Friday 31 March 2023

Liberal Israelis and the US empowered the settler right. Now it's out of control

Authoritarian tools forged to control Palestinians are now being turned on elements of the Israeli Jewish population

s Israel’s economy was shuttered and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu became convinced of the need to temporarily suspend his judicial reform legislation this week, one final deal was necessary to hold together his governing coalition. 

Itamar Ben Gvir, a serial racist who leads the Jewish Power party and serves as national security minister, was promised by Netanyahu that the state would move forward with creating a national guard under Ben Gvir’s authority - dubbed by some commentators as his “private militia”. 

This deal speaks volumes to the intimate connection between the two crises simultaneously gripping Israel: the internal polarisation around judicial reforms, and the government-empowered escalation of extremism against Palestinians

That connection is glaringly obvious, but rarely acknowledged in Israeli political circles. US President Joe Biden has commented acerbically on the judicial overhaul, while maintaining his studied silence on Israel’s criminal violations of Palestinian rights - indicating that Washington, too, is failing to connect the dots. 

The US administration’s convening of Israeli and Palestinian officials, alongside their Jordanian and Egyptian counterparts, in Sharm El Sheikh this month and Aqaba in February, shows that Washington is set on continuing its woefully inadequate template for managing relations with Israel and the accompanying consequences for Palestinians.

While it is not every day that western journalists use words such as “pogrom” to describe attacks on Palestinians, as we saw after the recent events in Huwwara, it is every day that Palestinians experience violence and have their basic human rights trampled by Israeli soldiers, police, settler militias or a combination thereof.

When Netanyahu compared the actions of the settlers in Huwwara to those of pro-democracy protesters across the country, many people were outraged. But the strong link between Israeli policies and violence towards Palestinians, and the contestation around Israeli democracy, is incontrovertible - even if inconvenient.

Israeli society is experiencing what French-Martinique anti-colonial author and politician Aime Cesaire called the “boomerang effect of colonisation”. The work of Cesaire and others looked at how policies used on the colonised by colonial states could then be brought back to the imperial metropole and deployed against citizens. 

Curtailing freedoms

Under Israeli settler-colonialism, the geographic distinction between colony and metropole is barely present - but we are now witnessing that phenomenon, whereby some of the authoritarian tools forged by the Israeli state to control Palestinians are being turned on elements of the Israeli Jewish population. Parts of that population fear the curtailment of their own freedoms. 

The Israeli right’s push for judicial reforms was heavily motivated by the goal of entrenching occupation, permanently disenfranchising Palestinians, and cementing Jewish supremacy. While the courts have not prevented the gradual attainment of those goals - the massive matrix of settlements being one example of the Israeli court system’s colossal failure to uphold Palestinian rights - they nevertheless have served to obstruct and delay, and will likely be an obstacle to realising full annexation and mass expulsion. 

This helps to explain why the last holdouts to Netanyahu’s stopgap compromise, both in parliament and on the streets, were from the hard-right, religious settler camp.

While Palestinians have always paid the price for Israel’s impunity, many Israelis are now discovering that it carries costs for them too

The biggest affront to democratic governance between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is not the role of Israel’s parliament in selecting judges or overriding their rulings, but rather a permanent occupation that denies democratic rights to Palestinians beyond the 1967 lines, alongside structural discrimination that confers second-class status on Palestinians within those lines.

This ongoing situation has led the main global human rights organisations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, to rightly designate this reality as meeting the legal definition of apartheid. Similar conclusions have previously been drawn by Israeli human rights groups, Palestinian civil society activists, academics and politicians.

The Biden administration has expressed concerns on both the escalating violence in Israel/Palestine and the proposed judicial reforms. The US prescription seems to be the same for dealing with each: a return to the status quo ante. To put it another way, a return to security and democracy for Jewish Israelis, while neither are available to Palestinians. 

