America and the Middle East

The masochism tango


See article

Readers' comments


Liddy Rich

The real problem is Strategic Arms Limitations Treaties world wide. Why is OK for Israel , Pakistan, etc etc have nuclear weapons. Even one nuclear weapon in the hands of the US or Russia is one too many.
Rather then spend the effort to stop Iran from doing what it is bent on doing and threaten military strikes to appease Israel lets all step back and take a deep breath and look at nuclear arms race worldwide.
The best way to get Iran on board is to bring them simultaneously into the nuclear age and nuclear containment. Let them build it ( let's face it they already have everything they need for medium range) avoid threats of bombing their facilities then engage them diplomatically in bringing a state for Palestine into being. Israel needs to stop building on land and encroaching ... Israel needs to go back to the previously negotiated borders. Jerusalem should be shared. This is the only real chance and road map to peace. Then engage leaders worldwide in talks to bring down the nuclear arsenal. We have a chance to re-engage with Iran as they elect a new leader and foster the Arab spring movement for democracy there. My daughter Emily Shahrzad Rahravan from my first marriage to an Iranian has already been to Tehran post 911 to visit her cousins and aunts and uncles. She is planning to go back in the Spring of 2014 ( after spending her gap year , she graduates from high school this june, in Indonesia in the fall with Princeton Universities 12 week program "Where they be dragons". She would like to live with family and make a film about life in Iran. She still has an Iranian birth certifiate and passport. I am planning to join her for the Persian New Year Norooz in the Spring of 2014. My marriage was recognized by Iran and I have a current Iranian birth certificate and would just need a new passport or travel on my American one and need a visa. I remain on good terms with all my former sisters in law and speak farsi to them regularly. They always say Iran Beyah ( Come to Iran). My former sister in law has been accepted to graduate school at Tehran university in education and wants to send her daughter her to continue her studies in Medicine. My former husband is studying for his PHD in Medical Physics and the brain at UMass Lowell beginning this Jan and hoping to transfer to UMass Boston to complete his work.

Liddy Rich in reply to Liddy Rich

Excuse two errors. The Princeton Program is Where There be Dragons. It focuses on sustainable farming practices and religions native to the region. If each country focused on education of there own children and future citizens then they could manage the fair trade of their own resouces. Read 'Hot flat and Crowded' by Thomas Friedman for more excellent ideas. I subscribe to his ideas for a future without superpowers engaging in a weapons based economy.
The other area is to correct is that Emily's cousins want to come to the US to study undergraduate or finish their graduate work. Just like their Uncle Cyroos did come here before the revolution ( That the US had a role in.. we wanted the Shah out when he would no longer deal with us on the price of oil) We made the dangerous bet that the Ayatollah would be a better puppet. We need to stop this kind of behavior where we meddle in other countries. I support Obama's stance in not rushing into Syria. Remember what happened when we armed the Taliban in Afghanistan to get the Soviets out. More money for the state department and diplomacy is needed. Less for the Haliburton's of the world. It takes courage for me to say all this. But I am putting my Wellesley, MIT and Brown Education to good use.

Garaboncias in reply to Liddy Rich

The title of this blog is " The masochism tango". It would appear that your former husband did not have it in him to tango anymore - for it takes two to tango - and that is why he is a "former" one. The masochism in the title referred to the US and the Middle East; and not the posters on this blog...

tzatz in reply to Liddy Rich

Encourage her to stay away from Iran … the regime is NOT BENIGN … they are a Fascist Islamist Dictatorship … bent on world domination!

Where have they lead the Iranian People for 30 YEARS? It's not about the West or America … it's about Iran!!!!

The fact you don't get that is suspicious! Don't like the West or America? You think we're the source of evil on Planet Earth? Then YOU are a stooge of the Iranian Mullocracy! They're the ones shouting 'death to America' … down with the 'Big Satan' … WAKE UP!

Let Iranians stay at home and CHANGE their own country! Don't leave STAY AT HOME AND PROMOTE CHANGE FROM WITHIN! Iran will not be allowed to gain nuclear weapons … that's been made VERY CLEAR …  


After reading the article and perusing the hundreds of comments, it is clear that some important things are routinely overlooked by even the most (most?) astute observers.

