America and the Logic of Manufacturing Chaos

Contrary to what has been said, the American administration is not manufacturing the revolutions and uprisings of this region. It does benefit from them, however, and it may intentionally influence them in certain ways according to its own interests. Certainly it encourages them, as in the Bahraini case — which, as the administration recognizes, is not a revolution but an attempt to rebel against law and legitimacy, conducted in collusion with foreigners who constantly and explicitly announce their intentions.

Just as the American administration is trying to exploit what is happening, numerous national and regional parties are trying to do the same. Among these we find Iran, which draws upon its ample monetary, intelligence and media capabilities to expand its power into the Arab arena and particularly into the affairs of the Gulf states. Iran acts to protect its own interests in this wealthy and strategic region, a region which is now the center of international attention. We also find an Israeli presence in the area, as we have witnessed an expansion of Israel’s international influence to the point where it can even sway the decision-makers in the White House. And just as Israel greatly influenced the Bush administration’s positions regarding Iraq and Sudan, Israel will also work to transform the Arab popular revolutions into civil wars and to drive the entire area into a state of internationalization, if it is able to do so.

During the reign of the “neo-conservatives,” the American strategy toward a “new Middle East” was based upon the imposition of war and “creative chaos” and upon calling for “federal” democracies. According to this strategy a nation is partitioned and then re-assembled in a “federal” structure, keeping the nation in a weak and divided condition and guaranteeing continuous American control over its decisions, its wealth, and its destiny. Iraq and Sudan serve as examples of this.

The Obama administration has benefited from the experience of the Bush administration, with all of its failures and transgressions, especially concerning its use of American military power to bring about political transformations and regime change in the Middle East, as with Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama has not chosen by his own will to benefit from this; he has learned Bush’s lessons by necessity. America is now unable to enter into new wars and must struggle instead to find a way out of its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Robert Gates, the outgoing U.S. Secretary of Defense, voiced this new American approach when he said, “Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia, or into the Middle East … should have his head examined.”

In the course of this discussion, we must pause to take note of the recent revelation by the American press that President Obama requested last August a “confidential report” on the nature of the turmoil in the Arab world. In the absence of sweeping political transformations, so this report concluded, the situation in the Arab world was heading toward large-scale popular revolutions. Egypt was considered foremost among Arab countries in the likelihood of explosive developments. The report urged the preparation of proposals for how the administration should deal with these potential political uprisings against Arab rulers who are, as the report points out, also important allies of America. The report also called for research on how to best balance American strategic interests and the desire to avoid widespread chaos, on the one hand, with the democratic demands of these countries’ citizens, on the other.

Today we find an American administration working to secure American interests by pressuring Arab governments into implementing constitutional and economic reforms designed to preserve the existence of these regimes and to guarantee the survival of American interests in these countries. This administration has even requested that certain governments step down from power, as with Yemen and Libya, or advised them to allow for creative chaos and remain open to the unknown. As nothing matters to the American administration but American interests, they may support modifying governments in one country and not in another — it depends, of course, on the “circumstances” of a particular country and the type of relationship America has with its existing institutions, including the military. Above all, America’s foremost consideration in responding to the situations in various Arab countries is the nature of the possible alternatives to any given system.