ASSESSING THE CURRENT MIDDLE EAST CRISIS:
CONSEQUENCES FOR EFFORTS TO BUILD A PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY
by Harry Targ
The Crisis is Upon Us
The current Middle East crisis has emerged with shocking rapidity. We have seen a seemingly unending escalation of violence against expanding civilian targets in Gaza, Lebanon, and Israel. While progressives have not had time to analyze the causes and significance of the escalating violence, many have reacted by articulating fears of expanding regional and possibly global war. Historical analysis, recent evidence, and reflections on this administration make such fears worthy of consideration.
However, we need to be mindful of the fact that Newt Gingrich, Bill O’Reilly, Shawn Hannity, William Kristol, and others of the over-empowered rightwing have spoken about how this war in the Middle East constitutes the onset of “World War III.” It may be that the escalation progressives fear constitute the escalation that the rightwing of the ruling class embraces. Indeed, several of them have called for a US war on Iran. And this administration, as opposed to most that preceded it, conceives of no limits on the use and encouragement of the application of massive violence.
Key Actors in the Middle East Drama
To better understand the immediate causes of this Middle East crisis, its broader meaning for war and peace, and its significance for building a progressive majority, each actor in the drama must be better understood.
First, progressives need to better understand “Political Islam,” and its concrete manifestations, Hamas and Hizbollah. Political Islam refers to those movements, primarily in the Middle East, the Gulf, North Africa, and Asia that fuse the drive for political power to religious fundamentalism. In the main, Political Islam is profoundly reactionary in terms of democracy, human rights, and economic justice. Paradoxically, Political Islam drew much of its initial support from US imperialism. A good example is the massive aid and training the United States provided to rebels fighting against the pro-Soviet government of Afghanistan in the 1980s. In fact, we now know that President Carter began funding the creation of Political Islam in Afghanistan before the Soviet Union sent troops to that country.
Hamas and Hizbollah, both allied with outside actors Syria and Iran, formed in the 1980s to capture the support of Palestinians and their allies in response to growing Israeli brutality against the Palestinian people and bureaucratization and corruption of the Palestine Liberation Organization. As many have pointed out, these two formations
represent terrorism and religious fundamentalism. But, at the same time, they have provided significant social services and a political voice for the repressed Palestinian
population. One would assume that military attacks on Israeli targets and the capture of Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon represent either a pre-arranged scenario from their playbook and/or a reaction against ongoing Israeli repression and violence.
Second, we need to reflect more systematically on Syria and Iran as regional political actors with ties to Political Islam. Both countries seek to expand their influence in the region and sympathize with local Islamic militants to do so. Also, for Iran at least, US/Israeli escalating threats create social cohesion in place of the growing legitimacy crisis brought on by protest against Political Islam at home. While Hamas and Hizbollah are allied and beholden to these states, it has always been a mistake to reduce the behavior of political movements to outside control, a standard frame from the US media point of view.
Further, it is clear that both Syria and Iran are targets for US imperialism and Israel may in fact represent a surrogate for indirect or direct attacks on these two countries. If Israel is a US surrogate to weaken and destroy the influence of Syria and Iran in the region, their motivation must be understood as a confluence of US and Israeli interests. Israel receives critical support from the US but is not just a stooge of the US. But both Israel and the US share a common interest in destroying Syria and Iran as significant regional powers. It may be that the trauma induced by the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, because of his importance as a regional gendarme protecting the flow of oil, still lives on in the vision of policymakers inside the beltway.
Third, Israeli society is driven by a vision of regional hegemony and the elimination of the Palestinian people as a political force. However, there have been political moments when large sectors of the Israeli people have risen up against their government’s regional militarism. The current government of Israel may have seen the necessity of escalating war in part to challenge any “dangerous drift toward peace.” As Noam Chomsky argued a long time ago Israeli governments (and the United States) have always envisioned a region based on a “Greater Israel,” that is Israeli control of the politics and economics of Southern Lebanon, Western Syria, and Palestine. Crushing the growing popularity of Hamas and Hizbollah would be a necessity from the vantage point of this vision and ultimately destroying their base of support in Syria and Iran must be on the agenda as well. Like targeted assassination attempts of Israelis in London in 1982, the capture of Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon today provide the excuse for the brutal military escalation beyond all sense of proportionality.
