THE SPINE JULY 7, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
This is a common view in the Arab world, more common than is understood. And it is prevalent especially among those Arabs who just now are coming to terms with modernity. Of course, “there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what.” Thus spoke Yousef al-Otaiba, ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the United States, a savvy expert on intra-Islamic and intra-Arab affairs. The reporter is the Washington Times’ Eli Lake who discovers more important stories than its New York namesake. He cites the U.A.E. emissary as saying that “the benefits of bombing Iran’s nuclear program far outweigh the short-term costs such attack would impose.”
His remarks came at an Aspen Ideas Festival attended by other Middle East experts. Among these was Representative Jane Harman, an old intelligence hand in Congress, who observed that she had “never heard an Arab government official say that before. He was stunningly candid.”
Read the article on the Washington Times’ website.
Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic adds to Lake’s Washington Times report here, here and here. He notes that an Arab fear of an Iranian nuclear weapon is nothing new:
The Jews and Arabs have been fighting for one hundred years. The Arabs and the Persians have been going at for a thousand. The idea of a group of Persian Shi'ites having possession of a nuclear bomb scares Arab leader like nothing else -- it certainly scares them more than the reality of the Jewish bomb.
23 comments
Not to take anything away from the sagacity and diligence of Eli Lake, but is he really now working for the Washington Times? Isn't that kind of like being the promising new CFO of Enron circa October 2001? Is that really the best that neoconservative foreign policy journalists in DC can do these days?
- wildboy
July 7, 2010 at 10:50am
oops. Haaretz reports "...The UAE's Assistant Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Tareq Al-Haidan says the Emirates flatly opposes military action and favors talks to end Iran's nuclear standoff with the West. His comments were reported on Wednesday by the state news agency WAM. ..." Meanwhile, Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Graham visited with Fayyad in Ramallah (THAT must have been fun) yesterday. JPost today reports: "After a meeting with Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Jerusalem at the David Citadel Hotel on Wednesday, US Senators John McCain, Joseph Lieberman and Lindsey Graham held a press conference where they spoke about several pressing foreign policy issues in the region. Senator Lieberman used some very harsh language at the Wednesday press conference to describe the Iranian nuclear program, saying the US must do everything it can to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. The US will address the Iranian threat "through diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions if we can, but through military action if we must," said Lieberman. ..."
- K2K
July 7, 2010 at 10:52am
wildboy “Not to take anything away from the sagacity and diligence of Eli Lake, but is he really now working for the Washington Times? Isn't that kind of like being the promising new CFO of Enron circa October 2001? Is that really the best that neoconservative foreign policy journalists in DC can do these days?” Wildboy doesn’t care for the Arab view that would like to see Iran’s nuclear facilities taken out. But this is not what he says, the coward. He would rather attack the writer who reported that fact. One thing is sure, wildboy is not a promising CFO (why CFO and not CEO? I have an idea, but I’ll let that pass) of any company. Nor would anyone confuse him with a journalist of any political stripe. Lake is also a rapper: “Eli Lake (born July 9, 1972), is a national security correspondent for the Washington Times[1] and a frequent contributor to the Bloggingheads.tv. He was previously a national security reporter at the New York Sun[2] and the State Department correspondent for the UPI.[3] He is also a contributing editor for The New Republic.[4] In addition to his journalistic endeavours, Lake is an accomplished amateur rapper, focusing on old school jams. His specialty is improvisations which incorporate the political news of the day. Lake's rapping has been referenced on Talking Points Memo and he has collaborated with blogger Spencer Ackerman on some online rap projects [5]” It seems that Eli is the real “wildboy.”
- jdyer
July 7, 2010 at 11:54am
Jackson, thanks for the compliment. It's true that I'm not a old school hip-hop artist like The Real Wildboy Eli Lake (BTW, no self-respecting "rapper" would call themselves a "rapper" -- they are artists, like Nashville Recording Artists). I do have a significant connection with hip-hop, however, as a guy who looked just like me in high school was featured on the cover of TNR in November 1991 as, "The Real Face of Rap -- The "Black Music" That Isn't Either". Look it up in the TNR Archives.
- wildboy
July 7, 2010 at 12:38pm
wildboy "Jackson, thanks for the compliment. It's true that I'm not a old school hip-hop artist like The Real Wildboy Eli Lake (BTW, no self-respecting "rapper" would call themselves a "rapper"....." Who cares, what your view about "He cites the U.A.E. emissary as saying that “the benefits of bombing Iran’s nuclear program far outweigh the short-term costs such attack would impose.” Do you think he was lying?