There is a well-rehearsed Israeli phenomenon of screaming “crisis” whenever a US official disagrees with an Israeli policy. That is now in overdrive, including pushback from Israel’s leadership, after Biden said Netanyahu is not currently invited to the White House and Israel cannot “continue down this road” on judicial reforms (apparently, more than half a century of occupation can continue). 

But words have not translated into action; there is no crisis. Indeed, a more level-headed analysis tells a different story - that Washington’s massive leverage vis-a-vis Israel remains untouched, and that the carrot-giving machine is still very much switched to “on”.

Silencing Palestinian voices

As recently as February, the US again guaranteed it would veto a resolution that was not to Israel’s liking at the UN Security Council. The Biden administration continues to nudge and cajole third countries to normalise and upgrade relations with Israel, and it is advancing Israel’s acceptance into the US Visa Waiver Program. From the spokesperson’s podium, all manner of linguistic gymnastics are employed to avoid uttering or confirming that there is an occupation.

To be clear, on the domestic front, Netanyahu has - for now - pulled back from the brink, not in response to US pressure, but rather amid unprecedented domestic opposition. Ironically, this opposition is centred on the threat of economic losses and conscientious objection to military service. Such tools, long advocated by anti-occupation and anti-apartheid advocates, have in that context been pilloried across the Zionist political spectrum as illegitimate or worse. 

If negotiations on a judicial reform compromise fail, and Netanyahu resumes the shelved legislation, do not expect the US to play saviour. 

For so long, the centrist and liberal Israeli political establishment invested great efforts in silencing Palestinian voices, criminalising the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and weaponising spurious accusations of antisemitism in response to legitimate criticisms of Israel. That success is now part of their problem: the international impunity built up by Israel over decades of violating Palestinian rights is now being enjoyed by the hard-line architects of the judicial overhaul.

Protestors demonstrate during the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to 10 Downing Street in London, Friday, March 24, 2023.
Protestors demonstrate during the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to 10 Downing Street in London on 24 March 2023 (AP)

The US approach on the Palestinian front was spelled out most recently in the joint communique from this month’s meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. The communique largely repeated the statement issued in February after a similar meeting in Aqaba, Jordan with the same group of participants - now apparently being referred to as the Quintet. 

The gaping chasm between western rhetoric on Ukraine and its cover for Israel’s illegal actions carries real costs for the US and Europe

Full of high-sounding aspirations towards trust and peace-building, the Sharm El Sheikh communique is as dead on arrival as its Aqaba equivalent proved to be.

The most devastating inadequacy of this approach is that the US emphasis on de-escalation translates in practice into calm only for Israeli Jews, alongside continued occupation, insecurity and daily humiliation for Palestinians.

The US insistence on both sides avoiding “unilateral measures” might sound reasonable, but this both sides-ism equates Israel’s violations of international law (settlement construction, home demolitions, land confiscation, disproportionate use of force, and collective punishment for the civilian population in Gaza and elsewhere) with Palestinian efforts to uphold that same law via international fora such as the United Nations and International Criminal Court.

High geopolitical stakes

By pushing to intensify military cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, while ignoring the underlying injustice of indefinite occupation, the US is taking the position that the occupier and occupied should work together to stabilise the occupation. This helps to explain why the Palestinian ruling party, Fatah, bleeds popularity and legitimacy - and why the US (and indeed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas himself) refuses to support Palestinian elections, which have not taken place for 17 years.

In short, the continuing US and western policy of guaranteeing Israeli impunity - ensuring that Israel’s actions are cost- and consequence-free - acts as the handmaiden to Israel’s growing extremism. The Israeli public has empowered politicians such as Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, and Netanyahu has included them in his governing coalition, safe in the knowledge that no meaningful sanctions will follow for Israel.

Israel’s long war between the generals and extremists is not going away
Read More »

Two years ago, we were two of the co-authors of a report titled “Breaking the Israel-Palestine Status Quo: A Rights-Based Approach”, which raised the alarm about the dangerous trajectory of developments, and how US policy exacerbates this situation.

