New Rules for the Middle East

[Dry Ice]

By Rami G. Khouri
International Herald Tribune


The accord that has resolved the immediate political crisis in Lebanon is the latest example of the new political power equation that is redefining the Middle East. It reflects both local and global forces, and 18 years after the Cold War ended, provides a glimpse of what the post-Cold War world will look like - at least in the Middle East.

Several dynamics seem to be at play, but one stands out as paramount: We are witnessing the clear limits of the projection of American global power, combined with the assertion and coexistence of multiple regional powers (Turkey, Israel, Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas, Saudi Arabia, etc.). These local powers tend to fight and negotiate at the same time, and ultimately prefer to make reasonable compromises rather than perpetually wage absolutist battles.

The Doha accord for Lebanon was much more than simply a victory for Iranian-backed Hezbollah over the American-backed alliance. It is the first concrete example in the Arab world of a negotiated, formal political agreement by local adversaries to share power and make big national decisions collectively, while maintaining close strategic relationships with diverse external patrons in the United States, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

The Lebanese agreement (unlike the failed Fatah-Hamas unity government) is likely to succeed because all the parties know that to live together peacefully they must make mutual compromises. This accord has been forged in the furnace of Middle Eastern demographic and political realism, in contrast to the hallucinatory absolutism that often drives American-Israeli policy in this region.

This is not a full defeat for the United States - it's more like a draw. It puts into concrete political form the most powerful force that has defined the Middle East in recent decades: the willingness of individuals, political movements and some governments to openly defy, challenge, resist and occasionally to fight the United States, Israel and their Arab and other allies.

Since 2004, the United States has explicitly, repeatedly and passionately singled out Lebanon as an arena where Hezbollah and other regional Islamist forces backed by Iran and Syria would be faced down and defeated. But now the United States will face these forces from across the same cabinet room table, not as bludgeoned and defeated foes, but rather as partners and colleagues in Lebanon's national unity government. When Hezbollah and its erstwhile foes exchange kisses, a befuddled Condoleezza Rice should take care not to fall off her exercise bicycle.

The United States is a slow learner in the Middle East, where the terrain is strange, the body language bizarre, the fierce power of historical memory incomprehensible, and the negotiating techniques otherworldly. But the United States is not stupid. It learns over time that if you retread a flat tire over and over again, and it keeps going flat on you, perhaps it is time to buy a new tire - if you hope to actually move forward.

Now that we have a draw in the broad ideological confrontation throughout the Middle East that pits Israeli-Americanism against Arab-Islamo nationalism, we should expect the players to reconsider their policies if they wish to make new gains on both sides.

Lebanon, however, is not the most significant recent development reflecting the limits of American power in the Middle East. The truly remarkable manifestation of how the United States has marginalized itself is the conduct of the Israeli government.

The United States has pushed the Israelis hard to do two things in the past two years: Do not negotiate with Syria and do not engage Hamas. What has Israel done during the past few months and more? It has been wisely negotiating with Syria via Turkey, and engaging Hamas on a truce deal through the mediation of Egypt. Hold on, Condi, this gets even worse.

It is no big deal in Washington when nearly 500 million Arabs, Iranians and Turks ignore and defy the United States. But when Israel - the only democracy in the Middle East, America's eternal ally, and the bastion of the epic modern struggle against fascism, totalitarianism, Nazism, communism and terrorism - ignores the United States, that is newsworthy.

So we now have a rare moment in the Middle East. Iran, Turkey, all the Arabs, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Israel all share one and only one common trait: They routinely ignore the advice, and the occasional threats, they get from Washington. Rice was correct in summer 2006 when she said we are witnessing the birth pangs of a new Middle East. But the emerging new regional configuration is very different from the one she fantasized about and tried to bring into being with multiple wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia and Lebanon, and threats against Iran and Syria.

The new rules of the political game in the Middle East are now being written by the key players in the Middle East - and that should be welcomed.

Rami G. Khouri is editor-at-large of The Daily Star and director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. Distributed by Agence Global.

New rules for the Middle East - International Herald Tribune

[Kibitzer]

Interesting article - (I read it the day it came out)

The new rules of the political game in the Middle East are now being written by the key players in the Middle East - and that should be welcomed.