- jdyer
July 7, 2010 at 1:25pm
I suppose that this CNN reporter is more to wildboy's taste: http://blog.camera.org/archives/2010/07/cnn_journalist_voices_admirati.html CNN Journalist Voices Admiration for Terrorist Inciter
- jdyer
July 7, 2010 at 1:35pm
If it's true that the Arabs fear the Iranian bomb more than the Israeli - er - Jewish - bomb why did they single out Israel at the UN? Secondly, it seems obvious that anything an Arab diplomat or spokesman says is immediately contradicted, so who knows what anybody is really thinking? Finally - "short term fallout" doesn't begin to describe what would happen if Iran were to be attacked. Israel would take a horrible pounding, world wide Muslim (and other) condemnation would ensue - not just at Israel but toward the US - and the Iranian nuclear facilities might well remain largely intact. I wouldn't bite into this poison apple, but rather think about the motives behind the offer. Does anybody seriously believe that Iranians and Arabs can't ALSO play "divide and conquer"? Are Arabs incapable of psy-ops? People need to wake up here and realize that Arab diplomats are also capable of playing "The Great Game" and if their motive is to see Israel and the US severely damaged then these tempting (and I think false) assurances should be regarded with huge suspicion. PS I take the threat of the bomb and the Iranian government's dreadful world view very seriously but violence has got to be an absolute last resort. And falling into a trap like this would just be nuts. Plus, Israel shouldn't be out there on a limb alone and that also applies to the US. Much as I am not a fan of GHW Bush, his skillful use of a large international coalition during the Kuwait crisis is to be emulated whereas going off half-cocked would be incredibly stupid and self-destructive. I also think an attack on Iran would pretty much kill off any nascent links to the West within Iran. Nothing makes even worse enemies than direct violence, an attack that would absolutely kill many civilians no matter how carefully it is planned. Also, consider this: I think at least one of the motives behind the Iranian nuclear effort is fear. They live right next door to the chaos and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan; it can't have escaped their notice how vulnerable they would be to attack by a superpower (this includes the Russians obviously.) We need to look hard (by we I include the Russians) at how our violent foreign policy has affected the mindset of people in the region who simply don't want to be attacked by a barrage of 21st century weapons and/or invaded by a foreign power. Note this doesn't get the Iranians off the hook; their rants are simply appalling and have to be taken seriously but their desire to remain on the planet is also a consideration. We see how Israeli fears of extinction drive their behavior - well the Iranians and other nations and people in the Middle East must feel the same way. Reducing the fear level and improving security in general would go a long way toward lowering the threat level.
- Sophia
July 7, 2010 at 2:41pm
Okay, jackoff, since you're dying to know my views on Eli Lake's reporting on the Emirati ambassador's views -- sure, I would assume he was quoted accurately in a room full of people. My sense is the good ambassador was also expressing his views a little more bluntly than his government actually believes, which is why they walked it back so fast and so hard. UAE to Iran today is a little like Switzerland to Germany in 1936 -- they would not be unhappy if stronger countries put them in their place but in the meantime they are happy to do business with them and keep their options open for living in their bigger neighbor's shade. Fact is, the UAE does a lot more business with Iran than the official import-export totals, as a great big chunk of the wealth of the Iranian elite is stashed in Emirati bank accounts and a not-insignificant portion of Emirati second-home real estate is owned by the Iranian elite. A conflagration in Iran that causes that wealth to evaporate or flee, or even sanctions that preclude the movement of the money to and from the UAE, is not necessarily in the Emirates' best interest -- bomb or no bomb. On the further subject of Jam Master Eli's credibility, I think that his reportage sirca 2002-04, especially about Iraqi WMD and the Iraq-Al Qaeda link (which he is still plugging on Jeffrey Goldberg's blog just last week) was a little less than fully accurate and correct. But, since Eli, Marty and Marty's Spiny Fanclub (which includes you as a member in good standing) firmly believe that today's Iraq is an inspiring democratic omlet worth every one of its 300,000 odd broken eggs, feel free to genuflect at the shrine of Eli Lake's reportage on Iran. Whatever makes you get up in the morning.
