Washington Post
December 26, 2004

Freeing Ourselves to Take Bold Diplomatic Action

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~vox/0304/1201/images/wright.jpg
By Robin Wright

Shortly after the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was seized on Nov. 4, 1979,

of the 52 American hostages were herded into a room festooned with
skeletons, witches, ghosts and goblins. An Iranian, mystified by the

of death and evil, demanded an explanation. Joseph Hall, a military

described Halloween traditions and the embassy party that had taken place

few days earlier.

In disbelief, the hostage-taker replied, "You do this for children?"

I visited Tehran last month for the 25th anniversary of the embassy

one of several stops on various trips over the past five months to Iraq,
Iran, Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. In each

I was struck by how much political and cultural fissures still shape our
relations a quarter-century later -- not only in Iran, but regionwide.

After hearing a wide array of opinions in the region, I also came away

an urgent sense that President Bush won't be able to achieve his lofty

of a democratic, peaceful and nuclear-free Middle East unless he takes

and imaginative strokes -- a kind of "shock and awe" diplomacy -- to
generate movement in a different direction.

The region now has the feel of being on the cusp of profound change. It's
not just the obvious flashpoints: An increasingly chaotic and costly war

Iraq. Tensions with Iran over its nuclear program, with rumblings of U.S.
military planning on yet another front. The unresolved Israeli-Palestinian
conflict entering unknown territory with the death of Yasser Arafat and

pending withdrawal of Israel's troops from the Gaza strip.

It's also the hint of new forces reshaping the Middle East -- and
challenging U.S. interests -- in unknown ways: "Energy terrorism"

petroleum pipelines and workers in several countries and further roiling

markets. Rising sectarian fears among Sunni Muslims about Shi'ite

regionally, playing off the change in Iraq's balance of power. Increasing
violence and rippling instability even in authoritarian states like Saudi
Arabia.

A year ago, in his major speech on the Middle East, Bush warned that it
would be "reckless to accept the status quo" in the region. "Sixty years

Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the

East did nothing to make us safe," he said at the National Endowment for
Democracy. Without political change, the region "will remain a place of
stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export."

Yet many in the Muslim world -- even admirers of the United States --
believe the Bush administration still charts Middle East policy with a
double standard. It wants democratic change in Egypt, but it also wants
President Hosni Mubarak's loyalty and intervention on Arab-Israeli peace.

wants Saudi Arabia to open up politically, but it also wants the royal
family to crack down on Islamist dissidents and do whatever it takes to
protect the oil fields. It wants free and fair elections in Iraq, but it
also wants a pro-American government that will write a constitution to our
liking.

Arabs, Persians and others no longer believe that Washington is well
intentioned or that its goals will benefit them.

Over the past four years, trust in the United States has plummeted from

50 percent in key countries to the single digits, according to University

Maryland professor Shibley Telhami, who has polled the region. The

was evident at the first "Forum for the Future" in Morocco this month.
Muslim allies virtually rebuffed a dialogue with U.S. and European

on democracy, largely on the grounds that other issues, such as the

Arab-Israeli conflict, were their priority.

Over the next four years, it's going to take much more than regime change

Iraq to retrieve U.S. hopes for the region, even if Iraq turns out to be a
success story. The stakes are enormous. "The relationship established over
the next four years with the Islamic world will define the outlook for a
generation. We're facing decisions akin to the decisions after World War

in defining America's relations with a large part of the world. That's the
magnitude of the challenge," Telhami said.

Fostering political change has never been easy in a region as complex and

diverse as the Middle East. But next year will witness a rare confluence

opportunities -- elections in Iraq, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt,

well as Iranian-European talks on nuclear disarmament -- for bolder
initiatives to help close the fissures between the United States and the
region. Many voices in the foreign policy community, both Republicans and
Democrats, are now proffering ideas to take advantage of the moment on

of the most vexing issues.

-- IRAQ: The central question is whether the open-ended timeline --

the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq until the country is stabilized -- is still
feasible or even practical. U.S. troops are increasingly targets. The

last week on a U.S. base in Mosul, killing 22 and injuring 69, was the
bloodiest of the war. The coalition is crumbling; Hungary pulled out its
troops last week, while Poland, Holland and others plan to withdraw within
six months .

The longer U.S. troops stay, the more Iraqis -- and others -- see the U.S.
presence as an occupation. Some analysts question whether the United

has enough troops to achieve its mission any time soon. And the

left in the city-by-town-by-village hunt for insurgents has spawned wider
anger.

"The United States has been depleting its military strength, diplomatic
leverage, and treasure to pursue a worthy but unrealistic aim," writes
Edward Luttwak of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in

month's issue of Foreign Affairs. "Given the bitter Muslim hostility to

presence of U.S. troops -- labeled 'Christian Crusaders' by the [Muslim]
preachers -- their continued deployment in large numbers can only

the legitimacy of any U.S.-supported Iraqi government."

Some former U.S. policymakers are now urging the United States to identify
an exit date, as early as the end of next year, after completion of Iraq's
three-step transition. "This is never going to end as long as we're there.
It's only going to get worse," said Edward Gnehm, former U.S. ambassador

Jordan and Kuwait. "We're now dealing with a real problem like Vietnam in
terms of organized resistance with some important support from the

As alternatives, U.S. and NATO troops have a year to intensify training of
the Iraqi army. And the new Iraqi government can go to the United Nations,
which mandated the current coalition, to mobilize a replacement force.

creates an opportunity to reconstitute the mission in 2006 and allows

to take a bigger role," said James Steinberg, deputy national security
adviser in the Clinton administration now at the Brookings Institution.

may or may not lead it, or even be part of it."

