Beirut-There is nothing surprising about US President Barack Obama's new strategy in Afghanistan, as there the interests of the great powers meet and international partnership is strengthened to prevent Afghanistan from turning into a base for launching “violent extremism”, or terrorism as it used to be called, not just towards the United States, but also towards Russia, through the five republics of Central Asia, and towards China, where resides a sizable Muslim minority. There is nothing surprising about the stances taken by the five permanent members of the Security Council towards Iran – through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – which has warned the Islamic Republic of Iran that patience regarding its nuclear issue has begun to run out, while Iran's leadership boasts that it is above accountability, and that no international measures, through sanctions or embargo, will reach it, regardless of how arrogant it gets at the nuclear level, uses the weapon of holding hostages or wages proxy wars. The United States, Russia, China and NATO member-states meeting over Afghanistan and Iran is no passing event, but rather a development for which some time is required to find out whether it reflects the soundness of Barack Obama's logic in the policy of the two tracks, that of engagement and that of preparing the common grounds with an international partnership, in order to take measures in case the “carrot” of acceptance were to fail… or whether it is a matter that was imposed by political realism, after Tehran excessively misinterpreted international relations, and after it became clear to the US President that the masters of “violent extremism” could not be allowed to defeat a great power for the second time – meaning here the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the possibility of defeating the US in this escalating hotspot. It is noteworthy that the climate in the US favors a form of American “isolationism” that opposes waging foreign wars, particularly in Afghanistan or Iran, and wishes it could “close off” the doors of the United States of America and “cleanse” it of anything and everything that threatens its national interest, while focusing on resolving fundamental internal issues such as the economy, health care and paying off its massive debts. Yet political reality has forced the establishment to endorse a policy which Obama promoted at first, then hesitated to adopt, before realizing that he had no choice but to engage in a near-battle against his own popular and partisan base because of it – in other words, the war in Afghanistan. This is indeed an important chapter in American life, in Obama's progress and his political fate, in international relations, both bilateral and multilateral, in the future of international partnership, as well as in the fate of the United States' monopoly of the position of the world's sole superpower. What the governments, leaders and elites of the Middle East should most importantly avoid is misinterpreting this phase of American history being forged under Barack Obama's presidency. This week, the Pew Research Center, in collaboration with the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, published a report about “America's place in the world”, based on an opinion poll at the American popular and elite level, which revealed that isolationist sentiment in the US has today reached its highest point in four decades. The poll took an in-depth look at popular and elite views on world issues – and particularly on Obama's approach – amidst the global rise of China, the financial crisis and the ongoing war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It will not be easy for the US President to market what is being referred to as “Obama's war in Afghanistan”, especially with his popular base, most of which seems to belong to the new “isolationist” class. Indeed, this popular base refused to listen carefully to Barack Obama the candidate when he spoke plainly of the necessity of completing the war in Afghanistan against Al-Qaeda and similar groups, making it a slogan of his while demolishing the war of his predecessor George W. Bush in Iraq. Today, this segment of the popular base awakens to find itself “deceived”, knowing that it may well have deceived itself, as it refused to listen while entirely engrossed in its hatred for George Bush and his war in Iraq. This segment of the US popular base wants to isolate itself, wants to completely withdraw from Iraq, does not want to confront Iran, and wants its president to change his mind about his war in Afghanistan. It also wants “terrorism” or “violent extremism” to remain outside American soil, to look the other way when violations of international law and international humanitarian law are committed, and to say to other nations: leave us alone, your problems are none of our business. One might say: why not? Why should the United States lead a war against violent extremism or terrorism, if it would be better for it to seclude itself in its greatness and to heal its economy while extremists destroy each other and extremism resolves the corruption that has spread in regions like Afghanistan? Why would it not turn a blind eye to Iran possessing the nuclear bomb or the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons in exchange for it ceasing