By Barry Rubin
HERZLIYA, Israel — Yes, it is as bad as it seems. When U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton protests the fact that the Syrian government lied to her about its missile supplies to Hizballah, she instructed those meeting with the Syrians on their talking points.
It is amazing how the Obama Administration let the Syrian regime walk all over them. Yet it also fits with their philosophy:
“While our commitment to principled engagement with Syria — as demonstrated by Under Secretary Burns’ recent visit — remains strong, we must enlist additional French, British, Turkish, Saudi, Jordanian, and Qatari support to help dissuade Syria from expanding its ties to Hizballah any further, especially via the transfer of additional sophisticated weaponry.”
Get that? It’s multilateralism in action. The United States cannot do anything on its own but has to enlist a half-dozen others. But, of course, the French government is soft on Syria, the Turks are now Syrian allies, Qatar wants to keep in good with Iran and Syria, while Jordan is timid. As for the Saudis, they were struggling against Syria a year ago but given the lack of U.S. support they gave up.
In other words, this threat is a joke and trying to implement it would certainly fail. Moreover, note how the U.S. position begins by reaffirming engagement when it should start by threatening to cut it off. Once the Syrians know they aren’t going to lose anything why should they give up anything?
Also, the United States is no longer a great power. For when the Obama Administration wants to threaten Syria it is in these terms:
“…It is especially important to stress that Syria’s actions constitute serious violations of Security Council resolution 1701–which will be taken seriously by the international community–and belie its claims to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty.”
Ah, the “international community!” That should make them tremble. What an admission of impotence! Don’t these people realize that this approach sabotages their own policy by making them look ridiculous?
But there’s something else in this document that shows the weakness of this government’s approach:
“Iran and Hizballah both have interests that are not in Syria’s own strategic interest. I know you are a strategic thinker, which is why I want to underscore for you that, from our perspective, your operational support for Hizballah is a strategic miscalculation that is damaging your long-term national interests.”
Have you noticed that Obama Administration officials keep telling people in the Middle East what they are supposed to want?
–The Syrians know that backing Iran and Hizballah are in their strategic interest.
Of course, allying with Iran and Hizballah isn’t in their interest if they want to join the West, open their doors to foreign investments, put the emphasis on raising living standards, make peace with Israel, and then what? Give up their dictatorship and have a democracy?
But it is in their interests because they want to try to dominate the Arab world, wipe out Israel, control the Palestinian issue, and continue to be a dictatorship because that gives the elite all the power and money they want.
–The U.S. government, in fact President Barack Obama himself, told the Saudi king that he is supposed to want most an Israel-Palestinian peace agreement.
But the Saudis know it is in their interest to put the priority on stopping Iran.
–The U.S. government tells Israel that it is in its interest to give up a huge amount to get a Palestinian state.
But Israelis know it isn’t in their interest to make countless concessions to create an entity that will probably be backing terrorist attacks against them within a month of achieving independence.
–The U.S. government tells the Palestinian Authority that its interest is to get an independent state as fast as possible by making peace with Israel.
But the Palestinian Authority defines its interest as proving its militant credentials by not making any compromise peace with Israel. Its short-term goal is to get an independent state while giving up nothing (unilateral independence); the long-term objective is to continue the struggle for decades in order to try to destroy Israel.
–The U.S. government tells Iran that it is not in its interests to get nuclear weapons.
The Iranian regime laughs. It doesn’t want to be America’s friend. Up until now, Iran has succeeded in its aggressions. While sanctions are a burden, the regime can put up with pressure when the prize is so great: a bid for hegemony in the Middle East and in the Muslim world.
–By the way, this isn’t only true for the Middle East. Recently, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated, “It’s hard to know why China doesn’t push harder” to use its influence on North Korea to rein in that renegade state. As Christina Lin explains:
“Westerners are perplexed at China’s behavior if it is a responsible stakeholder. However, the
Chinese themselves declare they do not want to do what is only of interests to the U.S.—perceived as China’s peer competitor. They want to do what is in China’s core interests.”
That model applies also to the Middle East: countries do what is in their interests. Western states, especially the United States, must deal with those interests as those leaders and countries comprehend them and not what Obama or various American officials and experts think they should be.
*
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Why Did U.S. Peace Process Diplomacy Fail; What Happens Next?
Posted: 10 Dec 2010 10:33 AM PST
Please be subscriber 18,033 (and daily reader 20,033.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: “American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
I think this lead from Jackson Diehl’s Washington Post article says it all:
“The latest collapse of the Middle East peace process has underlined a reality that the Obama administration has resisted since it took office–that neither the current Israeli government nor the Palestinian Authority shares its passion for moving quickly toward a two-state settlement. And it has left President Obama with a tough choice: quietly shift one of his prized foreign policy priorities to a back burner — or launch a risky redoubling of U.S. efforts.”
Since I’ve been trying to explain this for about ten years it’s gratifying to see others getting the point. It’s pretty remarkable that only after two years has the Obama Administration perhaps begun to get the first point: peace is not in the cards. One might also hope that it won’t take ten years to understand that the reason for this situation is that the Palestinian Authority doesn’t want peace.
Diehl understands that also. While criticizing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for not offering enough, he adds:
“[Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud] Abbas has resisted negotiating with Netanyahu ever since he took office early last year, saying he doesn’t believe the right-wing Israeli leader will ever offer serious peace terms. But Abbas also turned down a far-reaching offer from Netanyahu’s predecessor….By now it should be obvious: at age 75, he prefers ruling a quiet West Bank to going down in history as the Palestinian leader who granted final recognition to a Jewish state.”
Diehl also says something that should have been obvious for years but one rarely hears in the mainstream debate:
“As I have pointed out before, the settlements are mostly not material to a deal on a Palestinian state, since both sides accept that the majority of them will be annexed to Israel in exchange for land elsewhere. The issue has become an obstacle in large part because of Obama’s misguided placement of emphasis on it, which forced Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to embrace a hard line.”
Then there’s Diehl’s second sentence in his lead: What will Obama do? Many people believe that he’s so ideologically set on this issue that he’s going to do a “risky redoubling.”
Here’s Diehl’s conclusion. If Obama does present
“A U.S. or international plan for Palestinian statehood and try to impose it on both sides. History–including that of the last two years — suggests that double-or-nothing bet would produce a diplomatic fiasco for Obama and maybe a new war in the Middle East. But given Obama’s personal fascination with Middle East diplomacy, there’s a reasonable chance he’ll try it.”
I agree with that argument, both regarding the “diplomatic fiasco” and the “reasonable chance.” But this outcome is by no means inevitable. Preoccupied with domestic issues, possibly having learned something from the last two years (if only that he doesn’t want to look foolish), fearing another diplomatic fiasco, opposed by Congress, starting to think about reelection in 2012, busy with domestic issues, Obama might well downgrade the issue in practice (even while maintaining rhetoric about high-level involvement.
This is a question that will be resolved in early 2011. We should not assume the answer to the question but wait and see what actually does happen, carefully looking for clues along the way. I promise to do that.
Footnote: Yes, I caught Diehl’s reference to the “current” Israeli government not having a passion for peace. It should be noted that the current government also includes the Labor Party, the main party of the left, and that while a different prime minister might try harder–as former Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert all did–as one can see from their experiences the roadblock still remains PA intransigence.
*
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.