Shortly after the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was seized on Nov. 4, 1979, several of the 52 American hostages were herded into a room festooned with skeletons, witches, ghosts and goblins. An Iranian, mystified by the images of death and evil, demanded an explanation. Joseph Hall, a military attache, described Halloween traditions and the embassy party that had taken place a few days earlier.
In disbelief, the hostage-taker replied, "You do this for children?"
The cusp of change: With the Middle East in turmoil and Secretary of State Colin Powel (above, with Kuwait's prime minister in July) soon to depart, will President Bush and his new diplomatic team pursue his 2003 vow to push the region's authoritarian states for reforms?
(Roshan Crasta -- Reuters)
|
The Post's opinion and commentary section runs every Sunday.
• Outlook Section
| | |
|
I visited Tehran last month for the 25th anniversary of the embassy seizure, one of several stops on various trips over the past five months to Iraq, Iran, Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. In each place, I was struck by how much political and cultural fissures still shape our relations a quarter-century later -- not only in Iran, but regionwide.
After hearing a wide array of opinions in the region, I also came away with an urgent sense that President Bush won't be able to achieve his lofty goals of a democratic, peaceful and nuclear-free Middle East unless he takes bold and imaginative strokes -- a kind of "shock and awe" diplomacy -- to generate movement in a different direction.
The region now has the feel of being on the cusp of profound change. It's not just the obvious flashpoints: An increasingly chaotic and costly war in Iraq. Tensions with Iran over its nuclear program, with rumblings of U.S. military planning on yet another front. The unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict entering unknown territory with the death of Yasser Arafat and the pending withdrawal of Israel's troops from the Gaza strip.
It's also the hint of new forces reshaping the Middle East -- and challenging U.S. interests -- in unknown ways: "Energy terrorism" targeting petroleum pipelines and workers in several countries and further roiling oil markets. Rising sectarian fears among Sunni Muslims about Shiite intentions regionally, playing off the change in Iraq's balance of power. Increasing violence and rippling instability even in authoritarian states like Saudi Arabia.
A year ago, in his major speech on the Middle East, Bush warned that it would be "reckless to accept the status quo" in the region. "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe," he said at the National Endowment for Democracy. Without political change, the region "will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export."
Yet many in the Muslim world -- even admirers of the United States -- believe the Bush administration still charts Middle East policy with a double standard. It wants democratic change in Egypt, but it also wants President Hosni Mubarak's loyalty and intervention on Arab-Israeli peace. It wants Saudi Arabia to open up politically, but it also wants the royal family to crack down on Islamist dissidents and do whatever it takes to protect the oil fields. It wants free and fair elections in Iraq, but it also wants a pro-American government that will write a constitution to our liking.
Arabs, Persians and others no longer believe that Washington is well intentioned or that its goals will benefit them. Over the past four years, trust in the United States has plummeted from over 50 percent in key countries to the single digits, according to University of Maryland professor Shibley Telhami, who has polled the region. The antipathy was evident at the first "Forum for the Future" in Morocco this month. Muslim allies virtually rebuffed a dialogue with U.S. and European officials on democracy, largely on the grounds that other issues, such as the 56-year Arab-Israeli conflict, were their priority.
Over the next four years, it's going to take much more than regime change in Iraq to retrieve U.S. hopes for the region, even if Iraq turns out to be a success story. The stakes are enormous. "The relationship established over the next four years with the Islamic world will define the outlook for a generation. We're facing decisions akin to the decisions after World War II in defining America's relations with a large part of the world. That's the magnitude of the challenge," Telhami said.
Fostering political change has never been easy in a region as complex and as diverse as the Middle East. But next year will witness a rare confluence of opportunities -- elections in Iraq, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt, as well as Iranian-European talks on nuclear disarmament -- for bolder initiatives to help close the fissures between the United States and the region. Many voices in the foreign policy community, both Republicans and Democrats, are now proffering ideas to take advantage of the moment on four of the most vexing issues.
• IRAQ: The central question is whether the open-ended timeline -- keeping the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq until the country is stabilized -- is still feasible or even practical. U.S. troops are increasingly targets. The attack last week on a U.S. base in Mosul, killing 22 and injuring 69, was the bloodiest of the war. The coalition is crumbling; Hungary pulled out its troops last week, while Poland, Holland and others plan to withdraw within six months .
The longer U.S. troops stay, the more Iraqis -- and others -- see the U.S. presence as an occupation. Some analysts question whether the United States has enough troops to achieve its mission any time soon. And the destruction left in the city-by-town-by-village hunt for insurgents has spawned wider anger.
"The United States has been depleting its military strength, diplomatic leverage, and treasure to pursue a worthy but unrealistic aim," writes Edward Luttwak of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in next month's issue of Foreign Affairs. "Given the bitter Muslim hostility to the presence of U.S. troops -- labeled 'Christian Crusaders' by the [Muslim] preachers -- their continued deployment in large numbers can only undermine the legitimacy of any U.S.-supported Iraqi government."
