Mideast in the Balance

A delicate four-state system in flux but not at the moment under any “clear and present danger” could, if its multiplicity of factions could come to some agreement, go far toward managing the Mideast in a mutually beneficial manner. This unusual situation will not, of its own accord, endure and may not be seen again in the Mideast for many years.

Four key Mideast states sit precariously at a political tipping point: militarism, discrimination, repression on the one hand or compromise, equality before the law, democracy on the other. None of these countries faces an urgent threat, each has powerful political constituencies on each side, all have the political space to choose freely the broad political direction in which to move for the long-term future. Iran, Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia have this rather surprising degree of resemblence, and the future of the Mideast rests greatly in their hands.

If these four countries all simultaneously chose the same path, they would have at least from today until the entrance into office of the new U.S. president—16 months—to write their own ticket. How long could the Islamic State last without Turkish border access or Saudi funding, in the face of a united military offensive by the big four? Who would successfully resist a joint Syrian or Yemeni peace plan implemented by all four? Where would the Lebanese Hezbollah issue be once Israeli and Iran joined to ensure Lebanese security? How long would resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue take if Saudi money and Turkish peacekeepers backed a joint Israeli-Iranian settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute that gave security and independence to each side?

The assertion that the four regional powers have the freedom “to write their own ticket” between now and the upcoming U.S. presidential election is admittedly open to debate. It rests on the logical assumption that Obama will keep the U.S. on a moderate, conciliatory foreign policy toward the Mideast in order to cement into place the breakthrough in ties with Iran that he worked so hard to achieve. But note the work “breakthrough,” implying that he truly wants a new relationship, rather than just the avoidance of an Israeli-sponsored war. This implication is denied in a thought-provoking analysis arguing that the White House has a much nastier strategic plan, a plan that could cause a Mideast explosion via a renewed world power intervention.

Assuming that a major renewal of outside intervention does not occur, each of the big four Mideast states probably has the capability independently to wreck the near-term future of the Mideast, and almost certainly at least one, if not all four, will do so. That is the dismal fate of the Mideast. A new Mideast is possible, but it probably requires the unanimous cooperation of all four of the big and highly hostile four. In a more normal time, it would also require the cooperation of any number of outside powers always ready to interfere, but at the moment this seems unlikely absent a provocation from one of the big four regional states.

Israel made its point: no Muslim in the Mideast is allowed to have nukes. Fine, that’s settled. Now Israel has the negotiating room to toss onto the table some ideas about a vision of a non-nuclear Mideast with a first step of mutual transparency…Add recognition of Iran’s strategic interest in Lebanon, suggest joint discussions on how to ensure Lebanese security, separately propose a negotiated settlement with Palestinians, and it would cost Iran nothing to smile, agree in principle, and then ask the Saudis and Turks for suggestions on how to resolve ethnic conflict in Iraq. After all, it is just a discussion, and Saudi money to further the peaceful economic development of its fellow Sunnis in Iraq, considering the strategic nightmare Iran is having with the Islamic State…

Imagine a little café table somewhere in the Mideast, in the early evening glow, on a quiet side street, with four officials sipping coffee: one Turk, one Israeli, one Saudi, and one Iranian, all at the table because…well, because they read this essay, in which I said, “I dare you.”

Dead silence. Four men examining, fascinated, the bottoms of their cups. Then, an eyelid delicately rises above the rim, glances across the table, glances away. Throats clear. Chairs shift. Legs uncross. Feet brace. Who will speak first?

___________________

Sep 5: Riyadh has spoken first, with an aggressive military attack on the capital of Yemen that amounts to a direct slap at Tehran. By indicating that it is taking a military page out of the Israeli foreign policy handbook immediately after Tehran’s nuclear concession, Riyadh is daring the Iranians to respond in kind in Syria, which they now probably will. It will take great self-control for Tehran to overlook Riyadh’s slap in the face (for Riyadh goes out of its way to blame Iran for the Yemeni civil war, totally ignoring the historic repression of the “Houthi” minority). Obama’s tolerance for Saudi aggressiveness undermines the credibility of his efforts to play the peacemaker: a nuclear accord not placed in the framework of a broader attempt to coordinate Mideast affairs with Tehran will backfire.

