On
the eve of President Obama's first visit to Israel as chief executive, I
have just returned from briefing a high-ranking official of country x
on the Middle East. We kept coming back to a vital theme: the incredibly
shrinking power of the United States. Try to explain American behavior
to neutral, open-minded third parties for whom U.S. policy activities
have become just plain bizarre!
One of my recent articles for example, published here, shows how
terrorists, including the murderers of four American officials in
Benghazi, are literally laughing at the United States and its inability
or unwillingness to do anything effective to defend its interests.
This item in a CBS News
report particularly caught my eye:
“U.S.
officials [in December 2012] lamented the lack of cooperation with the
governments of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt in their ongoing investigation
into the [Benghazi] attack, saying most of the suspects remain free.”
--Tunisia,
where the U.S. government supported not only the overthrow of a regime
allied to itself but also elections that led to a Muslim
Brotherhood-dominated government. Helpful hint: You should have
intervened behind the scenes to get the four non-Islamist (secular, if
you wish) parties to work together, run their campaigns successfully,
and win. They got 60 percent of the vote but lost the election.
--Libya,
where the U.S. government installed the current regime, which is
basically an American client regime, by military
(NATO, technically) force and pumped in support yet feared to send in a
rescue mission to Benghazi. Obama should have called the Libyan leader
on the evening of September 11, 2012, and said, “We’re on our way and
expect your cooperation.” And the only reason for not doing that would
have been knowing the Libyan government could rescue the Americans,
which it was unable to do or even to try doing. The Libyan government
has now said it would not cooperate in further investigation of the
Lockerbie airplane bombing by Libyan intelligence under the previous
regime.
--Egypt,
where the U.S. government was cheerleading for the Muslim Brotherhood
as early as Obama’s Cairo speech and backed it all through the
revolution. There was the alternative of backing the military to get rid
of Husni Mubarak and then make reforms. Or there was the alternative of
backing the disorganized, under-financed moderates (and helping them to
unite, get money, and be effective). But Obama did neither and his
administration for all practical purposes endorsed the Muslim
Brotherhood.
And now we see that these three governments won’t even cooperate in getting terrorists responsible for murdering Americans.
Remember
that Tunisia and Egypt, even if they are Islamist-ruled, have no direct
interest in helping these terrorists—the Muslim
Brotherhood doesn’t like al-Qaida—but won’t help due to
anti-Americanism, a generalized Islamic solidarity, and knowledge that
they can stick their finger in America’s eye and taunt, “What are you
going to do about it?”
How
the mighty have fallen! But what’s most amazing is that this isn’t a
process of murder but of suicide, it is voluntary. Is it reversible?
Nobody knows but it isn’t going to be reversed in the next four
years.
You
have to understand, I tell the diplomat, that there’s been for all
practical purposes a profound--albeit possibly temporary--transformation
in the governance of the United States. Regarding foreign policy, all
the old rules don’t apply—credibility; punishing enemies and rewarding
friends; deterrence; don’t leave your men behind to die; don’t appoint a
muddle-headed fool to be secretary of defense. In each case there is a
nicely crafted rationalization for going against centuries of
diplomatic and security practices. But so what? It’s still wrong.
Obama
isbusy in apologizing for real or imagined past U.S. bullying, proving
he only believes in multilateral action, showing his respect for local
customs, and trying to demonstrate to those who hate it that America is
their buddy in order to win them over.
The language above is harsh but it is also true.
Once
upon a time there were two superpowers, the United States and USSR, in
the Cold War. Then there was one superpower, the United States. Now
there are none.
And yet what this means from Israel’s standpoint may be very different from what you’d expect.
Israel
can cope with this situation, especially since it continues to receive
U.S. military aid, intelligence-sharing, some diplomatic backing, and
nice rhetoric about the ironclad special relationship between the two
countries. Simultaneously, the U.S. government has taken leadership in
setting strong sanctions against Iran.
Despite periodic slights and verbal distancing, the purely bilateral link remains good on practical matters. There is absolutely no sense in making the relationship with the United States worse than it is now. Finally, the continuous disappointment in the administration's expectation, the crises and betrayals it will face by the revolutionary Islamist regimes and movements, Iran's intransigence, and the very disrespect the situation entails may force U.S. policy--at least on certain issues--to improve.
Please be subscriber 31,247 (among more than 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.
By credit card: click here.
Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and
send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY
10003.
--------------------
Despite periodic slights and verbal distancing, the purely bilateral link remains good on practical matters. There is absolutely no sense in making the relationship with the United States worse than it is now. Finally, the continuous disappointment in the administration's expectation, the crises and betrayals it will face by the revolutionary Islamist regimes and movements, Iran's intransigence, and the very disrespect the situation entails may force U.S. policy--at least on certain issues--to improve.
And
those assets rest on a foundation of public and congressional support
for Israel in the United States. Indeed, it is clear that Israel is the
only—the only—factor that Obama doesn’t like that has been able to
preserve its interests while other seemingly far more powerful
forces—the health industry, the energy industry, the National Rifle
Association, for example—have been battered
into defeat or are hard-pressed.
Moreover, Israel can defend itself. It is willing to take unilateral action when needed and can succeed in doing so.
That’s
why, as I know from first-hand observation, that it is a myth that
Israel’s government has done anything to undermine Obama. People who
make such charges provide no proof or even references to specific
events.
On
the contrary, the Israeli government consciously developed the policy
of seeking to avoid any friction with Obama and his government. One key
reason was that it knew coexistence with Obama was possible. The other
was that it knew avoiding making the situation worse was imperative.
The
seemingly most obvious exception—building in east Jerusalem—was based
on a prior secret agreement with the U.S. government. The
other apparent exception—Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of
Congress—came after Obama ambushed Netanyahu by changing U.S. policy
toward Israel while the prime minister was on a plane to Washington.
And
here’s a powerful item of proof on the other side: not a single
pro-Israel Democrat in political life has turned against Obama. If
Israel is so influential, why did a supposed anti-Obama campaign not
change anyone’s
position?
In
fact, pro-Obama American Jews, who comprise a large majority of the
community, and pro-Israel political figures have either reconciled the
discordant information (Obama is Israel’s best friend); kept their
mouths shut; had other priorities; or tried to keep relations as good as
possible.
And
in practice—a point on which Obama’s supporters are correct--there have
been no real, material, huge problems in direct U.S.-Israel relations.
What they leave out is that this was also largely due to Arab, Iranian,
and particularly Palestinian intransigence. These forces lost the
opportunities Obama offered them to undercut Israel and the U.S.-Israel
relationship because they didn’t rush to seek deals on much better
terms.
If
they had done so, Obama would have pressured Israel to make big
concessions and would have been far more antagonistic if. Israel
refused. Israel’s enemies threw away that chance and it will not come
again in his second term.
By
the same token, it is equally foolish for some to criticize, for
example, President Shimon Peres for giving Obama a medal or Israeli
leaders for lauding Obama on every possible opportunity. And the same
applies to AIPAC not objecting to Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense,
never criticizing Obama, and inviting him to speak at its annual
meetings. Whoever is president or secretary of defense, AIPAC and Israel
will have to work with him.
All of these people, then, are doing their jobs properly by avoiding entanglements in such internal American issues.
Israel
needs good relations with the United States. Obama is the president of
the United States twice elected by the American people and he will be
president for the next four years. It is not the task of Israel’s
government to interfere with America’s internally made choices. It is
the job of Israel’s government to live as best as possible with those
rulers, minimize the advantage, and wait out this period by agreeing,
smiling, giving in on small things, and doing everything possible to
protect the nation’s security.
And
thus Israeli leaders should applaud Obama, say
what a good friend he is, and do everything possible to maximize
cooperation on the critical issues that both countries face. These
include continued military and intelligence cooperation as well as the
maximum possible support on Iran and other issues. In this context,
Israel—like every other country friendly with the United States able to
do so—retains its independence of action while minimizing friction.
People
like me
are free to express our views about the damage he is doing. That damage
is first and foremost to U.S. national interests; second to the lives
of people in Arabic-speaking countries, Turks, and Iranians; and only in
third place to Israel.
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 latest 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.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
No comments:
Post a Comment