In three separate seminars in Cairo, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, leading French commentator Eric Rouleau and prominent American think tanker William Quandt expressed deep concerns and little hope over Middle East politics, especially vis-à-vis the US role. Dina Ezzat and Doaa El-Bey listened in Seymour Hersh, the American Pulitzer winning investigative journalist, first came to international attention when he exposed the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War. Since then he has produced thousands of articles uncovering, among other things, the abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib. He is the author of eight books, including The Price of Power: Kissinger in the White House, in which the former US Secretary of State is portrayed as little more than a war criminal. In Cairo, as the guest speaker at the launch of the first training workshop of the newly- established Mohamed Hassanein Heikal Foundation for the Arab Press, Hersh also gave a public lecture at the American University in Cairo on Sunday. Under the title "Truth versus Might", the message of Hersh's talk was unequivocal: the damage the US has caused in the Middle East, he told his audience, would take at least two decades to repair. The press, he continued, can help in this process, by revealing the truth to the American public and the rest of the world about the current American US administration's abuse of power. "Congress needs to find out what our president is doing in our name... What is happening now does not reflect us at all," Hersh stated. A military strike against Iran, Hersh fears, is almost inevitable under US President George W Bush and it is the duty of the press to expose as much information as possible about the secretive plotting of Bush and his Vice President Dick Cheney. "Plans go for various degrees of bombing; I don't think that this president is going to leave office without doing something about Iran," Hersh said. "It is mass hysteria." The Americans, said Hersh, have been pressing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to snub all calls for negotiations extended by Syria, arguing that it would be better for Israel to begin such talks "once Iran is done" and Damascus is in a weaker negotiating position. "How could one fix Iraq? I do not have an answer to how you can fix Iraq. And God knows how we are going to fix Iran," said Hersh, adding that the most urgent task now is to ensure "Iraq does not spread into Iran." What goes for Iraq and Iran, Hersh is convinced, also goes for other parts of the region. "It is the fetnah (sedition)," he says, and the signs are too many to miss. In Lebanon the US is using untraceable and unaccountable funds to support the Sunni government of Fouad Al-Siniora in an attempt to curtail the influence of Shia Hizbullah, while in Iraq the US administration has so far been siding with Shias against Sunnis, also using funds that are beyond Congressional accounting. In stirring up sedition across the Arab world, the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and encouraged the ferocious Israeli assault against Lebanon, among the consequences of which was a domestic Israeli backlash. Such irrational use of US power has left the entire region to live through a nightmare, while at the same time Washington has co- opted a number of Arab states to provide intelligence and fund its schemes the ultimate aim of which is to divide the Muslim world into camps divided along sectarian lines. "The big target," says Hersh, "is Iran." The impact of the Bush administration's post 9/ 11 policies is felt not only by the targets of its Crusade in the region but by ordinary Americans. Hersh recounted the story of the mother of an American soldier sent to Vietnam who, following his return, discovered she had given them her son only to be sent back a murderer. Thirty years later another American mother found that her healthy and happy daughter had been sent to Iraq to end up torturing Iraqis in Abu Ghraib. She returned home a clinically-disturbed psychopath. "The trouble is that we have bad leadership, someone who does not learn from history, an atmosphere of fear, a failure of the execution of the constitution and a collapse of the military [communication with the political leadership]," Hersh said. "Maybe the Democrats will step up and do the right things but we are going to have problems for 20 years." There is, though, at least a scent of change in the air. Taking questions following his talk Hersh said that it is becoming clear that while Israel remains a crucial US ally, criticism of Israel is no longer taboo. There is, he said, growing awareness that Israel was a strong advocate of the war on Iraq and is now pressing for an attack on Iran. "The American public is now much more open to the idea that we are in a very serious time... Now people in the Congress are talking that what we are doing [in Iraq] is not moral in the classic meaning of moral." But will this nascent moral reawakening save the day? The trouble, warns Hersh, "is that there are no plans for decisive victory and [consequently] further escalation [is always possible]". 'Playing the American game' Leading French commentator Eric Rouleau, in Cairo this week to participate in a series of seminars, including one hosted by the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs on Monday, has been writing authoritatively on the Arab- Israeli conflict for many years. The man who once served as a diplomat and was instrumental in helping Paris cement its ties with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and the Arab League, is a vociferous critic of the anti- Arab bias of much Western foreign policy. Nor has he restricted his opposition to Western, especially American, policy on the Middle East to the Arab-Israeli file. The US invasion of Iraq, he has argued, was intended, among other things, to fulfill the imperial ambitions of George W Bush. Rouleau's Monday talk focussed on Iran, with the speaker using the occasion to express his fears that the US administration is seeking to bomb "not just [Iran's] nuclear facilities but all facilities". They would [want to] bomb them back to the Stone Age as they did with Iraq," he said. "The Americans do not want to negotiate with the Iranians. They are not worried about the Iranian nuclear [programme]. They just want to find pretexts to bomb Iran and [induce] a regime change." If the Americans were keen about negotiating with the Iranians, says Rouleau, they would not have insisted on what should be the outcome of talks becoming a prerequisite for talks to begin. "They tell them stop enrichment before we negotiate... then negotiations can take years and I am sure [the Americans] would make sure they take years... How is any country supposed to execute a decision that should be the outcome of negotiations?" Rouleau sounded convinced that if Bush could bomb Iran he would have no hesitation in doing so. "He is capable of another big mistake. This president is not applying the sort of logic that involves drawing conclusions based on an assessment." "Since Bush will not actually... declare war" it is essential, said Rouleau, to decipher the signs that point to the fact that this is where his administration is heading. What is currently unfolding, he argued, is the same scenario that led to the invasion of Iraq: the International Atomic Energy Agency chief says there is no smoking gun in Iran, experts agree Iran is at least 10 years away from putting together a nuclear bomb and yet the American administration is making plans to bombard Iran within 24 hours. While conceding Europe's position towards US policy on Iran is not blameless, it is a mistake, argued Rouleau, to expect Europe to shoulder too much blame. "The Europeans have been opposing the application of further sanctions on Iran because they can see the Iraq scenario being replayed: it was that way with Iraq, sanctions, more sanctions and then came the war." Countries in the region must examine their own positions before accusing the Europeans of not doing enough to prevent the US from planning an assault on Iran. Indeed, Rouleau roundly criticised those Arab countries happy to play the American game of moderation versus extremism and which have been more than content to fund America's anti-Iranian schemes. That Arab states, and their umbrella organisation the Arab League, should have maintained such silence over Iran comes as no surprise to Rouleau. After all, he said, they remained just as silent when the US attacked Iraq and authorised Israel to bombard Lebanon, while privately supporting Washington. "A senior European diplomat once told me, when I complained of Europe's position towards the Middle East, that we cannot be expected to be more royal than the king." He argued that if the Arabs want a different level of engagement from the European Union then they must start by showing some sense of opposition to US policies themselves. Yet when the Americans insist that the Palestinians should submit to the conditions of the Quartet and declare their acceptance of injustice, pointed out Rouleau, no Arab country says that it is unfair to make such demands. "Even after the Mecca Agreement we did not hear the Arab League saying conditions are ripe for the resumption of negotiations." Rouleau's prognosis is pessimistic. "Iraq is already gone and Iran is on the way... The Americans have managed to incite an unprecedented Sunni-Shia sedition that started in Iraq and is going to have a spill-over effect... And the Palestinian-Israeli peace process will simply go nowhere." "The Israelis do not wish to negotiate, they are just looking for pretexts to stall. First they accused Arafat of not being a partner for peace, then they said that Abu Mazen is having problems with Hamas and now they say that the new national unity government must acknowledge the conditions of the Quartet." Rouleau's pessimism is not completely unadulterated and he does sense some positive signs in the US in the way the American public is beginning to perceive the administration's foreign policy and its implications. "There are also some positive changes in the Congress," he says. Even if accompanied by more forthcoming European engagement, though, such positive signs will be unable to reverse the region's steady decline without Arabs deciding to take up positions opposing, rather than facilitating, destructive US policies. Crises in perspective As a member of the US National Security Council, William Quandt was closely associated with Camp David, the first ever Arab-Israeli peace deal. He followed the file through in the White House until the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and beyond and has since lectured and written extensively on the subject. This week, speaking before an audience at Cairo University, Quandt sounded less optimistic than on previous occasions. He was not, however, entirely pessimistic about the prospects of peace-making between Arabs, especially Palestinians and Israelis. After all, he argued, the peace process has its own dynamics that could work their way through, even in the face of multiple regional crises. Quandt frankly acknowledged US failures in Iraq, suggesting a far more nuanced plan than the one offered by Bush was needed, and as far as Iran is concerned, aligned himself with those promoting the need for a diplomatic exit to the Iranian-US standoff over Tehran's nuclear programme. He choose as his theme "Multiple Crises in the Middle East, Iraq, Iran and Palestine: an American Perspective", arguing that each situation was best approached individually. Iraq, he said, was the most serious of the Middle East's intersecting crises. Like many other critics of the George W Bush administration, he argued that the war on Iraq was never about Saddam Hussein or weapons of mass destruction. It was, rather, an imperial scheme designed by Bush and his key advisors to establish a pro- American government. The war on Iraq, he argued, was supposed to be the centre-piece of the White House's strategy towards the Middle East, with post-occupation Iraq emerging as a model to be emulated across the region. Quandt ascribed the deterioration in Iraq after the fall of Saddam to two factors: first, the US troops' "almost overnight" decision to disband the Iraqi army, and second, the policy of de- Baathification, which acted to exclude teachers, civil servants, university professors and others from the reconstruction process. It was an approach, he said, that set the stage for the destruction of society and the state. To date, he argued, Iraq has been unable to produce a proper government, let alone a pro- US government. Instead, he added, there is now a situation in which the Shia majority is determined to establish its dominance and the Sunni minority is increasingly marginalised. Over two million Iraqis, the majority educated professionals, have left the country and another one million people are displaced. The negative implications of a situation in which a 10th of the population had either moved or left Iraq cannot be overestimated. Quandt went on to suggest that Iran is the real beneficiary of the situation in Iraq. Tehran has benefited not only from the increase in the price of oil but has consolidated its influence in Iraq. "I am not saying that Iraq could become an Iranian colony, but it will emerge as the big brother of the new Iraq and contribute in shaping it," he said, noting that with the fall of Saddam, Tehran lost its traditional arch-enemy, and then used the occasion to consolidate its regional influence. At a time when the US is accusing Iran of instigating insurgency in Iraq, and when Tehran is increasingly apprehensive about the intentions of the US given the presence of 150,000 US troops close to its border, Quandt had no hopes of a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran. The resulting stand-off, said Quandt, has seen Tehran increasingly determined to demonstrate to Washington that it is not an easy target: Iran has continued with its nuclear programme, increased financial support to Hizbullah and strengthened its ties with regional allies. To break the deadlock Quandt argued the US should consider opening a dialogue with Iran, with the aim of reducing Iranian interventions in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, promoting regional stability, while at the same time moving towards a deal over Iran's nuclear programme. Quandt hopes that it will be sooner rather than later that the administration embraces the logic of a shift in US policy against Iran. "Do not be shocked if [US Secretary of State Condoleezza ] Rice visited Tehran. There is a logic for it." But, Quandt insisted, untying the complicated knots that Iran and Iraq have become for US policy, should not be seen as a prerequisite for pursuing an exit from the current stalemate as regards the Arab-Israel peace process. Quandt, like many other Middle Eastern experts, expressed disappointment at the failure of Arab states to condemn the current administration for failing to devote any time or effort to moving the peace process forward, especially on the Palestinian-Israeli track. Nor was he short on criticising the lack of leadership on both the Israeli and American sides. But the core of Quandt's argument was that Palestinian-Israeli peace has its own political dynamic that remains more or less independent from Iraq, Iran and Syria. It is a dynamic, Quandt said, that must be given momentum, by ending the construction of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian territories and attending to the dire humanitarian situation facing Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