Divided Loyalty Is Disloyalty

By nominating former senator Hagel to be Secretary of State, Obama has taken one of the most courageous steps of his presidency–he has opened wide the door to the carefully avoided issue of making a judgment about the morality, legality, and propriety of the Neo-Con invasion and occupation of Iraq…and the whole Republican premise that wars on terror and politically active Islam are legitimate strategy for U.S. foreign policy. Republicans, of course, see the challenge and are using “loyalty” to Israel (not to their own country) as their excuse for opposing him. Given the disastrous nature of the U.S. response to politically active Islam, you can hardly expect them to debate the issue head-on.

Among the several reasons why extreme Republicans do not want a moderate Republican as Secretary of Defense is the issue of whether or not placing Israel–and particularly the militant Netanyahu faction–ahead of U.S. national interests may constitute disloyalty to the U.S. Hagel has the reputation of having been, as he put it, “Senator from the U.S., not from Israel.” Indeed.

Should U.S. politicians to be loyal to the U.S.or to Israel? Choice is unavoidable. Anyone who claims that two countries on opposite sides of the earth and in dramatically distinct situations share identical interests is being dishonest. Even two brothers do not share “identical” interests: they may compete for the same job…or lady.

When a man cannot be named secretary of defense OF THE U.S. without placing the national interest of another state FIRST…well, you see the trap in which this line of thinking places knee-jerk U.S. supporters of a particular and particularly warlike Israeli faction. And it is not just extremist Republicans who will be caught in a logical trap of their own making when Hagel comes before the Senate for confirmation. Many U.S. politicians will find themselves incriminated if the issue of choosing between loyalty to Israel and loyalty to the U.S. starts to be discussed openly in the U.S. Divided loyalty is no loyalty at all.

Split the House Republicans

Tentative initial signals from Washington on the shameful budget impasse should be disturbing to every patriotic American: Obama appears unable to escape from the errors of the past. The news that he is again entering negotiations with House Speaker Boehner, as though the guy were an equal of the President, sends all the wrong signals.

Obama should be President, not the negotiator dealing with the Congressional obstructionists of the party he just defeated. Reid could do that…or Elizabeth Warren, a Senator who actually knows something about budgetary issues and elite corruption and their social implications. Obama should be speaking to the country, laying out with crystal clarity and brutal honesty the danger of continuing to coddle the rich with such forms of welfare for the rich as a 15% tax rate on unearned income and a historically minimal level of income tax progressiveness. Obama should be speaking publicly and be focused on principles, e.g., the principles of fairness, social justice, and making the selfish rich step up and help their country.

The Republicans, of course, still exist, but only about 15 of them in the House matter – the first 15 Obama can recruit to support his program. Obama wasted four years trying to join the opposition. When will he learn that the opposition does not want him? Rather than empowering Speaker Boehner, who has already spoken clearly about his continuing refusal to stop protecting the rich, Obama should focus on splitting the opposition. All 233 House Republicans are of course up for reelection in two years. Obama has two years to convince their district voters that they are blocking economic recovery. Getting 15 votes out of 233 should not be beyond Obama’s powers of persuasion. That requires a clear message to the public, however, not a picture of the President of the United States cutting some unprincipled deal with a defeated Republican lackey of the rich.   Right now is Obama’s last chance to demonstrate his willingness to lead.

 

World Affairs Note: Industrial World Steps Backwards

If the 2008 recession was Wall St.’s poisoned apple for the world, the one on the horizon looks very much like a U.S.-European joint enterprise. North American companies have fired over 150,000 workers this year in comparison to 130,000 for all of 2011, not exactly a banner year for the economy, and a rise in such firings is foreseen for the rest of the year [Bloomberg 10/25/12]. Obama’s policy of treating arguably criminal financial moguls with kid gloves obviously has paid off only for the financial moguls, who are certainly not the ones facing unemployment. If Romney wins, he appears ready fully to embrace an open return to Wall St. manipulation of society. The only hope (aside from a victory by Green Party candidate Jill Stein) is that a victorious Obama will find some backbone and deliver on his 2008 promise of “change.” Perhaps a big win by Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts will stiffen him. Assuming Obama squeaks out a victory, watch for FBI indictments of financial moguls. If you do not see a burst of arrests, sell your stocks, remove your savings from all major banks, and prepare to consolidate family members in one home because you may well face unemployment, a return to unrestrained bank corruption, a market crash, a string of bank failures, and government default on pension promises.