Thus it would be useful for the new president to listen to the suggestions of experts who have worked in Bill Clinton's administration, and of others who have contributed to directing the policies of George Bush's administration by supporting the Iraq war for reasons related to the strategic balance between the Arabs and Israel. Nevertheless, it is also necessary for the president-elect not to avoid listening also to those whose views differ in an untraditional way from those presently put forth, because it is wrong to place restrictions on the ideas and stances that come from the Arab region and the Islamic World and to marginalize them. The first thing that could be helpful in understanding what Barack Obama expects from his presidency is to understand what he believes to be possible and what he considers to be impossible in more than one place.
The questions are actually quite simple, as the problems are not as complicated as some would wish to portray them. They are as follows:
- Does the president-elect consider that the two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli problem is still applicable after two decades of a "Peace Process" in which promises and prevarications have abounded? Is he willing to use the "Peace Process" to buy time and procrastinate, because he has no other choice? Or has he reached the conviction that the time has truly come to implement the promise of the two-state solution, for reasons that have to do with moral conscience towards those subjected to occupation, and with the practical political framework which requires the US to strike the Palestinian-Israeli issue off the table if it wishes to build a new and useful relationship with the Arab region and the Islamic World? If he has indeed reached such a conviction, is Obama ready to pressure all those concerned (Israelis, Palestinians and others) without fear or hesitation? Or will he be unable to do so, given the political makeup of the United States and its organic relationship with Israel?
- Which Iraq does Barack Obama insist upon? An Iraq united under any circumstances, even if this requires US troops to remain longer than what is being said now, or an Iraq torn from all sides, for which the Iraqis would bear responsibility if they fail to agree on its unity? Is the US's oil relationship with Iraq completely unimportant in long-term considerations? And is abandoning Iraq, as a US base of great significance, a settled matter in the president-elect's mind, because he has promised to withdraw the troops? We know that Barack Obama was opposed to the Iraq war. What we do not know is the strategic relationship he wants the US to have with Iraq.
- This gets us to the other necessary question, which is this: Which Iran does Barack Obama, as a president, imagine he will be able to normalize relations and coexist with? When he was a candidate, Obama suggested that he considers the Iranian regime to be the concern of the Iranian people, and that he sees no reason not to recognize the regime of the Islamic Republic in Iran. However, the question remains: Does President Barack Obama have no objection to the Iranian Islamic Republic exporting its model of government, by any means, to neighboring countries in the Gulf, or to a country like Lebanon, after having benefited from the US war in Iraq and now finding its neighborhood under convenient sectarian rule? What if Tehran continues to refuse to suspend its uranium enrichment program? Is Obama the president willing to submit to Iran's wishes and go back on a UN Resolution agreed upon with Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany? More importantly: Does Obama believe that it is possible to tolerate a nuclear Iran (the way the world tolerates a nuclear Israel, a nuclear India and a nuclear Pakistan) without setting off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East? Does he consider that the military option to settle the nuclear issue with Iran has become impossible, or is he thinking of a new approach, one that would place Israel's possession of nuclear weapons on the table as part of the objectives of establishing a region free of nuclear weapons in the Middle East?
- Then there is the strange question that must be asked, considering how much it is being talked about: Is the US President-Elect truly willing to reach political deals at the expense of accountability and justice, as some of those who have surrounded him during his electoral campaign seem to suggest? Calls for considering the importance of Syria in any Middle East strategy have multiplied, and with them the whispers have grown louder, whispers of deals that would ensure the leniency of the Special Tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri and his companions and for the other political assassinations in order to satisfy Syria and to ensure that its regime is not subjected to any tremors. The question is simple: Is Obama ready to conclude such deals, or will he surprise all those who have wagered on his willingness to barter with justice?
