ADDRESSING THE NON-ARAB MIDDLE EAST
To say the Middle East is confusing is an understatement. One must remember most of the hijackers aboard the planes on 9/11 were Saudi and their leader, Osama Bin Laden (OBL), is a Saudi national also. But Al-Qaeda is a stateless organization and their headquarters was in the heart of a country, Afghanistan, that had no true government. When America turned their might against those who did us harm on that warm September morning it wasn’t with the full power of our military. The US wasn’t going after a nation-state, we were attempting to eradicate an organization whose members’ loyalty belonged not to the nations from which they came but instead to a virulent ideology. Al-Qaeda in the 21st century is not a lot different than the pirates who plied the seas in the 17th and 18th centuries. The only significant difference are the goals. Al Qaeda is a Sunni group who wishes to recreate the Caliphate, a pan-Islamic state with Shari’a as the basis of law. During the Afghan-Soviet war of the 80s, the origins of Al Qaeda were formed in the mujahadeen battles against the godless communist invaders. These “holy warriors” were being funded in part by the US who wanted to see the Soviet Union become bogged down in the treacherous terrain of Afghanistan. The Islamists also received safe haven and material support from Pakistan, a largely Sunni state.
During this same time Shia Iran, fresh from their Islamic Revolution, was fending off an assault by Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi forces whose intention was to seize vital oil regions within the Iranian state while Iran was weak. Saddam Hussein, a Sunni who led a largely Shia state had no reluctance in invading his neighbor. He intended to be the great Arab leader who would unite the Sunnis under his own version of Pan-Arabism. His aims, unlike Al-Qaeda, were secular. Throughout the 80s the entire region was in flames. American aims were to ensure no one got the upper hand, flame the fires of instability and to humiliate the Soviet Union without turning the Cold War hot.
The events of the 1980s would lay the foundations for the current problems in the region. The Iran-Iraq War was fought to a draw with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq deeply in debt. This led the dictator to invade Quwait in an audacious gamble to seize oil from a weaker nation. The oil revenue would enable Iraq to get back on its feet again. The world was not prepared to allow Saddam to control such a strategic position in the Gulf and the notion he invaded a fellow Sunni state with such brutality sent a warning shot across the bow to his fellow Sunni states to the west. Saddam’s aggression to both his own people and to his fellow Muslim neighbors created the climate that led to his defeat in the First Gulf War and the Bush policy of preemption in the current Iraq War.
In Afghanistan, those who defeated the Soviets in the 80s went on to radicalize the failed state. The Taliban, also Sunni, is an anti-modern, ultra religious organization who ruled large swaths of Afghanistan in the power vacuum created by the withdrawal of the Soviets and the complete negligence from the west. Their rule returned Afghanistan to a bygone century and their strict interpretation of the Quran brought about hardships for most of the the citizenry of the impoverished nation. Their association and acceptance of Al-Qaida was a natural byproduct of their beliefs. 
The strong ties with the Sunni tribes between Pakistan and Afghanistan had been solidified during the Soviet war and reaffirmed during the period of Taliban rule. As 2001 approached, a very anti-western Islamic militancy flourished in Afghanistan. The bonds between Al Qaeda and the Taliban stretching over the borders of two tenuous nation-states would show their resilience in the period following 9/11. The challenges facing the United States in the months and years to come will be daunting as we struggle to address how to confront these two groups and find a solution in the Hindu Kush that doesn’t resemble the Soviet experience.
The situation in Pakistan is also complex. The government in Islamabad has had direct ties to the Taliban and to those who are in Al-Qaeda ever since the Soviet war next door. Members of Pakistan’s intelligence service still remain connected to the two groups and some even assist their endeavors. There seems to be some resolve these days within the new Zadari government to fight against the radical elements in the lawless northwest provinces. This is a welcome sign in the wake of several US strikes against Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets within Pakistan’s border.
To the west of Pakistan and Afghanistan is Shia Iran. Their recent history is one of immense change combined with conflict. As Iran threw off their pro-western King and imposed a theocracy, they were thrust into a war with their Arab neighbor that bled the nation severely. After almost a decade of struggle, Iran emerged weakened but resolute. They continued to use the US as a tool to divert the people’s attention away from Iran’s economic and political troubles. In recent years President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad has shown a strong measure of resolve (if not a modicum of craziness) by denying the holocaust, funding radical organizations in Lebanon and Palestine, and voicing the desire to obtain nuclear energy which would also give Iran the ability to make nuclear weapons. Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech was the most destructive words spoken by a President in recent times. The separation created by those words has created the climate that makes the notion in Iran that a bomb is necessary to prevent an American attack.
Obama’s route through this geography of uncertainty is tricky. Iran can be pacified. Iran has a weakness. Most of Iran’s citizens love America since they have contact with someone within their family who left during the Islamic Revolution and now lives comfortably in the US. Americans who travel to Iran are greeted warmly by the Iranians. This notion is their Achilles heal. Direct contact with Iran along with a multilateral approach will bear fruit under Obama. Since the Islamic Revolution there has not been direct diplomatic relations with Iran. Their strategy until recently has been to demonize the US and in that way has kept us at arms length. In the runup to the Iraq War Khatami, their President, reached out to the US. He was a moderate and favored improved relations but the Bush Administration was riding their neo-con high and saw weakness in Iran’s position. With US troops on either side in 2003 it would have been an ideal time to engage Iran. Removing Saddam enhanced Iran’s position. With the Shias assuming control in Iraq, their western neighbor was turned from an enemy into an ally. This fact has emboldened Iran and when Ahmedinijad was elected his bravado further alienated the already toxic relationship. Obama has the tools with which to change the dynamic, and he should. Iran can be bartered away from their nuclear ambitions. The nation’s people can be co-opted to move in a direction away from the current hard line approach.
Afghanistan has become dangerous. The problem with our commitment there is the poor nation has nothing to offer the US in return. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan has no oil. In fact there are no resources at all in the mountainous state. The only product that generates wealth is opium, something the Taliban had nearly eradicated prior to the US invasion. The growing of poppies has exploded since 2001. Obama is going to need a large commitment from western nations to resolve the conflict there. America can’t go it alone in Afghanistan or else more than likely the end result will be a brokered peace with the Taliban; one that involves their return to prominence in Afghanistan for a movement away from their association with Al Qaida. This would be disastrous for the Afghani people and would ensure a continuation of civil war into the foreseeable future. If Obama is to be successful in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan he must form the bond with influential world capitals and encourage their full commitment in the fight. Afghanistan is the one issue outside of the US economy that could cause a demise in the good feeling Obama currently enjoys.
With Hamas radicals firing rockets into southern Israel, the crisis has no “good guys”. Both of the seats of power in the conflagration are wrong but for America to take a side is just plain poor foreign policy. If the US ever wants to again be an honest broker in the region it is imperative America display even handedness. With Israel taking off the gloves, the real winners among the Palestinians becomes the radicals. Innocent civilians are being killed and this further radicalizes the Strip and inflames the Arab and Muslim world. It is time we disassociate ourselves from the actions of Israel. Showing solidarity with the Jewish state as Palestinians are dying by the hundreds in Gaza is antithetical to our aims in the Middle East. In this regard Israel has become an albatross. 