Messing with the Meddle East

We’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t. Our military track record in the Middle East is less than stellar. Look at Iraq, unraveling a “warp speed.” The once-in-power Sunni minority is reduced to voting with bombs, mostly in “neutral” Baghdad, primarily against Shiite targets. Remember the basis for this hatred? A majority of Sunnis, who believe in a required and literal reading of the Qur’an, find the Shiite interpretation of the Qur’an, as a mystical book that can only be discerned by the most senior prelates, to be sacrilegious and abhorrent. And Iraqi Shiites (60% of Iraq’s population) now look to 90%+ Shiite Iran for leadership. Iraq really has been reduced to civil war. Our foray into Afghanistan (Central Asia actually) has placed a mega-corrupt government atop a country that is hardly stabilizing, despite our massive efforts to the contrary.

The extremist and militant Muslim Brotherhood, the same party that elected the deposed Mohammad Morsi to the Egyptian presidency, is being repressed, slaughtered, and marginalized as they are now being blamed for all things bad in Egypt. These extremists are hardly America’s best friend, and our annual aid to Egypt - $1.3 billion - mostly winds up supporting the very military dedicated to taking down that Brotherhood. But given the massive unpopularity of the United States, and the Obama administration’s awkward chastisement of the removal of a democratically-elected president, there new rumors that are gathering local popularity.

“When the conversation turns to politics, the predominant topic is a surprise to American ears: the conspiracy between the United States and the Muslim Brotherhood to destroy Egypt… However crackpot that view may sound, it is widespread among supporters of the military, which ousted the Muslim Brotherhood’s elected president, Mohamed Morsi, [in July]…

“On Zaki Street, the cafes were full of smokers of shisha, the flavored tobacco burned in water pipes, and of backgammon players. Outside, the driver of a horse-drawn cart full of canisters of cooking gas clanged his cans to announce his presence, and Farouq, a middle-aged man making deliveries to supermarkets with a motorcycle-drawn cart, stopped to talk… ‘Americans are with the Muslim Brotherhood,’ Farouq stated in a tone suggesting that it was common knowledge. ‘O.K., you did something good when you killed Osama bin Laden, but now you are with Al Qaeda. You support the terrorists.’”  New York Times, August 25^th. Stupid? Or a plot by the military to turn U.S. policy-makers toward the changed government, bolstering continued military aid from the U.S.?

Meanwhile, our options in Syria – with 60% of polled Americans wary of any U.S. involvement in that conflict – are bad and worse. As the United Nations was thwarted by systematic gunfire in their investigation of the site where approximately 355 people were gassed to death (about 3,600 citizens were exposed to the neurotoxins) – “hey, we told you it was too dangerous for you to inspect” – it seems all-but-certain that the killing was due to the application of a WMD by the Assad regime against its own people. That elusive “red line” has been crossed, and while the United States will not act unilaterally, it is difficult to understand exactly how the U.S. would participate in a more internationally-based military intervention. Nothing we do in Syria is likely to produce a result that will benefit American interests any time in the near-term. Nevertheless, our military tells us that our forces are in place and poised to strike if ordered by the President.

The Assad regime clings to power by a slender thread, heavily reliant on Russian and Iranian military aid. But the factions battling to topple Assad already feel that the West has reacted with too little, too late. Regional Islamists – from al Qaeda to militant hotheads from all over the Islamic world – have joined with local rebels with a hope to install a Sunni version of a theocracy, replete with harsh Sharia law over this critically-situated country. Secularists are sensing peril in an aftermath that may be nothing more than decades of civil war and general instability. If quasi-Shiite Assad retains power (Shiites represent a small minority in this mostly-Sunni country), his regime is profoundly antithetical to the United States. If Islamists take power, their rule would be profoundly antithetical to the United States. If civil war ensues, there is absolutely no benefit to the region… or the United States. And even in the unlikely event of a new secular government, the delays in Western aid have seemingly permanently alienated even this formerly pro-Western faction.

There is a back door to all of this that seems counter-intuitive but may represent a hidden opportunity that may well be worth of exploration: seeking détente if not rapprochement with Iran. While we know that all real power in Iran is squarely in the hands of the Ayatollah Khamenei and his cronies, there are signs that those stepping into power in the newly elected government understand and have long-standing ties with the United States. While the new President, Hassan Rouhani, categorized as a “moderate cleric” has clear ties to the Ayatollahs who allowed him to run, he also faces an economy decimated by Western sanctions that have a very unhappy electorate looking for a better life. Removing those sanctions would be a big deal to his constituency.

Senior officials surrounding Rouhani have some interesting backgrounds. “Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, studied international relations at San Francisco State University [and attended] the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver [where he] obtained a PhD in international law and policy… Ali Akbar Salehi [is] an Iranian academic, diplomat and the head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran… He received a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering from the American University of Beirut in 1971 and a PhD in nuclear engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1977.” Wikipedia.  

Or we can keep reading silly headlines, storm and fury signifying nothing, like: “Iran's parliament has approved fast tracking debate on a bill that seeks to sue the U.S. for its involvement in the 1953 coup that overthrew the country's democratically elected prime minister.” Huffington Post, August 27^th. Perhaps engagement and discussion could make a difference, but of course, there’s no guarantee that this approach will have the remotest chance of success. But then, the policy we are already pursuing in the remainder of the region is the poster-child for diplomatic and military failure. It’s time to try something new.

I’m Peter Dekom, and we most certainly cannot be doing any worse than we already are in our Meddle Eastern policies.