In a sea of perpetual turmoil that is the Middle East, the US holds few real cards. Our options are few and our choices even fewer. That is why, much to our criticism, we’ve had friendly relations with dictators and oppressive regimes. Because we are the world’s largest oil importer, the Middle East the largest exporter, the region has tolerated our presence. In turn, we tolerated our own inconsistencies in dealing with unsavory regimes. In light of economic principles, this policy should not be an issue however much there are those who try to make it one. We are a nation of enterprisers with a government that backs free trade. As the world’s only truly hegemonic power, we have unmatched influence in the world. With the decline and, later, the collapse of the Soviet Empire, we found ourselves with a surplus in the Middle East and put it to use. Thus, the US enjoys low gas prices which allow produce to move relatively cheaply within our large republic. As a result, the US has had sustained economic growth even before we made access to oil as part of our national interests. To note, the Gulf War proved we were willing to defend access to oil.
At some point, our economic relationship with the Middle East turned into a paternal one. So much to the point we cannot differentiate between our sentiments and our interests. In other words, our trade policy became entangled with national interests and national sentiments. It is now to the point that not only is the US the Middle East’s greatest trading partner, it also serves as its greatest agitator. We have been chasing those two buses of human rights and self-determination for some time. Now it looks like we finally caught up to them. What does our destination look like up ahead? — instability, radicalization, and uncertainty are what. We encouraged the ousting of a friendly ally in Egypt. Only to have him replaced by a growing Islamic force. After which, we have unwittingly allied ourselves with al Qaeda and other Islamist forces fighting in Libya against Muammar Gaddafi. All for a county and that serves no interest to the US. Meanwhile, a similar situation in Syria is materializing. Except, as a big difference, Syria allies itself with Iran, while it supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. All three are major obstacles to the Middle East process. Not to mention, Syria facilitated and helped train foreign fighters that directly contributed to American deaths in Iraq. However, the Obama administration has no intention to intervene in Syria, which is to say Syria’s real threats to America’s interests aren’t the same as Libya humanitarian concerns.
Becoming militarily involved in Libya changes the dynamics. The Obama administration has set up the US to look like the villain. By playing to the liberal interventionists in his inner circle, and using military force in Libya, he has given himself a no win situation. Because when we fail to show consistency across the board, the US will once again look like a meddling colossus in the eyes of Muslims. Our benevolence will be thrown back into our face. Moreover, any real chance of changing the situation in Syria has virtually been wasted on our involvement in Libya. There is no way Americans or Muslims for that matter will tolerate a fourth front against another Muslim nation.
This is what happens when an administration gets confused between national sentiments with national interests.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.