{"id":105437,"date":"2018-01-29T12:01:06","date_gmt":"2018-01-29T12:01:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=105437"},"modified":"2018-01-26T11:00:46","modified_gmt":"2018-01-26T11:00:46","slug":"a-rare-glimpse-into-the-inner-workings-of-american-empire-in-the-middle-east","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2018\/01\/a-rare-glimpse-into-the-inner-workings-of-american-empire-in-the-middle-east\/","title":{"rendered":"A Rare Glimpse into the Inner Workings of American Empire in the Middle East"},"content":{"rendered":"

Four former U.S. diplomats provided remarkably candid commentary on recent U.S. involvement in the Middle East, revealing that it is still about oil and regional dominance.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Ambassadors testify on the U.S. Strategy in the Middle East during a Dec 14 2017 Senate hearing. (Photo: Screenshot\/C-SPAN)<\/p><\/div>\n

22 Jan 2018 – <\/em>In recent\u00a0testimony<\/a>\u00a0before the Senate Armed Services Committee, four former U.S. diplomats provided remarkably candid commentary on recent U.S. involvement in the Middle East, revealing a number of the most closely guarded secrets of U.S. diplomacy.<\/p>\n

The four former diplomats emphasized the importance of the region\u2019s oil, spoke critically about the weaknesses of U.S. strategy, made a number of crude comments about U.S. partners, displayed little concern about ongoing violence, and called for more \u201cdiscipline\u201d throughout the region.<\/p>\n

One of the former diplomats,\u00a0James Jeffrey<\/a>, criticized the Obama administration for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011 rather than going through with a secret deal to maintain a secret network of military bases in the country. Even today, Jeffrey said, officials in Washington must not \u201cmelt down\u201d and retrench when U.S. forces get killed. Officials must accept that there could always be \u201cnew Benghazis and new Nigers,\u201d he said, referring to incidents in which U.S. agents have been killed.<\/p>\n

The four former diplomats also lambasted U.S. partners in the region. They criticized many of their closest allies for poor governance, a lack of democracy, and an inability to coordinate on shared strategic objectives.<\/p>\n

Jeffrey made some of the strongest criticisms, charging Kurdish leaders in Iraqi Kurdistan with making their region into \u201canother basket case\u201d in the Middle East. He also complained that U.S. officials had to deal \u201cwith a lot of bitching\u201d from the Turkish government over U.S. support for the Kurdish fighters confronting the Islamic State (ISIS or IS) in Syria.<\/p>\n

In addition to Jeffrey, who once held high-level positions in the George W. Bush administration, the group of former diplomats included\u00a0Ryan Crocker<\/a>,\u00a0Eric Edelman<\/a>, and\u00a0Stuart Jones<\/a>. Crocker has been the U.S. ambassador to six different countries in the Middle East. Edelman and Jones, who have both been diplomats in the Middle East, have held senior positions in numerous administrations.<\/p>\n

Over the past few decades, all four men have played significant roles in crafting and implementing U.S. policies in the region. They were \u201cgiants\u201d who had \u201cwalked the earth,\u201d according to Edelman.<\/p>\n

Together, these four former diplomats called on the Trump administration to play a more assertive role in the Middle East. Although they largely agreed that IS has been significantly weakened over the last two and a half years, removing a significant challenge to U.S. power, they saw ongoing challenges from Iran and Russia and growing problems between the U.S. and its allies. They wanted to ensure that the United States remained well positioned to call the shots in the region and maintain a U.S.-led system of regional order.<\/p>\n

\u201cClarity on U.S. plans and goals and particularly success against Iran will help mobilize allies, but the U.S. must discipline the system and overwatch partners constantly,\u201d Jeffrey said.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Laborers walk down a path in the Nihran Bin Omar field north of Basra, Iraq, 340 miles (550 kilometers) southeast of Baghdad, on Jan. 12, 2017.
(AP\/Nabil al-Jurani)<\/p><\/div>\n

The Strategic Concerns<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some of the more astounding revelations concern the basic reason why U.S. officials remain so focused on the Middle East. Although U.S. officials typically emphasize the problems of terrorism and security, a number of the former diplomats indicated that the major concerns have always been the region\u2019s oil, location, and function in the global economy.<\/p>\n

