My Views on News

In the world of politics, activity all too often becomes a substitute for accomplishment and motion is made to masquerade as movement.

Many will hope that is not the case with President George W. Bush's new strategic policy for the Middle East being touted around the region by the sales team of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates.

This double act is in itself an attempt to tell the Middle East and the world that finally, as the days of this administration dwindle down to a precious few, it has got its act together after years of open ideological warfare between the two departments.

Many Middle Eastern politicians and commentators are saying, however, that the plan Rice and Gates have united behind is far too ambitious and unrealistic.

The new strategy has three main elements, all aimed at trying to construct something useful and lasting on the rubble of the Bush administration's foolhardy invasion of Iraq.

One is to try to contain the regime in Iran, which is aiding the insurrection among fellow Shia Muslims in occupied Iraq and which has gained much regional stature from its support of anti-Israeli terrorists Hezbollah and Hamas.

The second objective is to entice neighbouring states into helping quell the internal conflict in Iraq so the United States and its coalition partners can get their troops out as soon as feasible.

The third aim is to try to find a formula for the creation of a functional Palestinian state and the basis for a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbours.

Inevitably, elements of all three objectives intertwine.

The most pressing objective for the United States and ally Israel is to try to contain Iran, whose radical Shia Islamic regime is intent on developing nuclear technology. Tehran says it only wants to make electricity, not bombs, but a regime that openly supports regional terrorist groups and vows to "wipe Israel off the map" can't expect to be believed on that count.

Both Washington and Tel Aviv regard sanctions by the United Nations as at best limp-wristed responses to Iran and most likely worse than useless.

But the odds of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities by invasion or precision bombing are too long to make those serious options at the moment.

Washington's counter-proposal is to lavish arms on its Arab allied states in the Middle East, most of which, conveniently, follow the rival Sunni form of Islam.

So as Rice and Gates set off it was announced Washington is offering $20 billion US in military aid to the Arab Gulf states (most to Saudi Arabia) and $13 billion to Egypt.

To win the essential support of Tel Aviv, the Bush administration is offering Israel $30 billion worth of top military technology, allowing the Israeli military to keep its strategic edge in the region.

This approach has perplexed many commentators in the Middle East, both in Israel and in the Arab countries. Is it not more likely than not, they wonder, that seeing a massive military buildup on its borders Iran will rush even faster to acquire the relatively cheap and decisive deterrent of a nuclear weapon?

Lavishing an arms bounty on Saudi Arabia is seen as especially eyebrow raising.

The religious fanaticism fostered by the Saudi royal family at home and abroad has been perhaps the major component in the birth and growth of al-Qaida and associated terrorist groups.

The Bush administration has been slow to recognize and accept the evidence. But recently Washington's ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, accused Saudi Arabia of "pursuing destabilizing policies" by encouraging Sunni fighters to join the Iraq insurgency.

Washington's decision to mend fences with the Saudi government appears to be entirely pragmatic and based on the notion that Riyadh's support is essential to a settlement with Israel.

That may be so, but the Saudi government has already set out tight conditions for the agenda, some totally unacceptable to Israel, if it is to participate in a regional peace conference the Bush administration plans to organize in the next few months.

There is a lot of motion; the thing to look for is traction.

jmanthorpe@png.canwest.com