Have America's Strategic Interests Changed in the Middle East

Have America’s vital strategic interests changed in the Middle East?

As a matter of fact, political institutions in the U.S. have, for a very long time, limited themselves to two major issues: Israel and gas.

However, the statement consented to by ten former senior officials, including a National Security Adviser, U.S. heads of states, secretaries, ambassadors, a director of the World Bank, senators and House members, which encompassed a redrafting of America’s Middle East strategic interests that come out as follows: the survival of Israel, the finding of vital natural resources, the safety of important transportation routes, stout relationships with allies and friends in the Arab world and the new dimension of national security that was forced about due to the events of September 11th and related to watching over American interests with a peaceful relationship between Arabs and Israelis. As long as these interests are stable, achieving those goals would be easy when the U.S. is seen virtually as working for Arab-Israeli peace.

Yet as much as this declaration brings up a pattern of thinking which is increasing in America and holds American national security as one thing and that of Israel’s as something else, one also reflects upon the depth of the American-Israeli relationship. From the very beginning, the Obama administration is obliged to maintain American interests through considering Arab-Israeli peace as a top priority for national security and that achieving comprehensive peace in the region will eliminate the threat of al-Qaeda and consequently help dry the springs of terror. Moreover, the declaration suggests that America provides Israel with security guarantees because that would the allow the former country to be a mediator in the process for a comprehensive peace and that security assistance and strategic dialogue are already factors for Israel’s qualitative military preponderance and boosts the two countries’ security cooperation.

Also, and according to the statement, there are still some strong yet scattered voices in Israel who oppose peace not only through words but also though actions. Those people, including extremist settlers as well as their political supporters, refuse moderate solutions (called by former Israeli Primer Minister Sharon as “painful concessions”) that would lead to the establishment of a free-to-live Palestinian state and to peace with Syria and Lebanon. Those points of views are actually fed by the desire for the perpetuation of conflict and the expansion of settlements, even if most Israelis believe that the most important thing about Israel’s security is the trust and friendship with the U.S. and its president.

And if the Israeli cabinet tries moderate solutions and “painful concessions” for peace, it can simply persuade its people, even if only to secure domestic support, that the American president and country are supporters of Israel who want to extend a hand in the peace process.

The plan submitted to Obama says that reconciliation in Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based on Israel’s reverting back to the 1967 borders with simple and agreed upon amendments, Israel restarting dialogue with Syria and withdrawal from al-Golan Heights, in addition to other arrangements related to the Sea of Galilee, for which the plan provides some suggestions.

And beyond any shadow of a doubt, the Israeli government will turn a deaf ear to peace efforts and urge the American Jewish lobby to pressure Obama, claiming to the American people, as usual, that Israel’s security is tightly associated with America’s. However, it is worth noting there are growing movements in the U.S. that focus on separating the security of the two countries.

Above all, if the Israeli cabinet, pursuant to its “special national security standards,” would not accept any settlement that involves falling back to the 1967 borders or the recognition of a Palestinian state, the failure to achieve a comprehensive and peaceful reconciliation can indeed harm America’s national security.

Finally, it remains to say that Obama’s or any other president’s management of foreign policies is still bridled by a political system of traditional rules that conform with the nature of such a country, a system that allows some known pressure groups to freely play a role whereas others use their pressure tools and capabilities. And if Arabs remain wanting a strategy that would enable them to take advantage of their available cards, they shall stay watching others making decisions for America.