The sturdy “three-legged stool” of US foreign policy in the Middle East after World War Two was 1) secure “our” oil sources; 2) insure the area against Soviet Communist infiltration; and 3) support and strengthen Israel. 

Oil sharing is the focus in June/July, 2008 as surely as it was the reason for the US preemptive invasion of Iraq in March 2003. What happens now in Iraq depends on whether Iraqis, after constant war since 1980, prefer the absence of war (more oil revenue to outside companies); or the presence of some form of occupation and loss of sovereignty.

This sounds somewhat like Iran in the 1950s when the British and USA collaborated to overthrow Mossadegh who had nationalized the Iranian oil fields. But Mossadegh was elected by Iranians, not a result of an occupational election; and Iran has long been over 90% Shia Muslim. When the US embassy was seized in Teheran during the Carter administration, the hand-carried signs and cries echoed “Mossadegh." 

Another difference in Iraq today is that the Iraqi oil workers are unionized and all people in the countries in the area are keyed in to daily activities through the Internet.

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan, the situation worsens for NATO;and the US focus on Iraq draws attention away from where we believe Al Quaeda was all along. 

The second leg of the foreign policy stool was keeping the area free from communism. We succeeded in one sense, but to do so, we often supported any anti-communist group we could find. Many of the “best” groups were religiously based, as was and is today the Islamic Brotherhood and its many offshoots. We thought “the enemy of our enemy would be our friend,” but now some of our political leaders call them ”Islamofacists.” and we have far more enemies than before. 

Some say that “Terrorists” have replaced “Communists” in the new US foreign policy formulation; but the Soviets are now Russians in Russia and the so-called “terrorists” reside mostly in their own lands resisting foreign occupation in one form or another. 

The third foreign policy leg is support for Israel, but which Israel? Like the USA, Israel has become more divided with more and more Israelis supporting their own progressive peace movements. Their Prime Minister has a 10% positive pole rating (one-third of the US president’s!) and that has led to a possibly positive step: Israel, Syria, Turkey, Hezbullah, Hamas all talking to each other, in spite of warnings from President Bush not to do so. They fear that whatever they can do before the November elections in the USA, is better than waiting out the end of a clueless administration. 

We could also ask which USA, when it comes to Middle Eastern policy. The two major candidates are still pandering to the old political Zionist groups which have been giving way in recent years to US Jewish progressives who have given much needed support to Israeli peace groups; organizations that have been struggling in the wilderness of Israeli politics for years.

Their most difficult task, however, is sharing the new situation with US citizens who are glued to the establishment media. The new situation basically asserts that our old policies are not only inimical to Israel, but also to US interests in the Middle East., and a general peace in the area. 

Thanks to the Internet you can check out some of these US Jewish peace groups. Have you heard of Rabbi Michael Lerner and Tikkun? Check out Jewish Voices for Peace or Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel. If you have time, just google “Israeli and Jewish Peace Movements.”  You will be drowned[i]in information that may give you hope. 

Yes, the “handwriting is on the wall” in the Middle East; but most of it is in Turkish, Persian, and Arabic. If we seize the moment for a real peace, English, Hebrew and Pashto will still have a big role to play. 

Henry H. Bucher, Jr.
Adjunct Associate Professor Humanities
Comparative World History / Africa & Middle East
Austin College  # 61626
Sherman, TX 75090-4400
hbucher@austincollege.edu
Fax: 903-813-2368