But for the US and the West as a whole, the geopolitical stakes are even higher today. The gaping chasm between western rhetoric on Ukraine and its running cover for Israel’s illegal actions carries real costs for the US and Europe in the international arena. This is frequently cited as “Exhibit A” in the Global South’s dismissal of the moral claims about a western-led “rules-based” order.

Huwwara is the present, but it also offers a link to the past and a glimpse of a potential future. A second Nakba is something that Israeli right-wing politicians openly threaten with increased frequency, and for which settler militias under Israeli military cover are testing the ground. 

The insipid politics of the Zionist centre and centre-left cannot reverse these trends. For outside powers, the choice is between complicity in apartheid or holding Israel accountable. And while Palestinians have always paid the price for Israel’s impunity, many Israelis are now discovering that it carries costs for them too.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israel-judicial-crisis-boomerang-effect-colonisation

Zaha Hassan is a human rights lawyer and visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Previously, she was the coordinator and senior legal advisor to the Palestinian negotiating team during Palestine’s bid for UN membership, and was a member of the Palestinian delegation to Quartet-sponsored exploratory talks between 2011 and 2012.
Daniel Levy is the president of the U.S./Middle East Project and a former Israeli negotiator with the Palestinians at Taba under Prime Minister Ehud Barak and at Oslo B under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

'Precedent-setting': Lawmakers demand Biden probe Israel's use of US arms

 Progressive Democrats, led by Jamaal Bowman and Bernie Sanders and backed by more than 70 Jewish groups, send strongest statement against Israel yet

The letter was written by Congressman Jamaal Bowman.
The letter was written by Congressman Jamaal Bowman (AFP/File photo)

Some progressive US lawmakers - led by Jamaal Bowman and Bernie Sanders - are spearheading what activists are calling an unprecedented effort to call on the Biden administration to investigate if Israel is using American weapons to commit human rights violations against Palestinians

In a letter drafted to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and President Joe Biden, the two lawmakers urged the administration to ensure that US taxpayer money is not being used to support projects in illegal Israeli settlements.

The letter also calls on the administration to determine whether US arms have been used in violation of several American laws: the Arms Export Control Act, Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act, or Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act - also known as the Leahy laws.

If the Biden administration were to find Israel in violation of Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act - meaning Israel was found to be engaging in a "consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights" - it would render all security assistance to the country to a halt.

The effort by the two lawmakers is one of the strongest congressional actions taken yet against Israel in its history.

“At this inflection point, we ask your administration to undertake a shift in US policy in recognition of the worsening violence, further annexation of land, and denial of Palestinian rights,” read the letter, first reported by Jewish Currents.

According to Jewish Currents, the letter was written by Bowman while Sanders has been spearheading efforts to garner support from other senators.

It has already been signed by eight other progressives, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Summer Lee; Rashida Tlaib; Cori Bush; Ilhan Omar; Betty McCollum; Andre Carson; and Ayanna Pressley.

The letter was welcomed by Palestinian advocates, who said it could pave the way for a serious examination into the US-Israel relationship, in which for decades Washington has maintained uncritical support for the country.

"Until the US holds Israel accountable for its human rights records, it will continue to act with impunity. The US has huge leverage over Israel, it should start using it. Most Americans would agree with this position (sadly, not our elected officials). Kudos to Senator Sanders for leading the way in Congress on this topic," Nader Hashemi, associate professor of Middle East and Islamic politics at the University of Denver, told Middle East Eye.

Noura Erakat, a Palestinian-American human rights attorney and associate professor at Rutgers University, told MEE that "any call to investigate Israel’s use of weapons is precedent-setting".

US support for Israel

In addition to the progressive lawmakers co-sponsoring the letter, it has also received the support of more than 70 progressive Jewish groups and over 20 civil society groups.

"Representative Bowman and Senator Sanders’s letter is an important call to action," Jewish Voice for Peace Action political director, Beth Miller, said in a statement.  

"Over 80 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces and settlers just since the beginning of 2023, and the Biden administration’s statements of ‘concern’ mean nothing without action and accountability.

