US Alternatives To Sanctions and Threats

By Rami G. Khouri
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Courtesy Of The Daily Star

Well, well, what do we have going on this week? The Obama administration, after inviting the Syrian ambassador for a long chat to the State Department, then sends two senior envoys to Damascus. The US Secretary of State announces a few days later that she wants Iran invited to a meeting of Afghanistan's neighbors to discuss conditions in that country. The following day, the British government announces it is resuming contacts with the political wing of Hizbullah in Lebanon.

What we have going on, I suspect, is that the two leading proponents of Western arrogance in the form of colonialism and neocolonialism - the United States and the United Kingdom - have recognized that their approach has failed, and that they are better off having normal diplomatic talks and negotiations with the three leading centers of resistance to them, namely Iran, Syria and Hizbullah. The pace of change in American policies, in particular, has been impressive since President Barack Obama took office six weeks ago, though it will take some time for the results of the current shifts to materialize.

What is happening is meaningful because it signals the possible start of a healthy shift in attitudes by all concerned. Obama is doing exactly what he pledged to do as a candidate: talking to those with whom the US has disagreements, or considers foes. This should not be such a surprising turn of events, especially given that Iran, Syria and Hizbullah do not threaten the US or UK, or actively work to damage their national interests. The fact and process of starting normal diplomatic discussions does not ensure any outcome or success, but the lack of normal relations did and does ensure continued tensions that could erupt into active strife.

One of the fascinating sub-plots of what is occurring is the temporary sidelining of Israel, which had long seriously influenced, if not often effectively dictated, American contacts and policies in the Middle East. It is noteworthy that the US and UK in various degrees are talking with Iran, Syria and Hizbullah, when Israel had worked overtime for some years to prevent such normal contacts. It is probably only a matter of time before the US, UK and others open talks with Hamas also.

What does this mean? For one thing, it means that the United States is becoming more humble, and ending its failed and quite silly policy of acting as if every country in the world aspired above all to have normal ties with the US. The total failure of the American-Israeli policy of sanctioning and threatening Iran, Syria and Hizbullah has finally given way to a more sensible American approach.

For another thing, this means the US is also engaging with the rest of the world on a more normal basis, which requires negotiating relationships with other countries based on mutual interests. This was triggered by the realization that the use of force or the threat of force by Washington did not elicit compliance with its dictates, but rather spurred on Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and others to defy and resist the US. Now Washington understands that a give-and-take approach is more sensible, but it remains unclear what will be given and what will be taken.

The prevailing view among experts and scholars of the Middle East seems to be that the several major conflict regions and issues in the Middle East and South Asia must be dealt with in a manner that reflects the linkages among them. So it is noteworthy that the US, for one, seems willing to make diplomatic gestures and moves simultaneously on the three fronts with active wars - Israel and Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now that the US has initiated diplomatic engagement with Syria and Iran, Damascus and Tehran will feel new pressure to say what they want - rather than mainly to criticize the US and say what they reject. They can both feel satisfied with their performance to date, but they must also be ready soon to negotiate new relationships around the region and with powers further away. Iran has essentially won the first phase of its political showdown with the US, and now it has to figure out how to behave in a new arena where the US wants to talk, rather than to sanction and threaten.

(A last point about this week's shifts in attitudes is about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who leads the re-engagements with Syria and Iran. As a presidential candidate just months ago, she harshly mocked candidate Obama for his willingness to talk to Syria and Iran. Today, she spearheads that process. This is a good example of why we should never take seriously what politicians say in the heat of electoral battle.)

Rami G. Khouri is published twice-weekly by THE DAILY STAR.