On the road to nowhere

The US is in the position it always coveted: supreme ruler of the Middle East

The US is in the position it always coveted: supreme ruler of the Middle East. But this week's suicide bombs show its policies have no chance of working, writes Jonathan Eyal.

Even if judged by the relatively tragic standards of the Middle East, this week has been particularly bloody. A string of terrorist attacks in Iraq culminated in the wrecking of the United Nations operational headquarters, and the death of Sergio Vieira de Mello, one of the brightest servants of the international organisation. And almost at the same time, a suicide bomber in a Jerusalem bus not only extinguished the lives of scores of Israeli civilians, but also destroyed the slim chance which may have existed for a Palestinian-Israeli peace dialogue.

Predictably, the US administration has decided to put on a brave face; Washington admits that both events represent a serious blow to its policies, but still asserts that its strategy for the region will ultimately work.

However, the reality remains fairly grim: there is no viable political alternative to what the US is currently doing in the Middle East, yet it is also palpably evident that US strategy is not working.

READ MORE

Low-level insurgency activities against against the US and British forces in Iraq have been going on, in one way or another, ever since Washington officially proclaimed victory against Saddam Hussein's regime. On average, this has cost the life of one US soldier a day. And, despite the high priority allocated to this task, neither the American nor the British intelligence services have managed to identify the perpetrators.

Nevertheless, the common assumption was that the culprits were some renegade elements of the old ruling elite, and that the events represented merely the last spasms of Saddam's decapitated regime. And the hope in both Washington and London was that, as Saddam's associates are arrested or eliminated and as a civilian administration is restored to Iraq's unruly provinces, such attacks would subside.

But exactly the opposite seems to be happening: the violence against US and British forces is becoming more precise in its targeting, and may yet be transformed from a low-level nuisance into a full-scale insurgency movement. The destruction of the UN headquarters in Baghdad came after two other operations which, although less bloody, were just as significant: the almost simultaneous destruction of an oil pipeline in the country's north and the sabotaging of water pipes around the Iraqi capital earlier in the week.

Both attacks indicated a level of preparation which has not existed before. And all revealed the beginning of a long-term strategy designed to make Iraq ungovernable.

The swift resumption of oil exports is crucial to Iraq's future economic prosperity. And a steady, safe supply of water has been one of the main demands of ordinary Iraqis from their current occupying authority, made even more urgent by the searing heatwave which the country is now experiencing. Attacking both jeopardises the US's ability to push through the process of reconstruction in the country. But the impact of these terrorist attacks goes much further.

Protecting oil and water pipelines is a massive undertaking, requiring a large number of troops and vast amounts of money. Until now, the Pentagon's strategy has been to limit the number of US troops placed on sentry duties around Iraq, in order to reduce their vulnerability; ultimately, Washington hopes to withdraw them to the relative safety of purpose-built installations in the western, and sparsely populated part of the country.

Not only do the current attacks necessitate the postponement of this strategy, but they also force the occupiers to commit even more manpower resources in order to guard an ever-increasing number of potential terrorist targets. And, as the destruction of the UN headquarters in Baghdad indicates, these targets are no longer confined to the purely US or British, but include any foreign presence on Iraqi soil, even if it comes from the United Nations, an organisation which was usually viewed benignly by a large number of ordinary Iraqis.

Theoretically, the Palestinian-Israeli peace process is unrelated to the situation in Iraq. Nevertheless, the link is clear enough, not only for a majority of the people in the Middle East, but also in the minds of all governments around the world.

Like in Iraq, the US has persuaded its allies that it should be allowed to be the only arbiter of peace in Palestine. And, like in Iraq, Washington has elaborated a strategy: the so-called road map which promised the official recognition of a Palestinian state, in return for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories. For a while, the strategy appeared to be working.

Yet it suffered from a fundamental flaw: US unwillingness to force Israel to stop the construction of a wall, which not only physically consigns the future Palestinian state to economic oblivion, but could also result in the imposition of a territorial settlement which no Palestinian leader would ever accept. The temporary ceasefire which had lasted uneasily for a month has, therefore, been predictably shattered with the destruction of a bus in Jerusalem this week. Yet again, US policy in the Middle East ended in ruins.

In the days to come, Washington will do everything possible to try to maintain some momentum in its Palestinian-Israeli dialogue. Nevertheless, with presidential elections in the US now barely a year away and no internal US political incentive for a settlement, no major new initiatives are to be expected. And, in any case, George Bush's administration will remain preoccupied by Iraq, where a substantial number of US troops continue to be deployed, and where the slightest mishap from now on could have a direct and immediate impact on Bush's re-election campaign.

Seeking to capitalise on the fact that the United Nations - an organisation which the US never considered as a friendly partner - is now itself a victim, Washington is planning to table a resolution in the Security Council which will call upon countries to "do more" for Iraq's stabilisation. The strategy scores highly on presentation, but is less attractive in practice. For, at least at this stage, the Americans are not prepared to concede that the reconstruction of Iraq should now be transformed into a genuinely international effort; they merely wish to persuade other countries to contribute to a strategy which will remain under Washington's command and control.

A furious diplomatic game is now developing at the United Nations. Germany, France and Russia, the three countries which have led the opposition to the war in Iraq, have already served notice that they will not countenance any greater contributions to the stabilisation force in that country unless the US is willing to accept a greater UN role in its management. And Britain, as usual, is trying to play the mediating role, by suggesting a "strengthened UN mandate" (whatever that means), while maintaining the Iraq operations "unified command" (code-word for US control).

So, are we likely to witness yet another clash between Europe and the US over policy in the Middle East? Probably not. Most of America's allies - not to mention Washington's international critics - know that the current strategy is not working. Yet, given the recent heated diplomatic spats surrounding the Iraq war, few governments wish to pick up another dispute with the US.

The Europeans have, therefore, abandoned any attempt to become involved in the Palestinian issue, or to influence US policies in Iraq. And even the countries which have refused to contribute any troops to the current operation in Iraq - such as, recently, India - have done so politely. Some altercations will take place in New York in the days to come but, if the US is not prepared to budge - as seems likely - the Europeans are not going to push the matter either.

So, the chances remain that the operation in Iraq will continue as before, stumbling from one crisis to another. Some troops from the countriesof Eastern Europe will arrive next month, to relieve the US military in certain areas. But this will provide no actual relief, for the tasks of the US forces in Iraq are increasing daily. Meanwhile, the resentment against the US continues to boil throughout the Middle East, fuelled by Washington's apparent inability to address the plight of the Palestinians.

The US is in the position it always coveted: as the supreme ruler of the Middle East. The snag is that Washington is stuck with two policies in the region which have no chance of working, and is refusing to consider any alternatives.

The terrorists who have perpetrated the attacks in Iraq and Israel this week knew what they were doing: they have exposed all the contradictions in US policies throughout the region.

Jonathan Eyal is Director of Studies at the Royal United Services Institute in London