Of course I strongly agree with this and have often said so. This is also a pretty common view in the USA by the populace. Mid East problems should be "solved" or "resolved" in the Mid-East -- the USA should not be playing "traffic cop" especially when it is impossible to please "everyone" and it's way to likely to cause "harm" to "someone". There are way too many factors (often not well understood) involved and way too many private agendas that are given too much emphasis.

Since 2004, the United States has explicitly, repeatedly and passionately singled out Lebanon as an arena where Hezbollah and other regional Islamist forces backed by Iran and Syria would be faced down and defeated. But now the United States will face these forces from across the same cabinet room table, not as bludgeoned and defeated foes, but rather as partners and colleagues in Lebanon's national unity government. When Hezbollah and its erstwhile foes exchange kisses, a befuddled Condoleezza Rice should take care not to fall off her exercise bicycle.

The author conveniently forgets (ignores?) what happened in 2004 that tossed the USA back into Lebanese politics and why the USA "singled out Lebanon". That would be the SALSRA Bill - which was strongly lobbied for by Lebanese. Add to that - UN 1559 which was a joint effort by the French and the US and then approved by the UN.

Up until 2004 -- the USA (and all the Arab world) was pretty much ignoring Lebanon and letting Syria make all the decisions. Condoleezza Rice will ride her exercise bike into history and President Bush will go to his ranch in Texas and enjoy sunsets from his porch. The next US President and his/her administration will decide US Foreign policy.

The United States has pushed the Israelis hard to do two things in the past two years: Do not negotiate with Syria and do not engage Hamas. What has Israel done during the past few months and more? It has been wisely negotiating with Syria via Turkey, and engaging Hamas on a truce deal through the mediation of Egypt. Hold on, Condi, this gets even worse.

It is no big deal in Washington when nearly 500 million Arabs, Iranians and Turks ignore and defy the United States. But when Israel - the only democracy in the Middle East, America's eternal ally, and the bastion of the epic modern struggle against fascism, totalitarianism, Nazism, communism and terrorism - ignores the United States, that is newsworthy.

So we now have a rare moment in the Middle East. Iran, Turkey, all the Arabs, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Israel all share one and only one common trait: They routinely ignore the advice, and the occasional threats, they get from Washington.

I wonder exactly what the "threats" are? Actually, I'm pretty sure what they are but wonder why they are never disclosed in articles like this.

How many (honestly) want the USA to not give it's "advise" or "threats" to Israel when Israel and Syria are deciding the fate of a small country like Lebanon?

What does Israel really want?
What does Syria really want?
What does Turkey really want?
What does Hamas really want?
What do the Arabs really want?

A couple of extra thoughts ..... what have the Arabs really done for the good of Lebanon? What about the Russians? They are moving behind the scenes and pulling their own strings. There is a strong movement in the USA today toward "isolationism". It's very radical and I doubt it can succeed, but it is growing. It is basically what I've often said in "jest" - no immigration to the USA, no USA business in other countries (particularly 3rd world countries), no aid, no policy decisions, strict trade ...... as I said - very radical. Those who support it don't think of all the ramifications - the basic thought is "if they want to kill each other - fine, just leave us out of it" and "settle your own problems". The USA has the technology to become independent of Mid-East oil and it's likely they will move in that direction as it is a common wish of almost all Americans except for the big US Oil companies of course. It will take some time but not as much as you might think.

Based on the concept of past action theory - it is likely that the USA will return to the policy of earlier Presidents like Reagan, Bush sr. and Clinton. Their policy was based mostly on the events of the 1980's (as far as Lebanon was concerned) and it took almost 25 years for a change in policy direction. It's interesting to remind all of what that "policy" was and how it impacted not only Lebanon but the Mid East.
US Mideast Policy and the Syrian Occupation of Lebanon, March 2001

There was a poll on this forum many months ago about who/what started the "crisis" in Lebanon. My answer was the USA started the "crisis" when they passed the SALSRA Act and sponsored (with the French) the UN 1559 - and I still believe that's true. It is the single thing that put all the other actions into motion.

The new rules of the political game in the Middle East are now being written by the key players in the Middle East - and that should be welcomed.

Good Luck