By Ted Belman
In my recent article US M.E, policy needs a reset, I pointed out that US policy has been bested by Iran in all theatres including Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and that Iran is quickly extending its hegemony. I concluded,
Not a pretty picture. Continuing the same policies will not avail. Doubling down is not the answer. A reset is needed.
The US must debate whether it needs to be engaged in the Middle East or not. It has the option of withdrawing entirely and relying on the oil market to supply it with oil. In the worse case scenario if the ME cuts off oil supply to the US, it would be an act of war and the US would be justified in invading Saudi Arabia and occupying the oil fields. It should expel all Arab workers from the area so that there would be no insurgency and then bring in American workers. This could be problematic as it is rumored that the Saudis could blow up the oil fields and leave them contaminated.
If it prefers to retain a power base in the Middle East it could redesign its relationship with Israel and Kurdistan. Both can defend themselves with unequivocal American support. This support could go so far as to allow Israel to annex the territories, Gaza included, and expel the Arabs. It could allow the Kurds to fight to include parts of Turkey, Syria and Iran where the Kurds are in a large majority thereby, enlarging the country to the point where it has a population of close to 30 million.
As preposterous as these suggestions are, what are the alternatives?
In Caroline Glick’s recent column Dusk in Iraq she amplifies my assessment and asks,
And so, despite the US investment of more than a trillion dollars in Iraq, and despite the more than 4,400 US servicemen and women who lost their lives in the country, the future of Iraq remains uncertain at best. Certainly a coherent, moderate, US-allied and democratic Iraq remains an elusive goal.
She quotes Stratfor’s George Freidman who wrote,
Thus, the United States has nothing but unpleasant choices in Iraq. It can stay in perpetuity and remain vulnerable to violence.
It can withdraw and hand the region over to Iran. It can go to war with yet another Islamic country. Or it can negotiate with a government that it despises – and which despises it right back.”
Iran is the spoiler in all American plans for each theater and including the “peace process”. Both the Bush and the Obama administrations have understood this but were unwilling to deal with Iran in a meaningful way. Thus their policies were doomed to fail.
Glick concludes by recommending that the US “overthrow the regime in Iran.” and that includes stopping her from getting the bomb.