conveys the complexity of the situation we have created in the Middle
East with our invasion of Iraq. We would have been much wiser to use the
years 2002 and 2003 not to prepare an invasion of Iraq, but to use our
immense influence with Israel to get that country to agree to a
two-state solution, to implement UNSC resolutions 242 and 338, to trade
land for peace, and to accept the generous Saudi-proposed Arab Peace
Initiative of 2002 by which all of the Arab states and the Palestinians
would have signed peace treaties with Israel so long as Israel withdrew
to the 1967 internationally recognized borders. Had we done that, the
current Middle East would look vastly different than what is described
in this article.
THE REDIRECTION
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Is the Administration's new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on
terrorism?
Issue of 2007-03-05
Posted 2007-02-25
A STRATEGIC SHIFT
In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the
Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert
operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The
"redirection," as some inside the White House have called the new
strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation
with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening
sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush
Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in
the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with
Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations
that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is
backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations
aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has
been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant
vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.