International Analyst Network
April 1, 2009
Obama's Faustian Bargain
Mark Silverberg
The assumption that the Obama administration’s diplomatic initiative to our enemies will enhance America’s image in the world and bring us the security we crave has yet to be proven. What should be of more concern to us, however, is the price our enemies will exact as part of that rapproachement, and whether it is really and truly worth the cost?
In January, President Obama addressed the Iranian mullahs in terms suggesting a possible reconciliation between the two countries if the Iranians could “unclench their fist.” The speech was met with chants of “Death to America” and derision by the Iranian mullahs who demanded an apology for decades of past injustices alleged committed by the US against the Iranian people, and ridiculed Obama's slogan of "change" as a retreat forced upon America by Iran's Islamic revolution. Later, Obama released a video offering Iran congratulations on the occasion of
Nowruz, the Persian New Year. This initiative was also received coldly in Tehran.
For Obama, both cases form part of his strategy to change the tone of all aspects of U.S. foreign policy in the hope that our enemies will become more accommodating. But for the Iranians, this diplomatic initiative is viewed both as "insufficient strategic reward" and as a sign of weakness indicative of America’s declining global power and influence. As
Barry Rubin of the
Global Research in International Affairs Center in
Israel wrote recently:
“In the Middle East, it is not so useful to think yourself popular and show yourself to be friendly. You have to inspire fear in your enemies and confidence in your friends. And if you don't inspire fear in your enemies - if you're too nice to them - then you will indeed foment fear among your friends.” That is because the culture of the modern Arab/Persian world has not descended from the
Reformation, the Enlightenment, John Locke, Thomas Paine and
Thomas Jefferson, but from radical jihadi
Salafists like
Ibn Tamiya in the 15th century and
Muhammad ibn 'And al-Wahhab (Wahhabism) in the 18th century whose descendants now seek to restore their ancient
Caliphate and return the world to the
Dark Ages.
From Day 1, Obama’s stated intention has been to engage diplomatically rather than to confront militarily state sponsors of terror and weapons of mass destruction proliferators like
Iran and
Syria. However, as he launches his reconciliation effort, he had best understand from the outset that non-democratic regimes like
Syria, and jihadist regimes like Iran as well as non-state Islamic actors like
Hezbollah and
Hamas move to the beat of a different drum. They do not perceive such overtures as do we. These regimes do not share our Western visions of democratization, globalization, religious tolerance and freedom. They do, however, have their own vision, and the price they will seek to exact from the US will be in furtherance of that vision which is to humiliate us, drive us from the Middle East, expunge all Western influence from the region, and replace American influence with their own - and these jihadi Salafists have proven to be far more effective at “exporting” their vision over the past three decades than we have been at exporting ours. So, if we are to “reconcile” with enemies such as these, we had best understand that they will exact a high price for their “cooperation.” It is a fair assumption that any bargain struck with Iran will not only enhance Iran's status and the status of its Middle East proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, but will detrimentally affect Israel,
Lebanon,
Iraq, our interests in the
Persian Gulf and American hegemony throughout the region and beyond.
In return for Iranian cooperation in quelling the violence in
Afghanistan and
Pakistan and supplying the US with military supply routes to Afghanistan through Iranian territory, Obama will be required, among other things, to downgrade the US relationship with Israel. That will involve compelling the Israelis to accept a “two-state solution” without demanding in return (in both words and deeds) that
Fatah and Hamas recognize Israel’s right to exist. He will also begin demanding Israeli withdrawals from the
West Bank while conveniently ignoring the fact that previous Israeli withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza not only empowered Hezbollah and Hamas, but enhanced the power and influence of Iran throughout the region, and led to the creation of terrorist bases on Israel’s northern and southern borders.
If the US is to have its way with Iran in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iran will insist on having its way with Israel, Iraq, Lebanon and the Persian Gulf - for starters. As
al Qaeda leader
Ayman al-Zawahiri warned Obama:
"It appears that you don't know anything about the Muslim world and its history....You are neither facing individuals nor organizations, but are facing a jihadi awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world.....This is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see." Not exactly the "unclenched fist" the President seeks.
Then there is the Iranian nuclear issue. Even as the
UN’s nuclear watchdog agency and Israeli intelligence have acknowledged that the Iranian mullahs are on the nuclear threshold and have perfected long-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, the Obama administration is convinced that it can talk the Iranians out of it, if enough is thrown into the bargain. Tehran, however, has learned from the North Korean experience that the US has a nuclear fetish, and it will use American fear as strategic leverage. The Iranians will expect major "concessions", even though they have no intention whatsoever in abandoning their nuclear weapons program.
