Is it not time that we used the international words (not to be spelled out in a serious paper) and tell the US to go away from North Africa, the so-called “Middle East”, up to and including Pakistan?
Powerful countries meddling in the affairs of others is scarcely a recent development but goes back into the mists of time. Perhaps Palmerston said it best: “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” (emphasis added) It’s following that dictum that brought forth the great empires of Britain, France, Russia, and to a lesser extent, the US. Until after World War I and especially post World War II, few questioned the right of Britain to have all those countries shown as red on the maps. Only weirdoes giving a Sunday incantation at Speaker’s Corner in London’s Hyde Park would have suggested that Britain divest itself of its empire or of places “of interest” like, say, Persia.
It was indeed in Persia (I will use the modern name Iran henceforth) where it became obvious to the world that there were real people living in these countries of “interests”.
Oil had been discovered in Iran in 1908 and Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, converted the Royal Navy from coal to oil, most of it to come from Iran. In March 1951, the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and its holdings, and shortly thereafter elected as Prime Minister a widely respected statesman and champion of nationalization, Mohammed Mossadegh. He was quickly toppled by the US thus starting a lamentable relationship that has become the present alarming situation.
While I’ve long maintained that “events” don’t just happen but can be traced back, usually, to many sources I think it can be said that the US toppling of Mossadegh established the CIA’s policy of overturning regimes inimical to US interests, accompanied with presidential bilge about the need to bring democracy and human rights blah, blah, blah. One certainty is that after it deposes an unfriendly regime, Washington pretends that the imposed government is democratic and friendly relations are guaranteed to be permanent. This notion is and always has been rubbish.
The United States has declared it’s interest, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, right across the Islam world in North Africa through the Middle East to Pakistan which has created a tinderbox of terrifying proportions. Starting in nuclear Pakistan the US tries to ride two horses going in opposite ways as it also supports nuclear India, Pakistan’s sworn enemy. The US has attempted to do what Alexander the Great, the British and Russians failed at – control Afghanistan. Next door, Iran is a sworn enemy and Iraq is a mess.
Whoever is in charge, Syria and Lebanon hate the US if only for their support of the even more hated Israel. Tunisia always appeared to be a non worry but that’s changed; since Ronald Reagan bombed Libya in1986, Gaddafi has been a good boy but if his eastern and western neighbours get nasty with the US, he surely will too. Saudi-Arabia is a staunch friend of the US but how long can the oppressive monarchy last?
From Tunisia to Pakistan the regimes are all anti US except Egypt (at this writing that’s about to change) and Saudi Arabia which is bound to topple.The scary part is that Egypt and Saudi Arabia have oppositions in waiting that despise the US. Jordan doesn’t matter much but given past performance will side against Israel.
Israel – there’s the rub. It’s a rarity – a client state which does exactly what it pleases. A Nuclear power that doesn’t admit it, Israel has been allowed by the US to throw its way about knowing that if push comes to shove America will pull its chestnuts out of the fire for her.
What happens if the US, as Britain did after World War II, walks away saying, accurately, as Britain did, that it can no longer afford to stay?After all, the US is broke and in financial thrall to China. The recession was only the earthquake; the tsunami is still to come and will as soon as the financial wheels fall off the European Union.
Moreover the US dependency on Middle East oil is diminishing (Canada is its largest supplier now) so the basic question is whether the US pulling out increases the chances of war? How could that be? I would argue that war more probable with the US there rather than without.
The key to a pullout strategy is Israel. It occupies Palestinian territory and continues to build settlements there with US acceptance if not approval. Israel gets away with this because when the US tries to broker a peace it’s scarcely a disinterested party. I support the right of Israel to exist – I simply say that it can and should defend itself.
President Obama must declare that the US is not the world’s policeman any longer and that peaceful relations between countries cannot be maintained by an outside power nor has the United States any right to meddle in internal disputes. President Obama must say this to Israel: “you have 90 days to withdraw from occupied territories and agree to recognize Palestine as a country”.
Will this increase the chances of war? How could it make matters worse? If the key battle of the moment is between Israel and Iran, with Israel a nuclear power, what how does the US presence help?
The situation between India and Pakistan would be unchanged. Afghanistan would revert to form which it will any way. Changes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere will happen with or without the US presence. Unstable governments like Iraq and in the Levant don’t and won’t become more stable if the US stays; rather the opposite.
I will be accused of a lot of things by this opinion but all I ask is this: show me how this area is helped by US presence or, to put it the other way around, how does the hugely dangerous situation get more dangerous when the US, the red flag for the bull, accepts the universal term for “go away”?
