| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Rice's Mideast Realignment Strategy |
| 2007-01-26 |
| By David Ignatius WASHINGTON -- What's America's strategy in the Middle East? Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this week sketched a new framework based on what she calls the "realignment'' of states that want to contain Iran and its radical Muslim proxies. In an interview Tuesday, Rice summarized the new strategy that has been coming together over the last several months. Although many of its elements have been previewed in recent weeks by commentators such as Columbia University scholar Gary Sick, Rice's comments were an unusually detailed public explanation of the new American effort to create a de facto alliance between Israel and moderate Arab states against Iranian extremism. Rice said the new approach reflects the growing Arab concern about Iran's attempt to project power through its proxies: "After the war in Lebanon, the Middle East really did begin to clarify into an extremist element allied with Iran, including Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. On the other side were the targets of this extremism -- the Lebanese, the Iraqis, the Palestinians -- and those who want to resist, such as the Saudis, Egypt and Jordan.'' America's recent show of force against Iran -- seizing Iranian operatives in Iraq and sending additional warships to the Persian Gulf -- was part of this broader effort to reassure the Saudis and others that, despite its troubles in Iraq, America remains a reliable ally against a rising Iran. "The U.S. has to demonstrate that it is present in the Gulf, and going to be present in the Gulf,'' Rice told me. Realignment is linked with a new U.S. effort to forge peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Rice is encouraging both sides to explore so-called "final-status issues'' -- such as borders, the status of Jerusalem and the right of Palestinian refugees to return to a homeland -- rather than remain deadlocked over the so-called "road map.'' The effort to contain Iranian-backed pressure took on new urgency this week, as Hezbollah's campaign against the government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora spawned a spasm of violence that left at least four dead. America, France and Saudi Arabia quickly organized a $7.6 billion financial rescue package for Siniora, but that hasn't stemmed the rising sectarian tension in Lebanon between Sunnis who back Siniora and Shiite supporters of Hezbollah. Critics may see Rice's realignment strategy as another high-risk roll of the dice by the Bush administration in a region that is already polarized by the Iraq War and sectarian conflict. These critics may also question the central role of Saudi Arabia, a conservative Islamic monarchy that many Arabs regard as a bastion of the status quo. "The reception will be very skeptical'' among some Arabs, cautioned one prominent official who is normally among the most pro-American in the region. "Increasing the fault line between Sunnis and Shiites is a mistake,'' he argued. State Department officials would counter that it was Iran that moved the fault line by encouraging Hezbollah's provocative behavior in Lebanon. The Bush administration's thinking about realignment helps explain why it has resisted engaging Syria and Iran, as recommended by the Baker-Hamilton report. As Rice put it, "You have a 'pan' movement, across the region. The war in Lebanon crystallized it for everyone. You can't just leave it there. ... If you concentrate on engaging Syria and Iran, you may lose the chance to do the realignment.'' On Syria, Rice said the administration is seeking a change of policy, rather than regime change. Asked about an offer made in an interview with me last month by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem to help the U.S. provide greater security in Iraq, she said: "If the Syrians want to stabilize Iraq, why don't they do it?'' As for Israeli interest in exploring the Syrian initiative, she noted recent private peace feelers between Syrians and Israelis and suggested that if the Israelis decide there is something important, they will pursue it. The administration's tougher stance against Iran arguably has already produced some results. Iran's firebrand president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, appears to be in political trouble with the ruling mullahs, in part because his reckless talk alienated other Muslims. But the strongest leverage against Iran appears to be the West's unified diplomatic coalition. "The Security Council resolution (condemning Iran's nuclear program and mandating mild sanctions) has had more of an effect than I thought it would,'' Rice said. The realignment strategy poses as many questions as it answers -- not least the anomaly of supporting Sunni resistance to Iran at the same time the U.S. augments its military support for a Shiite-led government in Iraq. But as with any strategy, Rice's realignment idea has the virtue of offering a basis for discussion and careful thinking about a region perched on the edge of a volcano. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #9 Gromgoru, as long as the US burns oil, it will be profiting from something Arabs provide. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-01-26 23:27 |