Former diplomat Eric Edelman made the clearest statement on the matter, explaining in his prepared statement that geostrategic calculations have been central factors in U.S. policy since the end of World War II. \u201cU.S. policymakers have considered access to the region\u2019s energy resources vital for U.S. allies in Europe, and ultimately for the United States itself,\u201d he wrote. \u201cMoreover, the region\u2019s strategic location\u2014linking Europe and Asia\u2014made it particularly important from a geopolitical point of view.\u201d<\/p>\n

Edelman went on to suggest that U.S. actions in the region have been consistently based on these geostrategic factors. He cited the Carter Doctrine of 1980, which identified the Persian Gulf as a region so vital to U.S. interests that the U.S. would militarily intervene in the region to expel outside forces. He also cited the first Gulf War against Iraq, in which the U.S. militarily intervened to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe geostrategic and economic factors that made the Middle East so important to our national security in the past are just as potent today,\u201d Edelman said. Even with recent increases in U.S. energy production as a result of the fracking revolution, \u201creal or even potential disruptions to the flow of oil anywhere would have serious negative effects on our economy.\u201d<\/p>\n

With his remarks, Edelman made it clear that U.S. officials continue to value the Middle East for its oil. The region \u201ccontains half of global proven oil reserves, accounts for one-third of oil production and exports, and is home to three of the world\u2019s four biggest oil transit chokepoints,\u201d he explained.<\/p>\n

When Edelman raised these points during the hearing, nobody disagreed with him. Neither his colleagues nor the committee members challenged his observations about why the region was so important. His remarks were considered so uncontroversial that they never came up for debate.<\/p>\n

Instead, the current and former officials focused their discussion on what they thought were the main challenges to U.S. access to the area. Their primary concern was that Russia and Iran were working together to challenge the U.S.-led system of regional order with the hopes of creating some alternative system.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn reality, both Russia and Iran want to roll back U.S. influence even further in the region, and each depends on the other to help it do so,\u201d Edelman warned in his prepared statement.<\/p>\n

During the hearing, Jeffrey made a similar point, saying that \u201cRussia and Iran and, to some degree, Syria want to change the mix of the Middle East.\u201d The U.S. and its allies, he continued, must maintain the current system and \u201cat the end of the day we just have to push back.\u201d<\/p>\n

In these ways, the former diplomats provided some remarkable insights into the most basic reasons behind U.S. actions in the Middle East. They revealed that basic U.S. policy was to maintain a U.S.-led system of regional order so that the U.S. government could influence how all parts of the world gained access to the region\u2019s oil.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Turkey\u2019s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan addresses his lawmakers at the parliament in Ankara, Turkey, where he called on NATO to take a stance against the United States, a fellow ally, over its plans fund and arm a 30,000-strong Kurdish-led militia in Syria, Jan. 16, 2018. (AP\/Burhan Ozbilici)<\/p><\/div>\n

Frictions<\/strong><\/p>\n

Throughout the hearing, the four former diplomats also made a number of unusually blunt criticisms of U.S. strategy. They felt that their superiors in Washington and their many partners throughout the region kept taking steps that were creating more problems in the area.<\/p>\n

Jeffrey was especially critical of the Obama administration, which he blamed for failures in the second Gulf War against Iraq. Jeffrey, who was the Obama administration\u2019s ambassador to Iraq during the period when U.S. forces withdrew from the country in 2011, said that the administration should have accepted a secret plan to keep U.S. forces in the country. Jeffrey explained that administration officials had arranged a secret plan with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki \u201cto cheat, with Maliki\u2019s acknowledgement,\u201d on the final agreement to withdraw U.S. forces from the country. \u201cWe had Black SOF, White SOF,\u201d he said, seemingly referring to different kinds of Special Operations Forces. \u201cWe had drones, we had all kinds of things,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

Jeffrey was reluctant to provide more details, but he insisted that the secret plan could have worked if his superiors in the Obama administration had tried it. He did not express any concern about the fact that an estimated\u00a0100,000<\/a>\u00a0people had already died in the war.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was a very big package, including a $14 billion FMS program,\u201d Jeffrey said, referring to a program of military sales. \u201cWe had bases all over the country that were disguised bases that the U.S. military was running.\u201d<\/p>\n