The fact of the matter is that the Special Tribunal is no less important than any other development within Lebanon or within the framework of its relations with Israel or with the armed Palestinian factions on its soil, or even with Hezbollah. Thus if Barack Obama has thought of the importance of this tribunal and concluded that it deserves his support, then it is necessary for him to inaugurate his duties by publicly expressing such a support. This is a major opportunity for the new president to send a decisive message of refusing to compromise on justice, which can be summed up by a commitment to end the era of impunity.
Since we are discussing Lebanon, we can get back to the issue of right in wrong in the ideas put forth by Indyk, Haass, Ross and Satloff. Executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) Robert Satloff is right when he warns of four political events in the Middle East which the Obama Administration may face, those being: (1) the collapse of the Palestinian Authority; (2) Hezbollah taking control of Lebanon, either through parliamentary elections or through illegal means; (3) a transition of power crisis in Egypt; (4) unexpected news of a nuclear "success" in Iran.
He is right to warn of Hezbollah potentially taking control of Lebanon and of the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, but he is wrong not to acknowledge that Israel contributes directly to these two possibilities, when it could contribute to stopping them. Hezbollah is not solely the result of Israeli occupation, but also an extension of Iran in Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority suffers at the hands of Hamas nearly as much as it does at the hands of Israel.
Nevertheless, it is unacceptable to overlook the efforts required of Israel, in a way detrimental to both itself and the US, not only to Lebanon and Palestine. Satloff should not call for President Barack Obama to "bring about Arab acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state and an end to all state-supported incitement against Jews" as a precondition that could lead any Israeli government to "respond with substantial compromises on most of the negotiating issues dear to the Arab side". Such a proposition is incomplete, imbalanced and unconstructive. A constructive proposition would be one that speaks of a balance of compromises and middle-way solutions, and that would deal reasonably with basic and evident issues such as the necessity of demanding that Israel end its occupation of the village of Al-Ghajar in Lebanon and turn over the Shebaa Farms to the UN. Thus Hezbollah's pretexts would be swept away and the possibilities of it taking control of Lebanon diminished.
Dennis Ross, who works for the same institution, has been an advisor for Obama and wishes to be rewarded by being granted a position in the new administration, has never been fair when the issue concerns Israel. It is noteworthy now that he speaks of Iran in an unreasonable manner, as he calls for "less focus" on the UN in the framework of pressures on Iran in order to gather the cooperation of "the Europeans, Japan, China and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia". Let pressures, especially economic ones, be gathered with anyone (starting with Germany, for example), but why take the issue away from the Security Council, in compliance with a main demand by Iran that would keep the issue in Vienna with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and away from the threat of UN sanctions?
Seasoned politicians Martin Indyk, Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy in Brookings, and Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, collaborated in writing a chapter in a book published by both institutions entitled "Restoring the Balance". The chapter includes strategic suggestions for the new president with regards to the Middle East. They are right in saying that there is need to bring US policy out of the sole obsession with Iraq. They say that President Obama should essentially focus on Iran and offer the Iranian government direct negotiations without preconditions with other incentives, as the military option is "not attractive". Here they are wrong, as they, by such a suggestion, place tactics in the forefront and sacrifice strategy. They are offering the reward before negotiations and mutual understanding. They are also taking great risks by trampling UN resolutions, and by this they are reminiscent of the way former president Bill Clinton did not hesitate to ignore resolutions regarding Iraq. The price for such a method is evident today.
What is worse is that Indyk and Haass call for "[increasing] Israel's tolerance for a more drawn-out diplomatic engagement" with Iran by "President Obama [bolstering] Israel's deterrent capabilities by providing a nuclear guarantee and an enhanced antiballistic missile defense capability". They are suggesting a strategy which rewards Iran and Israel, and gives Syria the opportunity to be rewarded in advance for ending its alliance with Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah, according to the views put forth by Indyk and Haass. Thus, according to them, opportunities for stability can be increased in Lebanon. They are very wrong to hold such a belief, as they are deliberately ignoring everything that is required to repair the relationship between Lebanon and Syria.
*Published in the London-based AL-HAYAT on Dec. 12. |
