Related Resources

The next President will inherit a daunting Middle East agenda. It is tempting for candidates of both parties to run away from the unfinished business, blunders and damage of recent years. But responsible presidential candidates and members of Congress should not indulge the luxury of blaming the incumbent without considering alternatives. They cannot ignore or abandon the Arab-Israeli conflict, the awful but real dilemmas of Iraq and the dangers of either appeasing or unwisely confronting Iran.

There is no higher moral imperative for US policy than to work for peace in the Middle East, particularly peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The most urgent challenge is achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinian people. Not only is it right to do so, it is essential if the US is to protect a whole range of vital national interests.

With the single exception of Jimmy Carter, no President and very few members of Congress come to office with this mission. In US politics today, to deal with the Arab-Israeli peace process is to plunge into turbulent waters. Newcomers to Washington put it into the too-hard-to-do pile. But before they leave office, they often find that they need to confront this reality. It is very late in the day for George Bush and Condoleeza Rice. Their chances of more than a cosmetic and transitory success are not great.

Iraq is already lost, if losing is defined as not achieving ‘victory.’ Thankfully, triumphalist terms are rapidly disappearing from the lips of the president and other senior officials. There are better ways to measure success. Downsizing and transforming our presence in Iraq is challenge enough. Doing so in a manner that does not make a very bad situation worse and does not transform a quagmire into a sinkhole for any efforts of regional stabilization, counterterrorism and energy security would earn the gratitude of the American public.

The giddy predictions in 2003 of the Bush administration, neo-cons and aggressive Wilsonians were based on illusions that the US was the new Rome and could transform Iraq into a version of a peaceful, prosperous and allied Norway in the Middle East with a minimum of sacrifice. And thereby convert the region to democracy and free markets. Equally illusory is the notion that there is an obvious way out.

Our current strategy and presence in Iraq is not sustainable for much longer, either in Iraqi or US political terms. Like it or not, US political leaders and Americans at large must consider and understand what long-term interests are at stake here.

We cannot ignore the possibility that Iraq could become a safe haven for terrorists, as happened in Afghanistan at the end of the Cold War when we walked away from that country. But Iraq would be a failed state with vast stores of really nasty weapons and people trained to use them, an educated and energetic populace with real or perceived grievances against the US, massive economic potential and a central strategic location.

Alternatively, Iraq or large parts of Iraq could fall under hegemony of some of the more hostile elements in Iran.

Humanitarian disasters in Iraq, including ethnic cleansing and massive dislocation of refugees, primarily affect Iraqis today. Continuation will lead to implosion and fragmentation of Iraq into multiple sectarian militias, tribal bullies and criminal gangs contending for turf. Think Somalia with oil. Inevitably, this will continue to spill over and draw in Iraq’s neighbors, including NATO ally Turkey and Arab countries with which we share extensive economic and political interests. It is already beginning.

In the long term, the US needs to aim at less dependence on the oil and gas reserves of this region. But that is long term. For the coming decade at least, there does not appear to be a realistic alternative to heavy reliance on the energy resources of the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, Iran and the Gulf region. They are now at jeopardy

The hard goal is and will be to stabilize Iraq in a regional context. That effort should include states like Iran and Syria, where our relations are either negligible or awful, and other states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, with autocratic regimes and cultures distasteful to many Americans. The prospect of dialogue between Washington and Tehran is equally upsetting to many Americans and many Iranians, but we both need it.

Making democratic change the core of our foreign policy, rather than one goal among others, does not encourage pragmatic cooperation against non-state terrorists who seek change through violence and threaten the existing order in all Muslim countries and US security. In practice, it has inevitably appeared to be hypocritical. A new President must advance a more sophisticated over arching strategy to embrace both American values and our national interests.