| #8 #6 Anonymoose, I though hard about my response to your post. And then I thought "Why bother?". Anybone who believes that USA profited by any dealings it had with Arabs is way beyond my poor powers of persuasion. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-01-26 14:04 |
| #7 Give Syria to the Kurds and tell the Sunni's that it is enough that the Shia no longer control it and repress Sunni. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-01-26 13:40 |
| #6 Jules: The Kurds have no love for Iranian Shiites. And if the US and the Sunnis want to replace the Alawite regime in Syria with a Sunni majority, it just might make an excellent opportunity for the Syrian Kurds to break off and join with the Iraqi Kurds. gromgoru: Just because it is highly unlikely that the Arabs will ever be our true friends, does not mean that we might find great advantage in a friendly, if temporary, entente with them. Mutual self-interest and all that. Remember that our conquest of Iraq, and the resulting functional democracy has put tremendous pressure on every dictator in the ME, resulting in incremental democratic change about everywhere. By being the force that can unify their self-interest against the Iranians, we will open the door to all sorts of opportunities purely in our interest. For example, in past we realized after the Arab-Israeli war that Egypt did have the potential for having a serious army--if not yet. And this army might prove difficult to the US military at some future time. So when the opportunity presented itself, we decided to not only give them military hardware, but train with them. Not a waste of money at all. Because the #1 thing we trained the Egyptian army was to know, beyond any shadow of doubt, to never, ever, to fight the US military. If necessary to overthrow their civilian leaders with a military coup and junta, but NEVER fight the US. Well worth the investment. But anything we would pull off while the Arab world is unified against the Iranians would be aimed at the ME 20 or 30 years down the road. We would slip in all sorts of democratic notions and supports, to keep the ball rolling there. We would lean on them to back off from Israel, yet put the blocks to Hamas and Hezbollah. We would possibly even get some WoT assistance with those countries leaning on their fanatics. Just all sorts of goodies. With us smack dab in the middle of it. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-01-26 13:39 |
| #5 get all the Sunni nations on our side Sorry to break your doll, Anonymoose, but for Arabs' there is always only one side. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-01-26 13:20 |
| #4 OK, Anonymoose. I'll bite. What do we do to the Kurds with this pro-Sunni plan? If the plan does not work in our favor, wouldn't it sour the one group of people who have the least animosity towards us? It sure would be nice to have a base in the area with a fairly grateful and cooperative populace. |
| Posted by: Jules 2007-01-26 12:03 |
| #3 I disagree. We have realized that the Sunni nations are paranoid about the Shiite nations. Saudi alone is so scared they are investing $100B to do whatever they can to stop the Iranians. Both Egypt and Saudi are talking about going nuclear out of fear that Iran is going nuclear. Damn. If there ever was a good opportunity to get all the Sunni nations on our side, now is the time. Golden opportunities abound. Rice must be nearly overwhelmed with all the perspective alliances we could make to further our interests. We could get them to sit on al-Qaeda and other extremists in their countries, get them to make movements towards greater democracy and economic liberalization. We might even get troop commitments from the Sunnis to go into Lebanon and clean Hizbollah's clocks. They might lean on Hamas, another Iranian proxy. Already, the Egyptian military is very attuned to the US military because of the Bright Star exercises. Imagine if Saudi, Yemen and other Sunni nations sent large chunks of their military to participate in those exercises? Evan Oman, which is Ibadhi, not Sunni or Shiite, would possibly want on board, for fear of the Shiite. Hell, you might even get Afghan and Pakistani army involved. The Iranians would about crap themselves. We could even offer the Sunnis a goal of capturing Syria, and giving control of that nation to its 80% Sunni majority, after smiting the Alawite Shiites who work on Iran's behalf against the Sunnis. Best of all, we might use it as a major icebreaker between the Sunni nations and Israel. It could be the opportunity of a lifetime. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-01-26 11:10 |
| #2 Condoleeza is a babe, no doubt. But this is more of the same two-clever-by-half diplo-speak that has got every empire in history into trouble. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-01-26 10:46 |
| #1 To an Israeli, all USA MidEast "initiatives" look the same = sell Israel to gain Arab allies. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-01-26 06:40 |