Why Don’t We Deal with America According to Our Own Interests?
Published in Al-Seyassah
(Kuwait) on 25 April 2011
by Meshaal al-Nami (link to original)
Reformists.
There is hardly a problem that affects the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) besides those caused by not dealing with the United States in accordance with our own interests like we do with the whole world, except the Zionist country.
It affects sentiments in our political dealings with Gulf countries. We consider the U.S. a friendly country, a friendship in the social sense of the word, which is true to one of its most fundamental principles. Meanwhile, our cooperation with the U.S. as a political ally is used and directed by its national interests, or the interests of some of its parties, or sometimes just some of its influential figures. Furthermore, trading companies rush to play in our region because of our sanctification of the relationship with Washington.
This is evidenced by the United States’ sacrifice of its allies among the heads of the Arab world when it stood against them during the demonstrations, which arose in the Arab World without foreign influence from other regions or countries.
We cannot ask the GCC to deal with the U.S. as a peer, but we should move within the space we have, for politics is the art of the possible. Qatar has already set an example of this and was contrary to the interests of the Gulf countries.
If the GCC countries waited for permission from Washington to move the Peninsula Shield Force to Bahrain in order to maintain its security during the crisis — the approval for which has not come to this day — then Washington’s sacrifice of the Bahraini regime from the beginning of the Bahraini crisis might have manifested itself. The speech did not change until after security was restored with the help of the Peninsula Shield Force, which limited its mission to guard the vital, important places in Bahrain. This shows that pragmatic American cooperation based on shared interests does not change, whether it is with Gulf countries or others.
Gulf countries will not be able to halt the U.S. plans in our region entirely, but they can maneuver and play political games in order to receive some of the benefits which America already receives in the region. Iran has worked with this approach and took its share of the Iraqi cake, as an example. This shows the futility of absolute loyalty to the United States, which will not return the favor.
Most of the Gulf’s oil goes to the U.S., and all the weapons in the Gulf were purchased from the United States, who chooses the type and quantities of weapons. American oil companies are spreading in our region. So what prevents us from playing these cards to our advantage? And are we active parties in making decisions that affect our region and its surroundings?
And finally, is it possible to eliminate Iraq from our sight and become strategically reliant on Iran and the region in which Iran’s influence has spread, threatening our strategic and societal security, and even our food?
If we had intervened from the beginning in determining the fate of Iraq, Iraq might have given us food, workers, economic revitalization and Gulf ports. It could be a bridge between us and Europe and a strategic weight for the Gulf countries. Instead, we have terrorism, evil, and acts of sabotage because of Iran’s almost complete dominance. We must join the Gulf countries’ efforts together and unite their positions so we are not toys in the hand of American political parties and trading companies who play with us however and whenever they like. The knife may come close to the neck after Iran does what it did in Bahrain and Kuwait. If we do not wake up from our slumber, we will never be able to wake up.
There is hardly a problem that affects the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) besides those caused by not dealing with the United States in accordance with our own interests like we do with the whole world, except the Zionist country.
It affects sentiments in our political dealings with Gulf countries. We consider the U.S. a friendly country, a friendship in the social sense of the word, which is true to one of its most fundamental principles. Meanwhile, our cooperation with the U.S. as a political ally is used and directed by its national interests, or the interests of some of its parties, or sometimes just some of its influential figures. Furthermore, trading companies rush to play in our region because of our sanctification of the relationship with Washington.
This is evidenced by the United States’ sacrifice of its allies among the heads of the Arab world when it stood against them during the demonstrations, which arose in the Arab World without foreign influence from other regions or countries.
We cannot ask the GCC to deal with the U.S. as a peer, but we should move within the space we have, for politics is the art of the possible. Qatar has already set an example of this and was contrary to the interests of the Gulf countries.
If the GCC countries waited for permission from Washington to move the Peninsula Shield Force to Bahrain in order to maintain its security during the crisis — the approval for which has not come to this day — then Washington’s sacrifice of the Bahraini regime from the beginning of the Bahraini crisis might have manifested itself. The speech did not change until after security was restored with the help of the Peninsula Shield Force, which limited its mission to guard the vital, important places in Bahrain. This shows that pragmatic American cooperation based on shared interests does not change, whether it is with Gulf countries or others.
Gulf countries will not be able to halt the U.S. plans in our region entirely, but they can maneuver and play political games in order to receive some of the benefits which America already receives in the region. Iran has worked with this approach and took its share of the Iraqi cake, as an example. This shows the futility of absolute loyalty to the United States, which will not return the favor.
Most of the Gulf’s oil goes to the U.S., and all the weapons in the Gulf were purchased from the United States, who chooses the type and quantities of weapons. American oil companies are spreading in our region. So what prevents us from playing these cards to our advantage? And are we active parties in making decisions that affect our region and its surroundings?
And finally, is it possible to eliminate Iraq from our sight and become strategically reliant on Iran and the region in which Iran’s influence has spread, threatening our strategic and societal security, and even our food?
If we had intervened from the beginning in determining the fate of Iraq, Iraq might have given us food, workers, economic revitalization and Gulf ports. It could be a bridge between us and Europe and a strategic weight for the Gulf countries. Instead, we have terrorism, evil, and acts of sabotage because of Iran’s almost complete dominance. We must join the Gulf countries’ efforts together and unite their positions so we are not toys in the hand of American political parties and trading companies who play with us however and whenever they like. The knife may come close to the neck after Iran does what it did in Bahrain and Kuwait. If we do not wake up from our slumber, we will never be able to wake up.