Aiming To Shoot Across America's Bow

[Ryan Ruck]

Aiming To Shoot Across America's Bow

January 28, 2009

Is there a commonality between Raul Castro's visit to Moscow and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's cockiness toward President Obama? Are our enemies preparing to test America's new leadership?

On Wednesday, Cuban premier Castro, brother of the ailing Fidel, arrived in Russia on an eight-day visit aimed at strengthening ties between the two anti-U.S. regimes.

The visit comes a month after three Russian warships visited Cuba and Venezuela and two months after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited Havana. The Russian ships had engaged in joint operations with the Venezuelan navy.

Before departing on his present trip, Raul described Cuban-Russian relations as "wonderful." Cuba supported Russia in opposing the Bush administration's policy to install missile defenses in Europe and extend NATO membership to Georgia and Ukraine. Russia has called for an end to the nearly 50-year-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, which prohibits American tourists from visiting the country.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, it's hardly surprising to see Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad snapping at President Obama's outstretched diplomatic hand.

"Those who say they want to make change," Ahmadinejad said, "this is the change they should make: They should apologize to the Iranian nation and try to make up for their dark background and the crimes they have committed against the Iranian nation."

In fact, while the CIA helped install the Shah more than a half-century ago, it was a Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, whose undermining of the Shah allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamist revolution to succeed — without which Mahmoud would be unlikely to have his job today.

Ahmadinejad apparently does not share the view held in Western diplomatic circles that the Obama presidency is a rare opportunity at which Tehran should jump for the sake of Iran's own interests. Instead of throttling down the heated rhetoric after the departure of George W. Bush, the Iranian president has actually intensified the harsh words against the U.S.

Does the behavior of Raul and Mahmoud constitute a pattern? During last year's campaign, the enemies of the free world certainly seemed eager to see Americans choose Barack Obama.

Fidel Castro expressed hope that Obama would be elected, praising his "intelligence and serenity." Ahmadinejad said he hoped so too, remarking to an American student in September that "we do prefer to have relations, whereas one of the candidates in this election would prefer that."

The day before Election Day, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez issued a somewhat muted endorsement in this form: "The world awaits the arrival of a black president to the United States; we can say this is no small feat."

Nicaragua's Sandinista President Daniel Ortega said the election of Obama as president would be "laying the foundations for a revolutionary change" in America. And Kim Jong-il's regime in North Korea expressed a preference for Obama over John McCain.

As to terrorist groups, a captured laptop revealed that Colombia's FARC organization was hoping and expecting the election of Obama. And Hamas' Gaza Strip political adviser Ahmed Yousuf last year said, "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections."

Now that the new president has actually taken office, are we seeing clues as to why these hostile governments and armed groups wanted an Obama presidency? Do they now believe that America will be less committed to fighting the global war on terror and will be placing more faith in the tools of diplomacy?

In the case of Iran, that would mean the offering of more carrots to dissuade the regime from continuing its nuclear enrichment program, plus direct U.S.-Iran talks, no doubt followed by many months of Iran being humored as it mulls over our proposals.

This is not to say that Castro, Ahmadinejad and our other enemies have guessed right about President Obama, Secretary Clinton and the rest of the new administration being weak. But it does mean that Vice President Joe Biden may well have been right a few months ago when he warned that our enemies intend to test this new president, and probably soon.

[vector7]

The Region: America, look behind you! Turn around! Turn around!

Feb. 23, 2009
Barry Rubin , THE JERUSALEM POST

America: A freight train is heading your way and you're standing right on the tracks, looking in the wrong direction.
Or perhaps it is like a horror film in which the killer sneaks up behind the hapless victim while the movie audience yells: "Turn around! Turn around!" And then blood spatters the screen.

Unfortunately, in this case, it might be our blood, and it won't be produced by a special effects department.

Today, US policy and the dominant thinking are not based on realpolitik but on international affairs as a popularity contest. Its motto might be, "The nice will inherit the Earth," as the Obama administration tries to prove that it's not like that mean old Bush.

Before we get to the oncoming train, consider two small but indicative examples.

Scene 1: The UN committee planning the Durban-2 pro-racism - I mean "anti-racism" - conference. Libya chairs the committee, Iran is the vice-chair, Cuba, the rapporteur, and Russia is presiding. The plan is designed to ensure that the conference limits free speech, bashes Israel and enshrines Muslims as the world's only and perpetual victims.

