Routing America’s Iran Policy Past the Arab Street
WikiLeaks’ exposure of 250,000 diplomatic cables has stimulated a debate on how the U.S. must deal with Iran’s drive towards nuclear weapons and the region’s democratic deficit. Both issues originally came to the fore on George W. Bush’s watch. Neither were resolved before Barack Obama assumed office. Do the WikiLeaks clarify what the U.S. should do?
To judge from their statements, most Arab leaders, other than those of Iran-allied Syria and Syrian-dominated Lebanon, are decidedly queasy about an Iranian bomb.
Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah pleaded with Obama to “cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake.” The king of Bahrain declared that the Iranian nuclear program “must be stopped” and that “the danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.”
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) defense chief, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin-Zayed of Abu Dhabi, urged the U.S. to take action against Iran “this year or next,” stating flatly that “Ahmadinejad is Hitler.” UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan warned a congressional delegation last February that “if Iran goes nuclear, others in the region will move forward on the same track, and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty will completely break down.”
Yet taking these statements at face value produces no agreement on what U.S. policy should be.
For example, the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Peter Wehner argues that WikiLeaks clearly demonstrates an Arab fear toward Iran and a lack of interest in the Palestinian issue. He suggests we should therefore strike Iran if necessary, irrespective of the Israeli/Palestinian situation, to the benefit of U.S., Israeli, and Arab interests.
In contrast, the New America Foundation’s Peter Beinart cites a survey to argue that, while Arab leaders dread a nuclear Iran, the Arab masses do not. He concludes that U.S. interests are in conflict with the goal of democratic change in the Middle East.
Wehner and Beinart both take the words of Arab leaders at face value. But should we?
Arab leaders are as adept as any — arguably better than most — in the diplomatic art of seduction. When Arab diplomats tell their American counterparts what they think they want to hear, we should react with suspicion rather than relief.
Our disbelief should not, however, be automatic. We should not assume that Arab heads of state are lying simply because they may not, at any given moment, find it necessary to utter the truth.
Put simply, Arab leaders can detest America, and even work to see America out of the Middle East, without wishing the U.S. to fail against an ascendant Iran that threatens them too. Similarly, they can hate Israel and U.S. support for it, without wishing to make U.S. action on Iran hostage to the Sisyphean task of Israeli-Palestinian peace-making.
Arab leaders know better than most that a conflict whose fires they themselves stoke — through funding radicals and anti-Israel incitement — isn’t about to be solved.
For these leaders, seeing off America is a long-term issue, whereas stopping Iran going nuclear is an urgent one.
As one who lives in the eye of the storm, having studied the Middle East and its geo/political arena more than most, this analysis is well articulated.
The fact of the matter is thus-although the Arab art of doublespeak is part and parcel of their culture-taquiya-speak to be exact-this does NOT obviate other facts at hand.
The fact of an Iranian bomb is one that scares the Sunni Arab world to a degree which most western academics and leftists are incapable of understanding.The fact that the Arab leadership pays lip service to the PA Arabs, doing little to take them to their bosom as fellow Arabs, rarely resonates with leading western elitists.It should.
Therefore, the fact that Sunni Arab leadership are religiously and culturally driven to kill Jews,are equally obsessed with the fall of the US, does NOT mitigate their abject terror of an Iranian Sh’iite bomb.
Real scholars will extrapolate what needs to be done from there…..
An excellent point. The Saudis have no love for the U.S. and are the classic stereotype of manipulating others to do their dirty work for them. It is not unreasonable to assume the Saudis are liars in this instance as there are many reasons why American interference benefits them. They have a minority Shi’ite population of their own and inconveniently located around their oil and near Iran. The more Islam dislikes the US the more it benefits Saudi Arabia, the more Iran is distracted the less likely they will interfere with the Saudis. The Saudis win any way. If the Saudis are so crazy to confront Iran let them form a coalition and stand up for themselves and leave us entirely out of it. Or, instead of demonizing everyone in sight, we could all try and be friends – a startling notion in the State Dept.
By the way, the ZOA (the writer’s stomping grounds)knows their stuff. This is why I assist their efforts whenever possible.
Enough said.
Mr. Mandel, though I agree with you that “Pluralism and civil society must precede democracy, not the other way round”, I can not see that happening in our lifetimes, nor do I quite see the “vital interests” in the Middle East for which you believe our wealth and our children should be sacrificed. Oil, stability, the status quo, the chimera of Islamic democracy? The oil is going to flow, regardless, because these regimes have nothing else to sell. The status quo is a 1400 year old mouth-foaming , bigoted hatred of Judaism. And “democracy” in most of the the Middle East will ultimately take the direction which is now being taken in Turkey, which is towards theocracy-tinged (at best) pseudo republics, who are always going to hate the U.S. until we are under a new Caliphate.
