Middle East: An end to US primacy?

#1
Amidst the barrage of bad news from Iraq, the growing chaos in Gaza, instability in Lebanon and uncertainty in Israel, one thing emerges clearly.

The US invasion of Iraq and its quest to spread democracy throughout the region has had a series of profound but unintended consequences. Of these, the most important is the rise of Iran.

Washington's destruction of the Taleban regime in Afghanistan and its toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq served to destroy Tehran's main strategic competitors.

For a brief moment Iran too feared US intervention. It was at this moment that Tehran appeared most willing to explore talks.

But the Americans' increasing problems in Iraq showed that for the Iranians the cloud of US ascendancy did indeed have a silver-lining.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6328753.stm
 
#2
"...The invasion of Iraq has paradoxically also served to bring an end to the era of US diplomatic primacy in the Middle East..."

It's not the invasion, but Bush's absolute unwillingness to engage in diplomatic activity at the level of any of his predecessors that's killed US diplomatic primacy.

US diplomatic initiatives and diplomacy in general, once a major part of implementing our foreign policy, is now on life support hopefully to be revived by the next administration.
 
#3
Who do we think can or will step into the breach then?

I don't see US primacy ending for a while yet, but I'm quite worried about what might come afterwards.
 
#4
Invictus_88 said:
Who do we think can or will step into the breach then?

I don't see US primacy ending for a while yet, but I'm quite worried about what might come afterwards.
It's worth a bet that the French and the Russians will both try - by promising the earth
 
#5
Allegedly, in response to an Iranian offer to cease all support for Hamas, Hezbollah and to work with the US to stabilise Iraq post invasion, Cheney replied, "we don't talk to evil."

If true, it's quite clear that he, and the Bush regime as a whole, have a very narrow understanding of the word 'evil'; probably best translated as, 'we don't like you - so you're evil.'

I think Virgil has it right. Lebanon last year gave the US a golden opportunity to re-establish (good) links with the Arab world restore some of its lost influence. It chose to do the complete opposite.
 
#6
Virgil said:
"...The invasion of Iraq has paradoxically also served to bring an end to the era of US diplomatic primacy in the Middle East..."

It's not the invasion...
Yes, it is not the invasion. The real causes are global geopolitical processes. While American might mainly remains unchanged, influence, abilities of many other countries are on the rise. And even ms.Rice - top Amrerican diplomat is unable to do anything (and understands it btw).
 
#7
If it's over, then US 'diplomatic primacy in the Middle East' would seem to have been relatively short-lived. When could you date it from: the Carter Doctrine and Camp David? Less then 30 years then???
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#8
Virgil said:
"...The invasion of Iraq has paradoxically also served to bring an end to the era of US diplomatic primacy in the Middle East..."

It's not the invasion, but Bush's absolute unwillingness to engage in diplomatic activity at the level of any of his predecessors that's killed US diplomatic primacy.

US diplomatic initiatives and diplomacy in general, once a major part of implementing our foreign policy, is now on life support hopefully to be revived by the next administration.
[align=center]
[/align]

[align=center]Now am I right, is a usual solution to a flatline a hit of a adrenalin??? Hold onto your seats, this can get a whole heap messier...[/align]
 
#9
And why should the US or the West remain dominant forever?

I can see a future Middle East where the Muslim Brotherhood, the most populist grass-roots movement in the Arab world, take power in Egypt, Syria and Jordan, backed up by a nuclear-capable Iran.

This bloc could ally itself with a newly assertive China, Russia and India.

The Spams and their Zionist pals would do well to make peace before that era arrives.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#10
And I must say Taz the Muslim Brotherhood from my experience are very well adjusted, politically literate, and amiable fellows...

(oh...and very good hosts :) )
 
#11
I could not fail to disagree with you less!

In any free election the MB would win by a landslide and therein lies the dilemma for the West.

Continue to prop up unelected autocrats or encourage democratic reform knowning it would lead to more power for a party hostile to Western interests?

Hey did you know Dr Tariq Ramadan is the grandson of Hassan el-Banna?

I met him last week, a fascinating individual!
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#12
You don't like the MB? I thought they were fine when I met some of them in Aegypt. I haven't met Dr. Ramadan, but I did pop some calligraphy in his inbox via Oxford Uni. :)


What are you problems with the MB?
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#14
Taz_786 said:
I do like them, read my first sentence properly :cyclopsani:

ahhhh....you got me :threaten:

I recall retaking my declaration of faith at Al Ahzar to get some papers (which have now gone westward :( ) to make Umrah. When I first became muslim I always used to add Jesus' and Moses' name after Muhammad (i.e. I declare that Muhammad, Jesus, and Moses were messengers of God) much to the annoyance of some people who accused me of innovating. So imagine my glee when I was taken by an MB associate to Al Ahzar and the Sheik made me recite the Kalima in Arabic, and just as I thought we'd finished, and with a glint in his eye he added 'And Jesus was a messenger of God and Moses was a messenger of God', took me by suprise ;)
 
#15
Taz_786 said:
I can see a future Middle East where the Muslim Brotherhood, the most populist grass-roots movement in the Arab world, take power in Egypt, Syria and Jordan, backed up by a nuclear-capable Iran.
Anyone remember the Arab socialist movement resulting in "united" Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Syria in various combinations?

This bloc could ally itself with a newly assertive China, Russia and India.
And a monkey could fly out of your ass singing "Hail Britannia"; anything's theoretically possible I suppose.

The Spams and their Zionist pals would do well to make peace before that era arrives.
Frankly when the oil demand runs dry, the Muslim Arabs would do well to make peace with the 21st century and modernization. The risk is they will be relegated to permanent hovel not superpower status.
 
#16
Nehustan said:
...

US diplomatic initiatives and diplomacy in general, once a major part of implementing our foreign policy, is now on life support hopefully to be revived by the next administration.
[align=center]Now am I right, is a usual solution to a flatline a hit of a adrenalin??? Hold onto your seats, this can get a whole heap messier...[/align][/quote]

Don't get to dramatic, we're talking diplomacy over unilateralism...or invasion.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#17
Virgil said:
Frankly when the oil demand runs dry, the Muslim Arabs would do well to make peace with the 21st century and modernization. The risk is they will be relegated to permanent hovel not superpower status.
I can't really see the Mediterranean 'Muslim Arabs' (and that's most of them!!!) being in particular trouble as a result of their geopolitical position, in fact the Magrib is a developing market as would the levant proper be if it wasn't for the current (recent historically) problem (which I won't bother to delineate, let's play hangman). The landbridge between the Magrib, thus Africa, and the Eurasian mainland isn't going anywhere...
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#18
Virgil said:
Nehustan said:
...

US diplomatic initiatives and diplomacy in general, once a major part of implementing our foreign policy, is now on life support hopefully to be revived by the next administration.
[align=center]Now am I right, is a usual solution to a flatline a hit of a adrenalin??? Hold onto your seats, this can get a whole heap messier...[/align]
Virgil said:
Don't get to dramatic, we're talking diplomacy over unilateralism...or invasion.

Thus far we have only seen the US vaguely annoyed, certainly not in full realisation of 'zenith reached', or thereabouts. My guess is George W will seem like a moderate over the next century...now hasn't that brightened your Sunday evening :thumleft:
 
#19
Nehustan said:
Virgil said:
Nehustan said:
...

US diplomatic initiatives and diplomacy in general, once a major part of implementing our foreign policy, is now on life support hopefully to be revived by the next administration.
[align=center]Now am I right, is a usual solution to a flatline a hit of a adrenalin??? Hold onto your seats, this can get a whole heap messier...[/align]
Virgil said:
Don't get to dramatic, we're talking diplomacy over unilateralism...or invasion.
Thus far we have only seen the US vaguely annoyed, certainly not in full realisation of 'zenith reached', or thereabouts. My guess is George W will seem like a moderate over the next century...now hasn't that brightened your Sunday evening :thumleft:
I don't buy the 'zenith reached' argument, but let's not go round and round over that.

I think the country has finally had enough of ideologically driven bullsh*t.

The current front-runners for the Presidential office are:

Hilary Clinton
Rudolph Giuliani
John McCain
George Pataki
John Edwards
Barak Obama

Perhaps you're thinking Hilary may succumb to 'hot flashes'?
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#20
Virgil said:
Nehustan said:
Virgil said:
Nehustan said:
...

US diplomatic initiatives and diplomacy in general, once a major part of implementing our foreign policy, is now on life support hopefully to be revived by the next administration.
[align=center]Now am I right, is a usual solution to a flatline a hit of a adrenalin??? Hold onto your seats, this can get a whole heap messier...[/align]
Virgil said:
Don't get to dramatic, we're talking diplomacy over unilateralism...or invasion.
Thus far we have only seen the US vaguely annoyed, certainly not in full realisation of 'zenith reached', or thereabouts. My guess is George W will seem like a moderate over the next century...now hasn't that brightened your Sunday evening :thumleft:
I don't buy the 'zenith reached' argument, but let's not go round and round over that.

I think the country has finally had enough of ideologically driven bullsh*t.

The current front-runners for the Presidential office are:

Hilary Clinton
Rudolph Giuliani
John McCain
George Pataki
John Edwards
Barak Obama

Perhaps you're thinking Hilary may succumb to 'hot flashes'?
My timeline covered 100 years, the next 'democrat' 8 years at max? So that's 8 years for some soul searching, then...

All it takes is another attack, which of course is going to happen. If Al CIAda were annoyed with their former buddies the US stealing their potential glory at the time of GWI, then surely post 911, subsequent retribution and T.W.A.T. they are on even less friendly terms...
 

Latest Threads

Top