A possible new war in the Middle East
I have just read a disturbing report in the Economist (March 15-21). Writing on Palestinian rocket fire from Gaza on Israeli border towns and Israel's recent mini- invasion of Gaza in which it killed more than 120 Palestinians, the Economist commented that "there are serious people in the region and the wider world who think the Gaza skirmishes could at any moment provoke a full many-fronted war, involving not just Israel and the Palestinians but Lebanon, Syria and, indirectly, Iran as well."
After making a detailed analysis of the current political and military situation in the Middle East, it ominously concluded, "Not for the first time, the military clock in the Middle East may be ticking faster than the political one."
The Economist is a serious journal; it does not make frivolous conjectures. Therefore, it is worrying to read comments of this nature. What adds to my worries is that this is not the only journal that has vented such thoughts in recent weeks. I have read similar reports in other European and American papers, involving not only the countries already mentioned but also the United States.
On March 11, Gates announced the resignation of Admiral Fallon, the senior commander in the Middle East. In an article (The Man Between War and Peace), published recently in Esquire, Fallon was presented "as a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program."
Fallon is reported to have criticised the "constant drumbeat of conflict" out of the White House over Iran. He had always recommended diplomatic ways to resolve differences with Iran. Referring to Bush's obsession with Iran, he observed that in a region "where five or six pots are boiling over, our nation can't afford to be mesmerised by one problem."
Fallon's forced resignation also indicates that Bush wants to convert Iraq into an American protectorate with permanent bases and permanent military presence, because Fallon was in favour of a quick drawdown of American troops from Iraq. Although Gates dismissed as "ridiculous" any idea that Fallon's resignation cleared the way for Washington to start a war against Iran in the near future, the perception in certain quarters remains that before Bush leaves office, an attack on Iran by the US or Israel is a distinct possibility.
Cheney's recent trip to the area has also fuelled speculation in this regard. Besides reassuring Israel of America's unflinching loyalty, did he have a hidden agenda? Was he trying to seek Saudi support for a possible attack on Iran? Cheney's statement in Jerusalem on March 22 was so blatantly pro-Israeli and so far removed from reality that it increased the fear of another full-scale war.
Cheney said: "America's commitment to Israel's security is enduring and unshakable, as is our commitment to Israel's right to defend itself always against terrorism, rocket attacks and other threats from forces dedicated to Israel's destruction. The US will never pressure Israel to take steps that threaten its security." Then he went on to warn menacingly against "the darkening shadows" emanating from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Of course, he forgot to talk about the plight of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation.
A new war in the Middle East will have several objectives for the US and Israel. After Bush's "mission accomplished" bravado in 2003 and the subsequent debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush wants to restore America's position in the world. Besides the destruction of the nuclear installations of Iran, Israel wants to re-establish the notion of its military invincibility, which was badly shaken in its military campaign against the Hezbollah in 2006.
Its armed forces have since been thoroughly overhauled and its arsenal replenished with the latest American armament. Israel feels that, in a simultaneous attack, it can now destroy not only Hezbollah and Hamas but also the Syrian army. But the question is: Even if an Israeli-American coalition is temporarily successful in achieving all this, will it bring peace to the Middle East, guarantee the security of Israel and restore America's position in the world?
Israel's current strategy seems to be to talk loudly about peace negotiations, all the time tightening its stranglehold on the Palestinians with the intention of never going back to the pre-1967 borders and never allowing the creation of a truly viable Palestinian state. Israel maintains tens of thousands of Palestinian informers on its payroll. "Every small part of Palestinian life is controlled by the Israeli army. A Palestinian needs the IDF's permission to travel, to study, to drive, even to sell goods, and he can only get these permits if he collaborates."
But these daily humiliations and the targeted assassinations stoke up the anger against the occupier and strengthen the position of Hamas. In a recent poll, 75% of the Palestinians said that the current peace talks between Abbas and Olmert should be suspended because they have not brought any benefit to the Palestinians.
It is difficult to understand how a new war can strengthen the security of Israel in the long run. Besides many deaths, it will only enhance the anger and hatred for Israel among the Arabs and the Muslims at large.
On May 14, the 60th anniversary of the birth of Israel, the Israelis should remember that virtually the entire world accepts the existence of Israel in 78% of British-controlled Palestine, which would have been inconceivable in 1948.
In 2002, the Arab League headed by Saudi Arabia offered to recognise Israel within its pre-1967 borders. (The Arab League has recently threatened to withdraw this offer if Israel does not end the occupation soon.) Even the Iranian president, Ahmedinejad, has repeatedly said that Iran would agree to whatever the Palestinians accepted. Even Hamas has repeatedly said that it wanted a long-term truce and accepted the authority of the PA to negotiate a peace settlement with Israel.
As far as the US is concerned, it must accept the fact that "the Bush doctrine (preventive wars) has failed and that that failure is definitive." Referring to a possible attack on Iran, Prof. Bacevich of Boston University wrote: "Only the truly demented will imagine that simply trying harder will produce different results."
A new military adventure will not only not restore America's position in the world; it will also erode American prestige even further because it will, as before, be based on "fantasy, faith and wilful indifference towards those affected" by its consequence.
Comments