If the Sunni Arab despots are frightened of a nuclear-armed Shia Persia, let them attack it. They have ample cash reserves and military hardware, mostly either purchased from us, or given as “military assistance.” Of course they want the U.S to do this for them. It’s then our money, our lives, our prestige on the line, while afterwards almost certainly using such an attack to inflame their masses against us. As long as we are willing to squander our treasure and the lives of our youth they will never have any incentive to clean up their own region.
I can’t think of a single Arab regime that is worth one American life or one American tax dollar. Israel has proven that it can defend itself, and it’s time that we removed our political fingers from that sordid mess.
I suppose it follows then that you would advocate a complete pull out of our troops throughout the Middle East, thus making it more likely that a Caliphate would emerge dominate (likely in Iran)? At such a point, Middle Eastern Countries would fall like dominoes under the threat of nuclear annihilation. You don’t say it, but I’m extrapolating from what you wrote. Am I off the mark? I ask sincerely.
How in the world is a shi’ite Iran, nuclear weapons or no, going to conquer the Sunni middle east? Millions were slaughtered in Asia based on the decrepit “domino theory” and it has even less traction in this instance than it did in Vietnam. There is zero chance of a “caliphate” (a bewildering use of the defunct term) in the middle east. There is far more divisiveness than unity between muslim countries in the middle east due to nationalism and entrenched powers that be. All US troops should leave the middle east and let morons do what morons do. Trying to micro manage a nuclear genie at the behest of Wahabbi idiots is senseless. There is no country in the middle east that has the wherewithal to unite Islam – none.
Thank you, I wish that I’d said that.
Re: Oil and Dollars…..those Islamic countries are merely sand-dunes-in-waiting without our dollars. I assume they (OPEC) want the stability of the American dollar to be maintained. They have curious ways of demonstrating that slippery concept.
I agree and I am so tired of listening to those on both sides of the political spectrum who believe our policies are all about the need for oil – no matter what we do in the Middle East. First of all, oil is fungible and we would get it somehow even if OPEC acted in concert to deny us. Secondly, we have 24% of the known world oil reserves in the Americas and only 10% of the population. There are other solutions that make a hell of a lot more sense if only we could wrestle the decision making away from the environmental extremists.
As for nuclear, that genie is out of the bottle. But the first regime to use it as an offensive weapon will be pummeled out of existence. Obstacles to action like diplomacy, respect for sovereignty and political correctness will be no longer in play at that point.
“The United Arab Emirates (UAE) defense chief, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin-Zayed of Abu Dhabi, urged the U.S. to take action against Iran “this year or next,” stating flatly that “Ahmadinejad is Hitler.”
Isn’t it strange that whenever rich oil arabs have a problem, they come screaming to the United States to “take care of it?” If the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are so worried about Iran, what are THEY doing about it? Are they helping in freezing Iran’s finances or sabotaging their nuclear program? And why is it that the Saudis fear Iran so much, yet they still donate millions of dollars each year to radical Islamists in Pakistan to be used to either kill American troops in Afghanistan or to commit acts of terrorism within Pakistan against its government?
We shouldn’t be played for fools by the Arabs. We shouldn’t do anything against the Iranians simply because the Saudis want us to, but we should do it because they threaten our interests or our ally, Israel. Also, if the Saudis and the UAE really do want to stop the Iranians, their intelligence services could be of immense value to the CIA in assisting in overthrowing the Iranian government. Americans really don’t “blend” in that part of the world, so help from these arab countries would be of enormous value. I wouldn’t provide the arabs with any military support at all, regardless of the oil, but I WOULD to an all-out push for major covert actions within Iran with the help of some of the local arab nations. If, through covert operations, we can motivate the Iranian people to overthrow the mullahs, we will achieve our objectives without having to bomb or invade anybody. Let’s be smart for once in our lives.
Geopolitically, if the US pulled all support from Arab countries, would Europe step in to protect their regional supply of oil? I have my doubts.
This would cause a collapse of European economies, already in a fragile state from too many socialized government responsibilities.
So the question in dollars and cents: Is it worth more for us to secure the oil supply so that Europe can continue to thrive, or is it so expensive for us maintain a presence there that any world wide benefits from keeping the European Economy alive would be negated?
Maybe now that the Chinese are starting to bankroll Europe, they’ll step in. –That’ll go over well with conservatives…
The idea of simply leaving the muslim countries to stew in their own mess is tempting, but the USA did that in the 1930s with Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. Like it or not, the USA and its allies ARE the worlds policemen and mad men such as Achmadinejad need to be stopped.
