Beyond the Mitchell Report
The most damming thing we can say about the carefully worded, even-handed-to-the-nth-degree, mealy-mouthed Mitchell Commission Report is that it lacks even a glimmer of original thinking; it fails to ask even the most rudimentary questions: What is happening in the Middle East? Whose national security interests are at risk? What steps should the U.S. Administration take to secure those interests?
The most damming thing we can say about the carefully worded, even-handed-to-the-nth-degree, mealy-mouthed Mitchell Commission Report is that it lacks even a glimmer of original thinking; it fails to ask even the most rudimentary questions: What is happening in the Middle East? Whose national security interests are at risk? What steps should the U.S. Administration take to secure those interests?
Trapped in a thoroughly discredited paradigm, Mitchell, et al, focuses narrowly on Israelis and Palestinians as if they share an island in the middle of a vast sea, untouched by outside influences. Asking Israel yet again to pay in hard assets for meaningless Palestinian promises, they ignore the region in which the parties live and in which the United States has to operate. The space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is a game board on which Iran, Iraq, the European Union and Russia (among others) manipulate the players.
Iraq has adopted the Palestinian “revolution.” Iraq pays CASH to the families of “martyrs.” (Arafa’s checks often bounce.) Saddam asserts leadership in the Arab world through the intifada and reminds the Gulf States that he won the Gulf War he is still there and is rebuilding his arsenal. That makes it hard for the Gulf States to work with the U.S. or keep a moderate position toward Israel.
Iran supplies weapons and cash to Islamic forces in Lebanon and Gaza, using the Damascus airport for delivery. The Israeli capture of a boat loaded with Katyusha rockets, mines and Strela anti-aircraft missiles sailing from Lebanon to Gaza makes the connection clear. Iran’s influence in Lebanon has Hizballah sitting on Israel’s border. (Brent Scowcroft’s recent rumination about a bridge to Iran should disqualify him from any influence in the Administration.)
The European Union is totally with the Palestinians, dividing its time between (a) being pro-PA to drive the Israelis nuts; and (b) being pro-PA to drive the Americans nuts. In its spare time, the EU courts Iran and Iraq for reason (b) above, ignoring its own vulnerability to missiles from either.
Russia is not so much a direct player with Palestinians and Israelis, but is courting Iran with nuclear technology and energy investments, and Iraq with a commitment to end the UN Sanctions on Saddam.
The Bush Administration had a good first instinct on the Middle East to look beyond Palestinians and Israelis and address the causes of instability in the region that have an impact on American national security. The focus has to be on Iraq and Iran. Removing Saddam would help control Palestinian violence as well as restore the U.S. position in the Gulf. Removing the mullahs in Iran would stem the flood of money to radical Islamic forces that threaten all Western interests, not only Israel. And in each case, a captive population would be liberated from tyrants.
Maybe it was too much to hope that the Mitchell Commission Report would be serious and thoughtful; it was responsible to no one. But the State Department must do better than to rely on a stale rehash of politically correct twaddle; it has a responsibility to the President and the American people to put American interests up front.