---
The bottom line is the emergence of an Iraq syndrome that seems likely to bedevil U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East at least for the near future. After the fall of Baghdad, Washington neoconservatives were speculating openly about what the next U.S. target should be ("Should we turn left toward Syria, or right toward Iran?" they asked), and the leaders of both those nations were paying close attention. Today, the Iranians and Syrians are aware that America is bogged down in Iraq and, despite the persistent rhetoric of a few hard-liners, the U.S. is unlikely to soon launch another costly military venture in the region.
Iran, in particular, is more comfortable with its security situation today than at any point in its 25 years of clerical rule. The U.S. has eliminated its two major enemies - the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's Baath regime - and now needs at least tacit assistance from Iran to navigate the treacherous Shiite politics of Iraq. The Iranian conservatives have used U.S. threats to successfully discredit their reformist opponents as soft on security, and their plans to complete a full nuclear fuel cycle (though not, they say, a bomb) has widespread national support.At the same time, U.S. popularity and credibility - in the region and in the world - have hit an all-time low. International security is not a popularity contest, but an ability to leverage support from others does rely on a measure of respect the latter feel and their willingness to give you the benefit of the doubt. The countries most willing to do that today with the U.S., such as Pakistan, are authoritarian and are least likely to be the leaders of any reform movement.
Reform, which was stirring in the region even before Sept. 11, is now progressing at a snail's pace; the collapse of Iraq has, if anything, inspired repressive Middle Eastern governments to crack down even harder, not to liberalize.
Daily Star
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