- wildboy
July 7, 2010 at 2:45pm
Wildasshole: “Okay, jackoff, since you're dying to know my views on Eli Lake's reporting on the Emirati ambassador's views” “But, since Eli, Marty and Marty's Spiny Fanclub (which includes you as a member in good standing) firmly believe that today's Iraq is an inspiring democratic omlet worth every one of its 300,000 odd broken eggs, feel free to genuflect at the shrine of Eli Lake's reportage on Iran. Whatever makes you get up in the morning.” I judge the accuracy of this asshole’s wild conjectural comments by what he said about me and I deduce that he has more passions than brains and more eagerness to shoot than accuracy of aim. I am neither a member of any fanclub and certainly not to any club to which you would belong, nor do I think that Iraq “is an inspiring democracy.” I don’t believe in imposing democracy on countries. I also don’t know what Eli Lake believes about Iraq’s “democracy.” I doubt that Marty thinks of it a democratic model. I do think that deposing Saddam was a good thing if for no other reason than that he was genocidal murderer. Of course to humanitarian assholes like you committing genocide is not big deal as long as the genociders are also anti-American and of course anti-Israel. To me the fact that the Kurds are free of Saddam’s tyranny is a good thing. Btw: the omelet metaphor is more up your leftist line than mine. Breaking eggs to form ideal and humanitarian societies is what leftists like you usually do. “On the further subject of Jam Master Eli's credibility, I think that his reportage sirca [SIC] 2002-04, especially about Iraqi WMD and the Iraq-Al Qaeda link (which he is still plugging on Jeffrey Goldberg's blog just last week) was a little less than fully accurate and correct.” You seem to vast omniscient powers knowing not only what Elie Lake knows and does, but also that what he knows is untrue. I don’t give a shit about WMD’s since their presence of absence there was of no importance in my wanting to get rid of Saddam. The Saddam and al Qaeda connection is a little more complicated but then you don’t deal in complexities, do you fatboy Finally, you said: “A conflagration in Iran that causes that wealth to evaporate or flee, or even sanctions that preclude the movement of the money to and from the UAE, is not necessarily in the Emirates' best interest -- bomb or no bomb.” And yet the ambassador to that country said that stoppoing Iran’s nuclear program would be in its countries best interests. Why do you think he said that, wildass?
- jdyer
July 7, 2010 at 5:06pm
This is what wildass was alluding to: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/06/on-that-dastardly-saddam-al-qaeda-connection/58901/ “On That Dastardly Saddam-al Qaeda Connection” Of course wildass is free to label any report about a Saddam al Qaeda connection as “neo conservative,” or a “zionist or Jewish plot,” but other less bigoted readers will keep an open mind.
- jdyer
July 7, 2010 at 5:19pm
Jackson, this is your psychiatrist guest-blogging for wildboy. I'm worried about you not taking your Zyprexa, especially with this heat we've been having this past week. Please take your prescribed dose and call me in the morning for an extra one, especially since you are now defending Eli Lake's reportage on how Iraq really had WMD's and how Saddam's regime really really really had meaningful links with Al Qaeda before 2003 (Eli knows this because some anonymous sources told him so). And that you are going back to calling everyone who disagrees with you an anti-Semite. That's not a good sign. Please call me when you settle down.
- wildboy
July 7, 2010 at 6:12pm
The last person in the known universe to be talking seriously about an Saddam-Al Qaeda connection was Dick Cheney, and he hasn't been sighted in months. There are tribes living in remote jungle clearings a thousand miles up the Amazon who are highly skeptical about a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection.
- ironyroad
July 7, 2010 at 6:54pm
wildboy “Jackson, this is your psychiatrist guest-blogging for wildboy. I'm worried about you not taking your Zyprexa,…” Keep your medications for yourself, fatboy. When you have nothing better to say like the good little moralistic commissar you are you are ready to turn psychiatrist. Elie Lake’s reporting on Iraq was no better and no worse than the reporting of many other news outlets including the NY Times. He also wasn’t the only person who thought that Saddam had WMD’s. Many an intelligence agency from Europe to North America believed the same thing. As for his ties to al Qaeda they weren’t disproven by any means. That bigots like you will not accept the evidence that neither here nor there. As I said before the US had good reasons to get rid of Saddam and it didn’t need either of these excuses. Stop playing moralist, fatboy, it’s obvious you don’t give a shit about what happened to the Kurds nor do you care if Iran will get nuclear weapons and use them on Israel. Your morality is self serving, fatboy!
