SPY EYES

“Today I tell you, and I declare it to the whole world, that we accept to live with you in permanent peace based on justice.” –Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat became the first Arab Leader to recognize Israel in 1977

2011 and 2012 have been tough years for Israel. While the unconditional support from their biggest ally, and billions of dollars flowing into the country strengthening military and economy, the tide has turned drastically against their favor. The bottom line is: no matter how many safety nets the West provides for their strategic ally, Middle Eastern politics remains far too unruly to be controlled or predicted even. Simultaneously, the momentous social media revolutions and revolutionaries gained popularity in the West so rapidly that the only option remaining for the US was to support and use backdoor channels to fine tune. The only ‘enemy’ that could openly be called out on remained Iran. And despite harsh anti-Iran rhetoric through the months approaching US 2012 election, the Republicans were reduced to second best.

The US-Israel partnership has raised questions, enmities and at times even been questioned by the US citizens themselves. For Muslim countries who feel strongly against the Zionist regime, a simple justification remains the strong hold Jews have over American media and information circles. Such justifications for unconditional partnership are mere tools to keep US in our good books; as if to say the only reason America helps Israel is because the public sentiment dictates them to. AIPAC is perhaps the heaviest funded lobbying group in the US, created in 1965 to ‘lobby the Congress of the United States on issues related to Israel’. With time however AIPAC’s growing influence has made it cause of much controversy. However the assumption that some invisible Zionist hand controlled the tide in Israel’s favor is false. And the recent Arab Spring, while welcomed by most, definitely leaves Israel less secure than a neighborhood of puppet regimes.

The first time the United States got soaked up in the politics of power and oil was during the Second World War when American, Russian and British troops were together stationed on Iranian soil. The motivation then for the United States was to use the Middle East as a hot war zone for the otherwise cold war. By strengthening relations with the Iranian Shah (Raza Shah Pahlavi) since 1941, and went on to let Turkey onboard the NATO bandwagon. After securing allies in the wealthy region, another development in the Middle East was to assure firmer control over the allies the US has formed. Initially when the idea of a Zionist state in the middle of the Arab World was pitched in, the American administration was divided into two groups strongly opposing one another. While Truman supported the idea of warmly welcoming the Jews, his Secretary of State George Marshall was afraid relations with the Muslim World might be compromised, destabilize the region and limit access to Middle Eastern oil.

However the United States not only supported cordoning off the Palestinians to 43% of their homeland, but heavily lobbied for the UN Plan, becoming the first state to welcome Israel, 11 minutes after its existence on 14 May 1948. Truman’s dedication towards the formation of Israel on the surface had much to do with domestic pressure and assuring re-election. The plight of the displaced Jews and the Holocaust were trending in the West: A President who failed to sympathize with the persecuted community was of little worth.

At the time of Israel’s creation the United States was in the process of inheriting the Middle Eastern empires (that had been divided between the victors after WWI). Britain’s weak economy could not manage the colonies. In the bipolar world US wanted to penetrate the Middle East deeper. Support for Israel caused much outrage in the Muslim World. The very creation of Israel had, and still continues to. However securing a good partnership with Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Turkey, and Iraq during the 1960s and 1970s assured Muslim support despite support of the Zionists. American foreign policy has been greatly influenced by the ‘Neoconservatives’: intellectual Jews who surfaced on the political realm around the Cold war era, liberals who advocated more military spending. It is the Neoconservative prism that has with time created the narrative of Violent Islamists terrorists as the true enemy.

As the Cold war began and threatened American influence, the best recipe to secure oil rich Middle East was a combination of puppet regimes (dictatorships) surrounding a loyal ally (Israel). The trick was simple: Israel misbehaves with her neighbors, and the US holds her restraint. It was right in the middle of the Cold War that Egypt, one of the strongest states in the region switched loyalties from the USSR to the US. This switch was observed shortly after Arab Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973. In the United Nations the US passed resolution 242 (peace treaties between the Arabs and Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from occupied areas). On the other hand, having discovered a strategic weapon, the US biffed Israel up militarily. It can be said safely that the US used the carrot and stick tactic with the Middle Eastern Regimes. Safeguarding their interests, and unleashing the dog when they misbehaved.

Another problem is that of narrative. Strong sense of victimization on both ends has disturbed the real chain of events and created versions that are propagated by both sides to justify their own respective ends. The 1967 and ’73 Arab-Israel wars have two strong historical narratives: The neoconservatives versus the Muslim World, essentially. In 1979 the US faced the first major setback in the region, when the Islamic Revolution toppled the Shah’s regime. With this first erroneous slip, the US increased support for the remaining allies, policy formulated in a way to supply Middle Eastern allies with the latest weapons, ensuring domestic stability and an abnormal gap between the regimes and masses in terms of strength. At the same time, Israel has been kept better equipped, obviously under the supposed pressure of AIPAC. But in actuality keeping Israel strong enough to pose a threat to her neighbors has kept Middle Eastern dictators obedient.

Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, that too with the help of the Taliban (again we resort to the Muslims), the Middle Eastern politics has remained under the thumb of the Western hegemony. Then technology and social media happened. The oppressed in the Middle East finally raised their voices, and before anything could be done to support decade long ally, Mubarak, chants for democracy spread like wild fire. The Arab Spring in itself can be seen as a malfunction of the strategic setup in the oil rich zone of the World. As the Arab Spring began to take a toll on the intricately balanced equation, like dominos falling all over the place, the US had to try and turn the tide in her favor.

With revolutions, the problem with any international involvement is, that it is directed to safeguard interests of the external stakeholder. The very definition of a puppet regime is that it exists to safeguard the interests of the puppeteer. Similarly, when a revolution is spoon-fed, the provider is laying grounds for new allies within the changing tide. To begin with these regimes only had such a tight control over their people because of the external aid. However the Arab Spring was a shock too sudden to be entirely absorbed. As the Arabs take external help to fight away from their overpowering dictators, they are electing Islamists who may not be easy to dictate or predict. As Israel’s neighbors are breaking free from the strings, the last resort to keep her neighbors at bay would have been an attack on Iran, a show of strength. However the US did not support such an attack. Still trying to grapple with the jumbled up pieces of the puzzle, the United States finds itself in a tough corner.

One could guess that it is a combination of factors that have led to a mismanagement of the oil rich region. While Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were planned, with favorable ‘democracies’ propped in place of dictators and governments who had digressed, the Arab Spring is quite the opposite of the phenomena experienced. Is it the weakening of the American economy, the growing strength of the Islamists, the social media revolution that let the situations out of hands? Political critics have even gone to the extent of blaming the US for the revolutions, but the outcomes in Tunisia and Egypt speak otherwise. The Arab Spring could lead to more independent minded states like Iran, or if the United States can judge the mass emotions and weaknesses of the infant governments correctly, they could still become strong allies of the West. Either way, for the time being, the hegemony is at stake. If the Middle Eastern stronghold is lost to complete disarray, perhaps US’s best ally could turn into a burden. Saving Israel from the growing tide of Islamists, and failure to let ‘anti-Iran’ rhetoric escalate will only serve to cause further ambiguity.