1. The real struggle is between Sunni and Shia.

2. Progress in 'modernizing' Islam (ie, similar to what transpired in Europe from 1000 to 1900) and Muslim societies is unlikely as long as the Sunni-Shia struggle remains unresolved.

3. All Western and East Asian participants -- individuals, corporations, states, churches, etc., are evaluated according to their potential benefit to the struggle.

Conclusions? President Obama's desire to let the scorpions battle in their own pit may have some merit. The only problem is Iran's effort to make a bomb.

Prof M H Settelen

With the precipitous resignation of the Foreign Secretary & the horrible facts 'just' emerging as to its cause, it is hardly possible to ever expect, even under a President Carter manifesto, any kind of fair treatment of the Christian Palestinians, guardians for us of the Holiest sites in Christendom, by a person of this kind & character.
Is it possible that a proper parliamentary institution, like the Knesset, can ignore such a provenance?


Are these missiles actually being deployed to thwart any threat emanating from Syria? There is a great deal of skepticism among the defense community. Some question the validity of Turkey’s claim of defending itself from any possible attack from Syria. The Patriot system is not used against shells and rocket-propelled grenades, which eventually could be fired at Turkey from Syrian territory. Patriot missiles are used to intercept and destroy missiles as well as to shoot down aircraft. But what missiles does Syria possess that the Patriots could be used against, and why would President Assad arm these alleged missiles with deadly gas (if he even possesses such chemical weapons)? The speed at which NATO is rushing to deploy these missiles raises many eyebrows and analysts are not prepared to buy the story that these missiles would thwart attack from Syria. Read more at:

tzatz in reply to Benrandle

Grad Missiles … of which Syria has PLENTY ask their Soviet err Russian masters and their Iranian err IRGC masters …

You're defending Assad's Police State and have questions about the motives of Western Powers? There would NEVER have been a thought about putting these Anti-Missile Systems in Turkey CURRENTLY without the problems emanating from Syria's Civil War.

What are YOUR motives? Let me know.

Alex DeLarge


Why are they "yoked together"? The US has shale gas and in time will need less Saudi oil.

Israel is a liability and may drag the US into a war with Iran.

As the article says, Obama and Netanyahu can't stand each other and Obama (as a lame duck) doesn't need to suck up to the Israel lobby so this is his opportunity to cut loose and let the entire region stew in their own juice.

tzatz in reply to Alex DeLarge

You said: "Israel is a liability …"


I can see what you're saying has 'some' merit. However, Obama needs to 'suck up' since he's carrying the 'mantle' of the Democratic Party into the next election cycle. If Democrats want to win … they'll need as many 'votes' as they can get which would include those Senators and Congresspeople who are 'Israeli-centric' … that is, side with Israel re. the Arab/Israeli Conflict.

It's obvious that if Obama chooses … Hegel for Defense and Kerry for State … he's chosen 2 people with HIS OWN worldview … which does not make Israel the focus but rather emphasizes the 'broader' American interests in the region … which means siding with the Arabs. This would mark a 'turn' in US policy but as the first term of Obama has shown … he has a propensity to make many mistakes in the 'Middle East'. His siding with the Arabs in speeches in Istanbul & Cairo didn't exactly win over the Arab/Muslims … frankly NOTHING WILL with the exception of presenting Israel to them on a platter.

The Israelis will have something to say about that though! LOL

2C in reply to Alex DeLarge

You are right. Why they are "yoked together" is also a mystery to me. I guess many of the foreign policy "experts" in DC sustain this myth (why? that's the question !). The U.S. actually imports very little oil and gas from the Middle East. Perhaps the U.S. has intervened too much in the Middle East in the past decades, sometimes rightly or sometimes wrongly, but it makes the U.S. an easy scapegoat for all ills in the region. It is best to withdraw completely from the Middle East, lower the profile and let the people in the Middle East sort out their own problems. Some of the problems are intractable anyway. Putting any effort in the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" is a complete waste of time and money. The Palestinians and the Jews have been at loggerheads since Jews settled in Palestine in the late 19th century. It won't change anytime soon in the next 100 years. Iran's nuclear capability is also a non-issue for the U.S., although it will be for Israel and (Sunni) Saudi-Arabia. I guess North Korea's nuclear capability is more of a threat to the U.S. than Iran's, because of its more advanced missile capability. Keeping a Navy fleet in the Persian Gulf is also very costly, and doesn't directly benefit the U.S. because most of the oil goes to China and the rest of East Asia.

tzatz in reply to 2C

The fact you don't see a problem with Nuclear Proliferation in a VERY GLOBAL VILLAGE environment is 'strange' … whether the proliferation is in North Korea (which you acknowledge) or Iran should be concerning TO ALL PERSONS but especially Americans. Americans have the MOST to lose.

It's not about the issue of gun control like in Newtown … although that's a REAL EXAMPLE of what's wrong with NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION!!!

Think about it.

Weapons in the hands of those 'you can't trust' … whether hand guns … assault weapons … or NUKES is a BIG RISK/DANGER!

MAKE NO MISTAKE … there will be mass death if more states gain Nukes … that includes the United States! Make no mistake about it. It's not ONLY the 'LITTLE SATAN' that is the target … but the 'BIG SATAN' … that is, UNCLE SAM/THE USA!!!!

There is no Isolationism allowed! Hello? It's a global village we live in! Isn't it obvious now that GLOBAL WARMING has created havoc with weather events and it's only just begun! WAKE UP! IT'S A PROBLEM FOR PLANET EARTH and the USA is the BIG COP on the beat for the time being!

stands for truth in reply to tzatz

There you are again pouring out nonsense about Israel! Any one can see how much trouble Israel is causing not only for the USA but for the world peace!
Have you heard about the expression: "biting the hands that feeds you!" That is what Israel is for the USA!

Jean Baptiste

Getting involved in the Middle East is a loosing proposition, no matter what Mr Obama does. Its probably best to avoid the area and to get involved as little as possible. It seems everyone there hates the West and blame it for all their problems. Damn if you do, damn if you don`t.


One of the KEY Middle East PROBLEMS this article AVOIDS dealing with, and that the US administration must start to address, is the Christians ethnic cleansing from the region.

Just ten years ago, Iraq's Christians numbered 1.5 million - 2 million. Today only less than 500,000 of them remain in Iraq. While they are 5% of Iraq's population, they constitute 40% of Iraqi refugees.

In Syria the Christians situation is no better. They rush in droves out of Syria, now that Islamists take over larger parts of that country. From Homs alone some 80,000 Christians cleansed already.

Copts in Egypt are also on their way out of the country, now that Islam becomes the law of the land. On 2011 alone some 100,000 of them fled. Who knows how many since then followed:

Those Copts who stay are extorted by Salafists, who demand from the Christians to pay the Jizya - the head tax paid by non-Muslims to the ruling Muslims for their 'right' to live if they do not convert to Islam:

Lebanon's Christians are declining in numbers.

It is about time this crime of Christians ethnic cleansing from the Middle East gets Barak Obama’s, the West, and the free media’s attention.

It is about time The Economist runs an article on this subject.

tzatz in reply to Strait_Forward

Tell it to the 'blind' man … FROY

Froy DENIES the Arab/Muslims are 'at fault' … he believes that ISRAEL is at fault for driving out the Arab Christians from the West Bank and Gaza … DENIAL is a river in Egypt FROY … the same EGYPT that's DRIVING OUT THE COPTIC CHRISTIAN MINORITY …


Strait_Forward in reply to tzatz

The major fault of the Middle East Christians is that they failed to unite amongst themselves and form a nation state for Christians. As a result, they have no army to protect them in a hostile region.

A lesson to be learned by other religious groups in the Middle East if they wish to survive in a hostile area dominated by a growing number of Islamists players..


I think Obama probably feels as I do: he heartily wishes the earth would open up and swallow the Middle East and everyone in it. That region causes more trouble for the rest of the world than all the others put together. There is no benefit there for the U.S., only cost.


In an otherwise reasonable article, why does the author join the bandwagon on ignoring the big facts? Iran says it does not have a nuclear weapons program. The Supreme Leader has issued a binding Fatwa against them. TheUS national intelligence Estimate says Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Israeli intelligence says Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Only Netanyahu, who has his own agenda, like diverging attention from the ongoing land theft and apartheid in the West Bank, says otherwise. And, all the craven politicians like Obama, repeat this baseless claim , as does the MSM without a shred a factual evidence.

RumbaClave in reply to ColoradoJack

I would like to be any of the following......your stock broker, realtor, insurance salesman, car salesman, contractor, gardner, interior designer.....I could make tons of money off your naivety....wanna buy the Golden Gate Bridge?......have I got a deal for you.

tzatz in reply to ColoradoJack

Give it a rest … YOU 'think' the Iranians are after nuclear energy WITHOUT going for a nuclear weapon? You think the 'Supreme Leader's' word has any standing?

Then YOU ARE AN IRANIAN SHIA yourself … maybe YOU believe … but I HAVE NO FAITH IN HIS WORD. For me … the Supreme Leader (sic) and all his cohorts are DEAD MEN WALKING! I curse the ground they walk on! They are slugs who are leading their 'proud' nation down the path to destruction! Are you kidding me? These slugs are causing mischief THROUGHOUT the Arab/Muslim Middle East … ESPECIALLY CLEAR ARE THEIR ACTIVITIES IN SYRIA … funding … fighting … on behalf of the Assad thug Police State!

Get off your cloud!


Who do you think you're dealing with … imbeciles … ignoramuses … stupidos?



We know YOUR agenda.


I wish someone could explain to me why politicians, at least U.S. politicians, don't understand the concept of "that train has left the station". It may be impossible to lay out an accurate timeframe but the destination is clear. It seems as long as coming disasters don't happen "on my watch" then things are ok with these folks.

Is an exaggeration but using 09/11 as an example it always feels like they wonder what we could have done on 09/10 to stop it. All the comments of Iran being "a few years away" from a bomb makes it sound like "a few years away" won't ever get here. There ought to be a way to make these "leaders" accountable beyond losing an election.



Count Bernodette? How and why on earth did you dig up such a minor figure from the dustbin of history? Its amazing how you dwell on such fine details and forget the big picture. Only 3 short years prior, 6 million completely innocent Jews were slaughtered mercilessly by Europe. Jews were with few exceptions willingly rounded up by countries they had lived in for hundereds of years (in the service of the Nazis). All the fine "high" legalistic BS diplomacy of Europe (a la Count Berodette) did a lot of good then?The Jewish Nation understood that noone would guarantee their safety (remember the pathetic Evion confernce, the St. Louis...). Do you really think that any Jewish leader, 3 years after the European genocide, take any credence of any European "mediation", all the while Arabs were committing merciless attacks against Jewsish civilians? Come on!!

Not only that, but why stop at the Jews? The intransigent Arabs had take terrorims to heart in many more instances. What about the Hebron Ethnic cleansing of 1929? Was there a smiliar instance at that date done by the Jews? The Arabs then and in 67 (Khartom Conference) and in many more historical junctions chose the hard line stance. Can you quote me 1 Arab leader (not even Saddat did that), who unabmigiuosly called for peace and acceptance of Jewish Nation in any area of historic Eretz Israel? Can you quote me Arab leaders who disavow the Saladin narrative which claims eventual Arab conquest of "foreign" cultures/nations? We just heard once more a clear unambigiuos call for Israel's destruction, "inch by inch, year by year" by the Hamas leadership which has the largest constituency among Palestinians (if Abas ever dared to hold an election).

In short, while the middle east (except in Israel) boils over with death and senseless hatred, the European Press dwells endlessly on Israel's faults (as if the Euro's would do any better under the circumstance). Have you asked yourself why the Economist chose to write another article on this topic, just one week after they had written 3 other biased articles? Was there any noteworthy news to report of? Off course not! Its called a biases press in pay of the Arab lobby and supported by the European Left whose sennseless hatred of Israel has fogged up any remaining rational thinking!

ColoradoJack in reply to Isaschar


Isaschar in reply to ColoradoJack

I don't what kind of Whisky you've been drinking but its obviuosly beyond your capacity to handle it! In case you have heard there are bombs going off daily over the last 4 years in Syria, Iraq, Yemen. Conflicts in Egypt. Algeria lost 100,000 -200,000 people in an ignored and unreported civil war in the early 1990s (where was the UN resolutions then?). I take it that you count Palestianians fighters (who hide among civilians to increase the colleatoral damage) as much more important than the poor Syrians frightend to death for their lives? Where's the passion for the theses persons? or are they sub-humans not worthy of your incredible support you give to the Pals? Maybe you can just admit it that you hate Israel and maybe even Jews, no matter what?

Isaschar in reply to Isaschar

Oh I forot to mention that enlightened Algeria (who murdered thousands of their country men, believe it or not, sits on the UN commmitte for human rights! It would be funny if it weren't so sad, if it werent for real people who lost the lives wretchedly.

Chris 4872 in reply to Isaschar

I fail to understand why you describe six million Jews as being slaughtered by "Europe"
Thirty two million people who were not Jewish died fighting the Nazis or were also murdered by the Nazis in World War two. Most of these deaths occured in the many countries that resisted and fought against Adolf Hitler.
If you look at an Atlas you will see that "Europe" consists of many countries not one (and in 1939 "Europe" was clearly a set of different nations).
In my opinion lumping those millions who fought against Hitler, with the Nazis is offensive.
I do not understand the extreme hostility of some pro-Israeli posters towards "Europe"

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to Isaschar





Isaschar in reply to L6QjhvJGVk

So I finally get it. You hate Israel because you hate the Jewish Old Testament! Maybe you should just say it out loud and clear. You have a right to interpret the Scripture in your own way but I dont think you do so for the Jews. In case you dont know, the Jewish Religion understands that holy Bible as unintelligable without Rabbinic (halachic) dispute/resolution under Halacha. Literal interpretation is only one form of interpretation argued by the Rabbinc Sages. In many cases, the plain text is understood as false (e.g., tooth for a tooth and eye for an eye - and is instead should read a tooth/eye for monetary compensation).

In anycase you are very selection of your quotes. The Jewish bible will also quote things that for its time are very progressive. I suggest you do your research on: the limitations on optional wars (those aside from the 7 cananite nations) - the respect according to Egypt, Edom, and Amon, the conduct of war (women prisoners), and much more.

This being 2,000 years before Ghengis Khan, 1,000 years before the cruel Roman world, 750 years before the famed Spartan Death Squads...the list could go on and on.

As for the Hebron massacare, you ignored my questions. Why were the 430 Religious Jews subjected to a pogrom? Did these Jews harm the local Arabs in a similar fashion?

tzatz in reply to Chris 4872

WHICH EUROPEAN STATE DIDN'T OFFER UP THE JEWS? When asked … which country said … NO NOT ON MY WATCH! Which state actively fought against 'giving up' their Jews to the slaughter!

BTW … those victims of WWII … soldiers and civilians died in the war or the vicissitudes of war …


tzatz in reply to ColoradoJack

You asked: "… how much death has been caused by, say, Palestinians"

AS MUCH AS THEY COULD MUSTER … thankfully … the Israelis are more clever and skilled in the military arts! So slugs like YOU can't gloat over more Israeli/Jewish/Zionist dead.

You asked: "… the ravings of the hard right Israelis …"

Don't fret. The State of Israel is a liberal democracy … where the 'rule of law' reigns supreme! Hard right Israelis can shout as much as they like but the policy of the Jewish State is clearly legitimate! What country is the Arab/Muslim Middle East is run as a liberal democracy under the 'rule of law'? Let me know.

Chris 4872 in reply to Chris 4872

In case there is any further misunderstanding with my other post, on this thread, let me be clear. I am not attempting to equate the appalling and particular suffering of the Jewish people at the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators with the deaths of Allied soldiers.
The point is that one cannot equate "Europe" with the Nazis and their collaborators. Many Europeans also died in some way at Nazi hands. Making this point does not diminish the particular horror of the Nazi brutality towards the Jewish people in any way.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to Isaschar













L6QjhvJGVk in reply to Isaschar











L6QjhvJGVk in reply to Isaschar








The Koenig Report stated this policy even more bluntly:






Eitan elaborated before the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee:





In 1937, he declaimed:


Ben Gurion formulated Zionist strategy very clearly:



Idalion in reply to tzatz

1. These states are: Great Britain, Greece, Norway, Soviet Union.
2. Jews were not the only people singled out. Gypsies suffered equal fate.
3. The fact that Jews suffered enormously should not be used to belittle the suffering of others: concentration camps were not created specifically for Jews. There were millions of other people who perished there.


Obama's Middle East policy really does look pretty naive now. The fact that its largely been a failure should be self-evident, although we should at least recognize that after the Bush years the idea of just trying to get along with the Arabs and be "nice" had quite the appeal. I know I thought that some good would come of our change in tone, but the world is simply more complicated than that.

Good article.


Judging from this article and all the other recent Mid-East related articles calling for more American adventurism and intervention in the Mid-East, you guys over there at The Economist must really miss Father and Son Bush and their neo-con cohorts do you?

Either that, or you must have a lot invested in oil companies and defense contractors.

francisbjohn in reply to GSamsa

I'm not trying to judge or be confrontational, but do you REALLY believe that U.S. Middle East policy is driven solely by the oil companies and defense contractors?
If so could you explain how this works, please?

RumbaClave in reply to francisbjohn

Oil companies are the worlds biggest companies.
The US Military is larger then the next ten combined countries militaries.
The cottage industry for Halliburton, Lockheed defense contracters is tremendous.
What makes you think that that U.S. Middle East policy is not driven solely by the oil companies and defense contractors?
Israel has a GDP of only 250 billion, smaller then most OIL companies its influence is greatly over sated by far left wing bigots and far right wing evangelicals and the Libertarian anti war crowd and antisemitic Arab nations.

GSamsa in reply to francisbjohn

If so could you explain how this works, please?"
I don't need to explain anything. History does it for me. Crack open a history book and see for yourself.
Look up the Arabian Peninsula and Saudi Arabia in particular before and after 1932 when Oil was discovered.
Then, bone up on your 20th Century Iranian, Iraqi, and Kuwaiti history. Lookup in particular why Iran was invaded by the Allies during World War 2 and "Project Ajax" that happened soon after that and the reasoning for both of those things happening.
Round that off with 20th Century Libyan history. In particular, before Gaddafi became its leader and afterward.
Once you're done with all of that, lookup military purchases and inventories of all of the countries of the Arabian Peninsula +Kuwait, Iran before the Islamic Revolution and now Iraq. Count how many times you see, "Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and BAE Systems."
Finally, lookup foreign military sales in the US from 1951 to present. Note that the US has sold $80 BILLION in Military hardware to the Saudis. A lot more than the $30 Billion for Israel. Then, look up Haliburton and Brown and Root.

francisbjohn in reply to GSamsa

I take exception to your claim "I don't need to explain anything" as the fact that I was confused enough to ask should indicate that you DO need to explain, but I digress. I already know the sources your talking about, I just don't see what you do apparently and hoped you'd explain it.

Thanks anyway.

francisbjohn in reply to RumbaClave

What do you mean by "The cottage industry for Halliburton"? It's hard to say this delicately, but you don't know what that means. Also I'm not arguing anything, I just wanted to know what the thinking is behind this idea that big oil and big defense contractors are determining U.S. forign policy.

All I'm really saying is that your views are not as obvious or self evident as you claim, so please explain, is that too much to ask?

RumbaClave in reply to francisbjohn

You are clueless. If you do not understand my response or other responses to your post I guess you do not understand what a lobby is or how money buys influence and power, etc.......Dick Cheney ran Haliburton.......Duh !

francisbjohn in reply to RumbaClave

I know what all those things are and yes I am familiar with the popular media points regarding the Middle East, Cheney, and Halliburton, although I think the allegations you're referring to concern KBR, but lets not split hairs.

I just wanted to know what YOU think. Jeez, I gave you an opportunity to talk about your views and you responded with an incoherent stream of ideas (I said sources in my last post but that they are not), an insult, and "Duh". Needless to say I am not convinced of anything, but your lack of manners...

Joe Marlowe

This is just the latest in a long list of article in The Economist that has it totally wrong on the Obama administration's prosecution of foreign policy in the Middle East.

President Obama got it exactly right on Egypt. If the Egyptians now elect an Islamist government, then the Egyptians are going to have to live with the consequences of that act, for better or for worse, and learn from the experience accordingly. That is what self-determination is about.

President Obama has, thus far, got it exactly right on Syria.
Supporting Turkey, quietly, and largely out of public view is the correct policy. As noted before, every time The Economist complains about American policy in Syria, President Assad's position on the battlefield has grown weaker. Maybe The Economist should complain more often - Assad might be gone by now.

President Obama got it exactly right on Libya.

President Obama got it exactly right on Tunisia.

He has put the wind up the Saudis, which is welcome.

