U.S. Policy Toward Arab States Gets Aggressive
2040 GMT, 011015
stratfor.com
Summary
U.S. foreign policy has become more aggressive since the beginning of the air war in Afghanistan. Washington has threatened Iraq and Syria and has stationed aircraft near Lebanon. The strategy seems designed to cow both potential enemies and allies into cooperation.
Analysis
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage expressed disappointment Oct. 11 with Syria's level of support for U.S. anti-terrorism efforts. Asked about potential consequences for countries that do not meet U.S. expectations, he said, "The consequences might ... [run] the gamut from isolation to financial investigations, all the way up through possibly military action," the Associated Press reported.
In the days since the first air strikes on Afghanistan, Washington publicly has threatened Iraq with military action, stationed an aircraft carrier near suspected Islamic militant camps in Lebanon and publicly speculated on ways to coerce the Syrian government into cracking down on terrorism. These moves appear designed to give Washington a diplomatic edge by intimidating certain regimes.
All sides believe U.S. military action is unlikely, but the risks are too high for these states to take a chance on calling Washington's bluff. This means that, in the short term, Washington will get more cooperation from Syria and Lebanon -- and from other Muslim nations it has not threatened -- and Iraq will refrain from any serious military activity.
In a rare meeting with Iraqi diplomats Oct. 7, John Negroponte, the chief U.S. envoy to the United Nations, warned that Iraq would pay a heavy price if it uses the current situation to act against its own population or any neighboring states. A day later Negroponte told the U.N. that military actions might be necessary against countries besides Afghanistan.
At the same time that Negroponte was threatening Baghdad, the United States moved a carrier battle group into the eastern Mediterranean Sea, near the Lebanese coast. This deployment was not entirely unusual; the United States usually has a carrier deployed in the Mediterranean. But its particular location -- within striking distance of militant camps in Lebanon -- made a not-so-subtle point.
Kyrgyzstan: Future Front in Anti-Terrorism War
The United States is considering a protracted ground campaign in Afghanistan. As thousands flee the war-torn country, the core military target -- the support network of Osama bin Laden -- may develop beyond Afghanistan's borders in neighboring Kyrgyzstan. By spring 2002, Kyrgyzstan will likely emerge as a hotspot in the anti-terrorism campaign.
Analysis
During an Oct. 9 press briefing, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell alluded to expanding the U.S.-led anti-terrorism campaign beyond Afghanistan. Seconding his comments, British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the BBC that attacks on Afghanistan represent only a first phase in the campaign.
Click here to continue.
Related Analysis:
Conflict Will Follow Taliban's Fall
-9 October 2001
OPEC Unable to Drive Prices Up
-8 October 2001
That point was reinforced when U.S. officials told CNN on Oct. 10 they intended to renew efforts to capture or kill Imad Mugniyeh, founder of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and the primary suspect for the 1983 suicide bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut.
To round out the week, Armitage singled out Syria for criticism over its foot-dragging on counterterrorism. Instead of simply chiding the country, he brought up the possibility that Damascus could someday see the business end of a Tomahawk missile.
Are such military actions imminent? Probably not. Although the U.S. military is officially capable of handling two conflicts at once, such strikes in the Middle East would require a much larger mobilization of reserve forces and would strain logistics systems to the breaking point.
Worse, an attack on an Arab state such as Iraq, Lebanon or Syria would probably shred Washington's fragile coalition of Muslim nations, most of which are Arab. Most of the Muslim world despised or ignored the Taliban before Sept. 11, regarding it as a group of erratic fanatics who shared no ethnic ties with other states in the Middle East. But Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria are as Arab as they come -- and the fracture of the coalition would not only hurt U.S. diplomacy but also cripple U.S. intelligence efforts.
It is extremely likely the governments in Baghdad, Beirut and Damascus know the problems that U.S. military action would bring and are fairly sure that Washington is bluffing. But the price they might pay for being wrong could be terribly high -- varying from deniable commando attacks in the dead of night to seeing their regimes destroyed by missile strikes. None of these governments are prepared to bet the farm on what the United States will or won't do at the moment.
That said, Lebanon and Syria will continue to rein in Hezbollah forces, which are known for launching rocket attacks on settlements in northern Israel. For its part, Iraq will not step up attacks on U.S. aircraft or send ground troops against rebel Kurds or Shiites.
The aggressive noises from Washington will also allow the United States to keep the political-military initiative. Though the military campaign in Afghanistan is moving slowly, threats to other regimes and the movement of military forces cause other countries to react to the United States rather than proceed with their own agendas. Aggressive, slightly erratic action by Washington forces other nations to spend time and effort trying to anticipate what the United States will do next.
Finally, threatening behavior will lower the cost of cooperation from states that are not even on the potential target list. Nations worried that Washington will ask for cooperation of an extremely distasteful sort -- such as participation in attacking neighbors -- will be more willing to work with the United States in more palatable ways, such as intelligence-sharing. |
