Explaining the administration’s alarming Mideast policy

This thoughtful and insightful e-mail addresses questions we have repeatedly raised. How can we explain the administration’s bold democratist rhetoric, combined with their actual promotion of a Palestinian terrorist state, their acquiescence to the creation of an Islamic state in Iraq, and their weakness vis à vis Iran?

A couple days ago I was reading an article related to the issue of military sales by Israel to China and was struck by the overt hostility of the Bush administration towards Israel. It stated that “after Israel raised a white flag and acquiesced to most of the demands, the U.S. made additional, harsher demands, and was said to have shown contempt for the Israeli delegation.” Then of course there was Condoleeza Rice on her recent visit to the Mideast praising Abbas for doing absolutely nothing to stop terrorism, while berating Israel and saying that they had to give the Palestinians arms and ammunition and should respond to future terrorist attacks with “restraint.” This is what I would expect from a Patrick Buchanan (or Noam Chomsky) administration, not from George W. Bush who supposedly was “the best friend Israel ever had.”

How can this be explained and what does it tell us? I think it tells us a great deal about who’s really making foreign policy right now in the Bush administration. If this is really coming from the president, then he completely deceived everyone all along especially his own most loyal Christian conservative supporters. However, I doubt that this is the case. It can better be explained either by the fact that he lacks conceptual clarity and can be influenced to go in contradictory directions, or that he’s not really the one formulating foreign policy. I recall a couple years ago Colin Powell was asked why he didn’t meet more often with the president, and he said the president wasn’t interested in foreign policy.

So who then in the current Bush administration actually has this kind of preexisting deep hostility towards Israel that we now see manifested? In my opinion there is no one. However if we ask who close to the administration has such hostility that’s a different matter. First there is Brent Scowcroft who believes that the main problem in the Middle East is Ariel Sharon and that Palestinian terrorism is due to what he calls the “crushing occupation.” He sees the main solution to all problems in the Mideast as the creation of a Palestinian terror state. He just happens to be the mentor of Secretary of State Rice and I believe National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley as well, and I’m sure it’s no coincidence that his disciples were chosen for those positions. When you hear Condeleeza Rice today it’s likely that you’re hearing a lot of Brent Scowcroft. Next is James Baker also known for his less than friendly attitude towards Israel. The evidence of his current involvement in foreign policy is not in doubt. I understand that he is the one who drew up the latest “peace plan” which has of course draconian conditions for Israel. And then there’s the president’s father also known for his coldness towards Israel who would seem to be in the position of greatest potential influence. We have no clear evidence of this and can only speculate. However consider this. His great passion was always for foreign policy, and he never got to serve a second term. I remember reading that former presidents could get daily intelligence briefings and that he was the only ex-president to read them daily. Now when in a position to potentially have a very significant influence on foreign policy and so close to the power of the presidency itself, are we to think that he’ll leave that to Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, because he would much prefer to play golf with Bill Clinton?

The powerful influence of the first Bush administration has been clear ever since the Iraq war ended. There was no strong action to stop Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia from sending in terrorists, as Donald Rumsfield sensibly proposed, but rather only feckless diplomacy which likely greatly diminished the chances of overall success. And then there was the obsessive focus on the futile “roadmap” peace process which was a continuation of the one foreign policy issue that has been consistent throughout this presidency, the creation of a Palestinian state. In this second termm with no future election to worry about, the dominant influence of the first Bush administration on foreign policy seems even more transparent.

But what about the president’s policy of democratization now given center stage which obviously comes from a different source? Almost everyone is focusing on this, but I think it isn’t of paramount importance for three reasons: Like other foreign policy statements made by this president such as the axis of evil and making no distinction between the terrorists and the states that harbor them this quite possibly will not be followed through on. Second, if it is followed through with, it isn’t likely to make any significant difference. We can see this already in Iraq, with a sharia law theocracy taking shape with many Iraqi women already saying they had more freedom under Saddam Hussein, and we now see the potential for a Hamas-Al Queda Islamic terror state coming into being in Gaza. With regimes like that is it of any real significance that they are elected?

Third, there are two issues that far overshadow the issue of democratization, which are whether Iran is allowed to have nuclear weapons, and whether a Hamas terrorist state is allowed to come into being. What is coming out of the Bush administration now in terms of these two issues is not encouraging, as they seem to be doing everything to bring about a Palestinian terror state while relying on diplomacy with Iran which is the equivalent of doing nothing. The people now apparently making policy have no awareness whatsoever of the fact that Hamas and the Iranian Mullahs have the very same ideology as Al Queda. The fact that the Bush administration presently supports the creation of a Palestinian terror state while seeing the Saudis as friends and doing nothing to stop their ideological jihad against the West is far more significant than all the talk about democracy. Tragically we now have no leaders in the West who truly understand the nature of the threat we face from Islamic fascism. At one time it seemed as if the Bush administration had some real understanding of this but no more. Tony Blair is showing some signs of greater clarity but still has a long way to go, whereas the Bush administration appears to be clearly moving in the opposite direction.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 30, 2005 09:32 AM | Send