Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Conrad Black

GET UPDATES FROM Conrad Black
 

The West's Latest Middle East Mess Up

Posted: 05/30/2012 11:40 am

It is distressing to see the continuous, endless, floundering of the West and the international community in the Middle East, even after decades of mistaken policy.

A chronology of the last 35 years has Jimmy Carter throwing out the Shah "like a dead mouse" (to quote his national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski), thus disposing of the most reliable ally the United States and the West have ever had in the Middle East, not excluding Israel, and the closest to a progressive government that Iran has had since Cyrus the Great, and its replacement by the demented theocracy of the Ayataollahs.

Washington then became somewhat cozy with Saddam Hussein, and the pacifistic Carter made no apparent effort to dissuade him from his wholly unprovoked attack on Iran, which resulted in the Iran-Iraq War of eight years, ending in stalemate, in which there were approximately one million casualties, half of them battle deaths, and two thirds of the casualties Iraqis.

Since the outbreak of the war came in the midst of the Tehran hostage crisis and geopolitical arithmetic commends the retention of friendly relations with at least one of the principal Persian Gulf states, the Reagan administration can be pardoned for maintaining civilized relations with Iraq. Less excusable was the farcical and embarrassing Iran-Contra affair, highlighted by Reagan's national security adviser going to Iran in disguise to present the Ayatollah Khomeini with a Bible.

It is not entirely clear what advice the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, April Glaspie, gave Saddam on behalf of the first Bush administration about Saddam's designs on Kuwait, other than her notorious comment that the U.S. was neutral on intra-Arab disputes, and that her next and last posting was to a consulate in South Africa.

It shortly fell to the United States to lead the removal of Saddam from Kuwait. That operation was probably assisted by the fact that when Saddam seized Kuwait, the compromise-minded secretary of state, James Baker, was in Mongolia, and the Churchillian British leader Margaret Thatcher was holidaying in the United States and immediately told Bush: "George, don't wobble."

He didn't, the coalition assembly by Bush and Baker, and military preparation and execution by Defense secretary Cheney, Joint Chiefs chairman Colin Powell, and theatre commander Norman Schwarzkopf, were of the very highest competence. The Allies exceeded the previous all-time record for a ratio of casualties inflicted to received in a battle, established at nearby Gaugamela by Alexander the Great 2,322 years before.

Alexander killed about 45,000 Persians and captured about 300,000. In 1991 the Allies suffered 248 killed and about 500 wounded, compared to Iraq's 35,000 dead and 75,000 casualties, and hundreds of thousands of prisoners. Yet Saddam was left in place, allowed to masquerade to the credulous Arab masses as surviving David against the infidel Goliath, and the United States then had no relations with either major Persian Gulf power.

The following Clinton administration imposed embargoes on both India and Pakistan for what it represented as violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, thus extending the swath of South Asia with which the United States had no productive or even civilized diplomatic relations, from the Jordanian-Iraqi border over 4,000 miles to the Thai-Burmese (Myanmar) border.

This was a unique approach to maintaining a great power's interests in a massive slice of the Eurasian land mass. Pakistan and India had violated the Non-Proliferation treaty of 1970, but so previously had Israel and South Apartheid Africa, and in fact all the nuclear powers because the treaty pledged the founding nuclear club, the USA, USSR, U.K., France, and China to work toward world disarmament. Of course the objective was not even desirable, much less attainable, and no one paid any attention to it. But all of the nuclear powers, including Pakistan and South Africa, scrupulously avoided threatening or even momentarily publicly considering the use of their nuclear weapons other than in self-defense.

Clinton effectively ignored an escalating series of terrorist outrages, the bombings of the Khobar Towers Barracks in Saudi Arabia, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the suicide attack on the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, inviting the coruscation of these atrocities in the infamies in New York and Washington in September, 2001.

George W. Bush led the world into Afghanistan, drove out the Taliban government and the al-Qaeda terrorist leadership (which it initially, mistakenly, thought was virtually singing from the same minaret as the Taliban government), and then decamped to Iraq to finish the leftover work of his father in disposing of Saddam. This left America' allies with an unclear mission statement and grossly insufficient forces in Afghanistan, where the condition of the country steadily deteriorated and the Taliban made ant-like inroads again.

The United States proclaimed the mission of promoting democracy everywhere in the world with the predictable destabilization of many of its allies, such as Egypt, the triumph of more militant enemies such as Hamas in Palestine, and in Iraq, the demobilization of Saddam's 400,000 troops and police, who while declared unemployed, retained their weapons and ordinance, which promptly turned the country into a long and deep-running bloodbath.

Iran, which had been momentarily respectful to America, became and remains more insolent than ever; six years were required to bring the Iraqi imbroglio under control, with total uncertainty over Iraq's long-term future, and the Obama administration was left with little practical option but to return in strength to Afghanistan to the rescue of America's forlorn allies and to try to shore up the beleaguered and incandescently corrupt pseudo-democratic regime in Kabul.

The younger Bush at least opened relations with India and signed a nuclear understanding with it, probably the administration's greatest foreign policy success apart from the assault on terrorism generally. Pakistan was quickly brought into the fold with large grants in military and other assistance, despite Pakistan's generous support and guidance of one of NATO's deadliest Afghan enemies, the Haqqani Taliban. The democratization policy did not prevent Obama from supporting the Ahmadinejad regime in its fraudulent re-election, over the democratic protests of the Iranian majority.

