Abandoning Iraq to Solve the Arab-Israeli Conflict

When I in February 2003 approvingly quoted Secretary of State Powell saying that American success in Iraq "could fundamentally reshape [the Middle East] in a powerful, positive way," I understood the U.S. goal to be bringing democracy to the Arabic-speaking countries"; little did I imagine he was referring in the first place to an imposed settlement in the Arab-Israeli theater.

Also, when one month later I predicted that "the road map is for show, not true policy, and U.S. endorsement of a Palestinian state remains remote," I missed the extraordinarily ambitious motives that lie behind the road map, the clear aspiration to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict from the outside.

Comment: This is not the first time that an American secretary of state has seen victory in the Iraqi theater as a reason to rush over to the Arab-Israeli theater; that's precisely what James A. Baker, III, did twelve years ago, as I detailed in "What Kind of Peace [to Follow the Kuwait War]?" (May 5, 2003)

Dec. 8, 2006 update: Baker has done it again. The Iraq Study Group Report whose production he co-chaired, asserts that the situation in Iraq is "inextricably linked" to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Related Topics:  Arab-Israel conflict & diplomacy, Iraq, US policy receive the latest by email: subscribe to daniel pipes' free mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.