Bush’s last year: The best, one hopes, is yet to come by Barry Rubin
The gap between the real Middle East and how it is perceived by all too many people in Washington and in the academic-journalistic elite is far too wide.Three quick examples are useful to underline this point. First, the Annapolis summit was widely hailed throughout America and the West as a big success, even by Bush’s biggest enemies. (That means, of course, it achieved the main goal, which was not primarily about the Middle East itself.) In the region, however, less than one-fifth of Israelis and Palestinians thought it had done any good. People in the region knew better.
Second, many in the United States have hailed what seems to be a de-escalation of U.S. pressure on Iran over the nuclear issue. The response by Gulf Arab states, though, has been to conclude America is weak and retreating, followed by their escalated efforts to make their own appeasement deal with Tehran.
Third, the same is true for Syria, where American efforts at conciliation have emboldened Damascus and demoralized the Lebanese moderates resisting Syrian domination.
One can only hope that Bush and his administration consider the effect of what it does on the Middle East.
The Bush Visit and Tensions in the U.S.-Israel Relationship by Gerald Steinberg
* The December “surprise” resulting from the publication of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate disrupted fifteen years of Israeli policy based on working with the international coalition to pressure Iran to drop its nuclear weapons program through sanctions and the threat of military action, and has reminded Israelis of the limits of American security guarantees and strategic cooperation.
* Within two weeks following publication of the NIE report, China signed a major contract on energy development and supply with Iran, and Russia quickly dispatched two shipments of nuclear fuel for the Bushehr nuclear reactor. Egypt moved to improve relations with Iran, and Saudi Arabia welcomed Iranian President Ahmadinejad to Mecca for the Haj.
* Prime Minister Olmert had explained the logic of the “Annapolis process” in terms of the coalition to stop Iran, but two weeks after Annapolis, with the release of the NIE report, this rationale has lost much of its relevance.
* Another source of stress comes from differences over renewed U.S. efforts to forge a quick agreement with the Palestinian Authority at a time of continued terrorism, the violent conflict between Fatah and Hamas, the failure to develop functioning Palestinian institutions, and the PA’s ongoing incitement and rejection of the legitimacy of a Jewish state.
* In addition, the overall decline of U.S. influence, as reflected in Iraq, the return of Russia as a world power, the chaos in Pakistan, and other developments, has highlighted the limits of Israeli reliance on American assistance, and the need for Israel to maintain an independent capability to act when necessary.
Bush of Arabia by Fouad Ajami
Suffice it for them that George W. Bush was at the helm of the dominant imperial power when the world of Islam and of the Arabs was in the wind, played upon by ruinous temptations, and when the regimes in the saddle were ducking for cover, and the broad middle classes in the Arab world were in the grip of historical denial of what their radical children had wrought. His was the gift of moral and political clarity.In America and elsewhere, those given reprieve by that clarity, and single-mindedness, have been taking this protection while complaining all the same of his zeal and solitude. In his stoic acceptance of the burdens after 9/11, we were offered a reminder of how nations shelter behind leaders willing to take on great challenges.
We scoffed, in polite, jaded company when George W. Bush spoke of the “axis of evil” several years back. The people he now journeys amidst didn’t: It is precisely through those categories of good and evil that they describe their world, and their condition. Mr. Bush could not redeem the modern culture of the Arabs, and of Islam, but he held the line when it truly mattered. He gave them a chance to reclaim their world from zealots and enemies of order who would have otherwise run away with it.
Mr. Bush in the Middle East – the Washington Post
The patrol boat incident was part of a confusing mix of signals from Iran, where Mr. Ahmadinejad’s hard-line position may be weakening even as Iranian-sponsored violence against American forces in Iraq has diminished. Mr. Bush’s confrontational regional strategy may make it difficult to exploit these conditions. That’s one reason the president would be better off to return to the themes of Middle East policy he pursued before last year: the stabilization of Iraq and the promotion of democratic reforms. The focus on Iran and the peace process has stripped energy and attention from these causes; Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been allowed to continue boycotting the Iraqi government and jailing their own proponents of liberalization. Iraq’s own political leaders still dither on desperately needed political accords. There is speculation that Mr. Bush will make a surprise stop in Baghdad; whether or not he does, the stabilization of Iraq should be his top Middle East priority during his last year in office.
These four views on the President’s trip to the Middle East highlight certain differences in perception but seem to have a common theme: The President was correct to emphasize democratization and would be stronger if he continued his policy of confronting Islamic extremism.
Steinberg’s analysis doesn’t quite say that, but laments its absence especially as evidenced by the NIE that played down the Iranian threat.
Steinberg’s essay is echoed in a recent report from the Washington Post.
But some Arabs suspect the Bush administration may decide it has to work with Iran to preserve security gains in Iraq. Khalid al-Dakheel, a political scientist at King Saud University in Riyadh, said “some people here think, or have the jitters, that this administration or the next administration . . . might find themselves in a position to reconcile themselves with the Iranians.”
While there’s a lot of tendentiousness in the article, casting President Bush in the worst possible light, what comes out is concern among the Arab world that the United States isn’t committed to facing down the Iranians.
Ajami credits the president with changing the nature of the Arab/Islamic world. Perhaps he overstates the case with the recent accommodation seen among Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Hamas and Iran. Still he correctly credits the president for trying to show that the Israeli-Palestinian is not the central issue in the Middle East as the Arab world claims. (Or at least he did until now.)
Rubin seems consistent with Ajami, at least in terms of what President Bush needs to do. However Rubin isn’t nearly as positive about the current situation as Ajami.
Even the Washington Post which is congenitally condemned to bring up “illegal settlements” at every turn concedes that stabilizing Iraq is a more important goal than Arab-Israeli peace.
While these others have analyzed President Bush’s actions, Fiery Spirited Zionist as analyzed his words and found them wanting. It’s well worth reading.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
