The policy that America is currently adopting is a policy of disengagement in the Middle East and anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken. Just as a reminder, the stated politics of George W. Bush in our region consisted of implementing the "freedom agenda," one that led to the killing of one million Arabs and Muslims, either directly through the wars, or indirectly as a result of these wars. This agenda also led to destroying the chances of democracy in several promising countries. Then, Barack Obama came to office. The pro-Israeli, rather than pro-USA Congress, deliberately hindered all of Obama's domestic and foreign policies. Thus, the president failed to keep any of the promises that he had made during his speech at the University of Cairo in 2009, although I am convinced that Obama had good intentions. The American president probably thought that the so-called Arab spring represents a new opportunity. He thus announced, two years ago, that the consolidation of democracy in the Middle East represents a "top priority" for his Administration. The same spring however turned into a fall and all Obama's attempts failed. All what the Congress cared about was to fight Israel's wars from Syria to Iran and vice versa. Suddenly, the politics of the Administration became confined to the "basic interests," i.e. to the oil supply and terrorism countering, although the president himself had said two years ago: we know that our future is connected to this region via the forces of economy, security, history, and belief. Suzan Rice, the national security advisor, has very good intentions just like the president. She however reached a similar conviction with respect to the disengagement. In an interview with the New York Times, she summarized the Administration's new policies by saying: "We can't just be consumed 24/7 by one region." Other members of the Administration insisted that this was no disengagement, but rather "a question of doing what's doable." Perhaps it is best for the American Administration to do nothing at all, because by trying to please everyone, no one will eventually feel content. One must consider that, currently, a war is raging in Egypt against the terrorism of the Muslim Brotherhood; armed chaos is prevailing in Libya; a devastating civil war is raging in Syria; in addition to an unannounced civil war in Iraq. The politics of disengagement mean that the American Administration is solely working for two purposes: the dismantlement of the chemical weapons in Syria; and preventing Iran from carrying out uranium enrichment above twenty percent, thus maintaining a limited and peaceful nuclear program there. These are purely Israeli objectives. Syria and Iran can never represent a threat to the USA, neither now, nor in a thousand years. Nevertheless, the Obama Administration shrank its politics in the Middle East according to Israel's wishes, knowing that the latter is practicing occupation, killings, and destruction and that it surely possesses a nuclear arsenal. Of course, the Americans are not saying that they are carrying out the Israeli policies. They have rather limited their main interests to the oil and efforts to counter terrorism. However, these two matters do not really need a policy: the oil producing countries want to sell their oil; and all countries that have been scourged with terrorism will try to confront it, be it with or without America. Between brackets, the Israeli policies are the reason behind the launching of terrorism in our region and the world. America's support to Israel caused terrorism to increase. America paid the price and will keep on paying, as long as its policies in the Middle East are biased in Israel's favor. I believe that the USA will pay the price for the disengagement, just like it did for the "high priority" policy, unless it modifies the politics that all the region's governments and populaces have agreed to reject. [email protected]
