The More Things Change

by Todd May

The Democrats have taken Congress. Everything will be okay now.

Not really. We can hope for some domestic progress, or at least some slowing of the pace of regress. However, in at least one region of the world, the Middle East, we can expect very little change in policy. The lives of those U.S. policy has done so much to destroy will go on much as they have. In order to see how little will change in that part of the world, let’s look at three areas: Israel and Palestine, Iraq, and Iran.

Historically, supporters of Israel have made their home in the Democratic Party. This is because many Jews, traditionally liberal, have identified with the more nearly liberal policies of the Democrats. (This, of course, is back when there was a liberal edge to the Democratic Party.) Most Jews identify themselves as supporters of Israel and its policies, and the organized Jewish community does so as a monolithic bloc. Thus, the Democratic Party has embraced a pro-Israel platform that has never seen fit to recognize the true character of the Israeli occupation. It was, in fact, Democratic president Lyndon Johnson who decisively tipped the scales of U.S. policy towards Israel in 1967.

The source of the Bush Administration’s uncritical support for Israel and its genocidal policy toward the Palestinians comes not so much from the traditional Jewish community as from the Christian right. The Christian right finds itself in league with Jewish advocates for Israel and its policies, for reasons having less to do with the health of Israel as with Biblical predictions about the apocalypse. The result of this alliance is that, between Democrats and Republicans, there is a convergence on blind support for even the most egregious of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinian people, not to mention its recent attack on Lebanon.

The Congressional swing back to the Democrats will, then, have no effect on U.S. policy toward Israel. This is crucial for Middle East policy. Uncritical U.S. support for Israel has been the central reason that most Arabs and Muslims do not trust U.S. intentions in the Middle East generally. The continuing failure to address this uncritical support will ensure that U.S. efforts in the region will be met with resistance.

Turning to Iraq, the problem is different. U.S. policy has not historically been opposed to Iraq or to its leadership: recall that the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein during much of the 1970’s and 1980’s, when he was engaged in a campaign of genocide against the Kurds and an aggressive war against Iran. The problem with U.S. policy now is that Iraq is a quagmire. The ascension of the Democrats to Congressional control does nothing to change this.

There are those who say that the Democrats will, at least, hasten the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. This is probably true, but is it a good thing? It is entirely unclear if complete withdrawal of the military is better than staying. If we stay, the U.S offers a motivation for the resistance and also reinforces the view of the U.S. as occupiers rather than liberators. Alternatively, if the U.S. military withdraws, the civil war that is swallowing Iraq will only grow in intensity. This is the true dimension of the failure of the Iraq war. Not only was it begun on the basis of lies; there is no way to end it that is not dire. Perhaps partition or some other solution can solve the quagmire that we have created there. There will be no solution, however, that does not come at the cost of many more thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands, of innocent lives.

The difficulty with policy toward Iran follows directly from the quagmire in Iraq. This difficulty comes from two directions. From the Iranian side, there is a realization that the U.S. is willing to attack any country that cannot defend itself. This is a strong motivation for the development of nuclear weapons. Iran undoubtedly draws a lesson from the difference between U.S. policy towards Iraq and North Korea, two of the three members of the “axis of evil” (Iran being the third). One had no nuclear weapons, and was attacked. The other does, and was not. It’s not rocket science. Well, okay, it is.

The other direction is that the U.S. cannot currently do anything to stop Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. U.S. forces are stretched too thin to mount a ground assault, while attacking suspected sites with conventional weapons is unlikely to work. Mounting a nuclear assault against Iran is nothing more than another invitation to mass terrorism. The isolation and derision that the U.S. currently enjoys will be nothing compared to what happens if it mounts a nuclear, or even a conventional, assault against suspected Iranian nuclear sites.

One should also not discount the possibility of Israel’s mounting an attack. However, given the U.S. alliance with Israel, that would be hardly better for us than simply doing it ourselves. For much of the world, and rightly so, the U.S. and Israel are viewed as a single policy entity.

What is the upshot of this? In many quarters, the scope of the Democratic victory has been a source of euphoria. To be sure, there are upsides to the victory and to its scope. However, it should not be overestimated. In one of the most volatile regions of the world, and the region to which the U.S. is at once the most committed and the most vulnerable, there is nothing to suggest that the recent election will offer improvements. Change in U.S. policy in the Middle East, if it is to come, will have to come from the people rather than from the parties.