The US representative stands to propose amendments. Is the speech a thunderous denunciation of dictatorship and a defense of liberty? Not exactly. Here is the key sentence: "I hate to be the cause of unhappiness in the room... I have to suggest [amendments] and I offer my sincere apologies."

How's that for speaking softly and carrying a big pillow? (US president Theodore Roosevelt a century ago famously described diplomacy as "speaking softly and carrying a big stick.")

Scene 2: The camera pans and the screen fills with an invitation to a conference being held by the Brookings Institution in Washington. The purpose is defined as asking, "How should Europe engage Russia to put relations between the West and Russia on a more positive and sustainable basis?" There is no room for pressure, opposition or criticism as part of the package; no hint of the need for flexibility to be accompanied by toughness.

Russia invaded Georgia, fought a surrogate war against Azerbaijan, blackmailed Ukraine and Lithuania. It has opposed sanctions on Iran, sold huge amounts of arms to Syria and committed real human rights' violations in Chechnya. It is the dawning of the age not of Aquarius (as the film Hair once said of the utopia predicted in the 1960s) but of Aquarium, in which the sharks are put in charge.

US policy is putting the emphasis on conciliation with Iran and Syria, and a soft line toward Pakistan, despite its lack of cooperation on fighting terrorism against India or in Afghanistan.

The only thing you can do with a strategy of carrots without sticks is to make carrot cake. Now consider what is sneaking up on the US government as it hands out candy:
On March 29, local elections will be held in Turkey. If the current government wins these municipal races, especially in Ankara and Istanbul, the country will be encouraged to go even further down the road toward Islamic extremism. Whatever happens internally (where the nature of Turkish society forces it to go more slowly), Ankara's foreign policy is increasingly aligned with that of the radicals in the region - not only Hamas but also Syria and Iran.

Turkey's many friends are hoping that moderation and its traditional political virtues win out. But what's happening there may well be the most important political event in the Middle East since the Iranian revolution 30 years ago. Think of what it means if, in whole or even in part, Turkey goes from the Western to the radical camp; clearly this is a world-changing event.

Then on June 7 come the Lebanese elections. Given the vast amounts of money they have spent, their use of violent intimidation and demoralization due to the Western abandonment of the moderates, it is likely that Iran's Syrian clients will take over Lebanon's government. This does not mean domination by Hizbullah but by four allied forces: pro-Syrian Sunni politicians; Michel Aoun's Christian forces; and the two Shi'ite groups, Hizbullah and Amal.

Already, Lebanon's president and former armed forces' commander Michel Suleiman is very close to the Iran-Syrian orbit. This doesn't mean that Lebanon will be annexed or militarily reoccupied by Syria, or that Lebanon will become an Islamist state internally. But it does mean that Lebanon will become a reliable ally of what Syrian President Bashar Assad calls "the resistance front."

In the region, these two developments will be perceived as two big victories for Teheran, and a sign that the Islamist-radical side is the wave of the future.
And what is the United States doing to fight, stop or manage this visible crisis?

Nothing.

FINALLY, ON June 12, presidential elections will take place in Iran itself. The likelihood is the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, either fairly or through manipulation of the ballot. The Iranian ruling establishment, which might have been persuaded to endorse a less extreme candidate if there had been enough Western pressure to make the incumbent look bad, has backed an openly aggressive anti-Semite.

Even though Ahmadinejad is not the real ruler of Iran, he and his allies are working to make him so. And of course his reelection means not only that Iran is waging a campaign to get nuclear weapons, it will mean that it is moving at the fastest possible speed, with the least likelihood of compromising and the most probability of using such a weapon (or forcing Israel to act militarily to stop the process). By years' end, or shortly after, Iran might have an atom bomb.

In short, 2009 is looking like a year of massive defeat for the US and its friends in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Washington is blind to this trend, pursuing a futile attempt to conciliate its enemies, losing time and not adopting the policies desperately needed.

Instead, the US should make itself leader of a broad coalition of Arab and European states, along with Israel, to resist Islamism and Iranian ambitions.

Alas, the new administration is fooling around while the region burns.

Turn around! Turn around!

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center at IDC Herzliya and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal.