U-turn in the Sand

Pollack views reform in the Arab states as a long, hard slog that will be measured in decades rather than election cycles. The United States needs to nudge the process along steadily with, among other things, dollops of financial aid. "Think of the hundreds of billions of dollars that the United States is now sinking into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," he writes. "Doesn't it make sense to put a fraction of that, perhaps as much as $5 billion to $10 billion per year, into foreign aid programs for the Muslim Middle East . . . and hopefully head off future wars?"

A former CIA analyst and National Security Council staffer, Pollack frames key issues as an analyst offering options for a policymaker. He refrains from making any bold, short-term policy prescriptions because he does not think the region can be transformed in one stroke.

The United States needs to pursue a middle path stressing persistence, moderation and gradual change, Pollack asserts. He proposes a "Hippocratic oath test" for U.S. policies to ensure that they "do no harm to the core goals and methods of the grand strategy," by which he means an enduring commitment to remain fully engaged in the Middle East to help ease crises or, better yet, prevent them.

U.S. leaders should broker dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians even when peace is distant, he says. Washington should look for signs of rapprochement with Iran; the military option is too risky. America and China share an interest in dependable oil exports, and this offers the possibility of cooperation instead of rivalry in the Mideast.

Pollack's conclusion is sobering: With great (and patient) effort, the United States can hope to influence, but not fix, the unstable Middle East. If that sounds less than satisfying, he warns, the alternatives are worse.

Now he tells us. ·

Greg Myre, an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute, covered the Middle East for the New York Times and the Associated Press and is writing a book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.