What is the nature of U.S. policy on the Middle East? Is there one U.S. foreign policy? Or are we facing multiple American policies in the Middle East? The answer to this and many other questions remains incomplete if we do not consider American-Israeli policies in this region. I suffice myself here with what we have seen in recent years alone. The policies of the George W. Bush administration were drafted and implemented by the American Likudniks who act on behalf of Israel and no one else. These policies had disastrous implications for the Arabs and Muslims, from Iraq to Afghanistan and across every other country. But America, too, lost along with us. Then Barack Obama came. He has been sincere in attempting to open a new chapter with the people of the region. However, both houses of the U.S. Congress support Israel at the expense of all American interests, and both have the ability to hinder the administration's policies. Thus, we saw President Barack Obama promise but not deliver, because he simply can't. We must therefore tackle U.S. policies in the Middle East, without overlooking its Israeli aspect. We find that following the youths' uprisings in several countries, the U.S. administration talks about all possible policies, but that this ends up as usual as words without deeds. Perhaps Egypt is a clear example of the administration's position, or positions to be more precise, and the confusion of the ‘non-policy' that it has pursued. President Barack Obama advised President Mubarak, following the millions-strong demonstrations in Tahrir Square, to step down immediately. However, the U.S. Secretary of State said after this at the European security summit in Munich that transition to democracy takes time, and that it must be orderly. At the same summit, the official U.S. envoy to Mubarak, Frank Wisner, said that Mubarak must stay and oversee the required reforms. I read after this in the New York Times that President Obama was extremely angered by his Secretary of State, and that a dispute ensued on the policies that must be pursued. This confusion seems strange because President Barack Obama issued on 11/8/2010 a Presidential Study Directive, asking relevant agencies in the U.S. administration to prepare for change in the Middle East. He cited in the document growing discontent among the peoples and that the region is entering a critical period of transition. This took place six months or so before the revolution in Egypt. Secretary Clinton had also said in Doha in January that people have grown tired of corrupt institutions and a stagnant political order and that they want change. Two days ago, she returned to Egypt to experience firsthand the kind of change that transpired, as the youths' leaders refused to meet with her. How can the U.S. administration expect change then pronounce contradictory stances, only to appear as though it were surprised by change such as in the case of Hosni Mubarak? Going back to the permanent Israeli aspect present in the policies of each successive administration in the United States, the stance taken by Washington remains primarily based on the premise that, if the Egyptian President is not Mubarak, then what is required is a president like him who would commit to preserving the peace treaty with Israel, and who is not hostile to its interests. The problem in this policy is that the Egyptian people does not approve of an Egyptian national policy that serves the interests of Israel. The people has proven that it can impose their demands even on the Egyptian army – the only coherent, strong and enduring branch of any Egyptian order. Israel's interests also stirred an internal American debate regarding the Islamists and their influence on Arab uprisings. Officials in the administration concluded that they will be forced to deal with these Islamists, especially as the latter are not a single homogenous entity. By contrast, Islamists range from being al-Qaeda terrorists and members of other similar groups, the Taliban and its reactionary dogma and isolation, and the Justice and Development Party which has an Islamist background and its success in a democratic secular country. The Islamists are not behind any of the Arab revolutions. They merely got on the bandwagon for change and will have a large slice of representation in any government in Arab countries that truly transitions towards democracy. Since the Arab peoples without exception are opposed to Israel and the occupation and its crimes, the U.S. administration will indeed find itself facing a new situation in the Middle East, a situation that it had anticipated but did not know how to deal with. Perhaps the U.S. administration would have won the trust of the Arab public if it had dealt firmly with Libya, since we find a rare popular Arab consensus present today on the need for Muammar Gaddafi, who is killing his people every day, to step down. However, President Barack Obama said that Gaddafi must leave but then did nothing at all to help the opposition, until Gaddafi started prevailing again. U.S. policy in the Middle East will no doubt pay the price for its bias towards Israel, and for its mistakes and sins against the peoples of the region. [email protected]
