How United States Policy Screwed-Up the Middle East

Why are events in the Middle East, thousands and thousands of miles away from the United States, driving every aspect of our political and economic and military policy? The simple answer, of course, is oil. It was the discovery of massive oil reserves buried deep within the soil of this region that has led to the constantly shifting loyalties and policies directed toward those countries. The rise of Arab nationalism can be traced all the way back to domination by the Ottomans as they drove out European Christian influence. The deep-seated strength of that Arab nationalism was severely misunderstood by the British and French when they returned to influence following the collapse of the Ottoman empire coincident with the end of World War I. The political influence of the United States concentrated on the European occupational power rather than directly with the Arab inhabitants. Renewed commitment to a second overthrow of European influence was inevitable, yet curiously overlooked by the United States. The current situation in the region was the elephant in the room that everybody ignored. And, of course, the creation of Israel as a Jewish state stands as the match that lit the fuse of that powder keg.

Pres. Bush included Iran as part of his so-called Axis of Evil. The history of relations between the United States and Iran is one of blind acceptance of horror and the refusal to deal with the simmering problem of Arab nationalism. In 1951 the Prime Minister of Iran nationalized the oil industry. America’s response was to back the Shah of Iran and force him to call for the dismissal of the Prime Minister. The United States was apparently as convinced that the Iranian people would rally behind the Shah as he did this. As should have been expected, the Shah of Iran was driven to exile in order to stem rising revolutionary feelings. The United States eventually did manage to restore the Shah, but by then his relationship with America only served to taint him all the worse. Over the next two decades, the Shah of Iran, serving as basically a puppet leader whose strings were being pulled by American oil interests, ran one of the most repressive regimes in the area. With American help, he built up the military of Iran and bought weapons, while placing restrictions on freedom of the kind that the US recently went to war in Iraq over. His repressive form of governing Iraq directly led to the rise of Muslim fundamentalism that eventually led to his ouster, the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini and the resulting hostage crisis.

The placement of Muslim fundamentalist Khomeini as the head of Iran spooked Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Those who would claim a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden need only look at the relationship between Hussein and Khomeini. Both Khomeini and Bin Laden are of the same stripe, committed to fundamentalist Islam, whereas Hussein was decidedly more secular. Saddam Hussein moved to invade Iran and drive out his rival. When Iran made some serious inroads against Iraq in 1982, the United States moved to back Iraq’s effort by selling them chemical and biological weapons, as well as protecting Iraq’s oil tankers from assault. As if this wasn’t dangerous enough, it soon came to light that the United States had also been selling weapons to Iran at the same time in a particularly unconstitutional and some might even argue treasonous little game that came to be known as the Iran-Contra affair. Pres. Ronald Reagan consistently denied having knowledge of this program. Since it was being run directly out of the White House, there are only two possible explanations for this. Either Pres. Reagan was lying, or else the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth was so clueless and out of touch that he didn’t even know what was going on inside his own residence. Either explanation should be enough to ensure that Reagan’s image never winds up on a piece of currency, much less on Mt. Rushmore.

When the Soviet Union moved to invade Afghanistan, America supported the Afghan rebels who rose to defend their country. Those rebels went by the name Taliban. Following 9/11, Pres. Bush’s only real effort – mild as it was – to go after the true perpetrators of that outrage was to send forces to Afghanistan to fight – who else? – the same Taliban government our efforts had helped to put in charge. With the full concentration of our efforts against Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11, the Taliban is now making a comeback to the point where they are actually in control of many parts of the country. Backing and then fighting against the same group has been the United State’s schizophrenic policy of choice in the Middle East. It would appear we don’t know who to trust. Few should question, therefore, why we don’t have the ability to gain the trust of those who live there. Except for Israel, of course, who we consistently support regardless of their actions.

The fact that the United States was backing oppositional forces during a single war no doubt did little to inspire confidence in our loyalty to tany Arab country. When the United States invaded Iraq itself in the early 1990s, after basically building up that country’s military capability throughout the 1980s, anyone living in any of the Arab countries should probably be excused for wondering if our leaders had the slightest idea what they were doing in regard to the Middle East. United States policy in the region is based upon two separate, and some might say conflicting, foundations: Supporting Israel regardless of what they do, and ensuring the free ability to import oil. It would be different if we were importing massive amounts of oil from Israel, but since there isn’t any oil there, we aren’t. Since we are quick to excuse Israel’s transgressions despite that country having no leverage, it should leave little doubt in anyone’s mind as to why Muslims as a result not only don’t trust us, but hate us. We have chosen to give one small non-Muslim country a free ride, while taking it upon ourselves to tell several large Muslim countries how to run their business. This strategy has created rifts in the region that are, probably, impossible to heal, at least in the short term. By allowing Israel to ignore UN resolutions against them while at the same time using the ignoring of UN resolutions by other countries to partly justify invasion, America is playing a dangerous game. By constructing policy around oil, America is avoiding the real issue which should be guiding our policy, and that is the potential ability of these countries to one day produce a nuclear weapon. And if there is anyone out there still convinced that the President of the United States would react in the same way to Israel building a nuclear program as he has to Iran, you are living in the same dreamworld as George W. Bush.

One day the oil will be gone. The leverage that these countries have will disappear. A country without leverage is far more dangerous to us than a country with leverage. It’s like the song says, “Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.” When the day comes that Muslim countries cannot get our attention by withholding oil, then you will see true Muslim extremism. Now is the time to begin a twofold change in American policy. We need to immediately begin a serious search for an alternative energy source, and we need to change our policy toward those countries. The first step would be to hold Israel as accountable for the violence as the Arab countries surrounding them. Several hundred deaths by rocket fire is not a justifiable reaction to the kidnapping of two soldiers. The best way to show good faith toward Arabs is for the United States to demand that Israel not resort to wild-eyed violence every time an Israeli is kidnapped or killed. That violent reaction has been taking place since 1948. Guess what? It doesn’t work! It never has, it never will.