Although the other former diplomats on the panel largely agreed that the Obama administration should not have withdrawn U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, they were convinced that U.S. partners shared much of the blame for ongoing violence in the area. The former diplomats accused many of their closest partners and allies of acting in ways that were creating problems.<\/p>\n

Sometimes, \u201cthey will do things in a way that we think makes things worse rather than better,\u201d Edelman said.<\/p>\n

Jeffrey agreed with his colleagues, saying it was simply the price of operating in the Middle East. To maintain access to the region, he explained, \u201cwe have to rely on five countries\u2014Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt.\u201d Each of them, he said, came with significant problems, all of which made it difficult to operate in the area. \u201cWe wouldn\u2019t pick these allies if we were coming up with a different Middle East, but we have to deal with the Middle East we have,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Jeffrey was especially critical of Turkey, a NATO ally. He said that \u201cthe things they do are toxic.\u201d<\/p>\n

Since a putsch attempt against the Turkish government in July 2016, Turkish leaders have\u00a0accused<\/a>\u00a0the U.S. government of involvement. As part of the government\u2019s subsequent\u00a0crackdown<\/a>\u00a0on its domestic opponents, an estimated 150,000 Turks have been fired from their jobs, 60,000 have been arrested, 1,500 civil society organizations have been disbanded, and more than 100 media outlets have been closed.<\/p>\n

The crackdown came amid a period of growing tensions between the U.S. and Turkish governments. Differences over how to deal with the war in Syria and relations with Russia have added to the tensions in the relationship.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s unpleasant, it\u2019s transactional, it\u2019s ugly,\u201d Jeffrey said.<\/p>\n

Edelman, who believed that the U.S. bore \u201ca little bit of the blame here for this deterioration in relations,\u201d still called for a tougher approach. \u201cI don\u2019t think we can tolerate some of the behavior that our Turkish allies are showing,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Ryan Crocker reminded the committee members that the United States still relied on Turkey to maintain access to the region. He said that it would be necessary to continue working with the country\u2019s repressive leadership, despite its troubling behavior.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey are a NATO partner in a region where we don\u2019t have a choice between democracy and autocracy,\u201d Crocker said. \u201cThat\u2019s not on the table.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jeffrey provided one of the most telling comments on the situation when he acknowledged that the Turkish government continued to tolerate U.S. support for the Kurdish fighters who were fighting IS in Syria. The Kurdish fighters, he explained, were an offshoot of the Kurdistan Worker\u2019s Party (PKK), a group that both the U.S. and Turkish governments consider to be a terrorist organization.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Turks are allowing us to support the PKK offshoot Kurds in Syria every day\u2014reluctantly, with a lot of bitching, but they do it,\u201d Jeffrey said.<\/p>\n

The U.S. decision to support the Kurdish fighters created additional controversy because of Kurdish aspirations to create their own state. The governments of countries with significant Kurdish populations, including Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, all opposed the idea.<\/p>\n

When Iraqi Kurds living in the autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan\u00a0voted<\/a>\u00a0last September to explore the possibility of independence, they faced a significant backlash. Weeks after the vote, the Iraqi government\u00a0sent<\/a>\u00a0its military forces into the region, reclaiming the oil-rich area of Kirkuk while weakening the independence movement.<\/p>\n

The former diplomats signaled their support for the Iraqi government\u2019s military operations, despite the fact that the Iraqi Kurds were playing a significant role in the war against IS.<\/p>\n

Jeffrey argued that Iraq must hold together because of its potential to produce so much oil. He said that Iraq could eventually enter \u201cinto the Saudi Arabia category,\u201d meaning that it could become a major player in the global oil market. \u201cThat\u2019s a very important trump card, so to speak, in the Middle East, and we don\u2019t want to just break it up,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Jeffrey was especially critical of the Iraqi Kurds for pursuing independence, saying that \u201cthey have gone in three months from one of the best good-news stories in the region to another basket case.\u201d<\/p>\n

If they keep crossing \u201cred lines,\u201d Ryan Crocker said, \u201cwe\u2019re probably not going to be around to back them up when the going gets rough.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s the same as, sadly, with the Christian communities,\u201d Crocker added, referring to Iraqi Christians who were facing their own challenges.<\/p>\n