"Leaders in Congress who join this letter are following the demands of a rapidly growing number of Americans - including American Jews - who want to see the Israeli government held accountable for its decades of oppression of Palestinians," Miller added.

The letter from the lawmakers comes at a turbulent time in US-Israel relations, as the new far-right Israeli government recently attempted to introduce major judicial reforms that were met with massive protests in the country.

Biden had urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to scrap the plans, to which Netanyahu said he would not bow down to "pressures from abroad".

US lawmakers have also previously warned about the proposed judicial changes in Israel. However, Bowman and Sanders' letter also hit out at the Biden administration's "bothsideism" in its approach to the Israelis and Palestinians.

Instead, the letter condemns Israel's actions against Palestinians, including military raids on towns in the occupied West Bank as well as settler attacks that the lawmakers called "shocking violence".

It also stated "deep concerns" the Israeli government is moving towards "illegal de facto and de jure annexation" of the West Bank, rather than limiting its concerns to more narrow instances of home demolitions.

"Only clear steps to change political conditions will pave the way for peace," the letter said.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/precedent-setting-US-lawmakers-demand-biden-probe-Israel-arms-use

How Africa is facilitating Multipolar World

 31.03.2023 Author: Salman Rafi Sheikh

Column: Economics

Africa

The military conflict between Russia and Ukraine (as also Ukraine’s NATO allies) has brought some very interesting changes to the international political economy. Whereas this conflict has led Europe – working under immense pressure from the US – to stop its purchase of oil and gas from Russia, it has also allowed Russia to divert its resources, both material and otherwise, to regions that were previously on the margins of its priority list. In other words, while the West thought that it would be able to “isolate” Russia by pushing it out of Europe, this “pushback” has led to Russia’s “big entry” elsewhere. This is most evident in Africa, where Moscow has clearly emerged as a big player. During the recently held Russia-Africa summit in Moscow, Vladimir Putin surely reset Moscow’s priorities vis-à-vis Africa, saying that Russia like Africa “defends traditional moral values” by “resisting neo-colonial ideology imposed from abroad.”

This was a very successful event, as the next summit is going to be held from 26 to 29 of July in St. Petersburg, indicating the actual pace of Russia-Africa integration. The West is of course paranoid about it, as it sees Russian expansion in the African continent coming at expense of its own influence.

But what is even more concerning for the West is not just Moscow’s growing footprint in Africa. In reality, it is the geopolitics behind this engagement that is troubling the West. For Russia (as also for its allies, including China), Africa could be one of the global leaders in the multipolar world that both Russia and China are trying to build to get rid of the unilateral US hegemony. In fact, Putin gave this message to his guests from Africa very clearly when he said that “We are ready to jointly shape the global agenda, work together to strengthen fair and equal interstate relations, and improve mechanisms for mutually beneficial economic cooperation.”

Putin’s message is a clear contrast with how the West – especially, former colonial powers – are today seen in Africa. There is widespread discontent. As a 2022 report in New York Times pointed out, “Over the past few years there has been a sharp rise in criticism of France across its former colonies in Africa, rooted in a feeling that colonialist practices and paternalistic attitudes never really ended.”

Russia, on the contrary, is offering trade rather than colonial domination in an otherwise “post” colonial period. Apart from being the largest exporter of arms to the continent for many years, Moscow has also increased its export of oil to Africa, especially since the beginning of its military operation in Ukraine. Russia sent 214,000 barrels a day of refined petroleum products to Africa in December 2022, roughly three times more than in December 2021.

A lot of Russian oil is going to West African countries, such as Ghana, for the first time since 2018. North African countries, such as Morocco, have increased their purchase of Russian oil. Morocco’s imports of Russian diesel, which stood at around 600,000 barrels for the whole of 2021, surged to 2 million barrels in January. Tunisia, which similarly imported almost no Russian oil products in 2021, took 2.8 million barrels of Russian oil products in January and reportedly imported another 3.1 million barrels the following month.

