For Whom does the Bell Toll?
The last State of the Union address given by the American president lacked any indications toward the stalled peace process in the Arab region. This could have more than one meaning. For example, it does not mean a freeze of the process of resuming negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and the Zionist entity because this process is in full swing, even though the process is broken and bruised. The lack of mention of the Arab countries does not mean the decrease of American interest in the Arab World. This interest has been the axis of American foreign policy since the beginning of the Iraq war, which has lasted many years and exhausted the American economy, only to help lead to the fall of unilateralism as other powers’ influence grows. For us, why should any of this matter? The answer: We are in the core of it all.
The return to a policy of spheres of influence will not only be at the expense of the Arabs. First, let me ask: Has America chosen to go to the edge of the abyss in her relationship with China solely because of China’s refusal to sanction Iran? Is Iran important so that China will put its interests with the United States at risk, or is it a conflict of interest? America is the first to know the uselessness of an economic blockade, as seen with the less affluent and smaller Iraq as compared to Iran. America is still suffering from the uselessness of an economic blockage of North Korea, which has a nuclear program ready to launch. So, when America punished China with an arms deal with Taiwan, did they do it to please Israel? Do not hurry to answer this question, as I usually do, for what seems to be on the surface is not always a reliable answer. Try to tie some of the loose ends together so that we might come out with a possible perception of what has happened during the past weeks.
I will repeat the question another way: Is it possible to consider Iran as an American issue? Put another way: Does Iran threaten the national security of America? Are all the calls to arms launched by America against Iran justified? I know that the definition of American security is as simple as whatever is in American interests. An inveterate politician justified the last American military action in the Arabian Gulf as being used to defuse any war that Tel Aviv might launch on Iran, which threatens American interests in the region. Or is it to secure any possible attack on Israel? What about the interests of the Arabs in their region? Aren’t they threatened by any military actions from any country? Aren’t the interests, territories and even lives of Gulf Arabs going to be threatened by any friendly or enemy fire during the battles that could erupt? America was surprised with the post-Iraq war world while it was still drowning in its trenches. Russia’s Putin is attempting to revive the old Soviet dream and China has jumped ahead, through globalization, as their national economy has spread influentially across the world’s continents. Even Europe tried to build itself up, independent from America’s veil. The American financial crisis, which before long became the world financial crisis, suspended these projects. From here comes the suspicion that the crisis was an American fabrication. To be precise, one must say that it hindered all the new movements to resist American unilateralism. The Chinese, however, were protected by their strong economy, which has yet to be fully globalized. It is hardly a stretch to say that the Jewish lobby in Washington was not a motivation for the last American military action in the Gulf, but rather the arms lobby, which has been considered for decades as the strongest lobby in the corridors of Washington. All the while, we continue to blame the Jewish lobby for all American politics in the region. This makes America, a great country, appear to lack its own foreign policy. This lobby, a group of all the weapons manufacturers, is interested in a new arms race in any area of the world. So, by the spilling of blood, it survives, and their influence increases by the day. This lobby was established with the coalition of the right-wing politicians, changing pragmatic affiliations with the trends in order to increase sales numbers. Here, it certainly reflects the Jewish lobby. The yearly budget for 2011, which Obama presented to Congress, reveals America’s tendency towards military actions in spite of the financial crisis. However, this tendency helps to solve this crisis.
Once more, where are we in all of this? Do we have the tools to play on this chessboard? A policy of extending influence means changing countries into republics by attaching their national security to the security of a state powerhouse. It is necessary to first establish the meaning of Arab national security. However, this is not possible under the current Arab regimes, which rely on the strategic American vision in the area. The tactical depth of China and what it succeeded in developing from international economic relationships has enabled it to resist American hegemony. The Arabs also have strategic depth and international economic relationships. Consider utilizing this strength and these relationships as pipe dreams, and consider that the era of Arab solidarity has gone while the era of joint Arab interest has also ended. So, what about the regional interests which some promised? What about the idea of the nation-state that was described to us as a savior for the declining state of the Arabs, but which actually increased the decline?
Let’s consider the state of war which America currently wants to impose on the region. First, one must mention that Iran has made big mistakes, and has private ambitions. More than this, Iran may have an old hatred shrouded in the veil of religion and support for the Arab resistance. However, does all this make Iran the number one enemy of the Arabs? Let’s forget that Iran is an Islamic country and a neighboring country that asks for acceptance of its neighbors. It is a country searching for a role. Does the inability of the Arab countries, united or individually, to find or play a role justify hindering whomever tries to or does find such a role? Is a nuclear Iran, which will come after 10 years, more dangerous than a nuclear Israel that has been around us for 60 years? Is it possible to talk with Israel and not with Iran?
