As we reach the eighth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 events, pressures increase on US President Barack Obama to take the necessary steps to combat what he calls “violent extremism” – a term that replaces the expression “war on terror” adopted by his predecessor George W. Bush, who had made the Iraq war his first step to taking revenge for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Perhaps the clearest aspect of inter-American disagreements is the battle of Afghanistan – referred to as “Obama's war”, as the new President believes that eliminating the nest of “violent extremism” must start from there. But the battles waged by the Al-Qaeda network and similar groups, as well as the battles of the other forces of extremism who seek after power in the Muslim and Arab region, and also the battles of spreading Iranian hegemony in the Middle East and Central Asia, are all battles that require for the Barack Obama Administration to be alert, so that it may determine where its comprehensive strategy really stands between the two sides: embracing dialogue as a “carrot” and eclipsing the idea of a “stick” from the prospects of the meaning of its messages, which the forces of moderation find too soft. Indeed, the window of opprtunity has begun to close in several issues, because of procrastination here and hesitation there, as is taking place in the Palestinian-Israeli issue, in the dispute between Iraq and Syria, in developments on the Lebanese scene, and where the nest of “violent extremism” is meeting with regional battles by proxy in Yemen with an Iranian role par excellence. Indeed, the allies of extremism are “strange bedfellows”, as they are originally enemies – speaking here of violent Muslim extremism and violent Jewish extremism, represented not just by the settlers, but also by the Netanyahu government, which in turn is being defended by American Christian extremism. What we speak of here is Israeli extremism and Iranian extremism meeting to make use of Arab extremism – each for its own carefully studied ends. However, what started with the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 and is still effective today remains the following: that Arabs first and last – and not Muslims in general – are the ones who have paid, are paying and will pay the highest price for 9/11. Thus it is time for the Arab popular base to carefully think about whether they want future generations to pay the price for this terrorist act, one committed by Arabs and carried forward by violent extremists in the name of revenge from America, or whether they will stand in the face of those who use the Arabs, making their future generations hostage to fabricated slogans when they are in fact the de facto allies of the enemies of the Arabs. It is also time for the American popular base to stop burying their heads in the sand, pretending to aim for justice while allying with the forces of Israeli extremism, which blatantly adopt violence as a policy and routinely violate international law. It is time for American public opinion to realize that defeating Jihadist terrorism, extremist violence or violent extremism equally requires the boldness to radically resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This not in compliance with the Israeli campaign being promoted by extremist American Jews which claims that the problem does not lie in Israeli settlements but rather in “Palestinian terrorism”, but rather because the fair resolution of the Palestinian tragedy and the establishment of the state of Palestine would pull the rug from under the feet of violent extremism or terrorism which targeted the US and will target it again if it remains in such a state of either ignorance or blind bias towards Israel. Indeed, the eighth anniversary of 9/11 must be an opportunity for self-reflection and for carefully examining the available choices to curb the whims of violence and extremism in all its forms. Certainly the Barack Obama Administration must be at the forefront of self-reflection and of reconsidering policies, so that it may efficiently lead within the United States and competently encourage Muslim and Arab moderation, instead of submitting to the forces of extremism without holding them accountable, in order to preserve dialogue and avoid any confrontation. Let us take Lebanon for instance, where the democratic experience, after the latest elections, is going through a difficult trial for domestic, regional and international reasons, and where the forces of moderation are being methodically undermined at the hands of the forces of defiance and the forces of extremism, with the contribution of US policy which lacks rigor, perenniality and perhaps even competence. Indeed, it has been seventy days since Prime Minister designate Saad Hariri has been trying to form a national consensus government, in which the opposition led by Hezbollah would participate. And despite the opposition losing the elections, the majority and the Prime Minister designate have sought to form a government cabinet that would please the minority in opposition through various ways, including the majority relinquishing its right to two-thirds of the number of ministers. Yet the opposition has determined to obstruct and paralyze their ability to form a government by putting forth impossible demands, represented by General Michel Aoun, who insisted on keeping his son-in-law who lost the elections as Minister of Telecommunications. At the end of the day, the opposition has proven that it wants to cancel out the results of the parliamentary elections by creating permanent vacuum resulting from not forming a government. Indeed, it previously created a vacuum in the Presidency as well as in Parliament, and is now creating governmental vacuum and threatening with dire consequences if its crippling demands are not met. Prime Minister designate Saad Hariri took a bold step this week when he presented President Michel Suleiman with a cabinet lineup that gives the opposition 10 ministers against 15 ministers for the majority and 5 ministers for the President of the Republic. The next bold and necessary step must come next week when the Prime Minister designate “steps down” without forming a cabinet. Then the President will ask either Saad Hariri or whomever the majority agrees upon to form the government. This will be the necessary opportunity to take a bold and fateful step, that of forming a technocratic government cabinet that would include all sects and confessions, yet without distributing portfolios on the basis of sectarian divisions. The President of the Republic is in turn required to be bold enough to take the necessary steps to prevent governmental vacuum, not just because hesitating to play his role will effectively lead to ending his term in office by turning him