What really stands out is the fact that many African states are rising against the influence of their former colonial masters and are instead tying up with Russia speaks volumes about the current state of international politics. Africa, as it stands, is far from following the US in its bid to create a global coalition against Russia. Africa, on the contrary, is following a policy that best serves its interests, as it continues to buy Russian oil despite the threat of US sanctions. This is clearly a quick glimpse into what international politics would look like in a multipolar setting.

Africa’s role in creating a multipolar world is, thus, not insignificant. It is playing an equally important role via its deep ties with China. For one thing, with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) being a move against the US geopolitics of China’s containment, there is little denying that Africa’s active participation in China’s BRI is defeating this very politics of containment and facilitating China’s rise as a global power.

Today, China is the largest foreign investor in Africa, with bilateral trade hitting US$254 billion in 2021 and US$282 billion in 2022. Out of this, Chinese exports to Africa were US$165 billion, while it imported goods from Africa worth US$117 billion. Although the trade balance is in favour of China, China has already enabled dozens of African nations to begin exporting some goods duty-free. The new policy includes over 8,800 commodities, with China aiming to increase African imports to $300 billion by 2025. Africa is, thus, benefitting from its trade ties with China.

With Russia being the largest supplier of weapons to Africa and with China being the largest investor, it is clear that Africa is quite well tied with what the US calls “revisionist powers” bent upon undoing the US-dominated, unilateral global system. Africa is one key continent where this dismantling of the old-world order is actively happening via a coalition between local African forces and external powers. For the many African nations tearing apart flags of their former colonial masters, ties with China and Russia are one crucial mechanism that could help them shun cloaks of neo-colonialism much more effectively than has so far been the case. For Russia and China, the more these African states stand against their former colonial masters, the better for the multipolar world they are trying to build.


Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook.


https://journal-neo.org/2023/03/31/how-africa-is-facilitating-multipolar-world/

NATO Holds War Games Miles From Ukraine’s Border

 

by  | Mar 30, 2023

The US and its NATO partners are conducting military drills in a region of Romania that borders Ukraine. Thousands of soldiers will gather to simulate repelling an invasion on the Black Sea coastline.

Dubbed “Sea Shield 23,” the war games kicked off on March 20 and will run until April 2. The US and 11 other NATO countries are participating in the Romanian-led military exercises. Nearly 3,500 soldiers, 30 naval ships, 14 aircraft and 15 other “fast intervention” boats are participating in the live-fire operations, which will occur in the Black Sea and Romania’s Danube Delta. Troops taking part in the Sea Shield drills will come within 20 miles of the Ukrainian border.

“The multinational exercise ‘Sea Shield 2023’ is the most complex training event, planned and conducted by the Romanian Naval Forces, through the Naval Component Command, in the 2023 training year,” the Romanian Navy said in a press release.

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the US has conducted several rounds of war games in Eastern Europe to simulate a similar conflict and develop strategies for Kiev. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported that last summer, the Joe Biden administration used the cover of war games in the Baltic Sea to plant explosives on the Nord Stream pipelines. In September, those explosives were detonated destroying the natural gas pipelines linking Russia and Germany.

Over the past year, the North Atlantic alliance has increased its force posture in what it regards as its “eastern flank,” which is made up of eight countries that stretch from the Baltics to the Black Sea, including Romania. NATO is concurrently conducting the “Crystal Arrow 23” war games in Latvia, which will see Danish soldiers train Riga’s Mechanized Infantry Brigade.

About Kyle Anzalone

Kyle Anzalone is news editor of the Libertarian Institute, opinion editor of Antiwar.com and co-host of Conflicts of Interest with Will Porter and Connor Freeman.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/news/nato-holds-war-games-miles-from-ukraines-border/

Israeli Airstrikes Hit Damascus, Two Syrian Soldiers Wounded

 

The incident marks the fourth known time Israel launched airstrikes in Syria this month


by Dave DeCamp 

Israeli airstrikes hit Damascus early Thursday morning and wounded two Syrian soldiers, Syria’s SANA news agency has reported.

