MIDEAST: US Arms Create New Divisions
CAIRO - Last month, Washington approved massive military-aid packages and arms sales to its Arab allies, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and a number of smaller Gulf States. But while U.S. officials say the deals aim to bolster the “forces of moderation” in the region, some local commentators see the move as an unnecessary — and dangerous — provocation.
“The arms deals represent a continuation of U.S. policy aimed at creating tension and polarising the region,” Ahmed Thabet, professor of political science at Cairo University told IPS.On Jul. 28, the Bush administration announced its intention of providing Egypt with a 13 billion dollar military assistance package, to be paid out over the next ten years. The deal comes within the framework of the Camp David peace accord, to which Egypt, along with Israel, has been a signatory since 1979.
The White House also announced its willingness to sell some 20 billion dollars worth of advanced U.S. weapons systems to several Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Despite a degree of domestic opposition, the sales are expected to be approved by the U.S. Congress next month.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was quoted as saying that both the aid package and weapons sales reflected Washington’s commitment “to provide for the security of our allies.” She added that the deals were intended to “counter the negative influences of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.”
Under the terms of the arrangement, however, Arab capitals will only be eligible to purchase defence-oriented technologies, such as anti-missile defence and early-warning systems.
The announcements of weapons sales were followed by a high-powered tour of the region by both Rice and U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates, who together visited Egypt and Saudi Arabia. From Riyadh, Rice went on to Israel and the West Bank, while Gates continued to Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.
En route to Egypt on Jul. 31, Gates said that the unusual joint visit represented a sign of “the importance of this region in terms of U.S. vital interests.”
Aside from announcing the arms deals, Rice and Gates also sought to secure Arab backing for U.S. policies in the Palestinian territories and Iraq. The two officials reportedly laid the groundwork for a U.S.-sponsored Israel-Palestine peace summit, scheduled to be held later this year, and pressed Arab governments to open embassies in Baghdad.
According to local observers, however, the overriding objective of the visit — and of the proposed arms deals — was to promote a Sunni-Arab axis against Iran, which Rice has described as the primary “strategic challenge” to the U.S.
“The goal of their trip was to cement an alliance of moderate Arab nations in advance of a U.S.-led war against Iran,” Ibrahim Eissa, political analyst and editor-in-chief of independent daily al-Dustour told IPS. “Rice did a lot of talking about the need for a Palestinian state, but that was just window dressing.”
Eissa went on to warn that a U.S.-led war with the Shia Islamic republic would be “a catastrophe” for the region. “All the American military bases in the Arab world — in Qatar, Bahrain and other countries — could become targets of Iranian retaliation.”
Essam al-Arian, a leading member of the opposition Muslim Brotherhood movement, agreed that the visit by Rice and Gates had been less about Iraq or Palestine and more about rallying Arab allies against Tehran.
“Despite all their talk about the peace process, little of value came out of the visit,” Arian told IPS. “The U.S. is simply preparing the region for another war.”
According to Thabet, the proposed weapons sales, geopolitics aside, will also result in a major financial windfall for the U.S. arms industry.
“The arms deals were made to boost the American military economy, which currently faces enormous competition from France, Russia and China,” he said. “The U.S. is hoping to make as much money as possible from the Gulf States, all of which are flush with record petroleum revenues.”
“In the past, Washington exploited the perceived threat posed by Saddam Hussein — despite his obvious weakness — to justify arms sales to the Gulf,” Thabet said. “Now, it’s playing up the Iranian menace to sell weapons.”
Further vexing local observers, the White House announced earlier this month its intention to provide Israel with 30 billion dollars of military assistance over the next decade, with the stated aim of offsetting the proposed arms sales to Arab capitals. The arrangement, approved by Washington on Aug. 16, represents a 25 percent increase from current levels of U.S. military aid to the Jewish state, which has traditionally been the foremost beneficiary of U.S. financial largesse.
Unlike the planned arms sales to its Arab allies, U.S. military aid to Israel will reportedly include a good deal of offensive weaponry, including high-precision F-22 fighter jets.
At a signing ceremony in Jerusalem, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns made no secret of Washington’s policy of maintaining Israeli military supremacy in the Middle East. Pointing to Israel’s position in a “violent and unstable” region, he said that Israel’s military edge was “of interest to our country, and we’ve committed to that.”
According to Gamal Mazloum, retired general and specialist in geo-strategic and defence issues, the development comes as no surprise, given Washington’s longstanding bias towards the Jewish state.