In these ways, the former diplomats made it clear that they were willing to ignore the plight of their partners and other marginalized groups if they could not find any strategic reasons to support them. The challenges facing the Kurds and Christians, they indicated, were minor factors compared to the strategic factors at play.<\/p>\n

Taken together, their comments indicated that geostrategic calculations remained paramount. The four former diplomats may not have liked all of their partners, but they all believed that they had to accept these trade-offs if they were going to achieve their plans for the region.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe can\u2019t be going at each other, scratching each other because of these secondary sins when the real sinning in the region is done by Islamic terrorists and Iran,\u201d Jeffrey said. \u201cSo we have to get a better hold of our allies.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

U.S. Navy sailors push bombs across the deck of the U.S.S. Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier, deployed in the Persian Gulf near Iran.
(AP\/Petr David Josek)<\/p><\/div>\n

The Final Outlook<\/strong><\/p>\n

In spite of the rather complex strategic landscape, the four former diplomats still acknowledged that the United States maintained tremendous influence throughout the Middle East. They largely agreed that the United States remained the dominant power in the region with no comparable rival.<\/p>\n

In his prepared statement, Edelman acknowledged that U.S. naval and air power in the Persian Gulf \u201coutmatches Iran\u2019s.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jeffrey agreed, explaining that the U.S. maintained \u201csignificant assets\u201d throughout the Middle East. \u201cMost of the states in the region are our security partners, with a huge conventional superiority, along with CENTCOM, over Iran, even with Russian support,\u201d Jeffrey explained.<\/p>\n

CENTCOM, short for U.S. Central Command, hosts about\u00a080,000<\/a>\u00a0U.S. military forces at numerous bases and offshore sites throughout the region. Over the past two-and-a-half years, CENTCOM has put its power on display in the war against IS. Since August 2014, coalition forces have conducted nearly\u00a025,000<\/a>\u00a0airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. As of April 2017, they had killed as many as\u00a070,000<\/a>\u00a0ISIS fighters, according to their own estimates.<\/p>\n

As part of the campaign, U.S. forces have gained a major new foothold in Syria. \u201cWe have a lot of assets in Syria even though it doesn\u2019t look that way,\u201d Jeffrey said. \u201cWe and the Turks between us hold about a third of the country and have a lot of local allies.\u201d<\/p>\n

U.S. forces have also reestablished a powerful military presence in Iraq, now basing more than\u00a05,000<\/a>\u00a0U.S. forces in the country.<\/p>\n

Currently, all signs indicate the United States is increasing its hold over the Middle East.<\/p>\n

The only problem, according to the former diplomats, is that the United States continues to face significant resistance. Although the U.S. has constructed a kind of informal American empire, they believe that U.S. actions and polices are creating blowback that is bringing more conflict and violence to the region.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnything we do to contain Iran, to push back, will bring with it great risks to us and to people in the region,\u201d Jeffrey said. These were the lessons of history, he explained, citing \u201cthe chaos we deliberately created\u201d to confront past challengers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran.<\/p>\n

Moving forward, Jeffrey believed it would be better to conduct what he called \u201ceconomy-of-force, light-footprint operations with our allies.\u201d He suggested that these types of operations would be more effective, even if they resulted in additional violence.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat will produce new Benghazis and new Nigers,\u201d Jeffrey said. But \u201cwe have to be able to move on and not melt down when these things happen because this is the right way to approach it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Indeed, Jeffrey insisted that it would be necessary to accept more death and violence if the United States was going to achieve its strategic objectives. This kind of trade-off, he believed, was simply how things worked in the area. Citing recent retaliatory actions by the Israeli and Saudi government against missile attacks, Jeffrey said that the high civilians death tolls that resulted from such operations had simply become one of the costs of military engagement in the region.<\/p>\n

\u201cTen thousand more dead civilians in the Middle East, in a region that\u2019s seen 1 million in the last 30 years, by my count\u2026 are not going to deter the Saudis and the Israelis from acting against this threat,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

__________________________________________<\/p>\n

Edward Hunt<\/em> writes about war and empire. He has a PhD in American Studies from the College of William & Mary.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 mintpressnews.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

22 Jan 2018 – Four former U.S. diplomats provided remarkably candid commentary on recent U.S. involvement in the Middle East, revealing that it is still about oil and regional dominance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":105438,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105437","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anglo-america"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105437","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105437"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105437\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/105438"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}