from a “consensual president” to a “contenting president” who yields to an opposition that assails the results of democratic elections and the constitutional rights of the Prime Minister designate appointed to form a government cabinet… But also because any laxity in this matter means allowing Hezbollah to undermine the sovereignty of the state at the civilian level, after having exceedingly undermined the sovereignty of the state at the military level by insisting on not relinquishing its weapons and using them for their own authoritarian ends and their plans based of an ideology that was rejected by Lebanese voters. For these reasons, the Obama Administration must realize the meaning of not caring about what happens in Lebanon. It must understand that its policies towards both Iran and Syria – the main regional players backing the opposition – are radically contributing to strengthening the forces of defiance against the forces of moderation, to undermining democracy in Lebanon and to the possibility of turning it more and more into an arena for Iran, Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias, Palestinian factions in opposition and the forces of “violent extremism” in its various forms. The Barack Obama Administration's infatuation with dialogue and its overlooking violations to protect such dialogue only constitute ammunition for Iran and Syria to persist in obstructing legitimate rule in Lebanon through their allies in the opposition and their crippling conditions. Indeed, the local players in the opposition will not be satisfied with anything because they want vacuum, which serves not just their authoritarian interests but also the interests of Iran and Syria, who are bargaining with the Barack Obama Administration over the policy of dialogue and its requirements. Realistically, it is holding the democratic process that took place in Lebanon hostage to Syrian-Iranian-American dialogue as a de facto situation. This is what the Barack Obama Administration must realize and rush to correct before it is too late. Indeed, its conciliatory messages are being abused to the greatest extent while it tarries as if buying time in its interest, while buying time in fact only serves the ranks of defiance and extremism at the expense of moderation, which the Obama Administration claims to be supporting. Lebanon is not the only stop on this mistaken path, so are Iraq and Palestine. Indeed, when Iraq's Prime Minister complained of Syria and asked it to hand over those accused of the Baghdad bombings, the US stance came as if giving the green light to Syria's excesses, as it called for dialogue between the two countries. Moreover, the United States at the Security Council – as it presides it this month – merely distributed Maliki's letter to the council's members, completely avoiding to show any support for the investigation requested by Maliki or for setting up an international tribunal that would punish those implicated. Even when the UAE delivered a letter containing information about it stopping a shipment of weapons from North Korea to Iran, Ambassador Susan Rice avoided describing this as a violation of Security Council resolutions, in an effort to safeguard dialogue with Iran, which in turn aims at avoiding strengthening sanctions against it if it continues to refuse to conform to demands of freezing uranium enrichment. Iran interferes in Iraq in order to further impose its hegemony. And Syria interferes in Iraq in what resembles a role-playing agreement with Iran within the parameters of the relationship of alliance between them. They both interfere in Lebanon, and they both abuse US flexibility to be increasingly rigid, in order to make use of the available window of opportunity. They both also continue to obstruct the efforts of the Palestinian Authority, as it is considered to be part of the ranks of moderation, rejected by the forces of defiance that include not just Syria and Iran but also Israel. Indeed, the Israeli government is in turn benefiting from the Obama Administration's procrastination, hesitancy and mistakes, and is thus becoming increasingly rigid in its stances towards settlement-building, as if it were fully confident that it will not be held accountable. It is fully confident that neither the US Administration, nor US Congress nor the American people will dare challenge it to make peace, or even to stop settlement-building, which contradicts international law to begin with. Indeed, it has succeeded at buying time – seven full months since the impetus of the fresh start of President Barack Obama – and is now wagering on a ridiculous gradual process it hopes will be promoted by Dennis Ross, which is now said to have become the spiral of US Policy towards all of the Middle East under Obama …the gradual approach in avoiding the establishment of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel. This kind of extremism in Israeli stances faced with complete US absolution from being held accountable will stir up more extremism on both the Arab and Muslim scenes. Thus we return to the vicious circle of “which one first?” while the people – American, Arab, Muslim and Israeli – pay the price of the partnership of violent extremism, to which one can be exposed even in the presence of governmental and popular awareness and determination. Of course resolving the Palestinian-Israeli issue will not alone lead to ending terrorism, but it will certainly radically contribute to resolving 50 percent of it. The rest of the battle is in itself colossal and dangerous, stretching to Saudi Arabia and Yemen, some of it inspired by Al-Qaeda and similar groups, some under suggestion and instructions from Iran, and some provoked by Israel according to carefully crafted policies, so as to keep terrorism a characteristic of the Arabs and justify its plans of settlement-building and expansion. Moreover, Israel does not mind for terrorism, extremism, the Jihadist mindset, Salafism and sectarian violence to spread throughout all Arab countries, as this would serve plans of division and dispersal and would prevent any Arab country from leading at the international level. Saudi Arabia is at the top of the list, because it is a member of the G20 and responsible for the Arab peace initiative, and also because there are those who consider it to play a pioneering role in partnership with the United States to prevent extremism from spreading – whether it is violent extremism, bloody extremism or terrorism. For all these reasons, the eighth anniversary of 9/11 must be an opportunity for the necessary careful examination of the means of recognizing mistaken policies and for profound thinking into the meaning of moving forward with things as they are, and with their consequences. And this applies to everyone concerned, whether Arabs or Americans.