- jdyer
July 7, 2010 at 6:57pm
ironyroad "The last person in the known universe to be talking seriously about an Saddam-Al Qaeda connection was Dick Cheney, and he hasn't been sighted in months." You comment isn't true and it isn't even Ironic. You'll need to change your ID soon if you keep posting such dumb jokes. Saddam, while a secular totalitairan, he did associate himself with Islamic figures from the late 90's: From an article sympathetic to the Islamist cause: "By the late 1980s the popularity of Islamism and the Islamist movement was such that the hitherto secular Arab nationalist Saddam Hussein, like Muammar Qaddafi before him, started to formally synthesise Islamism with Iraqi and Arab nationalist ideas into the social and political fabric of Iraq. The most outwardly visible example of this was adding ‘Allah u Ahkbar’ – Allah is the greatest – to the Iraqi flag during the war against Iraq in 1990. Saddam Hussein initiated a massive mosque building program, and attempted to co-opt the Islamic revival that was taking place into the Ba’athist strategy of positioning Iraq as the vanguard Arab nation resisting neocolonialism. Saddam Hussein may have chiefly been responsible in contributing to today’s synthesis of radical Arabism and Islamism, a view advanced by Jerry Long in his book, Saddam’s War of Words. The 1990 war against Iraq saw for the first time a unity between left-wing, nationalist and Islamist forces in the region and beyond against Western aggression." http://conflictsforum.org/2007/secularism-and-islamism-in-the-arab-world/ You need to do more reading on the subject before you put your oar in, Irony.
- jdyer
July 7, 2010 at 8:28pm
I don't know if you know it, JD, but there have been quite extensive investigations of the topic (including not only by the media but also reports by the CIA, the DIA, the DOD Inspector General, and others including in particular the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) and I think the general conclusions, summarized fairly, are that any such SH/AQ connections were either (a) unprovable, (b) unlikely to have had much operational substance if they did exist, and (c) certainly not validated enough for any U.S. policy decision to be based on them. These reports generated extensive public discussion when they came out, including in TNR. You may have been busy, however.
- ironyroad
July 7, 2010 at 8:55pm
ironyroad "I don't know if you know it, JD, but there have been quite extensive investigations of the topic..." you forgot to mention allah, he too invesitagted the topic and came to the same conclusion. Am I supposed to be impressed by a CIA investigation, the same agency that didn't foresee the demise of the Soviet Union, didn't anticipate 9/11 and couldn't give you clear instructions on how to cross a country road? This is what the dreaded "neo con" and all around Jewish conspirator Elie Lake says: "The IDA report debunks the wilder conspiracies that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks. But the report also undercuts the claim that Saddam Hussein, being a secular Ba'athist, was incapable of cooperating with radical Islamists who viewed the Iraqi dictator as an apostate ruler, Instead the report said that Iraq's relationship to radical Islamic terrorist groups was more like the relationship between rival Colombian cocaine cartels, in that it was possible for wary cooperation on mutual short term goals, and then violent competition later. "Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, 'terror cartel' that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime," the report said." http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/06/on-that-dastardly-saddam-al-qaeda-connection/58901/ Keeping an open mind is very difficult to do. In any case, to me Saddam's link to al Qaeda isn't the reason he had to go. It was his genocidal behavior towards the Kurds as well as his aggression towards his neighbors, his sponsorship of suicide bombers and his launching missiles at Israel in the first gulf war and last but not least his violation of the cease fire accords which forced the US to keep tens of thousands of troops in the desert. As long as he or his family were in power there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't repeat these criminal acts. As for the number of people killed many if not most of those deaths are attributable to the actions of Saddam loyalists as well as to Islamic fanatics. People who play moralist in foreign affairs almost always single out the wrong party: Saddam had killed many more people when he was in power. Had Saddam stayed in power the he wouldn’t have stopped killing in order to stay in power!
- jdyer
July 7, 2010 at 10:00pm
This week, Turkey is debating a major military incursion to destroy the (estimated) 5,000 PKK 'terrorists' in Iraqi Kurdistan. Will that interfere with "The Islamabad-Tehran-Istanbul international freight train will start regular operation with daily trips from mid summer, Pakistani Minister of Railways Haji Ghulam Ahmed Bilour announced. "Turkey will send a freight train to Islamabad on August 1 and after that freight trains will travel between Iran, Pakistan and Turkey on a regular basis," Bilour said. " (most concise quote from Farsnews June 6, 2010) What could possibly go wrong with daily freight trains from Islamabad, Pakistan to Tehran, Iran to Istanbul, Turkey?
