
issue.
Two, even during the conflict, instead of working
towards peace, we are arming one side with rockets
and big powerful bombs which, in the words of
the Lebanese Prime Minister, are “cutting
his country to pieces.” We are even smuggling
these weapons through Britain, somewhat like Iran,
smuggling weapons to Hezbollah via Syria. Unlike
Syria, however, Britain is protesting.
The administration claims that the Rome conference
helped build a consensus for an international
force to prevent future crisis. For those of us
who are familiar with the history of the conflict,
we know that it was only because of Israeli and
American opposition that there is no real international
force already in the area capable of policing
the borders and keeping all parties peaceful.
What Secretary Rice means by consensus is that
finally the US has agreed with the rest of the
world on one issue involving Israel.
This strategy of American foreign policy to arm,
encourage and support extended and open-ended
Israeli military action, I am convinced will fail
miserably in realizing its goals. By the time
Israelis finish in Lebanon it will be a pile of
debris with perhaps nearly a thousand innocent
civilians dead and over a million homeless and
displaced. All other major US goals in the region
– democracy promotion, support for moderates,
winning hearts and minds, undermining support
for radicalism – will also be buried under
the debris.
Hezbollah fighters would have been dispersed all
over the region, and will be regrouping to fight
another day with more men, more support [thanks
to elevated levels of anti-American and anti-Israeli
sentiments across the Middle East], and perhaps
more deadlier weapons. They will also be more
confident and experienced after their current
showing. From their performance it is apparent
that they are the best fighting force the Arabs
have produced in a long time. Perhaps they will
conquer Saudi Arabia and Jordan just for fun,
while they regroup. The two monarchies probably
fear something of that nature and are therefore
huddling so closely with the US since this fight
began.
I see no light at the end of the tunnel except
wishful thinking that Hezbollah will be destroyed
and the rest of the world will send their soldiers
to defend Israel. It is like the neo-con pipe
dream of Americans being received as liberators
by Iraqis. After seeing the current form of Hezbollah,
I will be surprised if any country will volunteer
its forces. If President Bush decides to send
our troops, the party will move from Iraq to Lebanon.
For Al Qaeda and the Jihadis, it will be like
a ‘buy one get one free deal’ [US
and Israel together in the same fight].
The US will not talk with Syria or Iran because
they are “part of the problem”. From
the steps taken so far, it is not clear to me
if the US foreign policy is really a part of the
solution.
Remember the last time when Israel raped Lebanon,
Hezbollah was born. It is scary to imagine what
the current molestation will yield. American foreign
policy is not in the interest of global peace,
not good for America’s many interests in
the Middle East and will not make Israel safer.
What is true for Spiderman is also true for the
US – with great power comes great responsibility.
As the sole superpower it is the US’ responsibility
to maintain the global order and nurture the international
system, not become a destabilizing force. American
foreign policy is in a way a global public good
and by acting in a highly partisan and short-sighted
fashion in the current Arab-Israeli conflict we
are abdicating our status as a global leader.
(Muqtedar Khan is a visiting scholar at Oxford.
He is Assistant Professor at University of Delaware
and a Nonresident Fellow at the Saban Center for
Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.
He is a senior scholar with the Institute for
Social Policy and Understanding. He is the author
of Jihad for Jerusalem [2004] and most recently
Islamic Democratic Discourse [2006]. His website
is www.ijtihad.org)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
