US Realists, Neocons And The War In
Syria
15 August 2012By Ramzy Baroud
Pletka wants Washington to 'stop subcontracting
Syria policy.' (C-SPAN)
In US political circles, the Syria conflict is
increasingly being presented as a discussion
pertaining to Israeli interests. This attitude is not
substantially different from the way US politicians
and media weighed in on the Egyptian January 25
revolution and its aftermath. Egypt mostly matters
because of the US-brokered Camp David treaty of 1979,
which benefited Israel beyond all expectations. The
treaty had ushered in a false period of peace; it
turned Egypt into an American ally, largely alienating
it from its Arab political context.
When it comes to US foreign policy in the Middle East,
Israel represents a point of departure for many in the
US political establishment. Neoconservative groups
have long defined US foreign policy in the region.
Their most crucial and unifying concern is Israel's
security and any threat, real or imagined, to Israel's
regional domination.
The neocons clustered through various organizations
and think tanks. Most visible among them was the
Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which
included very influential foreign policy individuals.
PNAC's ‘vision' was seen as the roadmap that guided
George W. Bush in his war against Iraq, the sanctions
against Iran, and the overall hostile relationship
that defined (and continues to define) US foreign
policy in the Middle East. Tainted by the disastrous
foreign policy, PNAC folded, only to be reinvented two
years ago with the advent of the Foreign Policy
Initiative (FPI).
The neocons are duly challenged. Their critics in the
establishments are the ‘realists' (as described by
former Secretary of State James Baker in a recent
interview with Foreign Policy). The so-called realists
are far less organized than the neocons. They were
simply empowered by the latter's mammoth failures. Now
the neocons are making a comeback, thanks to the
golden opportunities presented by ongoing conflicts
throughout the Middle East.
"Our biggest threat today isn't Syria, or even Iran,
or Russia or China," Baker told Foreign Policy. "Our
biggest threat today is our own economy, and we cannot
continue to be strong diplomatically, politically, and
militarily and be weak economically" (August 9).
Baker, of course, hasn't completely abandoned Israel.
The problem is that the pro-Israel camp is asking for
a military intervention in Syria and an escalation
against Iran, both of which come with a high political
and financial price tag — one that the US cannot
afford.
Another ‘realist' is Aaron David Miller, a former US
adviser on the Middle East (to six Secretaries of
State) and a member of the US Advisory Council of
Israel Policy Forum. Writing in the Philadelphia
Inquirer on August 6, in an article entitled ‘Syria:
Let's Stay out of It', Miller stated, "Syria today is
a mess — but it's a Syrian mess. Afghanistan and Iraq
should teach us that America can't control the world.
It's time for the United States to focus on fixing its
own broken house instead of chasing the illusion that
it can always help repair somebody else's."
However, this ‘realist' estimation by Miller was
further discussed in his article in Foreign Policy two
days later. In ‘Winners and Losers of Syria's Civil
War,' Miller argued that Israel was a possible winner
in case of Bashar Al Assad's fall.
"The good news for the Israelis is that Iran and
Hezbollah will be weakened by Al Assad's fall. The bad
news is that like so much of the Arab Spring/ Winter,
the impending transition brings with it enormous
uncertainty."
US intervention in Libya was a much easier decision
for both neocons and realists. A letter was organized
by the Foreign Policy Initiative and signed by 40
policy analysts, calling on President Barack Obama's
administration to arm Libyan rebels and to
"immediately' prepare for military action to bring
down the Libyan regime under Muammar Gaddafi. The
neocons' calls at the time were hardly rejected as
‘unrealistic'. According to Jim Lobe, they were "a
distinct echo of the tactics they pursued to encourage
US intervention in the Balkans and Iraq." Of course,
they got what they asked for in Libya. Now, the
neocons are pushing for another intervention in Syria.
"Washington must stop subcontracting Syria policy to
the Turks, Saudis and Qataris. They are clearly part
of the anti-Al Assad effort, but the United States
cannot tolerate Syria becoming a proxy state for yet
another regional power," wrote Danielle Pletka, a
leading neocon and vice-president of Foreign and
Defence Policy studies at the American Enterprise
Institute (Washington Post, July 20).
Despite immense hesitation from the Obama
administration, the neocons are now trying to weasel
in their version of an endgame in Syria. Their efforts
are extremely focused and well-coordinated, making
impressive use of their direct ties with the Israeli
lobby, major US media and Syrian leaders in exile.
Writing in CNN online, Elise Labott reported on a
recent neoconservative push to upgrade American
involvement in Syria, urging "the Obama administration
to increase its support of the armed opposition" (CNN,
August 1).
The ‘experts' included Andrew Tabler of the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), another
pro-Israel conduit in Washington, established in 1985
as a research department for the influential Israeli
lobby group, AIPAC. Obama obliged under pressure from
the ‘experts'. According to CNN, he signed a secret
order "referred to as an intelligence ‘finding,'
allow[ing] for clandestine support by the CIA and
other agencies."
More, On July 31, AIPAC urged all members of Congress
to sign on a bill introduced by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
and Howard Berman. Entitled ‘The Iran Threat Reduction
and Syria Human Rights Act (H.R.1905)', the bill, if
passed, "will establish virtual state of war with
Iran," according to the Council for the National
Interest. The old neoconservative wisdom arguing for
an unavoidable link between Syria, Iran and their
allies in the region is now being exploited to the
maximum. Their hope is to settle all scores left
unsettled by the Bush administration.
US foreign policy in Syria is likely to become clearer
once the signs of an endgame become easier to read.
Until then, the neocons will continue to push for
another campaign of intervention. For them,
influencing the endgame in favor of Israel is much
more beneficial than dealing with a divided country,
which is ‘subcontracted' to other regional powers, per
Pletka's unrelenting wisdom.
- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net)
is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the
editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is
My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold
Story (Pluto Press, London.)
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments