 |
Bob Westbrook is a Titusville, Florida based professional
photographer, writer, and consultant. He writes commentaries
from a Christian Zionist perspective, endeavoring to encourage Christian support for Israel. He is the Bible Prophecy moderator for the website and the author of .
|
|
|
|
By Bob Westbrook
August 6, 2001
If it is not broken, don't fix it. Such seems to be the primary approach thus far by the Bush administration in the Middle East. If the Arab oil pipeline is still pumping, keep the conflict manageable. Don't do anything that might jeopardize that critical flow. Yet events may yet escalate beyond anyone's control.
Bush has been taking a more hands-off approach than did Clinton, perhaps realizing that Clinton's idealistic activism was not grounded in reality. Now that many have conceded that the concept of Oslo is a failure, the overriding objective of current US policy in the Middle East appears to be that of containment. Unlike the European Union, which is still actively campaigning for a Palestinian state, the US now seems to be more concerned about keeping a lid on things. As has been the case for decades, the primary factor driving this is the fear of interruption of oil flow from the Arab nations.
"It's the oil, stupid!" might be a fitting motto for the US State Department. Though other flimsy pretexts were provided a decade ago for the massive military operation against Iraq, we know that it was really about oil. The uninterrupted flow of oil is a necessity for comfortable, spoiled Americans to sustain their consumer-driven, petroleum-gulping economy, and is therefore a necessity for American politicians as well.
US administrations are under constant pressure by Arab governments to modify what they perceive as a pro-Israel stance. The policy makers, feeling political pressure from both sides, attempt to strike a balance. The rationalization is this: to placate the Saudis, the US cannot afford to appear too pro-Israel. In effect, the threat of jeopardizing the oil supply and destabilizing the economy takes precedence over friendship with Israel.
While for Israelis the situation is now barely tolerable, or perhaps even beyond the point of toleration, for the US the situation is quite tolerable. The status quo is workable, because the oil is flowing. A war in the Middle East would be a threat to that. The Bush administration, like his father's, is heavily represented by oilmen, who understand and fear the implications of a regional war in the Middle East.
In 2001, a war in the Middle East has many more potential nasty implications than a war there even a few years ago. Including among the nasties are the possibility of the use of weapons of mass destruction, and the destabilization of shaky Arab regimes that are now considered to be "moderate" and friendly to the West.
Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia all perennially face the potential of discontent segments of their populations rising up in revolution. In these countries, the Arab man on the street often feels that his government is a pawn of the West and is not true to the Islamic and Palestinian principles. The Muslim extremists are consistently suppressed to reduce the threat of coup. But in the event of a war, or actions that might precipitate a war, the efforts of suppression might prove to be inadequate to hold back the popular outrage in the street. Evidence for this has been growing since the outbreak of the current "Intifada". In Jordan, King Abdullah is finding it increasingly difficult to contain the anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian protests.
If an Islamic revolution occurred in one or more of these countries, the effects on the region and thus on the oil flow would very likely be staggering. The formidable, US supplied military might of Egypt or Saudi Arabia in the hands of an Islamic Republic is not a pleasant thought. And a Palestinian or Muslim Brotherhood coup in Jordan would mean that Israel would have another source of jihad attacks on the east about which to worry. A coup in any of these countries could either be a trigger for, or a consequence of, the outbreak of a regional war.
In the event of a regional war, the likelihood of the introduction of weapons of mass destruction is high. Syria, because of its inferiority in conventional forces, might feel compelled to unleash its substantial missile capabilities into Israel with chemical and/or biological payloads. Reports from south Lebanon indicate that Hizbullah might also now have the capability to utilize these kinds of weapons. If either Syria or Hizbullah executed the extreme foolishness of attempting to utilize these, Israel's likely response would be nuclear retaliation and deterrent. It goes without saying that the aftermath of this would be very lamentable.
Like any civilized country, Israel exercises a great deal of restraint regarding the potential use of nuclear weapons. But once WMD are initiated by another party, the rules change. This understanding by Saddam is undoubtedly what kept him from using WMD payloads in the scuds, after direct and explicit warnings to that effect by the Israelis. As much of a megalomaniac as Saddam is, at least he retained the sense to realize this. However, Hizbullah or Syria might just be willing to take their chances with WMD. If this happens, Israel would have no choice. Let's say a missile with chemical warhead launched from south Lebanon lands in Haifa. Could Israel afford to take the time to launch a conventional invasion of that country to prevent another launch? Hardly. They would be forced to answer in kind with WMD.
All of these are reasons why the Bush administration is relatively satisfied with the status quo. A slow simmer is manageable, so they think, but a boiling pot is not. However, despite their efforts, the pot will boil. A war in the Middle East is inevitable, and the policy of containment will ultimately fail. The worst fears of the oilmen will probably occur. When that happens, will the US veer towards support of the Arabs, or will they make the courageous, principled stand with Israel?
President Bush, as a confessed Bible-believing Christian, should have the understanding that "The Lord has established Zion." Whether he will stay true to support of Israel or cave to the Arabists is anyone's guess. If he stands with Israel, it may not be a popular stand with the American public, for whom a car full of gas outweighs any concepts of principle or right. As President, he may be tempted to cater to the masses' appetite for oil. But as a Christian, he should do the right thing and stand strongly in support of Israel.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