The United States, by failing to take any serious measures, under any of the presidents from Carter to Obama, to reduce oil imports, was effectively bankrolling the chief paymasters of the terrorists, and by doling out billions to Pakistan, was assisting in the killing of its own and allied troops, as well as the asylum of the 9/11 architect, Osama bin laden, (until Obama commendably had him executed in his night-clothes). Now Iran is in the latter stages of accomplishing nuclear military capability. And the Syrian Assad regime -- which Hillary Clinton hailed as one of reform but Obama has more recently commanded to be gone without doing anything to make this happen -- is routinely pouring live ammunition into the ranks of its own people.

Syria remains Iran's principal conduit into the Arab world, and link with the terrorist organizations Hamas (Palestine), and Hezbollah (Lebanon). Disposing of Assad would take no more than a flick of America's strategic finger, and would sever the hand of Iran in Arab affairs, but the Obama administration has no more will to do it than to prevent Iranian nuclear militarization.

Almost none of this has made any sense, and little of it conforms to the usual enlightened self-interested conduct of a Great Power. The U.S. should do the necessary to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, and get rid of Assad and his sycophancy to Tehran. President Obama has apologized for President Eisenhower's support of the coup that restored the Shah of Iran in 1953, but apart from the diplomacy of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the area in 1973-1976, and Jimmy Carter's Camp David agreement in 1978, and the First Gulf War, this is almost all the U.S. has done in the Middle East (apart from joining Stalin in supporting the founding of the State of Israel), that has made any sense.

It is a very poor track record, and the United States will simply, eventually, have to do better than this.

 
 
 
FOLLOW CANADA POLITICS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 14
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
Turdinthepunchbowl
I float, therefore I am
12:49 AM on 06/01/2012
The Lord of Lard is wrong yet again, what a surprise. And as for him being an historian, well, his Lordship is like one of those 19th century Victorians, bloviating about the "whiteman's" burden. Talk about sycophancy.
11:07 AM on 05/31/2012
You should be jailed for this nonsense. Supreme Leader Ali Khameini has repeatedly declared nuclear weapons to be "haram" -- forbidden by Islam. Maybe the mullahs are telling the truth, who knows. Iran has never started a war either. Israel on the other hand have started wars in 1956, 1967, 1982, and 2006. And lets face it, the only reason that Canada and the US is persuing such a rigid non-proliferation line with Iran: Israel.
Iran should be allowed to enrich uraniam up to the break out stage.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
YankeeCanuck
dog
02:15 AM on 05/31/2012
I am surprised that an historian does not begin with the US helping depose Mossadegh--the democratically elected leader in the 1950s and installing the Shah. Yeh, the Shah was a rapacious and cruel dictator, but he was "our" dictator.
07:46 PM on 05/30/2012
XCON-Black,

You are 70 years late... Colonialism and Imperialism are now dead..........Let the Syians, the Iraelies, the Lebanese and others fix their own problems. If they cannot live among themselves peacefully , why do we have to sacrice our soldiers. I will agree with you XCON-Black only if and your Neocon buddies volunteer to be on the frontline.

Juan
photo
1846
Deir Yassin Survivor
07:35 PM on 05/30/2012
That’s a concise and eloquent summary of American mid-east foreign policy and how Oil Companies have had a dominant effect on American strategy. Altogether too many people have no understanding of Iran and the Shah, how he got power and lost it.
I disagree with the Syrian statement however, and am convinced the current unrest in that country was initiated by the USA and her partners in the region. I may sound like a conspiracy advocate with this but; the Arab Spring has been all too well coordinated to have been independent and spontaneous.
06:27 PM on 05/30/2012
The pontificator has returned, still certain he can convert us lesser beings to his way of thinking.
Anthropocan
Je est un Autre.
05:13 PM on 05/30/2012
The title suggests "the U.S. should stop its imperialist and/or hypocritical approach to politics in the Middle East". The article reads "the U.S. has been inconsistent in its meddling and should, as is expected of countries with a large military and a deficiency in respect for international law, continue to meddle but in a more appropriate way." Rational self-interest is the stuff of Ayn Rand's fiction and outdated political paradigms, Monsieur Black.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
YankeeCanuck
dog
02:16 AM on 05/31/2012
ANd meddle in a way that suits Israel.
Anthropocan
Je est un Autre.
10:19 AM on 05/31/2012
Are you insinuating something bad about Israel? How could you even criticize Israel?! Clearly you are are being ruled by extremists and Israel should benefit from further U.S. protection. /Sarcasm
Even within Monsieur Black's political realist view, Israel should opt for self-help instead of depending on the U.S.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Burlesque Lea
the dog is the only animal that has seen his god
01:08 PM on 05/30/2012
Well, it's not what USA hasn't done for the middle east, it's what they are doing for itself. Increasing the arms production to support these wars... Doesn't it represents a lot of revenue for their magnates and banks ?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Keith E
Earth Warrior
12:54 PM on 05/30/2012
Go away Mr. Black. No one cares what you think.
08:10 PM on 05/30/2012
Yes, intelligent people do care what Mr. Black thinks.

And this topic has nothing to do with his legal issues.

Grow up.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
canobserv
09:31 AM on 05/31/2012
of course.......I'm sure lots of Conservatives care what the ex-con has to say......The Harper Gov't seems to love ex-cons....even have a few in cabinet
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Keith E
Earth Warrior
10:25 AM on 06/01/2012
Oops Sorry,.^^^^ One Canadian teabagger cares :-)