He has correctly recognized that there can be no peace in Israel/Palestine as long as Benjamin Netanyahu is in power. There is simply nothing that can be done there, except to turn off the tap on all American spending.

He has tightened the screws very helpfully on Iran, and while there may be hard bargaining ahead, the outlines of a genotiated solution are quite clear.

And, best of all, he has done it with the loss of very few American lives, and with the spending of very little American money.

The Economist needs a new Middle Eastern correspondent. Perhaps one not tied to Likud, for a start.

tzatz in reply to Joe Marlowe

You said: 'Obama got it right …

Egypt's Islamist gov't …

Libya is now being run by MILITIA'S with Al Queda as one of them …

Tunisia is an Islamist gov't …

Syria is in chaos but certainly looks like the Muslim Brotherhood will emerge as the DOMINANT PLAYER …

This is what looks like SUCCESS TO YOU?

Then YOU are an Islamist YOURSELF! Islamists are anti-AMERICAN … anti-WEST … their values ARE NOT OUR VALUES!

So … why is Obama a success?

BTW … you said regarding Israel/Palestine: "… There is simply nothing that can be done there, except to turn off the tap on all American spending."

Israel receives American funding to the tune of $2 BILLION A YEAR (Israel's GDP is $243 BILLION! – THEY WOULDN'T MISS THE MONEY ALTHOUGH IT'S NICE TO RECEIVE) … Palestine receives MOST/ALL of its funding from the WEST & especially America (THEY CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT THE $$$) …

So you were saying … 

Joe Marlowe in reply to tzatz

No, I am not an Islamist.
Your comment is nonsense.

The results achieved by the Obama administration have been almost universally successful. The success of the Arab Spring is hugely in America's national interest.

Half a century (and more) of suppression of the will of the people of these various countries has not brought them peace or justice or good government or prosperity; and the longer injustice goes on the less security we will have. It is decades past time to lance this boil.

The people of these countries need to decide for themselves what kind of government they will have, and then, for better or for worse, to live with the consequences. If the people of these countries want the Muslim Brotherhood, then that is their business, and good luck to them.

Should the people of Egypt be able to tell the United States that the US should have a Republican government? That the Egyptian army is going to install a Whig government in Washington?

Nothing about the new governments of Tunisia or Libya poses a threat to America. They are finding their way. It will take them a while. Fine. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Nothing about the "Islamist" government in Turkey is a threat to America. Nothing about the new Egyptian government is a threat to America.

The Likud government, on the other hand, which is obsessed with meddling in American domestic politics, is an ongoing threat to America's national security. Public opinion in America is shifting on this subject, and Likud is trying everybody's patience. Likud/AIPAC needs to butt out.

These "Islamists" as you label them, may find out that it is much more difficult to deliver good government than it is to complain about bad government.

When that day arrives, it will be the beginning of wisdom.

tzatz in reply to Joe Marlowe

Ok I get it … the NEW Islamist governments of Egypt, Tunisia soon Syria AREN'T A PROBLEM. Libya being ruled by Militias including Al Queda isn't a problem.

The problem is … "The Likud … needs to butt out."

Yes … I understand now.

Wow … John Kerry is looking for some 'smart' people to advise him … DON'T APPLY! LOL

Pez D Spencer

Time for various Arabs, Iranians, and other people who hope and pray that the bond between the United States and Israel would somehow disappear one day, to realize it's not going to happen.
The American support for Israel is deeply rooted and widespread -

To begin with, Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East. Actually, it's the only truly democratic country in the vast space including North Africa, the Middle East, and the Near East.
This fact and others make Israel the only reliable and stable ally America has ever had in that part of the world.
Together, the US and Israel fought Soviet expansionism for decades, while most Arab countries and terror organizations were on the Soviet side.
For this reason, Israel has deep ties with the US military and Intelligence services. It's a bond formed through fighting side by side, as brothers in arms, during decades.

The Islamist ideologies see America and the West as the main enemies of Islam - an enemy they need to fight until it's vanquished... Other 'Infidel' enemies are Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and the Jews. Americans understand this basic fact, and they don't like Islamist or any other autocratic regime in the Arab world, from corrupt monarchies to corrupt 'republics'.
Americans know that Saudis have invested billions of dollars in propagating Wahabism in the Arab world and other Muslim countries, and Wahabism is an extreme, politicized version of Islam.
No American in their right mind would consider Saudis as true friends of the US, although the countries cooperate economically and militarily.

