When the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, reached an agreement in Geneva on September 14, in order to rid Syria of its chemical weapons, a sea of commentary quickly formed. Some seethed with anger while others sighed with relief. A war had been averted, at least for the time being.
The agreement would not have actualised if it were not for Russia’s political savviness. Lavrov is a shrewd diplomat. Not that the Obama administration is particularly keen on peace for its sake, but it is realistic enough to understand that the balances of power are constantly shifting. If it were to continue its intractable attitude, it would have left space for its opponents to gain ground and it could have found itself mired in new conflicts with dangerous consequences. Russia, whose political lot in the Middle East has grown to an unprecedented extent, delivered a master stroke when it capitalised on Kerry’s apparent gaffe regarding Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. Moscow’s proposal to avert war turned into an agreement and in record time the mood shifted from one geared towards an imminent war to one with ample possibilities.
Capitalising on the rare moment, Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote an article for the New York Times, published on September 11 and republished in Gulf News on September 13. His ostentatious style was meant to further chasten the US for its failure to adhere to diplomatic norms and its insistence on sidelining the United Nations in dealing with international conflicts. Many US media commentators, even those seen as ‘progressive’, hit back. They were fairly accurate in labelling some of the language used by Putin as “hypocritical”. But they failed to admit to two facts: First, Putin was spot-on in his assessment of the violent US legacy. “It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States,” Putin wrote. “Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy, but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan ‘you’re either with us or against us’.” (Interestingly, this was the same conclusion reached by the China Daily the same week.)
Secondly, the US media that came lashing out forgot to examine its own role in serving as apologists and endorsers of every military intervention unleashed by their country since the Second World War. But that is all moot now. Military interventionists and their media cheerleaders must learn to accommodate the new reality that a new balance of power is finding its midpoint and it is likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future. The US’s ‘coalitions of the willing’ are not as willing as they used to be — appetite for war is at an all-time low and the retreat in US foreign policy is likely to be filled by new or old rivals. Indeed, the age of “cobbling coalitions together” may be over.
Of course, the transition is unlikely to be smooth. Russia’s stake has suddenly risen and Iran is already taking advantage of its strong Russian ties to confront protracted problems — its nuclear programme — while Israel and its Washington allies will do their utmost to mix the cards and hit back at the first available opportunity. To offset a criticism from the pro-war party led by Israel’s supporters, Kerry selected Israel as his first destination after the signing of the Syria chemical weapons agreement. Only then did Kerry return to Europe to converse with his country’s other allies.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been unhappy with the Obama administration for a long time. His heart was set on a US war against Iran. Several “red lines” have been crossed, but Iran remains untouched. Even a limited war on Syria was untenable and that placed the Iran confrontation way down US agenda. Netanyahu’s allies in Washington are equally irate, although their options are growing limited. Republican Senator John McCain’s tireless advocacy for military action is not bearing fruits. His song ‘bomb, bomb, bomb Iran’ is just political satire on Comedy Central late night shows. Pro-Israel lawmakers such as Ted Deutch and Peter Roskam are merely urging their government to double its efforts to prevent Russia’s arming of Iran with advanced S-300 air defence systems.
Obama is yet again forced to head to a different direction, compelled by a sudden surge of pragmatism, not by anything else. Mark Landler is a White House correspondent for the New York Times. Under the title ‘Through Diplomacy, Obama Finds a Pen Pal in Iran’, Landler wrote of Obama’s deep “belief in the power of the written word” and of his “frustrating private correspondence with the leaders of Iran.” (New York Times, September. 19)
Of course, the premise is misleading in portraying successive US administrations as trying their best with obstinate Iranian leaders — stereotyped and derided — who always fail to reciprocate. New Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s ‘friendship’ with Obama has a lot less to do with personal styles and much more to do with shifting power paradigms. Rouhani’s ‘charm offensive’, as described by the Times is a ‘process’ that ‘has included the release of 11 prominent political prisoners and a series of conciliatory statements by top Iranian officials.’ It is natural then, we are meant to believe, that Obama will make his move and apply his writing skills in earnest. Israel was not mentioned in the story even once, as if the fact that Israel’s decade-long advocacy for sanctioning and bombing Iran has not been the single greatest motive behind the deteriorating relations between Washington and Tehran, long before former Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was painted by US media, New York Times included, as the devil incarnate.
Dominant US media and politicians are unlikely to adjust attitudes towards Iran and the rest of the Middle East anytime soon: The perceived enemies will remain enemies and the historic allies — as in Israel only — will maintain that status even if it is at Washington’s own expense. While that choosy discourse has been the bread and butter of US media — from elitist publications like New York Times to demagogues like Fox News — that one-sidedness will no longer suffice as the Middle East is vastly changing in terms of alliances and power plays. US power is simply not as persuasive as it used to be.
While many will continue to delude themselves, relying on every logic but political realism, the Middle East’s new Great Game (read Eric Walberg’s insightful books on the subject) is happening regardless of all the media clamour. Indeed, the issue here has much to do with the shifting political landscape in the Middle East, the failed attempt at war in Syria and Iran’s own alliances, starting with Russia. As for Obama’s alleged morally-driven expectations from Iran’s leaders and his supposed need for a trustworthy Iranian pen pal, it is all but mere fiction promoted by the New York Times.
Ramzy Baroud is a media consultant, an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press).