- K2K
July 7, 2010 at 10:04pm
"But the report also undercuts the claim that Saddam Hussein, being a secular Ba'athist, was incapable of cooperating with radical Islamists who viewed the Iraqi dictator as an apostate ruler, " Didn't he instruct his henchme to chart out for him a lineage going back to Mohammad? And didn't he donate his own blood to be used instead of ink for writing Quranic verses? Such extraordinary measures are hardly the type of actions associated with secularist dictators. I mean, I really dislike Assad but I cannot imagine him doing anything like this.
- noga1
July 7, 2010 at 10:06pm
It's still too hot JD and I can't summon up the vim and vigor for mutual slinging of red herrings and straw men. I have an open mind but what I was really pointing up was that casual talk of operational connections (often ostensibly "vague" but designed to leave an impression) between SH and AQ were part of the Bush administration sushi menu that got Americans to buy into the war. Allah himself investigated the topic?
- ironyroad
July 7, 2010 at 10:56pm
How the heck did we get to talking about Iraq? Anyway, the topic is Iran and I had another thought about this vis a vis the Arabs who are supposedly so afraid of Iran. I propose this: if they are concerned about the Iranian nuclear facilities, which as sane people they probably are, why don't they join a large coalition force - I mean including actual soldiers; and/or help impose sanctions and/or help Iran "engage" with the rest of the world so we don't wind up with a catastrophe? PS - vis a vis Iraq - it would be a real disaster if people, because of flawed intelligence about Iraq, refused to believe that Iran is serious.
- Sophia
July 7, 2010 at 11:09pm
oy. Ambassador al-Otaiba had more to say to The Atlantic. Goldberg is still working on his notes, so this is from Elizabeth Weingarten, an intern (no doubt the pawn of Sullivan): "...Iran doesn't need to wait for nuclear weapons in order to cause trouble, however. For years it has supported Hezbollah and Hamas as proxies in a fight against Israel. Al-Otaiba said creating a Palestinian state would undermine Iran because popular support for the terrorist groups would diminish once Palestinians achieve statehood. "We believe that progress on the peace process will ultimately lead to a better landscape for dealing with Iran," he said. "Hamas and Hezbollah's reason to exist is [to be] a resistance movement. They are there because they want a Palestinian state." Later, Al-Otaiba said the U.S. has a stake in this saga. "The sooner the U.S. appears to be objective and impartial and create a Palestinian state, we take that argument [of not addressing the needs of Palestinians] away from everyone" like Hamas and Hezbollah. " http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/07/what-does-the-uae-think-about-iran-and-israel/59286/
- K2K
July 7, 2010 at 11:38pm
“Outside the box, or out of their minds?” By Michael Young http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=116836# “A perennial shortcoming in America’s interactions with the Middle East is that they tend to emerge from insular discussions. Policy is the result of calculations that usually rotate around Washington. Consequently, regional realities are frequently ignored, poorly understood, or bent out of shape to fit a favored agenda. This was the case in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Disagreements between different government bureaucracies, civilian and military, played themselves out through media leaks. Intellectuals, too, hotly debated the merits of war. However, the Iraqis were marginal in the commotion, which is why so many Americans were taken aback by what happened once Baghdad fell. The latest twist on this failing comes from the exchange now taking place in some American policy circles and the military over whether to engage Middle Eastern militant Islamist groups, particularly Hizbullah and Hamas. Last week, Mark Perry, author of a book advocating talking to Islamists, published a blog post on the Foreign Policy website saying that a recent “red team” report by senior officers in US Central Command had proposed a new approach to Hizbullah and Hamas. The officers cast doubt on the current American isolation of the groups, Perry wrote, and they recommended “integrating the two into their respective political mainstreams.” The officers also revived the idea of incorporating Hizbullah and Hamas into their government-backed security forces, arguing: “The US role of assistance to an integrated Lebanese defense force that includes Hizballah; and the continued training of Palestinian security forces in a Palestinian entity that includes Hamas in its government, would be more effective than providing assistance to entities – the government of Lebanon and Fatah – that represent only a part of the Lebanese and Palestinian populace respectively.” (Italics in the original.) Perry noted that while the officers acknowledged that Hizbullah and Hamas “embrace staunch anti-Israel rejectionist policies,” they added that the two groups are “pragmatic and opportunistic.” Here