Fourth, we need to ask again what the Middle East crisis means for the US and what, if any, differences we discern in the causes and motivations of US foreign policy toward the region today. There has not been a Middle East crisis since 1948 when the United States so totally endorsed the military escalation of Israel as is the case this time. President Bush by word and deed has given the green light to Israel to expand its violence in Gaza and Lebanon. He has forestalled diplomatic activity to bring a halt to the violence. He has even stalled in efforts to safely remove US citizens from front lines. The founder of the Iran Policy Committee in a February speech predicted war on Iran by August, 2006. This is just two weeks away. While such predictions cull up images of a US air assault on targets in Iran it may be that Israeli military action against Iran and Syria is a greater likelihoo.. Such an assault would be justified as a “defensive” response to terrorist acts on Israeli soil. The US gets its war on Iran without having to do the war itself. In the end, as some commentators have suggested, this Middle East crisis may give renewed intellectual justification for the PNAC vision of a globalization of American power.
Finally, this administration seems to be expanding power in the face of growing danger of war in virtually every region of the world: the Korean Peninsula, East and South Asia, the Middle East and the Gulf, and Latin America and the Caribbean. The ideology and personality of this administration lacks any sense of limits. Contrary to the most militantly and imperialist of our presidencies-Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan-the Bush administration seems wedded to the most unbridled use of military force, directly or through surrogates, covert operations, and rejectionist postures in international organizations.
Middle East Crisis and Building a Progressive Majority
What does this mean for a left participation in building a progressive coalition for the coming period-2006-2008? Here are some possibilities:
1)Prioritize ending wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Middle East in coalition work. With all deliberate speed and diplomatic finesse, US troops must be brought home.
2)Develop sophisticated but clear positions that involve a critique of the racism and militarism of the Israeli government and a critique of the reactionary character of Political Islam and its use of terrorism against civilian populations.
3)Develop an analysis that draws distinctions between a militarist approach to foreign policy; one that rejects diplomacy, international organizations, the idea of compromise, and economic assistance and basically thrives on military action and military threat and a conciliatory approach that embraces diplomacy, working in international organizations, a willingness to compromise, and providing significant economic assistance to help rebuild countries destroyed by war and international economic policies.
4)Disseminate an analysis of the militarization of US society (the garrison state idea) that critically analyzes military spending, the militarization of culture, the training of young people to support violence, and raises to popular discourse the old ideas of ‘economic conversion” or the “peace dividend.”
Harry Targ teaches US foreign policy and has recently published Challenging Late Capitalism, Neo-Liberal Globalization, and Militarism: Building a Progressive Majority (www. lulu. com/changemaker)
ASSESSING THE CURRENT MIDDLE EAST CRISIS: CONSEQUENCES FOR EFFORTS TO BUILD A PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY
by Harry Targ
The Crisis is Upon Us
The current Middle East crisis has emerged with shocking rapidity. We have seen a seemingly unending escalation of violence against expanding civilian targets in Gaza, Lebanon, and Israel. While progressives have not had time to analyze the causes and significance of the escalating violence, many have reacted by articulating fears of expanding regional and possibly global war. Historical analysis, recent evidence, and reflections on this administration make such fears worthy of consideration.
However, we need to be mindful of the fact that Newt Gingrich, Bill O’Reilly, Shawn Hannity, William Kristol, and others of the over-empowered rightwing have spoken about how this war in the Middle East constitutes the onset of “World War III.” It may be that the escalation progressives fear constitute the escalation that the rightwing of the ruling class embraces. Indeed, several of them have called for a US war on Iran. And this administration, as opposed to most that preceded it, conceives of no limits on the use and encouragement of the application of massive violence.
Key Actors in the Middle East Drama
To better understand the immediate causes of this Middle East crisis, its broader meaning for war and peace, and its significance for building a progressive majority, each actor in the drama must be better understood.
First, progressives need to better understand “Political Islam,” and its concrete manifestations, Hamas and Hizbollah. Political Islam refers to those movements, primarily in the Middle East, the Gulf, North Africa, and Asia that fuse the drive for political power to religious fundamentalism. In the main, Political Islam is profoundly reactionary in terms of democracy, human rights, and economic justice. Paradoxically, Political Islam drew much of its initial support from US imperialism. A good example is the massive aid and training the United States provided to rebels fighting against the pro-Soviet government of Afghanistan in the 1980s. In fact, we now know that President Carter began funding the creation of Political Islam in Afghanistan before the Soviet Union sent troops to that country.
Hamas and Hizbollah, both allied with outside actors Syria and Iran, formed in the 1980s to capture the support of Palestinians and their allies in response to growing Israeli brutality against the Palestinian people and bureaucratization and corruption of the Palestine Liberation Organization. As many have pointed out, these two formations
represent terrorism and religious fundamentalism. But, at the same time, they have provided significant social services and a political voice for the repressed Palestinian population. One would assume that military attacks on Israeli targets and the capture of Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon represent either a pre-arranged scenario from their playbook and/or a reaction against ongoing Israeli repression and violence.