The report said explosions were heard in Damascus at 1:30 am, and a Syrian military source said Syrian air defenses were “confronting hostile targets.” Besides the two wounded soldiers, material damage was reported as well.

The Israeli warplanes launched the airstrikes from the direction of the Golan Heights. Israel hasn’t commented on the news and typically does not take credit for individual airstrikes in Syria.

The incident marks the fourth time this month that Israel launched airstrikes in Syria. Two of the operations targeted the Aleppo International Airport and temporarily shut it down.

The city of Aleppo was devastated by the earthquake that hit Syria and Turkey on February 6, and the airport has become a vital channel for aid deliveries. Israel began frequently targeting Syria’s airports last year.

Israeli officials claim that their airstrikes in Syria are operations against Iran or Iranian weapons shipments, but they often kill Syrians and damage civilian infrastructure.

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/03/29/israeli-airstrikes-hit-damascus-two-syrian-soldiers-wounded/

Russia Says It Will Keep Notifying US of Missile Tests

The US and Russia won't share information under New START but will still comply with the caps set by the treaty


by Dave DeCamp 

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said Thursday that Russia will continue notifying the US of its missile tests despite its suspension of New START, the last nuclear arms control treaty remaining between Washington and Moscow.

Earlier this week, the US said it would stop sharing New START data with Russia since Moscow suspended its participation in the treaty. Ryabkov said Wednesday that Russia suspended information sharing under New START as well but clarified on Thursday that it will still notify the US of missile tests and adhere to the caps on nuclear weapon deployments set by the treaty.

“On a voluntary basis, the Russian Federation will adhere to the central quantitative limits on strategic nuclear weapons set by the treaty and will also continue to abide by the 1988 agreement on mutual notifications on missile launches,” Ryabkov said, according to the Russian news agency TASS.

New START limits the number of nuclear warheads each side can have deployed at 1,550 and also puts caps on the deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.

For now, both the US and Russia have said they intend to continue following the limitations on their nuclear deployments. Ryabkov and other Russian officials have previously said that the New START could be salvaged if the US takes steps to de-escalate tensions over Ukraine. But the Biden administration has shown no interest in doing so, and continues to ramp up support for Kyiv.

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/03/30/russia-says-it-will-keep-notifying-us-of-missile-tests/

Ukraine and the Lessons of the Iraq War

 

 


Photograph Source: U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 3rd Class Angel Roman-Otero – Public Domain

Leaving aside the manufactured justifications, the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 to reassert U.S. power in the Middle East and reduce the influence of Iran. It wasn’t terrorism or yellow cake or even Saddam Hussein’s appalling human rights abuses that motivated one of the most tragic of U.S. foreign policy blunders.

It was geopolitics, stupid.

According to the fevered imaginations of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and their neocon compatriots, Saddam would be the first domino to fall, followed by other autocrats (Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Muammar Qaddafi in Libya) until, boom, democracy upended the ayatollahs in Iran as well. They even imagined, by the mere inclusion of it in an “axis of evil,” that North Korea too would soon experience a Pyongyang Spring.

Saddam did indeed fall. And then Iraq fell apart, thanks to the failure of the Bush administration to develop a coherent post-war reconstruction plan.

But democracy did not take hold in the region, much less in North Korea. Some autocrats have squeaked by, in the case of Assad by ruthlessly suppressing a civil uprising, while others have emerged like Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt and Abdelmadjid Tebboune in Algeria. And several putative democrats, like Kais Saied in Tunisia and Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, have moved solidly into the illiberal camp.

Here’s a koan for the neocons: what’s the sound of one domino falling?

The ayatollahs, meanwhile, haven’t gone anywhere. Iran, by all estimates, increased its regional standing after 2003, becoming a major player in post-war Iraq, growing its influence in Lebanon and Syria, raising its profile among Palestinians through support of Hamas in Gaza, and backing a Shiite faction in Yemen.

