America's Middle East policy, formulated and directed by the U.S. State Department, is a recognized failure. Instead of bringing peace to the area, America’s foreign policy has produced unabated violence.  Both from a short and long term point of view, America's present interests in the region are not being furthered by its present policies.

From Harry Truman to George W. Bush, American presidents had been willing to defend what they perceived to be United States interests in the Middle East-containing the Soviet Union, protecting access to oil resources, and maintaining the security of Israel-by using American power and risking their own domestic political capital.

It is not surprising that the Saudis, with their perceived financial power, and the Israelis, with their perceived political power, have become the main targets for US Presidents support. If the Saudis seem able to create jobs in key electoral states, the Israelis appear able to produce votes in the same states.

The cardinal aspect of such U.S. policy is its reliance on the creation of a Palestinian state, under the leadership of Arafat.  However, as recent events have proven, Arafat is a close ally of Saddam Hussein, America's worst vicious enemy. Moreover, Arafat has a long and unbroken record of unreliability and also as an outright terrorist and murderer.   At the first opportunity, Arafat and the Palestinian Authority will join forces with Saddam Hussein in any attack on America and its allies. The same goes when dealing with other rogue states such as Syria and Iran.

Rather than disabuse Assad & Son of the notion that they could turn Lebanon into an unsinkable aircraft carrier for hundreds of terrorist strikes against Israeli, Jordanian, Turkish and Lebanese targets, American officials, including secretaries of state and presidents have courted, pampered and appeased the Syrian leadership even to the extent of absolving the latter of any terrorist wrongdoing and even considering having Syria, as recently as a few weeks ago, as a member of the UN Security Council. Rather than blunt the rise of radical political Islam by promoting a coherent policy of regional democratization, pluralism and free-market reforms, the United States has chosen not to upset the sensitivities of local ruling elite.

By failing to understand, deter and overcome the real meaning of state-sponsored terrorism since the horrible bombings in Beirut of 1983, the U.S. has followed the ill-advised path of least resistance.

With American policy premised on the sanctity of oil pricing and supply, is it any wonder that the radical clerics of Tehran and the political activists of Damascus are able to fan the flames of fanaticism and hatred with the relatively modest resources at their disposal. With a "peace process," which at its existential core was the foreign policy establishment's quaint euphemism for the swap of Jewish territory for access to Arab markets, was so inconceivable that Israeli voters opted for the restoration of sovereignty and security over commercial and diplomatic gain. Finally, with the "dual containment" policy against Iran and Iraq blatantly ignored by the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese, the idea of Pax Americana in the Middle East is more a myth than a geopolitical reality.

What is needed is an entirely new approach.  The criteria remain the same, namely: What is in the best interest of America? Granted that America's interest is to keep the oil flowing from the Middle East area at a reasonable price.  However, that should not be done at the expense of having the rogue states; namely Iraq, Iran and Syria dictate their agendas to the weaker nations of the region.

Included in this new approach, Saudi Arabia, as well as all other Arab regimes, should be made to realize that Arafat, Assad and the Iranians represent a dire threat to each of these countries.  Terror spreads, and will not be confined to the borders of Israel.  Moreover, by aligning himself with Saddam Hussein, Arafat is a constant threat to the Saudis and all other regimes in the area. The Saudis should also be made to realize that Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, their front man in Lebanon, should stop bribing France President Jacques Chirac to recognize the Taif Accord.

As to the Israelis, they should be pressured to find with the Lebanese a solution to the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon as soon as possible for the simple reason that the latter will not and should not absorb them into the Lebanese society alone. This would create huge imbalances for the Lebanese economy, well-being and national security interests.

In summary, instead of trying to dominate and manipulate the volatile mosaic of the Middle East, the United States should play a more active role towards the establishment of a new Middle East security bloc comprising Israel, Jordan, Turkey, a "Free Lebanon" and Egypt. Predicated on the advancement of democracy and anchored through European-style market integration, such a grouping of nations consists the most viable and realistic solution to the chronic problem of Middle Eastern instability and violence. Indigenous to the region, this alliance of Eastern Mediterranean countries possesses the necessary intelligence assets and military capability to confront, deter and overcome their terrorist antagonists. Not only would such a bloc secure the well-being and safety of its citizens, but its ability to project power and affect events beyond its boundaries could only have a salutary and stabilizing influence over the region's most critical natural resources: oil and water.

© Copyright 1997-2004 United States Committee For A Free Lebanon. All rights reserved.

Would you like to comment on this article?

USCFL Home     Golden Circle     Membership     Mission Statement   Current Views
US Testimonies     Intelligence  Special Reports    Activities    Action Alerts    Selected Links
Selected Readings      Guestbook     FAQs     How to Contact Us     Search