USA and the Middle East
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:28 pm
Richards1000, thanks for this useful set of resources on current affairs. I hope to look further at the linked articles. My view is that the risk of increased polarisation in the Middle East is high, with Israel rejecting peace and Islamism on a steady rise.richards1000 wrote:Folks:
Thanks for this very interesting discussion. Would any of you be interested in starting a new thread in the Politics/History section, to discuss U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, and the Palestinians (i.e., the Holbrook and Mitchell areas)? I ask because I see that you've been discussing U.S. foreign policy towards these countries to some extent in light of Bacevich's book, and because these seem to be the key hot-button foreign policy issues that the U.S. will likely face in the coming months. We could discuss, for example, the principles that we think should guide U.S. policy toward each country, the principles that the Obama administration identifies for its policy toward each country, how the Obama administration's actions square with its stated principles and the principles we think should govern, the complications arising from the legacy of the Bush administration's conduct toward each country, etc. If anyone is interested, here are some suggestions for beginning discussion:
* The new Haass & Indyk article on Middle East policy in Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20090101f ... genda.html ;
* Jim Hoagland's "warning" column about Afghanistan in yesterday's Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02512.html , arguing, among other things, that the Karzai government may soon fail, and there is no individual or group favorable to U.S. interests to replace him;
* Today's news, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/world ... ?ref=world , that Pakistan has ceded a portion of its country to the Taliban, and officially permitted the Taliban to exercise Islamic law there, giving more evidence of the weakness of president Zardari, and raising the possibility of a simultaneous collapse of both the Afghan and Pakistani central governments to the Taliban, with consequences for Iran and India;
* The Obama administration has begun to reach out to Iran, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/world ... ran&st=cse , while Iran's president Ahmadinejad has been substantially weakened by falling oil prices and a worsening domestic economy, see Laura Secor's New Yorker blogpost, http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... r-kha.html ;
* Israel is in the process of a change of government, with many commentators predicting that Likud will form a coalition government with a conservative party, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/world ... 009&st=cse . The U.S. has in the past found it difficult to work with Mr. Netanhayu, so if he becomes prime minister, Sen. Mitchell may find it tough going.
Thanks for considering this.
The USA gives Israel about five billion dollars per year, so actually has more leverage and responsibility than is sometimes admitted.
I look at Israel in a long time frame. It has some similarities to the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1100, which was able to conquer by force of arms until the Arabs found a leader in Saladin.
There is also a continuity with ancient Israel, where the Biblical prophets blamed the captivity in Babylon on Israel's arrogance.