US Middle East policy in ruins

(a) Support democratic Lebanon to get rid of Syrian troops;

(b) Marginalize Syria and Iran to minimize their political influence in the region;

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

(c) Democratize Iraq and other Arab countries.

All these goals are in total ruins due to the administration's misconceived and flawed policies. They firstly relied on hard power and secondly they have no adequate political experience or perception as the French or British have in the Middle East. Hard power cannot resolve political conflict, that is a lesson history tells us.

The Middle East is a land of past historical "great games" and politics has never been participatory or democratic. The colonial powers divided the lands among themselves and used strongmen to exploit the resources of the region.

The Bush administration looks at things as "good or evil." But in reality nothing is absolutely good or evil in politics.. Machiavelli and Henry Kissinger did not believe morality in politics. The Bush administration's difficulty has been that President Bush thinks that he has "a divine mission" in the world and he wants to achieve it through hard power.

In my view, some of the flawed policies of the Bush administration originate in their simplistic interpretation of events, followed by messianic mission.

Unlike his father, President Bush has totally been identified with interests of Israel. President Bush Sr. viewed himself as a neutral arbiter in the delicate politics of the Middle East. This President Bush, unlike his father, has deep roots in the evangelical Christian community, a staunchly pro-Israeli component of his conservative Republican Party

By supporting blindly Israel against Hezbollah in Lebanon, the democratic structure of Lebanese government that the US propped it up early in the year has been under severe strains. Not only Hezbollah became popular among Arab people, Syrian influence has stealthily come back because Lebanon needs security and protection from Israeli senseless attacks.

It is noted that Lebanon is not a secular country from the very beginning. It is divided into religious factions and each religious party has its own elected representatives. While a Christian is the president, the prime minister is a Muslim, and that is the compromise made for its political survival.

The US and Israel consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization but they forget that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. To the British, George Washington would have been currently categorized as "terrorist." Three former Prime Ministers of Israel were categorized as terrorists by the British because they murdered British representatives. Accordingly, the expression "terrorist" is a term used according to one's own perception only. There is nothing absolute about it and that is why the UN fails to define who is a terrorist. The term has its ordinary and political connotation.

Furthermore Hezbollah is neither a political party nor an Islamist militia. It is a broad movement that evolved in reaction to Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. At first it consisted of a small organization of Shi'ite supporters. Gradually as more and more Lebanese came to witness Israel's injustice and occupation, it became an umbrella organization that coordinate resistance operations with the support of a loose collection of groups of dedicated and committed supporters against Israel. Had Israel not invaded Lebanon in 1982, Hezbollah might not have ever existed.

Professor Robert Pape of Chicago University who had extensively dealt with a number of terrorist organizations, writes: "What these suicide attackers and their heirs today shared was not a religious or political ideology, but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. The only thing that has been proved to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force."

The second goal of marginalizing the influence of Syria and Iran has backfired because the "Shi'ite Crescent" now runs from Beirut to Tehran. Both Hezbollah and Iran have stood taller before the Arab world. The Israeli power has no chance of destroying Hezbollah and those who think so are on the wrong side of history. Given total Syrian control of its border with Lebanon, how can you marginalize the role of Syria in Lebanon? Tehran's foreign minister's visit to Damascus speaks volumes of nature of the long-held friendship.

Tehran has now full control of the situation and is calm. The Iraqi government currently supports Hezbollah, much to the surprise to the Bush administration. Moqtada Al Sadr of Iraq even threatened to take the war to Israel. Saddam Hussein was a counter-point to Tehran but with the collapse of the Hussein regime, Tehran's dominance is now total. Its nuclear program under the current political circumstances is not likely to be discontinued. Israel's conflict with Hezbollah is inseparable from the political architecture of the region. Even if sanctions are imposed by the UN Security Council on Iran, past experience shows that they do not work.

The third goal of democratization of Iraq has been a "joke" because Iraqi people have not seen peace since March 2003. Statistics reveal that at least 100 people die every day due to sectarian violence. It has been reported that on August 3, General John Abizaid, the top general of the Iraqi military theatre, told the US Senate in blunt terms that Iraq could slide into civil war, while his boss Defence Secretary Rumsfeld, present at the meeting, did not counter his assessment. The general dampened the expectations that large number of troops might return home this year.

The Bush doctrine of creating democracy in the Middle East with bombs may likely go down in history as one of the greatest failures of this administration's long list of spectacular misadventures in US history.

What a pity. What a wonderful world it would have been if Israel were restrained to use disproportionate force by the Bush administration. To allies and foes in the Middle East, the Bush administration has lost its credibility and influence. The UN Security Council's proposed resolution for cease-fire is too little and too late.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.