“Israel will quickly obtain the latest American weapons from the closest U.S. or NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) arsenals,” he told IPS. “Arab countries, meanwhile, will only receive their defence systems after four or five years.
“The U.S. is trying hard to convince its Arab allies that Iran represents a greater danger to them than Israel. When, in fact, Israel remains the overriding military threat to the Arab world.”
Thabet, however, noted that the Arab-Israeli military equation could no longer be seen as a zero-sum game between rivals.
“None of the Arab governments, including Damascus, are seriously contemplating war with Israel,” he said. “After all, Israel has become an ally of the ruling Arab regimes, with both working against the interests of the wider Arab public.”
Copyright © 2007 IPS-Inter Press Service.
I do not know what this clown Bush Jr. is trying to do. First it is giving nukes to the Indians and now it is giving arms to an already troubled region. There is no explanation nor rational for either of these moves, just a one liner or two and then nothing. In his egomaniac what passes for a mind, he is the decider and that is that. We will all have to live with the damaged caused by these reckless so called decisions for many decades to come. Good decisions are difficult to make and since he never makes any good ones, it is no problem for him at all.
sjc_1, you overestimate the role of Bush personally and underestimate the rationality of US policy makers. Read the article carefully. If you wish to understand how the world works, it is important not to dismiss this regime as irrational or as completely inept.
First, U.S. defense contractors make tens of billions on these deals with these arab countries. The military-industrial complex is a key U.S. power center and this type of taxpayer subsidy is a victory in itself. Second, the sales to the arab countries provide legitimacy for the massive military sales to Israel for “balance”, another home run for U.S. weapons sales, and thus further arming with advanced offensive weaponry Israel, a U.S. garrison state ready to do U.S. assignments.
Third, the U.S. is strengthening a Saudi-Gulf State-Egypt arab alliance loyal to the U.S. that promotes the current U.S. and Western oil hegemony of the Middle East with its numerous military bases and the U.S. “protection racket” with the Saudi regime, this time with Iran serving as boogey man and common “threat” (just as Saddam had done so effectively since the U.S. declared him so). Finally, if the U.S. does attack Iran to remove the threat of a semi-democratic country acting indepently of U.S. wishes, this arab alliance can help to defeat Iran and provide legitimacy for the U.S. attack.
I bet those countries can’t wait to sell those arms to terrorists and other countries for more income…before you know it, we’ll be finding the arms in the hands of terrorists and other militias, and we’ll be complaining that we’re fighting our own weaponry…history repeats itself…also you’ll note that Israel gets the biggest cut of the budget, thanks to the Zionist lobby in D.C. Also you will note that Israel has more UN weapons violations of any Middle Eastern country.
Bush has become the world’s foremost arms trafficker. He belongs in prison.
In 2000, the U.S Supreme Court installed an arsonist as fire chief. Now he’s busily tossing matches into a powder magazine.
The Arabs will only get older mostly outdated arms.
Israel will get the most modren state of the art weapons available.
More arms for Israel only means more of this….
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
And where is Congress in all of this?
Ya know, I’ve been trying to figure out why Congress won’t stand up to SchrubCo. I hear a lot of conspiracy theories about them having used the illegal wiretapes to get the dirt on congress critters. But I think I finally get it. If Congress pulls the plug on these thugs, they won’t arrange these wonderful arms deals! Pelosi’s husband profits from Carlyle group. Heaven only knows where Hillary gets bucks, but Bill was just down in Columbia trying to get weapons and other stuff for that killer/corrupt gov’t. So where is Reid’s connection? I know it’s there, but I just don’t know where.
And where does Russia and China fit into all this? YOU KNOW they aren’t going to stand still for ANYONE attacking Iran!
This whole thing sucks. The US gov’t is like the Keystone Cops….only they ain’t funny.
It is hard to believe a few paltry weapons in the peaceful and tranquil middle east would create such a fuss.
It is such a good idea to arm the forces of moderation.
Josh,
I know what the article says, but does this speak for the administration, I do not think that it does. Was there any dialog about the need for this in advance of the decision, like with Congress that actually represents all the people, I do not recall there being any.
Let’s discuss the issues on their merits and not imply that people are naive and only certain people understand the true workings of this government.
Actually sjc_1 Josh has it pretty much down. Rice and Gates are sales for Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, GE, GM, and the rest. They are all going to make billions on this deal.