Obama also has another problem if he intends to bargain with Iran. His outreach will be taken by moderate Sunni Arab leaders, especially the Saudis, as an American betrayal. They will assume that America is cutting a secret deal with the mullahs and such a bargain will lead them to make their own deals, and develop their own nuclear arsenals, particularly if it appears that the US is willing to accept a nuclear Iran, abandon its military option against Iran’s nuclear installations, end all efforts at regime change, and curtail international sanctions in exchange for Iranian “cooperation” in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In Syria, the US administration is already preparing to suspend the enforcement of U.S. sanctions, and has expressed an interest in returning the U.S. ambassador to
Damascus. Even the
Golan Heights may be thrown into the bargain if enough pressure can be brought to bear on Israel. But Syrian reciprocity is not on the table. The regime in Damascus has offered no indication that it is prepared to accept Israel’s right to exist, or respect Lebanon’s sovereignty, or abandon its links to terrorism or to Iran. Rather, the Syrian regime seeks a peace “process” to gain international respectability, but has no desire to end its conflict with Israel. It has too much to gain by keeping the pot boiling and keeping its relationship with Iran strong. The March 29, 2009 issue of the
Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) encapsulated Syrian media reaction to Obama’s overtures in these words:
“The US has capitulated to Iran and Syria.” Nevertheless, Obama continues to send high ranking
State Department diplomats to Damascus despite the fact that Syria is actively engaged in aiding al Qaeda in Iraq, exercises its designs on Lebanon through assassination of Lebanese anti-Syrian political leaders, shelters terrorist leaders in Damascus, and is secretly working on a
WMD program with
North Korea. An editorial in the
al-Watan newspaper summarized Syria's position in terms vastly different from those expressed by Obama:
"The Syrians are looking forward to a change in American policy, not to a change in Syrian policy (italics added)." As
Bret Stephens noted recently in
Commentary, if the United States chooses to engage with Syria, it risks
“the diminishment of its status as a serious power and a reliable ally.”
In
Gaza, there is no question that Obama, at any moment, is prepared to engage Hamas. He is pushing hard to provide
$900 million in reconstruction aid to rebuild the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip – an enormous sum of money much of which will be siphoned off by Hamas through international relief organizations like the
United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) that subverts American laws, aids violent Islamist extremists, propagandizes against Israel while favoring Hamas, and works with banks targeted by the United States for money laundering and terrorist financing. American financing will allow Hamas to restore its missile capabilities and terrorist infrastructures, assume control of the Palestinian Authority to the detriment of those Palestinians who seek a stable relationship with Israel, enhance Iranian power in the region, and allow Hamas to claim credit for improvements in Gaza. By funding UNRWA, the Obama administration will not only perpetuate the Palestinian refugee problem, but will add power and legitimacy to a terrorist regime and its Iranian state sponsor, both of whom are committed to the annihilation of America’s staunchest Middle East ally. These are all "concessions" the Iranian mullahs expect to extract from the US administration in return for their assistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
So Mr. President, here’s some advice for whatever it may be worth. You are dealing with an apocalyptic, messianic Islamic regime in Tehran whose sole mission is to humiliate the US wherever and whenever possible, expel it from the Middle East, and establish Iranian hegemony over the entire region. As you begin pressuring Israel to cede its security by relinquishing Gaza and the West Bank to Iranian-backed terrorists, turn Lebanon over to Hezbollah and the Syrians in return for nothing but more empty promises, allow Iraq to become an Iranian protectorate, diminish our presence in the Persian Gulf, and begin turning away from our allies in furtherance of some grand bargain you believe you can strike with Iran, remember this – the price our enemies will exact for their “cooperation” in Afghanistan and Pakistan will cost us our allies, our credibility, our influence, and quite possibly our freedom. Is it really worth the price?
Mark Silverberg is a foreign policy analyst for the Ariel Center for Policy Research (Israel), a Contributing Editor for Family Security Matters and the New Media Journal and a member of Hadassah’s National Academic Advisory Board. His book “The Quartermasters of Terror: Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Jihad” was published by Wyndham Hall Press in 2005 and his articles have been archived under www.marksilverberg.com and www.analyst-network.com
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2865
Posted on 4/6/2009 at 3:10 PM PDT
