The Ball Is in Kerry's Court
Published in al-Ghad
(Jordan) on 29 March 2013
by Muhammad Hussein al-Mowmany (link to original)
(Jordan) on 29 March 2013
by Muhammad Hussein al-Mowmany (link to original)
Translated from
by Chris Marrs.
Edited by Jane Lee.
It’s more than likely that President Obama totally forgot the Middle East as soon as he left its airspace. However, Secretary of State John Kerry will remain in the region to build on what little has been started. Despite his warnings against unrealistic expectations, his actions seem to suggest that he understands the necessity of the role of the U.S. in the Middle East and that a U.S. withdrawal would surrender the region to extremist forces.
Kerry must be convinced that leaving the region on its own would upset the balance of power and must understand the old adage "you break it, you bought it." This phrase could be applied to the U.S. regarding a number of issues in the region, not the least of which is surrendering Iraq to Iran on a silver platter.
This does not negate the fact that a planned, gradual U.S. withdrawal from the region and its affairs could be constructive and make Middle Eastern nations responsible for themselves. However, such a withdrawal does not need to include surrendering the region to those powers waiting to take it over, as happened in Iraq.
Kerry should view the region on two basic levels. First he needs to consider the region as a whole. He also needs to understand the individual issues that play a role in the region. The American administration erred in that it only considered individual regional issues and not their potential effects on the region as a whole. The Iraqi issue was "Iraqi." What happened in Syria concerned only Syria — despite the opposite having been proven by force. This American misconception stems from Israel always trying to frame the Palestinian issue as a purely "Palestinian" issue, far removed from the region and any possible regional repercussions. This is a mistake in regard to the Palestinian issue and others.
Iraq is right in Iran's backyard, and Iran has begun meddling in its affairs. The Palestinian issue is truly regional as it created an air of uncertainty and instability upon which extremists thrive. The role of the U.S. in the region could be beneficial, constructive and a catalyst to balance the regional political system through stability and cooperation for the benefit of the people.
The regional political powers cannot match the Iranian presence that has only been strengthened by U.S. policies in the region. These countries cannot contain Russia's destabilizing role in Syria. It is time the U.S. realized this, not simply for moral or historical reasons given its position as the strongest power in the Middle East but also for reasons that are strictly in U.S. regional interests.
America's allies in the region have lost a lot of their ability to influence America's political role in the region due to their diminished political legitimacy and their weak internal situations. They can only rely on logic and appealing to American interests to encourage the U.S. to play such a role. Such an appeal should come from non-state actors, as the governments and their representatives have lost much of their credibility.
Kerry must be convinced that leaving the region on its own would upset the balance of power and must understand the old adage "you break it, you bought it." This phrase could be applied to the U.S. regarding a number of issues in the region, not the least of which is surrendering Iraq to Iran on a silver platter.
This does not negate the fact that a planned, gradual U.S. withdrawal from the region and its affairs could be constructive and make Middle Eastern nations responsible for themselves. However, such a withdrawal does not need to include surrendering the region to those powers waiting to take it over, as happened in Iraq.
Kerry should view the region on two basic levels. First he needs to consider the region as a whole. He also needs to understand the individual issues that play a role in the region. The American administration erred in that it only considered individual regional issues and not their potential effects on the region as a whole. The Iraqi issue was "Iraqi." What happened in Syria concerned only Syria — despite the opposite having been proven by force. This American misconception stems from Israel always trying to frame the Palestinian issue as a purely "Palestinian" issue, far removed from the region and any possible regional repercussions. This is a mistake in regard to the Palestinian issue and others.
Iraq is right in Iran's backyard, and Iran has begun meddling in its affairs. The Palestinian issue is truly regional as it created an air of uncertainty and instability upon which extremists thrive. The role of the U.S. in the region could be beneficial, constructive and a catalyst to balance the regional political system through stability and cooperation for the benefit of the people.
The regional political powers cannot match the Iranian presence that has only been strengthened by U.S. policies in the region. These countries cannot contain Russia's destabilizing role in Syria. It is time the U.S. realized this, not simply for moral or historical reasons given its position as the strongest power in the Middle East but also for reasons that are strictly in U.S. regional interests.
America's allies in the region have lost a lot of their ability to influence America's political role in the region due to their diminished political legitimacy and their weak internal situations. They can only rely on logic and appealing to American interests to encourage the U.S. to play such a role. Such an appeal should come from non-state actors, as the governments and their representatives have lost much of their credibility.