Tuesday, January 08, 2008

A lap-run but without victory

Jan.8, 2008

A lap-run but without victory

George W. Bush's comments on the eve of his last visit as US president to the Middle East have affirmed the belief of most people in the region that the trip is unlikely to produce realistic results to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process launched in Annapolis in November.
It has been clear for some time now that without a major shift in the pro-Israeli policy in Washington there was little hope of a just and fair settlement of the Palestinian problem. Some optimists were hoping that Bush would be coming to the Middle East with fresh ideas based on the recognition that Israel's refusal to respect the legitimate rights of the Palestinians is at the root of the conflict.
In his latest comments, Bush did not signal any shift in his position. If anything, he reaffirmed his commitment to the "security" of Israel by announcing that he would press ahead with his drive against Iran, which he described as a continued threat to regional stability.
The US president cited the recently released National Intelligence Estimate produced by US intelligence agencies as reaffirming the "threat" posed by Iran whereas the region saw the report as a clear indication that Tehran appears less determined to have nuclear weapons than the intelligence community believed it had been two years ago.
By maintaining his tirade against Iran, Bush is seeking to serve Israeli interests. It is evident that Israel, which sees its possession of nuclear weapons as a tool to advance its regional designs, is concerned that it would lose its military edge over all countries in the region if Iran develops a nuclear programme.
Bush will be trying to convince the region to accept the US view of Iran. He is sidestepping the history of the region where Iran has always been and remains a reality with established relations with other regional players who understand the Iranians better than most people.
Indeed, there are regional disputes, but the regional players have their own means to deal with the issues, whether multilateral or bilateral.
What is of immediate and prime concern for the region is the crisis in Iraq and the conviction that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations would not get anywhere under the present geopolitics dictated by the pro-Israeli bias of the US.
Notwithstanding the loud US declaration that Iraq is being pacified, the region knows well that the crisis in that country is simmering just below the surface, ready to erupt again at the first opportune moment.
Bush has not offered the Middle East any sign that the US would adopt an independent and neutral approach to the Palestinian problem based on international legitimacy and UN resolutions and that he is willing to twist the Israeli arm. Short of that, there is little room for hope for a fair and just Israeli-Palestinian settlement.
Obviously, Bush has already turned his visit to the Middle East region into what he considers as a victory march marking his departure from the White House next year. The Middle East would see the march, but would still be searching for what Bush's victory was even after his departure from the region.