Jeffrey Laurenti on “Lebanon: Harbinger of the New Middle East”

PCDO Meeting for September 17, 2006

by Anne Waldron Nuemann

On Sunday, September 17, PCDO members enjoyed—well, perhaps “enjoyed” isn’t the right word, though the lecture was brisk, balanced, and amusing—learned about recent events in Lebanon, about the Middle East more generally, and about America’s Middle East policy in particular. The speaker, Jeffrey Laurenti—an expert on international relations and security—is a senior fellow of The Century Foundation, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the president of Trenton’s East Ward Democratic Club.

Laurenti began his talk by explaining that the Bush administration focuses on the Middle East for two reasons: (1) several of Bush’s important constituencies care intensely, and (2)—surprise, surprise—the Middle East has oil. Bush’s focus endangers not only our security, Laurenti warned, but also our liberties. So Democrats too should focus on the Middle East because November’s elections could decide America’s foreign policy.

In 2005, Bush’s foreign policy seemed for once successful: he had induced Syria to withdraw from Lebanon, leaving Lebanon with its first genuinely democratic government. The White House may have disliked Hezbollah winning 14% of parliamentary seats. But America was surely a hero to the Lebanese—at least until the July war, after which, Laurenti said, America was the biggest loser. Of course, America wasn’t the only loser: Hezbollah’s popularity dropped, and it was badly degraded militarily. Even Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said that he would never have crossed the border had he known Israel would make its kidnapped soldiers the occasion for such a massive attack.

The July war resulted in European troops in Lebanon. Europe knows the only solution is political and won’t take sides, Laurenti said. Therefore, it’s distancing itself further from Bush, especially his harsh preconditions for negotiation. Bush was the first president to say the words “Palestinian state,” Laurenti acknowledged, and he was right that the conflict’s root causes must be addressed. But Bush was mistaken about the root cause—a stalemate in Israeli/Palestinian negotiations. Thus he was also wrong to veto Israel’s plan for direct talks with Syria. The U.S. is no longer an honest broker, according to Laurenti: it can’t talk to Iran and won’t talk to Syria.

Kofi Annan is the only remaining mediator but has no chips to play. He reported, after recent visits with Middle Eastern leaders, that all, without exception, believe America’s invasion of Iraq has made the region a tinderbox: the U.S. has swallowed a razor blade, according to one head of state. Middle Eastern leaders disagree on just one point: either the U.S. can’t accomplish anything in Iraq and may as well leave, or, we’re there now and may as well stay. And what’s the only remaining disagreement among America’s Middle- East experts? Will Bush bomb Iran the week before the November elections so his party can benefit once more from his wartime leadership? Or will he bomb Iran after the election, risk Iran blocking the Straits of Hormuz, and face $120-a-barrel oil? Some who study the situation in the Middle East, Laurenti concluded, say this decision has already been made.

Laurenti responded generously to numerous questions after his talk. Would giving every Palestinian family $100,000 be cheaper than war, for example? Yes, Laurenti said, the right of return to Israel could probably be bought out. Though Palestinians still live in refugee camps in Lebanon, they were granted Jordanian citizenship in 1949 when Jordan believed it could hold the West Bank, and they are well treated in Syria. The real question is whether a Palestinian state would be too disjoint to function.

Since we’re no longer players in the Middle East, another questioner asked, why do we intervene in Israel’s problems, or in Iran’s nuclear program, when we should concentrate on Iraq—or even Afghanistan? You’d think new policies would be based on whether previous policies succeeded, Laurenti said, but the neocons believe Bush has little time left and should finish the job as planned. Nevertheless, though the State Department rolled over on Iraq, it won’t on Iran. And, though no one wants more nuclear weapons, many experts doubt the Administration’s NRA approach, which is that nuclear weapons don’t kill people; mullahs with nuclear weapons kill people.

The White House’s argument for an air attack, however: Congress can’t control air wars, and America has only air power left since Bush promised in 2004 not to reinstitute the draft. On the other hand, attacking Iran would delay, not end, its nuclear program. And a1974 article of impeachment against Nixon was the secret bombing of Cambodia. Attacking Iran might also be impeachable—one more illegality among so many—if Democrats retake Congress and respond either to the country’s moral outrage or to $5-a-gallon oil.

In 2000, peace between Israel and Syria seemed imminent, Laurenti continued, but the neocons undercut the deal to prevent Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. (Indeed, unilateral withdrawals—whether from Gaza or Lebanon—have not benefited Israel.) Meanwhile, after the Reagan and George H. W. Bush presidencies, Democrats, began to fear looking weak on security. Clinton resisted pressure to invade Iraq but, responding to a Republican congressional majority, he did adopt a policy of regime change. Clinton never claimed regime change was legal, however, Laurenti said. And, under Clinton, those in government who truly understand the Middle East—career State Department people—were not disparaged, as they are now, for being “too reality based.”