Second, we need to reflect more systematically on Syria and Iran as regional political actors with ties to Political Islam. Both countries seek to expand their influence in the region and sympathize with local Islamic militants to do so. Also, for Iran at least, US/Israeli escalating threats create social cohesion in place of the growing legitimacy crisis brought on by protest against Political Islam at home. While Hamas and Hizbollah are allied and beholden to these states, it has always been a mistake to reduce the behavior of political movements to outside control, a standard frame from the US media point of view.
Further, it is clear that both Syria and Iran are targets for US imperialism and Israel may in fact represent a surrogate for indirect or direct attacks on these two countries. If Israel is a US surrogate to weaken and destroy the influence of Syria and Iran in the region, their motivation must be understood as a confluence of US and Israeli interests. Israel receives critical support from the US but is not just a stooge of the US. But both Israel and the US share a common interest in destroying Syria and Iran as significant regional powers. It may be that the trauma induced by the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, because of his importance as a regional gendarme protecting the flow of oil, still lives on in the vision of policymakers inside the beltway.
Third, Israeli society is driven by a vision of regional hegemony and the elimination of the Palestinian people as a political force. However, there have been political moments when large sectors of the Israeli people have risen up against their government’s regional militarism. The current government of Israel may have seen the necessity of escalating war in part to challenge any “dangerous drift toward peace.” As Noam Chomsky argued a long time ago Israeli governments (and the United States) have always envisioned a region based on a “Greater Israel,” that is Israeli control of the politics and economics of Southern Lebanon, Western Syria, and Palestine. Crushing the growing popularity of Hamas and Hizbollah would be a necessity from the vantage point of this vision and ultimately destroying their base of support in Syria and Iran must be on the agenda as well. Like targeted assassination attempts of Israelis in London in 1982, the capture of Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon today provide the excuse for the brutal military escalation beyond all sense of proportionality.
Fourth, we need to ask again what the Middle East crisis means for the US and what, if any, differences we discern in the causes and motivations of US foreign policy toward the region today. There has not been a Middle East crisis since 1948 when the United States so totally endorsed the military escalation of Israel as is the case this time. President Bush by word and deed has given the green light to Israel to expand its violence in Gaza and Lebanon. He has forestalled diplomatic activity to bring a halt to the violence. He has even stalled in efforts to safely remove US citizens from front lines. The founder of the Iran Policy Committee in a February speech predicted war on Iran by August, 2006. This is just two weeks away. While such predictions cull up images of a US air assault on targets in Iran it may be that Israeli military action against Iran and Syria is a greater likelihoo.. Such an assault would be justified as a “defensive” response to terrorist acts on Israeli soil. The US gets its war on Iran without having to do the war itself. In the end, as some commentators have suggested, this Middle East crisis may give renewed intellectual justification for the PNAC vision of a globalization of American power.
Finally, this administration seems to be expanding power in the face of growing danger of war in virtually every region of the world: the Korean Peninsula, East and South Asia, the Middle East and the Gulf, and Latin America and the Caribbean. The ideology and personality of this administration lacks any sense of limits. Contrary to the most militantly and imperialist of our presidencies-Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan-the Bush administration seems wedded to the most unbridled use of military force, directly or through surrogates, covert operations, and rejectionist postures in international organizations.
Middle East Crisis and Building a Progressive Majority
What does this mean for a left participation in building a progressive coalition for the coming period-2006-2008? Here are some possibilities:
1)Prioritize ending wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Middle East in coalition work. With all deliberate speed and diplomatic finesse, US troops must be brought home.
2)Develop sophisticated but clear positions that involve a critique of the racism and militarism of the Israeli government and a critique of the reactionary character of Political Islam and its use of terrorism against civilian populations.
3)Develop an analysis that draws distinctions between a militarist approach to foreign policy; one that rejects diplomacy, international organizations, the idea of compromise, and economic assistance and basically thrives on military action and military threat and a conciliatory approach that embraces diplomacy, working in international organizations, a willingness to compromise, and providing significant economic assistance to help rebuild countries destroyed by war and international economic policies.
4)Disseminate an analysis of the militarization of US society (the garrison state idea) that critically analyzes military spending, the militarization of culture, the training of young people to support violence, and raises to popular discourse the old ideas of ‘economic conversion” or the “peace dividend.”
Harry Targ teaches US foreign policy and has recently published Challenging Late Capitalism, Neo-Liberal Globalization, and Militarism: Building a Progressive Majority (www. lulu. com/changemaker)