One More Battle Between the U.S. and Iran
What Obama’s reactions to the Arab upheavals are really about
If you’re looking for the skeleton key to understanding the Obama administration’s seemingly inconsistent responses to the various crises in the various Arab states (which you can follow the course of in this fantastic Slate graphic), it increasingly seems one word can explain a great deal: Iran. Consider: The administration is using U.N.-authorized military force against the Libyan regime; supported the overthrow of Egypt’s regime; and is essentially backing Bahrain’s king’s violent repression of protesters, including with the aid of invited Saudi forces. This, the Wall Street Journal reports, is largely about Iran: “Obama’s decision last week to use military force against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s forces was made in part by his administration’s fear that Western inaction could further embolden Tehran. … U.S. military planners are also concerned Iran could benefit from an overthrow of the monarchy in Bahrain, home to U.S. naval operations that help control the Persian Gulf’s oil flow.” Indeed, over the weekend, Secretary of State Clinton warned Iran not to meddle in Bahrain, in which a Sunni (and therefore Saudi-allied) king is facing angry protests from Shiite (and therefore Iranian-allied) people, which as a group constitute the majority of the population of the Gulf state.
Essentially, Washington, D.C., sees a mix of opportunity and danger in the upheavals. If it plays its cards right, it is aiding people power (as well as ushering in more democratic governments, which, if you believe the arguments of some, is a better guarantor of long-term stability) as well as keeping the flame of rebellion alive so that it can spread to Syria and even Iran itself, in which the United States would like little more than internal regime change. If it plays its cards poorly, however—in part, if the Arab League, which backed a Libyan no-fly zone, turns against the action there—the Libyan intervention will be seen as yet another instance of (to put it bluntly) America bombing Arab and Muslim civilians. And in Bahrain, as the New York Times’s Michael Slackman laid out, the U.S. could be seen as a hypocrite that backs violent authoritarianism where a certain valuable viscous black liquid is at stake.
In short, and to oversimplify only a little, the past three months have confirmed that the region is essentially one big battleground between the U.S. and Iran, and their respective clients. And this, moreover, could be a useful heuristic for viewing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the next couple of months, particularly where the rising tensions with (Iran-backed) Hamas are concerned.
Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180
WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.
I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at email@example.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.
We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.