So, the invasion of Iraq produced the exact opposite results than intended, despite the loss of over 4,400 U.S. soldiers and the outlay of as much as $2 trillion to fight the war and repair the broken country. Iraqis, of course, have suffered even more: around 300,000 deaths and a state currently hobbled by corruption and in-fighting.

Okay, Saddam is gone. But Iran and terrorist entities like the Islamic State have filled the regional vacuum, not the United States or democracy.

U.S. declining influence in the region was on display in the recent agreement that Iran inked with Saudi Arabia. The two perennially adversarial powers agreed this month to restore diplomatic relations, and the king of Saudi Arabia even invited Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi to visit Riyadh. This extraordinary development, between two countries that have fought through proxies in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon, has the potential to remap the region.

The United States, the most powerful country in the world and the post-World War II hegemon in the Middle East, had nothing to do with the rapprochement.

It was China that brokered the agreement, a country with a single overseas military base and little history of involvement in the Middle East.

On the twentieth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, the United States has discovered once again how the mighty can be brought low by their hubris.

Who Is Learning the Lessons of Iraq?

The United States has lost a large measure of its global influence, thanks to its fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan. Have subsequent administrations learned the lessons of these misbegotten incursions?

Barack Obama famously tried to pivot from Iraq to “winning” the war in Afghanistan. Today, the Taliban once again rule that country.

Donald Trump pretended as if he’d never supported the Iraq War as part of a half-assed attempt to paint himself as a critic of U.S. military interventions. In fact, it was only because of the concerted efforts of marginally more sensible members of his administration that Trump didn’t plunge the United States into war with Iran or Venezuela.

Biden seems to have partially learned the lessons of Iraq. He followed through on the pullout of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, and he has resisted sending U.S. troops to Ukraine. On the other hand, he has pushed the U.S. military budget ever higher and doubled down on containing China.

But the person who has truly not learned the lessons of Iraq comes from a different country altogether: Vladimir Putin.

Last year, Putin did a credible impersonation of George W. Bush by launching a “shock and awe” attack on Ukraine that he thought would be such a cakewalk that it wouldn’t even need proper preparation like updated maps or food enough to feed the invading troops. The “limits of military force” that has become a catchphrase among U.S. policymakers and pundits obviously never penetrated the walls of the Kremlin or the nationalist mindset of the Russian leader.

Strangely, pundits in the West have been slow to draw this obvious parallel. In The Guardian, Jonathan Steele notes that “in spite of the resurgence of US power in Europe as a result of the war in Ukraine, the era of US supremacy in the rest of the world may soon be over.” Well, the erosion of U.S. power been a long time in the making. But what about the end of Russian supremacy in its own sphere of influence? Wouldn’t that be a more apt comparison between the Iraq and Ukraine wars?  The Biden administration has learned at least some lessons from the dreadful blunder. The same can’t be said for Putin, and Russia will inevitably suffer the same geopolitical consequences.

Ishaan Tharoor, in The Washington Postmuses that the United States is unable to build a more effective global coalition against Russia because of its hypocrisy going back to the Iraq War. True, but much of the world is skeptical of U.S. intentions because of U.S. foreign policy misadventures going back a century or more—and also because Russia still has some influence in important countries like China, India, and South Africa. And it is Russian hypocrisy—Putin’s ridiculous claims that he is upholding sovereignty rather than violating it—that’s the more salient feature of the current war. Imperialism is never having to say you’re sorry (or make sense, for that matter).

And in the Boston Globe, Andrew Bacevich makes the off-base argument that “Biden appears to believe that the Ukraine war provides a venue whereby the United States can overcome the legacy of Iraq, enabling him to make good on his repeated assertion that ‘America is back.’”

Really?!

The war in Ukraine has less to do with the United States than with Vladimir Putin’s quest for power and imperial might. The United States is not the only superpower whose reach exceeds its grasp. Moreover, the Biden administration has responded with arms and support for Ukraine not out of any effort to overcome the legacy of Iraq but to come to the defense of a democracy that has been invaded.