to wage proxy wars in Iraq, Yemen or Lebanon – or even for nothing in return? Indeed, possessing nuclear weapons does not necessarily mean using them, so why not let countries in the Middle East become nuclear and let international military companies benefit from massive funds that might prove useful for the economy? Such “logic” seems naïve and dangerous to those who say that “political realism”, regardless of its extent, has its restrictions and its limits. Indeed, allowing the forces of extremism to emerge victorious in Afghanistan will not remain confined to the borders of Afghanistan. It would be equivalent to investing in strengthening extremism and encouraging it to strike everywhere, including against Russia and China, as against the United States primarily and certainly on its soil. Indeed, violent extremism is no cure for corruption. It may be in the US's interest not to get dragged into what has become known as the Afghanistan quagmire. And it might be said that the Afghans and their partners should “listen” to each other, instead of being given pretexts to target the United States, or Russia through the Islamic republics for instance. However, the main problem lies in the fact that Afghanistan has become an American legacy, beginning with the US manufacturing fundamentalism them, and reaching a US war against extremist fundamentalism through Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, its former ally, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the heart of America. The fact of the matter is that no US President has today the ability to withdraw from Afghanistan, for fear of a terrorist attack taking place on American soil once again, and of being blamed for it. This is why Barack Obama has listened to the advice of the military institution, and why major leaders in his administration now speak a language similar to that of George W. Bush, saying: we are waging the battle against terrorism or violent extremism “there” in Afghanistan (Iraq) so that it would not come to our own soil and our own cities. This is the formula that will change the opinions of those Americans who today debate the usefulness of the war in Afghanistan, as the fact is that, when it comes to terrorism within the United States, Americans line up behind military action wherever it may take place. At the level of Iran, the Iranian leadership may consider Afghanistan to be a repeated and multiplied opportunity for it as the US war there provides it with the option of partnership, i.e. of belonging to the “partnership of the big players” – which is what it strives for in any case. This is alongside Iran benefiting from Afghanistan being disarmed, so as not to have the Taliban returning strongly to its neighborhood and violent extremism of the kind of Al-Qaeda and similar groups growing to the point of threatening it in sectarian wars later. Yet what will not be possible for Tehran to wager upon is continuing to practice nuclear arrogance, proxy wars, methods of contingency and measures of internal repression, while at the same time entering the circle of the big players as a partner. Indeed, these countries will not allow Iran to think that it can dictate partnership – and what is meant here is Russia and China, not just the United States and Europe. The military balance, in particular with regards to the US, might not be able to open up a front against Iran at the same time as the war goes on in Afghanistan. Yet this does not mean that Iran can play the nuclear card and the card of violent extremism, in which it is a partner, to dictate upon the great powers an artificial partnership or to implement its aspirations to the possession of nuclear weapons and to regional hegemony. Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed El-Baradei was perhaps Iran's best friend, as he tried to explain its stances, please it, help it and ward off pressures against it. He leaves his post today probably with bitterness, because he really wanted to leave having achieved the success of the “logic” of patience, enticement, engagement and withholding. Indeed, Baradei's efforts had reached the point of being willing to leap on a UN Security Council resolution to entice Iran, yet he leaves with Tehran having torn his efforts and his investment in it to shreds. Careful interpretation of the international situation might benefit Iran and save it from the risks of arrogance. Indeed, the situation prevailing in Dubai as a result of its financial and economic crisis may facilitate tightening economic sanctions against Iran, knowing that the UAE is an important gateway for Iran's economy. Thus the stances of Russia and China on Iran's nuclear issue are of the utmost importance and send a clear message that they will not be able to provide Tehran with protection against sanctions indefinitely. Those two countries do not want Iran to possess nuclear weapons and they will not allow Iran to destroy an important partnership for them with the United States and NATO based not just on economy and politics, but also on warding off the threats of violent Islamic extremism. This is why partnership in Afghanistan is essential for the great powers, which certainly speak the language of their oil interests with Iran, but at the same time understand the language of security threats to their future.