“Further vexing local observers, the White House announced earlier this month its intention to provide Israel with 30 billion dollars of military assistance over the next decade, with the stated aim of offsetting the proposed arms sales to Arab capitals. The arrangement, approved by Washington on Aug. 16, represents a 25 percent increase from current levels of U.S. military aid to the Jewish state, which has traditionally been the foremost beneficiary of U.S. financial largesse.
Unlike the planned arms sales to its Arab allies, U.S. military aid to Israel will reportedly include a good deal of offensive weaponry, including high-precision F-22 fighter jets.”
Rice and Gates are also sales for the regimes war on Iran which Cheney would like to have started yesterday.
“The goal of their trip was to cement an alliance of moderate Arab nations in advance of a U.S.-led war against Iran,” Ibrahim Eissa, political analyst and editor-in-chief of independent daily al-Dustour told IPS. “Rice did a lot of talking about the need for a Palestinian state, but that was just window dressing.”
While this is the same old tired demagoguery from this regime, but when has there been dialogue in the Congress relevant to anything? The reality is that we’ll be reading about what happened to arms deals gone bad… ALL OVER AGAIN. Checking recent history in the Middle East will easily show that the US has done many of these deals in the past to solidify its military protection of the oil spigot.
Make no mistake about it either, China, France, Germany, UK, and Russia are all trying to get in on the same game. China already signed a billion dollar oil deal with Iran, Russia has provided Iran with nuclear power facilities while many of Iran’s nuclear engineers studied in America. It’s all about money and power. People the world over be damned.
If we don’t provide arms then the other sleazy industrial nation’s governments will, but wouldn’t that be better. Why are we the filthy arms dealers that are enabling people to kill other people. I prefer birth control to weapons anyday. Let’s give the people of the world education, reproductive health care and to hell with these greedy military-industrial fools. We need Kucinich or someone like him who is not insane to show some real leadership for a peaceful world.
Maybe we should impeach Bush and Cheney before they can close the deal.
Killer profits made by killer corporations protected by killers, run by killers. “Oh, aren’t those gold bathroom fixtures just something to die for?” “Hey, killer haircut dude.” ” You da bomb baby.”
All you can eat specials. 10 lb sale. Buy now pay by the blue moon. Pay day loans. Hawking tupperware in hospital lounge areas. Doctor’s diets are worse than junkfood addict teenagers. The working poor. Hedge funders. Inside traders. Three jobs and still can’t afford health insurance. ” The ownership society.” Fast track. Speed. Now. Faster faster faster. Big. More. Liposuction. Natural resources. Human resources. Extortion. Exploitation. Sanctions. Sell’em the drug that destroys. Sell’em the antidote. Sell’em crap. Sell’em more crap. Let’em kill each other. Just save us the effort, huh? Just good business.
It is one thing to outline who will make how much money, that is motive. To say that there is a strategic importance is obvious, but a bit one sided if the only ones making the strategy are the neocons.
My point is discussing this with Congress, who represent the people. In the past, I recall some significant discussion between he White House and Congress on matters of this importance. I see no evidence that this was done in this case. Policy makers go beyond executive branch appointees is my point.
As far as giving Bush too much importance, he is the one that has to agree to this and sign the documents. The policy makers can come up with whatever they want, but if the President does not decide to go ahead with it, it goes nowhere. So, if the policy makers sell this idea to him on the grounds that his friends will make money and there is a strategic importance and it backfires and causes another major conflict, it is HIS fault.
“I bet those countries can’t wait to sell those arms to terrorists and other countries for more income…before you know it, we’ll be finding the arms in the hands of terrorists and other militias,”
This is a silly statement.
The Arab countries that we want to sell weapons to are not going to resale them to terrorist. The so called “terrorist” are rebelling against those goverments, as well as the West. Selling or giving them weapons would be suicidal.
sjc_1, I think we basically agree that the U.S. arming these countries is a destructive policy, and that U.S. policy and decision making would benefit greatly from a huge dose of democracy, something we sorely lack in this country (the U.S). My main point was that it is inaccurate to call this policy, or the decision to attack Iraq, “mistakes” or “misjudgements” by Bush. There are elite constituencies (e.g. neo-cons, the defense sector, etc.) that lobby for these policies, and presidential appointees who know how to write short, crisp memos for the president to make sure that the “right” decision will be made by the “Decider.” They are only acknowledged as “mistakes” when, after the fact, the destructive consequences of the policy become undiscuisable and unsellable to the U.S. public.