These arguments are all part of an obsessively U.S.-focused “whataboutism” that has permeated the U.S. left’s discourse in particular around Ukraine. Instead of focusing on Russian actions, the anti-war critics will say “what about the U.S. invasion of Iraq?” as if there can only be one badly behaved country in the world and only one touchstone of evil.

Bacevich, again, has tried to make a virtue out of this rhetorical irresponsibility – Giving Whataboutism a Chance—by concluding that “however grotesque, Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine seem almost modest by comparison” to the U.S. crimes in Iraq. Though Bacevich agrees that Putin’s “actions have been those of a vile criminal,” he is effectively arguing that the stakes in Ukraine are somehow not so great as to justify providing the country with sufficient means to defend itself.

The fact that the United States, among others, have failed to do the right thing in the past—or in other parts of the world today—should in no way diminish the importance of doing the right thing right now in Ukraine. Would Bacevich argue that the Biden administration shouldn’t pursue major carbon reductions at home because the United States pumped so much carbon into the atmosphere in the past or is failing to help, for instance, India from kicking the fossil fuel habit today? At its heart, whataboutism provides an intellectual veneer for a paralyzing passivity in the face of evil.

And What About U.S. Influence?

Even as they note the declining global influence of the United States, some analysts nevertheless believe that Washington can somehow wave a magic wand to end the war in Ukraine.

Take George Beebe, in Responsible Statecraft, who makethe problematic assertion that this summer “Ukraine might well have less bargaining leverage, as its battlefield position stagnates and its confidence in enduring American support erodes.” Thus, the Biden administration should press

the accelerator pedal on negotiations with Russia. For example, signaling discreetly to Moscow that we are prepared to discuss the thorny issue of Ukraine’s membership in NATO – an issue Putin regards as central to the war, but which Biden has so far refused to discuss – might help to change these dynamics and reshape Russia’s attitude toward a settlement. 

This assertion is based on several faulty assumptions. Beebe urges the Biden administration to act now because of something—a battlefield stalemate—that might happen this summer and would be more likely to happen if Biden listens to Beebe (talk about self-fulfilling arguments).

Sure, Washington could signal that it will talk about NATO membership with Russia. But Putin actually doesn’t care that much about NATO per se. What the Russian leader wants is to fully incorporate as much of Ukraine into Russia as possible. Barring the installation of a Kremlin-friendly administration in Kyiv, he’ll settle for a structurally weakened country that will never pose any kind of threat—military, economic, political—to Russia.

Finally, what Beebe doesn’t say but rather implies is that the Biden administration should exercise its influence by leaning on Ukraine to negotiate with Russia, particularly if it doesn’t feel compelled to do so by circumstances on the ground.

Yes, of course, the Biden administration could seriously weaken the Ukrainian military by cutting off military supplies. Proponents of this view believe that this will somehow produce a negotiated settlement. The more likely scenario would be a redoubled Russian military assault accompanied by war crimes on a scale that would dwarf the horrors of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The recent indictment of Putin by the International Criminal Court focused on the forced relocation of Ukrainian children. But that’s just a small part of what Putin has wrought: executions of prisoners of war, slaughter of civilians, bombing of civilian infrastructure. Full-scale war against a weakened opponent will bring full-scale war crimes.

All of which suggests that the “pro-peace” critics of Biden’s policy toward Ukraine—from the left and the right—are really the ones who have not internalized the lessons of the Iraq War. The refusal of the United States to make any serious post-invasion plans, the effort to occupy Iraq and dictate its political and economic future, the implicit belief that the invasion would solidify U.S. standing in the region—these all plunged Iraq into years and years of civil war. Anything short of drastically reducing Russian influence in Ukraine will condemn the country to the same.

The U.S. left continuously called for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. Only those who have failed to learn the lessons of the Iraq War would fail to make the same demand of Russia as a prerequisite for a just peace today.


John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus, where this article originally appeared.           

 https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/03/28/ukraine-and-the-lessons-of-the-iraq-war/