IGNORE SAUDI AND
ISRAELI GOADING FOR A MORE MUSCULAR U.S. MIDEAST POLICY
By Ivan Eland. January 01, 2014 "Information Clearing
House http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37272.htm
One of the most influential Saudi
Arabian princes, Turki al-Faisal—the former Saudi intelligence chief who
clearly reflects the Saudi royal government’s view—recently criticized
President Barack Obama for weakness in the Middle East. Although not friendly
with Saudi Arabia, the Israeli government is similarly disenchanted with
Obama’s regional performance. Prince Turki’s comments are just the most recent
installment of these governments trying to goad the United States into dubious
actions in the region that would not be in U.S. interests.
According to Prince Turki, “We’ve
seen several red lines put forward by the president, which went along and
became pinkish as time grew, and eventually ended up completely white. When
that kind of assurance comes from a leader of a country like the United States,
we expect him to stand by it. There is an issue of confidence.” He added that
when a country has strong allies, “you should be able to give them the
assurance that what you say is going to be what you do.”
The Saudis have been unnerved by
Obama’s understandable and wise decision to avoid deep U.S. involvement in the
Syrian civil war. The Saudis were angry that Obama didn’t strike the al-Assad
regime militarily after it was accused of using chemical weapons on its own
people. Yet military strikes on Syrian chemical weapons facilities could very
well have released chemicals on the Syrian civilians the attacks were
ostensibly designed to protect. In fact, the Saudis, who have a horrendous
human rights record, likely don’t care, one way or the other, about harming
Syrian civilians. In fact, despite their outsized reputation, chemical weapons
usually account for only one percent of the people who die in the wars in which
they have been used.
The Saudis, leaders of the Sunni
Islamic bloc in the Middle East, want the United States to attack Syria to
weaken the Shi’ite Syrian-Iranian axis—their arch rivals. That is why they also
want the United States to bomb Iran over its nuclear program. Such a strike is
less about the Iranian nuclear program and more about weakening a Shi’ite
country that is more powerful than Syria. Any U.S. air strike on Iranian
nuclear facilities likely would not take out all of them, some of which are
deeply buried and maybe even unknown to U.S. intelligence, and would probably
motivate Iran to make the decision to rapidly obtain a nuclear weapon—a choice
U.S. intelligence believes that Iran has not made.
Although the Sunni Arab bloc and
Israel are unfriendly to each other, they both share an interest in weakening
the Shi’ite Syria-Iran axis. And they both want the United States to do their
dirty work for them. Pointless bombing, merely to weaken Syria or Iran for
Saudi Arabia and Israel, would not serve U.S. national interests—let alone that
the American people are exhausted with terrorism-inducing U.S. military
entanglements in a Middle East that is in perpetual conflict.
So Obama has rightly avoided getting
sucked deeper than he already is into the potential Syrian quagmire—the U.S.
has provided some limited lethal and non-lethal assistance to the Syrian
rebels—by cooperating with Russia to compel Assad to get rid of his chemical
weapons stockpiles. What is amazing is that essentially Prince Turki is
criticizing Obama for not bombing Assad anyway, even after the Syrian dictator
capitulated in this unlikely manner.
Reflecting the Israeli view, the New
York Times, quoted former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Itamar
Rabinovich, as saying that because Obama had refrained from attacking Syria,
neither Israel nor Iran believed any longer that he might strike Iran over its
nuclear program. However, even if this is true, Iran has nevertheless come to
the negotiating table and reached an interim agreement to freeze its nuclear
program and even roll back at least one part of it.
Even military theorists know that if
you can get your opponent to do what you want, or most thereof, without the use
of force, then you should avoid using it. In the cases of both Syria and Iran,
the Saudis and Israelis don’t really like the progress Obama has made by
negotiation, because it ruins their not-so-hidden agenda of inciting the United
States to attack, and thus weaken, their regional rivals. Thus, U.S. military
action against either Syria or Iran may be in the interest of Saudi Arabia and
Israel, but it is not the interest of the United States or its people, who may
be subjected to further blowback retaliatory acts of terrorism.
-----------
Dr/ Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center
on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute.
============
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario