|
|
|
|
|
PERLES OF WINDOM FOR THE FEITHFUL
By Akiva Eldar
[Ha'aretz - 1 October 2001]: Saturday night's TV audience for the weekly
foreign affairs show "Ro'im Olam" on Channel One saw Prince Hassan, King
Abdullah's uncle, starring at a London assembly of the Iraqi opposition in
exile. Ever since the Bush administration ordered the CIA to nurture the
exiled Iraqis, nothing happens to them by accident. Prince Hassan didn't just
happen to drop in because he was in town. The Hashemite dynasty has never
given up its dream to revive the Iraqi throne. It could be a great job for
Hassan, whose older brother denied him the Jordanian kingdom at the last
minute.
It's true that restoring a monarchy in Iraq does not exactly fit the Bush
administration's vision of a democratic Middle East. But there are signs
that it fits some old dreams of a few of the key strategists around the
Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld triangle running America's Iraq policy. A few weeks ago,
Richard Perle invited the Pentagon chiefs to a meeting with researchers from a
Washington think tank with particularly close relations with the Defense
Department.
According to information that reached a former top official in the Israeli
security services, the researchers showed two slides to the Pentagon
officials. The first was a depiction of the three goals in the war on terror
and the democratization of the Middle East: Iraq - a tactical goal, Saudi
Arabia - a strategic goal, and Egypt - the great prize.
The triangle in the next slide was no less interesting: Palestine is Israel,
Jordan is Palestine, and Iraq is the Hashemite Kingdom.
The former Israeli security official met two weeks ago with a very
well-connected Republican member of one of Perle's Policy Board. The Israeli
asked if the Bush administration intended to pick up where the Carter
administration left off, "when it swapped the Shah's democracy for
Khomeini's." The Israeli warned the American about an all-out war with the
entire Arab world, and added that the Perle plan would create "an impossible
strategic environment" for Israel. He mentioned Algeria as an example of
democratization in the wrong place. The Republican promised he'd pass it on to
the White House.
Redefining Iraq
In 1996, Richard Perle and Doug Feith joined a small group of researchers who
were asked to help Benjamin Netanyahu in his first steps as prime minister.
They could not have known that four years later that the working paper they
prepared, including plans for Israel to help restore the Hashemite throne in
Iraq, would shed light on the current policies of the only superpower in the
world. The document, prepared by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and
Political Studies, with offices in Washington and Jerusalem, appears at the
institute's Web site,
www.israeleconomy.org/start1.htm,
and has been mentioned in the American press.
The current Israeli and Iraqi connection, and the key role Feith and Perle
play in the Bush administration, make the document a treasure trove. Perle
heads the Defense Department's Policy Board and is considered one of the most
important strategic thinkers in the American establishment. Feith is the
deputy defense minister - No. 3 in the Pentagon's hierarchy. The document
presents an ambitious plan for a "U.S.-Israeli partnership based on
self-reliance, maturity and mutuality - not one focused narrowly on
territorial disputes."
The new partnership drawn up by Perle, Feith and five other researchers, has
interests in all sorts of directions in the region.
"Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the
restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq," the group writes. "Since Iraq's future
could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be
understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in
their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as
the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of
the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with
some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian
subversion; encouraging - through influence in the U.S. business community -
investment in Jordan to shift structurally Jordan's economy away from
dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria's attention by using Lebanese
opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon."
The experts advised Netanyahu to pull Turkey into the brew, with diplomatic,
military, and operational support for Turkish actions against Syria. They say
that "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey
and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort
can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli
strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional
ambitions." One way to do it: "... Securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes
that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite."
Since Syria prefers "a weak, but barely surviving Saddam," if only to foil
Jordanian efforts to topple him, Perle, Feith and company are recommending
diverting Syria attention from the Hashemitization of Iraq. How? "By using
Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon."
Quote Peace Unquote
At this point the two Jewish experts, eventually to become key Pentagon
players, are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments
(including the Reagan administration, in which Perle played a key role) and
Israeli interests. They say, "Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it
is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan 'comprehensive peace'
and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass
destruction program, and rejecting 'land for peace' deals on the Golan
Heights."
Perle and Feith were among the leaders of the campaign to push Congress not to
support the idea of sending American peacekeeping troops to the Golan, which
came up as an idea in the U.S.-mediated negotiations Yitzhak Rabin conducted
with the Syrians. The group decides that "Israel's new strategy - based on a
shared philosophy of peace through strength - reflects continuity with Western
values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in
any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its
own affairs.
"To remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past," Perle
and Feith recommend the new prime minister declare on his first visit to
Washington that Israel "is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately
from U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic
reform." Indeed, Netanyahu did use the occasion of his first visit to
Washington as prime minister to announce a gradual reduction of civilian aid
and turning some of it into defense aid. The experts believe that way Israel
will improve its cooperation with the U.S. against genuine threats to the
region and Western security.
The position paper, which includes sections marked like crib sheets with
"TEXT" for Netanyahu to use in his speeches, proposes some tactical methods
the Israeli prime minister can use to foresee U.S. reactions and how to manage
them. They give Netanyahu tips on how to maneuver congressmen, for example.
They say Netanyahu should phrase his policies and emphasize those issues
important to him in a language familiar to Americans and to use terms that
occupied the attention of the American administrations during the Cold War and
are relevant to Israel. They even recommend the timing for "winning American
support" - before the November 1996 elections.
The document's writers propose Netanyahu press for cooperation on
anti-ballistic missile defense, because "it would broaden Israel's base of
support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about
Israel, but care very much about missile defense."
Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S. Embassy in
Israel to Jerusalem, a subject that interests many in Congress, "including
those who know very little about Israel."
And how does all this fit into the concept of the peace process, which was
then facing one of its darker periods? The term 'peace process' appears in
quotes in the document. So does the phrase 'new Middle East,' which, said
Perle, Feith, et al "undermines the legitimacy of the nation and leads Israel
into strategic paralysis."
Source : MER
|
|
|
|
|
|
|