Israel enjoys the moral and political support of tens of millions of American Christian conservatives who identify with the Jewish state on a spiritual basis. Needless to say that these people don't like Islamic ideology, and they are aware of the fate of Arab Christian communities in Lebanon, Iraq, and Egypt, who've been having a hard time with their Muslim 'brothers'.
American Christian conservatives form an important part of the Republican party's base.

And last but not least, the Jewish community in America numbers some five million people, and its members vote mostly for the Democrats. Furthermore, American Jews, most of which are centrists and left-wing liberals, are particularly active in the Democratic party, and form an important part of its base. This fact is reflected both in 'ground work' and in donations, and in the impressive number of Democrat senators, congressmen, etc. who are Jewish, and support Israel.

Bottom line: The United States and Israel are true friends, while the US hardly has friends in the Arab world who are truly reliable. This basic fact isn't likely to change, as far as anyone can see.

tzatz in reply to jouris - old account

This government … that government … ISRAEL is a liberal democratic state under the 'rule of law' …

The USA … must respect the Israeli election results and the government which is formed from those results! Israel gets to choose its own leaders and government! It's been a pretty stable democracy under VERY TRYING CONDITIONS for 65 YEARS!

jouris - old account in reply to tzatz

Nobody (at least not me) is arguing that Israel shouldn't be free to choose its own government. Just that, while accepting that, we don't have to believe that said government is a friend of the United States when its behavior consistently suggests otherwise.

tzatz in reply to jouris - old account

You're putting YOURSELF in the position of 'deciding' what is good or not good regarding US INTERESTS!

Perhaps YOU should give the US a little more credit for figuring that out themselves! Ever since the beginning … there has been give and take in this 'special relationship' … it's never been ALL SMOOTH … 'feathers' have been ruffled … arguments … disagreements … but at the end of the day … DEMOCRACIES discuss their differences and find COMMON GROUND.

THAT'S THE NATURE OF DEMOCRACIES … that's why Israel and the US get along and are STRONG ALLIES!

jouris - old account in reply to tzatz


Quite. And now, under Netanyahu, it is all one way. I certainly don't expect that Israel will do only what the US wants. But neither do I think that the US should do only what Israel wants. Give and take is fine. Take and take is not. And that is what we have been seeing from Netanyahu.

Personally, I think that Netanyahu's policies are seriously bad in the long (and even medium) term for Israel. But that is a matter for the Israelis to decide for themselves. Someone outside may offer a concerned opinion -- that is what friends do. But in the end it is the call of the Israelis.

HOWEVER, US support for those policies has to be contingent on what their impact is on US interests. We may choose to sacrifice our interests occasionally for the sake of a friend. But there are limits.

tzatz in reply to jouris - old account

Agreed. I see NOTHING in your comment that is not true.
I don't know if Netanyahu's policies are good in the long term … because policy is usually set ONLY FOR the short term. That's the difference between democracies and dictatorships (for example-Communist Gov'ts 5 YEAR PLANS et al) they only have an election cycle to shape their 'legacy' as it were.
However, I trust in the leadership of Israel to do 'the right thing' … "in the end it is the call of the Israelis"
The USA will ALWAYS do their own calculation … Obama is unfortunately wrong on all his approaches to the Arab/Muslim World … from Istanbul to Cairo … Libya to Syria … it's a disaster … with Islamists gaining Power and control ALL ON OBAMA'S WATCH? Is he the MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE? I don't think so … it's his world view that's shaping his decisions … a world view that uses 'rose-coloured glasses' to see the world … rather than how it REALLY appears. This too will pass … there will be others to replace this leader and we'll see where the USA is in 2017 …




Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Daily chart: Gaza, in numbers
Graphic detail 40 mins ago
Airbus’s A330neo: Old plane, new hope
Schumpeter 2 hrs 25 mins ago
War in Ukraine: A mounting toll
Eastern approaches July 14th, 9:54
Graphic detail July 14th, 8:16
The World Cup: Vorsprung durch Technik
Game theory July 14th, 1:58
The Economist explains: The meaning of Manhattanhenge
The Economist explains July 13th, 23:50


Products and events



