American Geostrategy in the Middle East discussed in the Wall Street Journal
Writing by abuhatem on Sunday, 25 of November , 2007 at 8:05 am
The Wall Street Journal ran a very intelligent article yesterday on American geopolitical strategy in the Middle East. The article argued that by inviting Syria to Annapolis, taking it out of isolation, and attempting to build the foundations for a comprehensive Israeli-Syrian peace and settlement to the Golan Heights issue, the U.S. will pull Syria away from Iran. The Journal reports:
Talks with Syria could go some way in weakening Tehran’s strongest alliance in the region… “Maybe it’s time to employ the carrot to remove [Syria] from the axis of evil,” the deputy chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky, said in Washington last month. This will “prevent the Iranian influence,” he said.
This analysis is correct and on target. John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt, the authors of The Israel Lobby, argue this at the end of their book - as well as in separate articles entitled Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq War: Realism versus Neoconservatism by Mearsheimer, and The Origin of Alliances by Walt. Powers balance. Syria’s main foreign policy interest, other than its own security, is to gain back the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and then less so to gain back the Israeli occupied Shebaa Farms, and achieve a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian issue.
To achieve its interest, Syria puts pressure on Israel and the United States by allying with Iran and thus increasing its leverage in the balance of power. Iran attempts to get a nuclear weapon to also threaten Israel. Iran and Syria both support Hezbollah and Hamas to carry out destruction and achieve this end. Robert Pape argues this in his work Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.
From the perspective of the United States and Israel, the perfect way to defeat such a geopolitical strategy is to divide Syria and Iran. Syria and Iran pose no real existential threat to both the United States nor Israel, they do however pose the threat of increasing instability in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon. The goal of Syria’s support of the groups of Hezbollah and Hamas is to try to achieve its geopolitical objectives. By reaching a settlement with Syria on the Golan Heights, and leading the way on an Israeli-Palestinian peace, the United States can effectively insure that Syria will end their support for Hezbollah and Hamas and become a partner in the region. Iran will then be isolated.
However, as long as it is United States policy to unrestrictedly support Israel and ignore any type of true and comphrensive peace settlement with the Palestinians, this will simply encourage states such as Syria and Iran to step up their means in pursuit of that end. Syria and Iran are already leaning at some sort of global alliance with Venezuela, and perhaps even North Korea, to increase their leverage. Support of Hezbollah and its constant threat of terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians would stay the same or increase, as well as support for the terrorist organization Hamas, and the destabilization and meddling in Iraq.
All of these things do not pose an existential threat to the United States or Israel, simply because of their immense advantage in the balance of power, but do pose large thorns in their sides. The threat of terrorism increases more and more through the support of policies which are interpreted as aggressive by native populations. Machiavelli himself recalls this in The Prince by stating that such perceived oppression by the common people leads to immense nationalistic fervor and the revolt of common people who rise up and are seen as “great leaders.” These populations, in their quest for vengeance, support using the tactic of terrorism to attempt to continue to put pressure on their enemies, which eventually causes their enemies to give in, at least in part, to the demands of the terrorists. Harvard Law Professor Allan Dershowitz has summarized this natural law of history in his work Why Terrorism Works.
The CIA has recounted this fact as well, in their concept of blowback. Blowback is when foreign policy and international intervention by a nation causes the unintended consequence of a vitriolic response in the civilian population - which then act to achieve vengeance.
The perception of Arab victory in the 2006 Lebanon War destroyed Israel’s psychological deterrent, as Haaretz reported after the war ended. It reinforced the belief of Israel’s enemies to support terrorism.
On the Israeli side, the seriousness of finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis emerged. Prime Minister Olmert, seen as a hawk during the Lebanon war, began to make positive statements regarding finding a solution to the problem with the Palestinians, even to the extent of inviting Syria to the discussion table, as the Journal article states:
Israel has pursued a peace dialogue with Damascus, eager to calm tensions on its northeastern border and quash strong Syrian support for Palestinian extremist groups. Mr. Olmert has used Turkish intermediaries to explore options with the Syrians, according to Israeli officials. Retired Israeli diplomats also have held unofficial talks with a confidante of Mr. Assad’s over the past few years in an effort to find a formula to solve the Golan dispute.
The smartest move for the United States and Israel, is to find a solution to Syria’s problem and engage Syria diplomatically and thus pulling Syria from Iran and ending its meddling in Lebanon, while securing its cooperation in Iraq. Isolating Syria will simply give Syria more reasons to be allied to Iran and to seek out increasing its power in Lebanon. As John Mearsheimer said, powers balance, they don’t bandwagon… lesson one in international relations!
Category: Uncategorized
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Meneame -
- Digg
No comments yet.
