I want to begin by saying that I support US engagement in the Middle East.  However, I remain concerned about the impact, both intended and unintended, of our image around the world.  I remain concerned, not only about the mood toward the US on the streets of Amman, but also on the streets of London. 

It is obvious that the events of September 11, 2001 forced the Administration to be immediately reactive to the situation, and no one can fault us for that.  However, since that day we have continued as principally a reactionary force in the Middle East, particularly in our reconstructive efforts in Iraq.  Today, as we approach the 5th anniversary of 9/11 and find ourselves on a threatening front, it seems vital to US interests and the interests of that region to be increasingly proactive.  Victory and success, as I would define them in this context, are all but impossible from a reactive position.

Successive administrations have found political will thwarted again and again with Iran, and now we find ourselves facing that issue once more.  However, on this occasion the Administration has been more forward-thinking in its approach as it has sought to allow other countries to take the diplomatic lead and to maintain as much as possible within the context of the United Nations.  This has led to headway in what would otherwise be a stalemate between East and West.  In some ways, the recent activity of Iran and its engagement with Hezbollah may even reflect the ultimate frustration of the Iranian government as it seeks to derail not only a US initiative, but also a multi-national one. 

For the moment there is quite a debate as to what the true relationship is between Iran and Hezbollah, but there is no debate that it is significant.  Nor is there any question in my mind that US interests and the interests of many of our allies, including our moderate Islamic allies, are not best served by a strong military attack against Hezbollah.  That is why we cannot afford to back off of the diplomatic course with either Hezbollah or Iran.  And, not surprisingly, success with the former will largely contribute to success with the latter.  As we are seen by the rest of the Middle East as objective and fair in negotiating with Hezbollah, Lebanon and Israel, we will find ourselves with more bargaining chips for Iran.  In short, we will not be, in the Iranians’ eyes, a lone western power trying to stay afloat in a tide of angst, but an objective state that represents the interests of the regional and international communities.

The bottom line is that as we survey the Middle East and look at our substantial engagements in such a multi-faceted way, we need desperately to find diplomatic tools that seek to diffuse the current bloodshed, give confidence to the sensible political actors in a balanced way, and propel neutral mediation.  I echo the call from Senator Hagel (R-NE) for the Administration to not sacrifice our ties with the rest of the region for the sake of Israel.  The Senator points out that, “it is in Israel’s interest, as much as ours, that the United States be seen by all states in the Middle East as fair. This is the currency of trust.”  He goes on to recommend that President Bush send a special envoy to Lebanon to negotiate a resolution before the damage, political and collateral, is irreparable.

As diplomatic efforts help resolve the situation in Lebanon, I believe that we will find success with Iran as well.  But we must not change our course of diplomacy.  As Senator Hagel proclaims, this process can only begin with open and unconditional dialogue, first with Iran and then with Syria.  This is the kind of proactive step that the US must take, followed by a consistent resort to diplomacy, if there is to be any chance of bringing order and peace to the Middle East.

No related posts.