was a controversial example of “thinking outside the box” on Hizbullah and Hamas, Perry opined. It was precisely the opposite. A bevy of Americans essentially made assumptions with no grounding whatsoever in the reasoning of either of the two Islamist groups. Worse, the officers lazily lumped Hizbullah and Hamas together, even though both have different aims and operate in significantly different political contexts. This was thinking made in Washington, directed at Washington, based on terms largely defined by Washington. It was the pure product of a closed Washington box. Let’s start with the last point raised by the officers, namely the fact that Hizbullah and Hamas are pragmatic and opportunistic. Of course they are, but it’s worth recalling Lenin in these instances. One can be pragmatic and opportunistic in the pursuit of firm goals (and opposition to Israel and the United States are essential to the Islamists’ goals). In the case of Hizbullah and Hamas, their overriding goal can be defined as the accumulation of greater power at the expense of what Perry calls their political mainstreams. But let’s be more specific. Hizbullah, at least its leadership and security cadre, is an extension of Iran. The party is there primarily to defend and advance Iranian regional interests, even if Tehran has anchored Hizbullah, or allowed it to anchor itself, in the Lebanese Shiite condition. That means that Hizbullah will never defy Iranian directives when it comes to matters as fundamental as the United States or Israel. As for Hamas, its ultimate ambition is to seize control of the Palestinian national movement, supplant Fatah, and redefine the conflict with Israel in terms the movement prefers. Both groups believe in what they’re doing and regard “resistance” as an ideal, one lying at the heart of a worldview defined largely by their religion. Where they have been pragmatic – for example by participating in national elections – they have been so for tactical gain, in order to enhance their authority and rework the political environment in their favor. When these groups see Americans, not least American soldiers, contorting themselves to justify flexibility toward militant Islamists, they assume, rightly, that their political strategy is working. And if a strategy is working, why do anything to overhaul it? Then there are the specifics the officers raised. They appeared to be unaware that Hizbullah has spent years resisting integration into the Lebanese “mainstream” and army, yet they toss this out as a given. Hizbullah has no desire to integrate and never did. Rather, it seeks to neutralize the ability of the Lebanese state and the society to challenge the party’s military autonomy. Hizbullah has largely been successful: it has great sway over the commanding heights of government and the army, especially its intelligence services. Similarly, Hamas will only integrate into the Palestinian security forces once it is sure that it won’t be obliged to surrender its freedom of military action. The officers’ statement that American aid would be more effective if it went to integrated national forces in Lebanon and Palestine is true. However, so self-evident a remark hardly qualifies as original. Nor does it have any basis in reality. Hizbullah and Hamas will continue to preserve their autonomy because they can. All else is idle chatter. Which leads us to another alcove in this secluded Washington conversation. If the US considers opening a new page with Hizbullah and Hamas, what happens to the domestic adversaries of these groups who are closer to Washington politically? What dynamics might such openings release? Plainly, initiating negotiations with Hamas would undermine the Palestinian Authority. But what of Hizbullah? Lebanon is a complex place. Barring for a moment that Hizbullah has made it amply clear that it has nothing to discuss with the Americans, what might the Americans try to put on the table with the party? Greater Shiite representation? Disarmament? On all of these, the US would run into successive walls of Lebanese contradictions. That’s the difficulty in the “talk to Islamists” scheme. It is entirely America-centric, built on an assumption that the obstacles come from Washington and have nothing to do with the ideology and convictions of the Islamist groups themselves. It also rests on a Yankee notion that everyone secretly yearns to talk and that dialogue can resolve most issues. That’s not innovative thinking; it’s a case of transposing America to the minds of others, which is either naive or astonishingly smug.” "Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. His “The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle” (Simon & Schuster) has just been published."
- jdyer
July 7, 2010 at 11:53pm
"When these groups see Americans, not least American soldiers, contorting themselves to justify flexibility toward militant Islamists, they assume, rightly, that their political strategy is working. And if a strategy is working, why do anything to overhaul it?" There you have it in a nutshell.
- jacko
July 8, 2010 at 10:21am