US blinkered by a simplistic view of Middle East peace
Michael Young
The National (Dubai)
07 April '10
Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut. He has a number of interesting points to make on perceptions of the current situation amongst our neighbors.
An interesting logic is taking hold in Washington, but where it will lead no one knows. The idea is that in order for the United States to contain Iran in the Middle East, it must impose a Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement, in that way denying Tehran the ability to mobilise regional animosities against Washington’s interests.
In a Washington Post column on Wednesday, David Ignatius quoted an American official in support of this rationale. “The American peace plan [to propose the outlines of a final settlement] would be linked with the issue of confronting Iran, which is Israel’s top priority,” the official said. “We want to get the debate away from settlements and East Jerusalem and take it to a 30,000-feet level that can involve Jordan, Syria and other countries in the region.”
There is some merit to the argument. To limit Iranian influence throughout the region, the Obama administration will need to multitask, gradually taking away from Tehran the many cards it has accumulated and played effectively in recent years.
One of these has been the “resistance” card – the notion that because Israel does not want peace, the best option for Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular is to pursue armed struggle. This has undergirded Iran’s military support for Hamas and Hizbollah, who have enjoyed some popularity in the Arab world, despite the fact that in Gaza and southern Lebanon their actions in recent years have been disastrous. But that matters little to Iran’s regime, since both organisations have given Iran the means to thwart Arab-Israeli talks.
(Read full article)
Love of the Land: US blinkered by a simplistic view of Middle East peace
No comments:
Post a Comment