US President George W Bush visited Palestine, Israel, four Gulf
states and Egypt earlier this month. At a press briefing at the end
of last year, he said he had three goals for the trip: advancing
the Palestine-Israel peace process, pushing for reconciliation
between Arab nations and Israel and reaffirming the US commitment
to the security of its allies in the region. Now that Bush has
wrapped up the tour, we can ask: Did he achieve the goals he had
laid out for himself ?
Since the Annapolis Middle East Peace Conference in late
November, the Bush administration has made the Palestine-Israel
peace process an essential part of its Middle East policy package.
It has repeatedly expressed the hope of seeing the two sides reach
a peace accord this year. However, the Bush administration knows
only too well how difficult the Palestine-Israel issue will be to
resolve. While in the Middle East, President Bush urged Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
to make the "hard choice" and "difficult compromise", adding the US
would continue to closely watch the Palestine-Israel peace talks
and that Bush might visit the Middle East again, in addition to the
celebrations marking the 60th anniversary of Israel. He also said
the US would put more pressure on the parties concerned if
necessary.
Bush reiterated American support for the Middle East Peace
Roadmap, but with a new interpretation. Originally the roadmap
consisted of three stages. The first was for the Palestinians to
crack down on extremism, while the Israelis abandoned its illegal
settlements (in the West Bank and Gaza); the second was to see the
founding of a Palestinian state; and the third was when the two
sides resolved all their disputes.
This time around the US president again emphasized that Israel
must resolve the illegal settlement issue and told Israeli Prime
Minister Olmert at the press conference after their meeting that
they had been discussing this issue for four years, sounding
somewhat disappointed. Olmert then found himself obliged to explain
at length why. Bush also stressed in his talks with President Abbas
that the Palestinian side must stop the attacks by Hamas militants
in Gaza and wipe out their bases.
However, the Bush administration is now saying the three phases
should proceed in parallel rather than one after another. US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters onboard Air
Force One on their way to Kuwait that, after deciding to turn the
roadmap from three sequential steps into parallel tracks at the
Annapolis peace conference, a fourth track became necessary: all
Arab states taking joint action in the Middle East.
What Palestine and Israel are emphasizing, meanwhile, is
this:
The Israelis insist that a peace accord must cover Gaza, meaning
a peace agreement is out of reach until the Palestinians achieve
internal unity. Meanwhile, the Palestinians swear they cannot form
a sovereign state within temporary borders, which means a
Palestinian state can be founded only after all the thorny issues
are resolved, such as territory, possession of Jerusalem and right
of return for refugees. Both sides have formed working groups to
negotiate these issues, thought the road ahead is undoubtedly full
of obstacles.
The Iran nuclear issue has been stuck in a tangle for several
years now. Last March and April people heard a great deal of talk
about possible US attacks on Iran. Then, in November, 16 US
intelligence agencies issued a joint report stating that Iran had
suspended its nuclear arms development program in 2003.
While the international community exhaled a collective sigh of
relief, the US reminded the world that Iran still poses a threat.
For various reasons the possibility of Bush ordering military
strikes against Iran before he leaves the White House for good
seems next to nil, but his administration wants the world to keep
pressure on Teheran all the same.
That's why Bush repeatedly said during his Middle East trip that
if the international community cannot work together to prevent Iran
from developing nuclear weapons technology, then Iran was, is and
will remain a threat.
The Gulf countries' attitude toward Iran has been rather subtle.
By defeating the Sunni Muslim-led Taliban regime in a war in
Afghanistan the US rid Iran of an archenemy to the east; and by
replacing Saddam Hussein's Sunni government with a Shiite
administration as a result of the ongoing war in Iraq, America did
Teheran a huge favor to the same effect. This may or may not be
what the Bush administration had in mind when it launched the two
wars, but the reality is that Iran's military strength is
considered tops in the Gulf region, and others in the neighborhood
are quite nervous about it.
For this reason few Gulf nations are Iran's bosom buddies,
though they all maintain variable levels of cooperation. US
pressure on Iran serves the other Gulf countries' interests to a
certain degree, but they don't want to - or dare to - butt heads
with Teheran. When media reports were full of speculation about a
US attack on Iran last spring, some Gulf nations made it clear that
they "are not on either side of the US-Iran standoff" and would not
be "a staging area for the US to strike Iran".
This is why they are not likely to openly back Washington's Iran
posture, even though they need US support.
The Bush administration announced not long ago it would sell $20
billion worth of weapons and military equipment to the Gulf region.
And Bush said on his Middle East tour that America would soon sell
Saudi Arabia $130 million worth of missiles and other advanced
arms. How can it not be another warning shot at Iran?
As for making an assessment of this Middle East trip, it is not
an easy task because the visit was part of a long process rather
than a shot at solving a particular issue. Some people in the press
concluded that Bush returned home emptyhanded, since he heard no
new promises from the Palestinian or Israeli leaders, nor a word of
support from Gulf countries on his drive to contain Iran. But the
Bush administration can say the trip achieved its goals because it
added impetus to existing efforts.
The Palestine-Israel peace process was put on ice for seven
years after Bush became US president and now his administration has
decided to revive it. As for the standoff between Iran and America,
I'm afraid it will remain in place until after Bush hands over the
presidency.
This is presidential election year in the US. Although the
Democratic and Republican contenders all call Iran a threat, the
three Democratic front runners - Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and
John Edwards - have promised to negotiate with Iran directly
without hesitation once he or she wins the presidency and apply the
tactic of carrot and big stick. It means they intend to keep the
military force option open and tighten the noose of economic
sanctions while dangling some economic rewards before Teheran's
nose to lure it toward a resolution of the nuclear issue, the same
way? North Korea chose to go.
Under the circumstances Iran of course will wait and see without
softening its stance. As such, US-Iran relations will likely remain
as they have been this year, with little chance of undergoing
dramatic changes.
(China Daily January 22, 2008)
