This article is published at PJ Media.
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/09/04/a-middle-east-policy-for-president-romney/
A Middle East Policy for President Romney
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/09/04/a-middle-east-policy-for-president-romney/
A Middle East Policy for President Romney
By Barry Rubin
There
was virtually no discussion of foreign policy at the Republican
National Convention. This was entirely appropriate given the crisis and
priority of domestic issues. Yet I haven’t even seen a single article
discussing this issue at all, and it is going to be important.
Here
is the key factor: Mitt Romney, the Romney-Ryan ticket, and Republican
congressional candidates have a variety of choices on foreign policy.
Some of them can be bad and because there are different and complex
issues the line taken will not—and arguably should not—be consistent.
Of
course, there are the general principles: make America strong and
respected again; support the soldiers; help friends and make enemies
sorry that they are enemies. There must be an end to apologies and the
defense of legitimate U.S. interests. Popularity is okay but respect and
trust are far more important. Avoid either isolationism or excessive
interventionism and get over the democracy-solves-all naivete. Don't be
chomping at the bit to go to war with Iran as a supposed panacea.
These
are important but these principles don’t necessarily tell us how to do
things. An average Arab citizen put it best in private conversation: “We
don’t want an American president who acts like an Arab. We want an
American president who acts like an American.” The old diplomatic
virtues of credibility, national interests’ protection, preserving
alliances and promises, recognizing friends and enemies, and so on need
to be reinstalled.
The
easiest theme is to stop helping anti-American dictators in Venezuela
and several other Latin American countries; the Muslim Brotherhood
(everywhere, including Hamas as the ruler of the Gaza Strip); and
Hizballah; as well as many small terrorist groups and al-Qaida.
The
basic grand strategy for the Middle East should be to form and lead a
very broad and very loose—not institutionalized—alignment of forces
opposing Islamism. These include showing real leadership to the
Europeans, many of whom are better on this issue than Obama. It also
means supporting Israel, of course, but there is a long list of others:
Governments:
Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain (despite its faults), Iraq, Jordan,
Kuwait, Libya (we hope, Obama can claim credit for that one), Morocco,
Oman, Saudi Arabia (despite its faults), and the United Arab Emirates.
You can add some other former Soviet Muslim-majority republics.
Opposition
and democratic moderate movements: Iran, Lebanon, Syria (where the
United States is supporting the Islamists!), Tunisia, and Turkey (see
Syria, above). Let’s also keep in mind the Berbers, Christians, and
Kurds in general as communities that overwhelmingly link their survival
to fighting revolutionary Islamism. Such ethnic communities can also be
found in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
This
cooperation to defeat radical Islamism, however it disguises itself,
should be the backbone of U.S. policy. It can be implemented in a
thousand different ways. Post-victory planning, which better start soon
at least among independent analysts, needs to define these.
There are some Middle East problem countries that require special consideration.
It
is time for a withdrawal from Afghanistan and a clever policy of
backing—with a mixture of covert and financial as well as other
assets—those who will fight to keep the Taliban out of power.
Afghanistan is not going to be democratic or a nice place. But it must a
place that does not threaten America again.
Yemen
is a mess and, like Afghanistan, will continue to be a mess. The U.S.
policy should cooperate to the maximum extent with Yemen on fighting
terrorism without illusions about the nature of the regime and its
willingness to betray the United States at any moment.
Qatar
must also be treated with great caution. For reasons of local pride and
ambition, it likes to stir up trouble and often supports Islamists, as
well as playing footsy with Iran. Qatar should be treated with extreme
suspicion not because its interests are different from America’s
(everybody’s are) but because it likes to play the role of joker in the
deck of cards.
Unfortunately,
there is a parallel here with the far more important case of Pakistan.
This is a headache without resolution. On one hand, the United States
must ensure that the regime is not overthrown by radical Islamists. On
the other hand, the United States cannot trust Pakistan at all to
cooperate in fighting terrorism. Indeed, Pakistan is a major world
sponsor of terrorism, not only against India but also to help the
Taliban in Afghanistan, even—as we’ve vividly seen—al-Qaida! As the
United States withdraws from Afghanistan the relationship with Pakistan
should be reduced.
Obviously,
the United States should not get into a conflict situation with Turkey
but the whole romance with that stealth Islamist regime should come to
an end. The Obama Administration hasn’t seemed to notice that Turkey has
become a major sponsor of Hamas, Hizballah, and the worst elements in
Syria. Turkey is not an appropriate intermediary with Arabs or Muslims
for the United States. The current regime is part of the problem and the
only reason things aren’t worse is that Arabs generally prefer to keep
Turkey out.
A
word on Syria: the issue is not whether America should intervene or
what specific actions it should take. That is of secondary importance.
The issue is that America should be on the side of the moderates: the
urban Sunni middle class, the Kurds who want autonomy, the Christians
who want to survive, the defected army officers who are nationalistic,
and even Sunni Muslim traditionalists. It should devote every ounce of
effort in battling the Brotherhood and the jihadists. Not one gun should
go to them; not one bulletproof vest, not one dollar. The Syrian civil
war has more than two sides to it.
Regarding
the Israel-Palestinian issue, it doesn’t matter what the United States
does as long as it finally recognizes this is no longer (if it ever was)
the central issue in the Middle East. There isn’t going to be any
progress in negotiations. Despite its shortcomings, the Palestinian
Authority under Fatah has to be helped to survive in the West Bank and
keep Hamas from taking over. But there should be no illusions. Anything
done by U.S. policy should be recognized as being purely cosmetic.
Of
course, I’d like to see a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. If you think
Obama has maintained such a thing you are living under an illusion that
isn’t visible from within Israel. But today, beyond aid and cooperation
on a range of issues, what is most important is not the details of
bilateral relations but an ability to work together on regional
strategy. And this has been 100 percent absent under Obama outside of
limited cooperation on some aspects of the Iran issue.
I’ve
left the two giant problems for last: Iran and Egypt. I’ll leave Iran
mostly for future articles. I am not enthusiastic about attacking Iran
militarily but this is a complex issue. At a minimum, it should be
isolated far more effectively. The problem is not just the nuclear drive
but Iran’s strategic ambitions in the region. What is needed is not
just sanctions but a full-court press that challenges, undermines, and
covertly battles Iranian influence in Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain, Syria, and
everywhere else.
This
is a long-term battle that is not going to be settled by a single air
strike and even though Iran has very dangerous and fanatical aspects to
its leadership we should not become hysterical and fail to see the
factors holding Tehran back from a suicidal nuclear war.
Finally,
Egypt. In some ways, it is too late to do some really effective policy.
Strategy must begin with the concept that Muslim Brotherhood Egypt is
an enemy of America but that it must be handled cleverly to limit the
damage. What’s truly tragic is that it is now probably too late even to
work with the army (as in Turkey) since the army which should be a
force for moderation and an American ally has been destroyed as an
independent force.
The
most dangerous thing about the Obama Administration, as on other
issues, is the illusion that the Brotherhood wolf is dressed up in a
lamb suit and will eat out of Obama’s hand without taking any of his
fingers, too. The Brotherhood must know that subversion of U.S. allies,
promoting terrorism against Israel, and other such activities will be
costly.
Even
under the best circumstances, the Middle East is tough. Due to Obama it
is a nightmare (and, no, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were only a
small part of the issue). Indeed, a Romney Administration’s inheritance
from Obama in the Middle East is very equivalent to its inheritance of a
terrible economic situation.
Barry
Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
No comments:
Post a Comment