-- IRAN: For 25 years, U.S. policy has been based on containing Iran.
Estrangement has lasted longer than the break between the United States

China after the Chinese communist revolution or with Vietnam after a war
that killed more than 58,000 Americans.

In pressing Iran to abandon development of a nuclear weapon, the question

whether Tehran will fully cooperate as long as it feels vulnerable living

a nuclear neighborhood and with U.S. troops now a major presence in
countries on its borders. Throw in its own eight-year war with Iraq, when
the world did nothing while Saddam Hussein killed some 50,000 Iranians

chemical weapons, and the answer is probably not -- unless the United

participates in the final deal, analysts say.

The situation is now ripe to test Iran with diplomacy, said Dennis Ross, a
Middle East envoy for both Republican and Democratic administrations,

the clear understanding that if engagement fails, isolation will be the
result. This would require Washington to talk directly with Tehran,
coordinated with the Europeans to finalize an agreement."

The key is to develop a package that addresses security concerns on both
sides, said William Quandt (http://www.people.virginia.edu/~wbq8f), a

National Security Council staffer in the Nixon and Carter administrations
who just returned from a visit to Iran. The package could include Iran
terminating its nuclear weapons program in exchange for security

It could also focus on ending Tehran's support for all extremist groups in
exchange for Iraq and the United States evicting the Mujaheddin-e Khalq,

largest Iranian opposition group, from Iraq.


Reengagement may also spur political change, add some analysts. "The more
Americans go there, the more things will change," said Quandt. "It's like
all those things that went on between Russia and the United States before
the collapse of the Soviet Union. It weakens the Old Order and gives
sustenance to those who want to do things differently."

-- THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT: For the United States, the United
Nations, the European Union and Russia, peace depends on principles laid

in their "road map." But it has failed to end extremist violence against
Israel or to produce a temporary Palestinian state, which was supposed to
happen a year ago. For the Israeli government led by Ariel Sharon, peace

based on its impending troop withdrawal from Gaza and a barrier separating
Israel from the West Bank, which falls short of the road map.

The question is how to reconcile the two visions -- and finally produce
movement after a new Palestinian leader is elected on Jan. 9. "Sharon's
180-degree shift has turned Israeli politics upside down -- and the United
States should be as bold as the prime minister," said Geoffrey Kemp, a
former Reagan administration national security aide now at the Nixon

To make progress, many analysts say, the United States and its partners

offer incentives: With the Palestinians, strike a deal to move decisively

end terrorism against Israel in exchange for mobilizing international
resources to rebuild the Palestinian Authority and its economy. Otherwise,
with the Authority in crisis and unemployment rampant, they have few
prospects for the future.

With Israel, strike a deal requiring them to freeze Jewish settlements and
to acknowledge that eventual dismantlement will not end with four West

settlements -- part of the Gaza withdrawal proposal -- in exchange for a
U.S. security role, possibly as monitors.

If that doesn't work, the time may have come for the United States to
outline the final framework for peace, say the foreign policy advisers to
two former presidents who recently appeared together on CNN's "Late
Edition." "If you leave it wide open, the Israelis and the Palestinians
distrust one another so much that they'll never move towards peace," said
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security adviser. "But if
we lay on the table a package -- and there are several key elements of

package which are generally known and understood -- and say, this is what
the settlement will be based on, then I think we move the parties

toward serious negotiations."

Added Brent Scowcroft, who was the first President Bush's national

adviser, "There are a few rough edges that need to be honed off, but it is
not difficult to see what a settlement is now. But we are the ones that

to impose it."

-- DEMOCRATIC REFORM: Transforming the Middle East politically is the
unifying theme of disparate U.S. actions in the region. The question is
whether Muslim societies will take Washington seriously as long as its
closest Arab allies are among the world's worst human rights offenders.

The answer may be in Egypt, which has over half the Arab world

and elections next year. "The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown

way toward peace in the Middle East, and now should show the way toward
democracy in the Middle East," Bush also said in his 2003 speech. Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak, 76, has ruled since 1981.

The Bush administration could press Cairo to lift the emergency law, in
place for decades, that is "a huge inhibiter of political life," said

Carothers, director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's
democracy project. That law limits the number of people who can meet

a government license and empowers the regime to detain people without
charges, in turn inhibiting free speech. "It would be a political shock

Egypt," Carothers said.

As a far-reaching step, President Bush could "have a serious tete-a-tete
with Mubarak to say the time has come to be the pacesetter on democracy in
the region -- another way of saying we don't want him to run" for a sixth
term, said Quandt.

Whatever happens on these four issues, this much is clear: In his first
term, President Bush created grand expectations for the Middle East. Like
every president over the past half-century, he has experienced the

frustrating volatility. He now faces extraordinary pressure to deliver
during his second term. Accomplishing his agenda, analysts say, will

greater diplomatic engagement -- and perhaps imagination -- than
demonstrated by the administration thus far.


* Robin Wright covers U.S. foreign policy for The Post. She has reported

the Middle East for the past 30 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26055-2004Dec25.html