The return to a policy of spheres of influence will not only be at the expense of the Arabs. First, let me ask: Has America chosen to go to the edge of the abyss in her relationship with China solely because of China’s refusal to sanction Iran? Is Iran important so that China will put its interests with the United States at risk, or is it a conflict of interest? America is the first to know the uselessness of an economic blockade, as seen with the less affluent and smaller Iraq as compared to Iran. America is still suffering from the uselessness of an economic blockage of North Korea, which has a nuclear program ready to launch. So, when America punished China with an arms deal with Taiwan, did they do it to please Israel? Do not hurry to answer this question, as I usually do, for what seems to be on the surface is not always a reliable answer. Try to tie some of the loose ends together so that we might come out with a possible perception of what has happened during the past weeks.
I will repeat the question another way: Is it possible to consider Iran as an American issue? Put another way: Does Iran threaten the national security of America? Are all the calls to arms launched by America against Iran justified? I know that the definition of American security is as simple as whatever is in American interests. An inveterate politician justified the last American military action in the Arabian Gulf as being used to defuse any war that Tel Aviv might launch on Iran, which threatens American interests in the region. Or is it to secure any possible attack on Israel? What about the interests of the Arabs in their region? Aren’t they threatened by any military actions from any country? Aren’t the interests, territories and even lives of Gulf Arabs going to be threatened by any friendly or enemy fire during the battles that could erupt? America was surprised with the post-Iraq war world while it was still drowning in its trenches. Russia’s Putin is attempting to revive the old Soviet dream and China has jumped ahead, through globalization, as their national economy has spread influentially across the world’s continents. Even Europe tried to build itself up, independent from America’s veil. The American financial crisis, which before long became the world financial crisis, suspended these projects. From here comes the suspicion that the crisis was an American fabrication. To be precise, one must say that it hindered all the new movements to resist American unilateralism. The Chinese, however, were protected by their strong economy, which has yet to be fully globalized. It is hardly a stretch to say that the Jewish lobby in Washington was not a motivation for the last American military action in the Gulf, but rather the arms lobby, which has been considered for decades as the strongest lobby in the corridors of Washington. All the while, we continue to blame the Jewish lobby for all American politics in the region. This makes America, a great country, appear to lack its own foreign policy. This lobby, a group of all the weapons manufacturers, is interested in a new arms race in any area of the world. So, by the spilling of blood, it survives, and their influence increases by the day. This lobby was established with the coalition of the right-wing politicians, changing pragmatic affiliations with the trends in order to increase sales numbers. Here, it certainly reflects the Jewish lobby. The yearly budget for 2011, which Obama presented to Congress, reveals America’s tendency towards military actions in spite of the financial crisis. However, this tendency helps to solve this crisis.
Once more, where are we in all of this? Do we have the tools to play on this chessboard? A policy of extending influence means changing countries into republics by attaching their national security to the security of a state powerhouse. It is necessary to first establish the meaning of Arab national security. However, this is not possible under the current Arab regimes, which rely on the strategic American vision in the area. The tactical depth of China and what it succeeded in developing from international economic relationships has enabled it to resist American hegemony. The Arabs also have strategic depth and international economic relationships. Consider utilizing this strength and these relationships as pipe dreams, and consider that the era of Arab solidarity has gone while the era of joint Arab interest has also ended. So, what about the regional interests which some promised? What about the idea of the nation-state that was described to us as a savior for the declining state of the Arabs, but which actually increased the decline?
Let’s consider the state of war which America currently wants to impose on the region. First, one must mention that Iran has made big mistakes, and has private ambitions. More than this, Iran may have an old hatred shrouded in the veil of religion and support for the Arab resistance. However, does all this make Iran the number one enemy of the Arabs? Let’s forget that Iran is an Islamic country and a neighboring country that asks for acceptance of its neighbors. It is a country searching for a role. Does the inability of the Arab countries, united or individually, to find or play a role justify hindering whomever tries to or does find such a role? Is a nuclear Iran, which will come after 10 years, more dangerous than a nuclear Israel that has been around us for 60 years? Is it possible to talk with Israel and not with Iran?