Obama Administration: The New Seven Pillars of Wisdom on the Middle East, Part Two‏

Barry Rubin

[Note:Since I wrote this the sixth pillar has become more important .]

For the first three pillars, see: Obama Administration: The New Seven Pillars of “Wisdom” on the Middle East, Part One.'

Fourth pillar: Terrorist blackmail and other pressure should determine U.S. policy.

Examples: Since American policy needs to run away rather than to raise the flag, more than 20 embassies were closed due to alleged al-Qaida threats. The reason this kind of fear, lack of credibility, and abandonment of deterrence is unwise is not even comprehended any more in Western policymaking circles.

The concern that the Muslim Brotherhood will turn to a war of terrorism if it doesn't get power returned to it in Egypt is also supposed to overwhelm other considerations of U.S. interests.

Or the fear that the Palestinians will push for statehood in the UN and international court brings panic that the United States cannot resist this supposed tidal wave.

Other demands, especially when linked to positions on gender or other special interests, take precedent over those of U.S. allies, even with Saudi Arabia now denouncing European sanctions against Hizballah as inadequate.

Fifth Pillar: Syria must be an Islamist state.

This has been a major priority during the Syrian civil war, and not just that the incumbent Syrian regime should be overthrown but that its replacement should be an Islamist, preferably a Muslim Brotherhood one.

A shocking but major hint was provided by a high-ranking CIA official that Syria was the top threat to 

.S. security.

Indeed, bringing Islamist rule to Syria, with a larger component of armed radicals, has become central to U.S. policy. There are two central themes. The first is to ensure that al-Qaida doesn't rule--identified as the ultimate, and often sole threat to U.S. interests--and second, is to protect most of the power from the Salafists, thus to bring about “moderate Islamism.”

This is what is meant in official documents, like that between Obama and his partner on Syria, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, as follows:

“The president and prime minister discussed the danger of foreign extremists in Syria  and agreed on the importance of supporting a unified and inclusive Syrian opposition.”

 At the same time, though, U.S. policy has been stymied. The American people and government do not want to intervene directly, the rebels cannot win without direct intervention (and more Western involvement at least, and intervention is also discouraged by the bad (radical Islamist) reputation of the rebels to Western publics.

So despite the fact that at least two chemical weapons incidents have been documented from the regime (the “red line” for Western intervention), the Americans have been frozen. Yet the West does not want Iran to hold Syria. What can the West do?

Sixth Pillar: Conciliation with Iran

The election of a new president in Iran is a tremendous opportunity for the administration. Consider this:

--The Obama Administration has always wanted to make a deal with Iran, both to avoid confrontation and for domestic popularity as well as its ideology, claiming a peaceful resolution as a great diplomatic achievement.

--It fits the pattern of negotiations and concessions to enemies, especially “moderate Islamists.”

But how can this collective deal, on the nuclear program and on regional stability, be achieved? One way is that Iran’s actual intransigence be ignored and American leaders pretend to believe a deal can be reached until the time when Tehran gets nuclear arms.

The other is to think a deal can be reached with Iran and Russia on Syria. I am certainly not saying that this will succeed, but I believe it is the sincere administration goal. The idea is for Assad’s departure and some transition.

It is wrong. The Palestinian Authority will not co-exist today in a compromise with Israel, nor the Egyptian army and Muslim Brotherhood in one government, nor the warring parties in Syria, nor a U.S-Iran arrangement. All of these will fail.

Seventh Pillar: Turkey is the main ally in the Middle East, which means guidance is taken from that Islamist regime abouton Egypt and Syria.

Turkey is a model of moderate Turkish Islamist democracy, though it actually disproves the thesis altogether.

Columnist Burak Bekdil notes:

“How democratic a posture could a country pose when it ranks 154th on the global press freedom index, kills its own people because they protest, and ruthlessly punishes every possible means of dissent, including ‘just standing in a public square? The Turkey of 2013 is the short-cut proof that a country where the elected have absolute control over the appointed, including the men in uniform, is not necessarily a democracy....”

And, of course, the idea that Muslim-majority states are building the “democracy project”--another administration agenda item--is also wrong. It isn't wrong in principle perhaps, but it is not a primary U.S. interest.

http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2013/09/10/obama-administration-the-new-seven-pillars-of-wisdom-on-the-middle-east-part-two/

 

Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org

Forthcoming Book: Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East (Yale University Press)

The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. 
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org

Editor Turkish Studies, http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ftur20#.UZs4pLUwdqU