Barry Rubin goes over the reasons behind the new Bush policy on Arafat;
THE REGION: Perfect sense
By BARRY RUBIN
"This kind of thing is frightening to me, because it often gives me the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is dying out of the world."
Thus spoke George Orwell, a very wise man. Let's be grateful for Orwell that he didn't live to see the kind of coverage and analysis the Middle East is receiving today.
One major current example is the distortion of the reasoning behind President George W. Bush's doubts regarding Yasser Arafat's reliability as a partner for peace and the need for basic changes in Palestinian thinking before progress is possible.
But in order to understand some of the elements largely being ignored by Bush's critics, let's first take a step back to what now seems like "ancient history."
On September 11, 2001, about 3,000 Americans were killed in a series of horrendous terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The US government determined that this was the work of the al-Qaida group, led by Osama bin Laden and hosted by Afghan's Taliban regime. America proclaimed a war against terrorism, and President Bush stated that everyone in the Middle East had to decide whether they were with or against the US in this conflict.
For various reasons, the Bush Administration has now come to the conclusion that Yasser Arafat and his movement are allied, even if somewhat indirectly, with al-Qaida. You might understand - though many do not, or prefer to ignore the issue - why this would be rather upsetting for the US.
What is the basis for this conclusion? It has come from US intelligence regarding the activities of Iran, Hizbullah, al-Qaida, and the Palestinian leadership. One key element was the fact that Iran and Hizbullah sent at least three arms ships to Arafat's forces - the Karina A, Calypso and Santorini.
Originally, this incident was taken to show Arafat and his movement's direct involvement in anti-Israel terrorism, and their effort to escalate rather than ease the level of violence.
But now attention is focusing on a different angle. The arms, ordered by and intended for Arafat's men, were provided by Iran and handled by Hizbullah.
The middle man was Imad Mugniyeh. Let's examine each of these players:
Iran has long been on the US list of countries sponsoring terrorism and has been subject to US sanctions.
Historically the three issues on which the US demanded that Iran change its policy are: sponsoring terrorism, subverting the Arab-Israeli peace process through violence, and developing weapons of mass destruction.
At the same time, the US had hoped that democratic forces might win in Iran.
It became clear, however, that hard-liners would continue to dominate the country But since September 11, 2001, a whole new set of issues have developed which has made the US more hostile toward Iran.
These are the reasons - and not because they are stupid or know nothing about the Middle East - that US leaders included Iran as part of a group Bush called the "axis of evil."
The first of these was Iran's policy toward Afghanistan.
The US approached Teheran to try to work out some deal in which Iran would support a stable post-Taliban regime in Kabul while having its interests respected. Iran has its own clients in southwestern Afghanistan who could have shared power. Iran refused and began efforts to subvert the new regime. This made the US angry.
Next, Iran provided safe haven to many al-Qaida terrorists and helped them move to other places, notably Lebanon. The fact that Iran is an ally of the terrorists who murdered 3,000 Americans and want to kill more gives the US a strong motive for seeing Iran as an enemy.
US intelligence has also shown increasingly tighter links between Arafat and Teheran. This is one factor putting Arafat on the adversarial side in the US war against terror.
Imad Mugniyeh was a young man from a Lebanese Shi'ite neighborhood in Beirut who joined Arafat's personal bodyguard, Force-17, in the 1970s and rose to an important position. After Arafat left Lebanon in 1982, Mugniyeh and other terrorist assets were turned over to Iran.
Mugniyeh rose to become a leader of Hizbullah. He was a key figure in the 1983 bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans, and a 1985 airplane hijacking in which an American serviceman was murdered. Mugniyeh is believed to be residing in Iran.
Given his links, Mugniyeh was the perfect person to broker the Karine A deal. He is on the FBI's most wanted list and is working closely with Arafat's forces. This is a second factor allying Arafat with the enemies of America.
Hizbullah, the Lebanese Shi'ite militia, has increasingly been defined by the US as a terrorist organization, especially after Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon removed any "legitimate" reason for its violent attacks on Israel.
During the past two years, Hizbullah has been increasingly involved in promoting terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza. While these attacks are directed against Israel, they are also intended to undermine American-led peace and cease-fire initiatives.
As if this were not enough, Hizbullah has now allied itself with al-Qaida. US officials have leaked details about how Hizbullah is protecting, resettling and reactivating al-Qaida terrorists in Lebanon.
In future, this will enable more al-Qaida attacks on Americans, helped at least indirectly by Hizbullah. By allying himself with Hizbullah, Arafat has opened up a third link to anti-American terrorists.
This set of factors, along with the frustrating experience of the negotiating process, which made American leaders conclude that Arafat was totally unreliable and would never really make peace, explains Bush's new policy.
Yet large sections of the media and many experts are content to claim that this stance simply represents a copying of Israel's policy, or total ignorance on the part of the Bush administration.
The real reasons for the US decision - and why it makes sense - are plain for anyone to see.
So why do so many Europeans, and even American analysts, not even mention these factors behind Bush's policy?
jpost.com |