“A pluralistic, civil society is less likely to hate America, loathe our military presence, or be brainwashed into obsessing about Israel”
LOL. I guess it’s arguable whether Europe today with its multicultural fascism, ramant anti-Americanism, rank anti-Semitsim, and viral anti-militarism is any longer a pluralistic or civil society, but the Euros certainly “loathe our military presence” with a passion while exploiting it to defend itself. And their leftist fascist elite regularly “brainwashes” the masses there to despise both America and Israel as the scourge of planet earth. Just open any mainstream European newspaper. It only differs by degree from the foaming hatred and paranoia of the Arab “street”, but the dish is basically the same recipe. It matters not that we saved Europe from their inventions of Nazi and Communist fascism. Euros cynically excoriate America and her military while parasitizing the benefits derived therefrom. Sounds like a simulacrum of these despicable and conniving Arab regimes in the ME.
American innovation, determination, wealth and military might has helped lift the world from poverty and backwardness without asking much in return. Now the world pretends it doesn’t need the American engine to continue this journey, all while demanding America continues to do the dirty work and take out the trash. We need to extract full value from the vile slobs in the ME and Europe for the stability and protection and wealth which America alone provides. Instead, Arabs and Euros treat us like slaves, and why not? They don’t pay for our utility, they dont pay for the privilege of trading with us, and they don’t pay for flouting our hegemony or stabbing us in the back. All this while demanding we continue to play world cop and world guarantor. Europe and the Arab beasts needs America far more than we need them, and it’s high time American leadership began to make that point in the most unvarnished manner possible.
America needs to re-brand itself, and begin getting value for the marque.
Well said. AND Mr. Griffith the MSM hasn’t done an honest job of reporting for 40 years. Keep it shallow and fluffy so America beleives they wat we want them to is their new motto.
Daniel Mandel’s post provides ZERO insight. What “Muslim” government leaders say in private means nothing. What they say in public does not mean much more. When they say they will assist the Israelis, then they mean it, not before. What the Muslim governments want is the Iranian government dead and the US to take the heat. That’s something new?
The note at the end of Mr Mandel’s article says that he’s a Fellow In History at Melbourne University…..well, I’ve often been citing the violent centuries-long history of that Central/West Asian maelstrom as the very reason why we Americans are spinning our wheels in even thinking that we can effect any lasting changes in that maelstrom.
He doesn’t mention that Islamic diversion, Taqilla, although that may be a factor when he uses the term “seduction” as a tactic in diplomacy.
I see America’s difficult challenge to be in determining just what is Taqiyya and what is a sincerely expressed thought coming from an Islamist. Frankly, I don’t think that we Americans have the required linguistic and cultural background to be able to see through the nuanced gradations of Islamist thinking.
The American media are taking the very simplistic views that Mr Mandel is warning against. The American media are ignoring the lack of any commonality shared by Islamic countries and American constitutional ideals. We’ve nothing in common. We’re wasting effort in working without the required commonality in thinking. We’re simply not “wired” the same way.
I’d be delighted to be proven wrong.
Iran was trusted with nukes in the 70′s. Islamic republic is not. US did not like it when the Shah said that Iran had spent enough money arming itself and allowing them to have stations all over the border with the then USSR. Iranians were well trained by the US forces and had become ‘an Island of stability’ as Jimmy Carter put it. It meant that we were the guardians of the Persian Gulf and all the oil was in safe hands. So the US could leave.
So what happened? They got rid of the Shah.
The US needs a reason to keep its military industry going. The Islamic regime is better than USSR ever was in being public enemy number one.
And how many of the Arab leaders that want Iran bombed are democratically elected?
How many of these leaders’ cousins, nephews and associates fund terrorism in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel and the Middle East? Plenty.
If they were true US allies, they would rather see US not embroiled in another war that demands US blood, money and stability.
Ali Mostofi writes ” Iranians were well trained by the US forces and had become ‘an Island of stability’ as Jimmy Carter put it. It meant that we were the guardians of the Persian Gulf and all the oil was in safe hands. So the US could leave.”
Sir, what on earth are you talking about? The US never had more than a few hundred military scattered all over “living on the economy” (to put it in military parlance)in the entire country of Iran. The Shah brought modernization and land reform to the nation for which he was loathed by the conservative mullahs. The tragedy was allowing the demise of Shah’s (and he could be a real jerk) goal of a modern Iran. The Iranians are a very bright and creative people and they would have taken what the Shah initiated and run with it had not the woefully inept Jimmy Carter abandoned them and allowed the country to be turned over to the crackpot zealot Khomeni whose first order of business was to stop modernization in its tracks and form firing squads. Those who left, or fled, were western Europeans, Canadians, and American civilians who were very busy at enterprise. There was no significant US military there ever and their departure would have hardly been noticed. I was a part of that small force of US military. I am confident that the Iranian citizenry will take back Iran and start their nation back toward the 21st century. For which, by the way, they will be hated by their backward neighbors.