A Paradigm Shift - The US As A Proxy

By Ramzy Baroud
April 9, 2007
METimes

Brimming conflicts in the Middle East are often orchestrated from afar, using proxies - the least risky method to fight and win a war.

Despite its geopolitical fragmentation, the Middle East is loosely united insofar as any major event in one of its various polities will effortlessly be felt throughout the region.

Thus, it is also no wonder that Lebanon, for example, served as a hub for the interests of neighboring countries. The outcome of any Lebanese clash - whether motivated by external or internal factors - would directly affect the image and the political positioning of this country or that. It was not just Israel and the United States that labored to penetrate and further fragment Lebanese society, but the intelligence of various Arab countries, such as Iran. Lebanon has been a stage for the most intense proxy wars for decades.

Palestinians have also often been used as, and, in some cases, positioned themselves to play the role of, the proxy force. Some of the time, the intent behind taking on such a role has been to secure personal interests. At other times, the lack of a physical platform that would allow Palestinians to organize has been the motivating factor.

In the two most notable times in which they tried to exert control over their host domains, as happened in Jordan in the 1970s, and Lebanon in the 1970s and 1980s, the human cost was horrendous and led to unprecedented bloodshed.

After Arafat's involuntary exit from Beirut in 1982, Palestinians were forced, once again, to exchange the physical space they obtained, for overt allegiance to various regimes. Arafat mastered the art like no other Palestinian leader.

The supporters of the Oslo Accords argued that the agreement's key success was freeing the Palestinian political will from pandering to their host countries for survival, but this proved untrue.

A Hamas leader in Syria told me during an off-the-record telephone interview recently that "we have no doubt that Damascus would dump us the moment we are of no use, but we have no other option but to play along."

Proxy politics are strategically significant for they help take the battle to someone else's physical space, create distractions, and circumvent internal crises.

Both Israel and Iran, despite the colossal chasm that separates their political and military agendas are currently involved in such maneuvers.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, backed or directed by the instrumental forces in his country - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Supreme National Security Council - is well acquainted with the fact that, if Iraq is subdued by US forces, it will be Islamic republic's turn to bear the brunt of the United States' obtrusive imperial designs, cheered on - if not largely facilitated - by Israel's neoconservative allies in Washington.

Accordingly, Iran is fully involved in trying to shape a political milieu in Iraq that will keep the US at bay.

This is not to suggest that it was Iran, as opposed to the unwarranted US invasion that created the chaos in Iraq.

However, Iran, like other regional countries involved in Iraq, wishes to manage and manipulate the outcome to suit its own interests. From Iran's point of view, this action makes perfect sense.

While Iran's prime objective is to discourage a US military strike, Israel seeks a regional hegemony, leaving it with only "moderate" neighbors.

According to this vision, conceived and promoted publicly by Israeli leaders and their friends in Washington - and emphasized ad infinitum by every relevant US official at every possible opportunity - the Iranian "threat" must be eradicated at any cost.

Nonetheless, Israel's fears of Iran are not nuclear in essence. What worries Israel is that Iran is militarily strong, politically cohesive, and economically viable enough to allow Iran the opportunity to challenge Israel at every turn.

The Israelis, as their country's history illustrates, cannot allow such contenders. Israel's attempt to disseminate Gamal Abdel Nasser's national regime in 1956, only eight years after the establishment of the Israeli state, is a poignant example.

However, a paradigm shift has occurred since the US invasion of Iraq four years ago. While the US was the major power that often orchestrated proxy wars through its clandestine tactics, as it did in Central America and various parts of Asia, Israel is now adopting a similar scheme.

In most instances in the past, Israel managed to sway US administrations to act according to the misleading mantra: "what's good for Israel is good for America."

Nonetheless, a clash of US-Israeli interests in this case is unavoidable: while Israel's heart is set on a war against Iran, it is becoming common knowledge that a war against the Islamic republic would create irrevocable disasters for the United States.

Prolonged political hostility with Iran is equally dangerous, for it will further complicate the American task in Iraq. Regardless, Israel is still cheering for war.

Former Mossad director Uzi Arad has told the British Guardian that "a military strike may be easier than you think."

He has outlined targets to be bombed, which include not merely nuclear sites, but security and economic centers as well.

"Iran is much more vulnerable than people realize," he has stated casually.

Arad, like most Israeli officials, wants war, even if such a conflict would complicate America's regional involvement, costing it irreplaceable human lives, not to mention, killing a large number of Iranians in the process.

It would matter little to Israel, however, given that a chaos-ridden Iran - like a chaos-ridden Iraq - is just another opportunity to be exploited, and another "threat" to be checked off as countered on Israel's security list.

Indeed, proxy relationships are part and parcel of the Middle East's political posture, and even over-confident superpowers can themselves be exploited, whether consciously or not.

Ramzy Baroud is an Author and a Journalist. His latest book: The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London) is available from Amazon and other book vendors. He submitted this commentary to the Middle East Times.