28 of 36 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
They Don't Have a Solution: the Same Thinking which Created the Present Mess, October 26, 2009
This review is from: Myths, Illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East (Hardcover)
If you are interested in "Finding a new direction for America in the Middle East" (the sub-title of this book), you won't find it in this book. The so-called "new direction" is almost indistinguishable from the old direction, in the last years of the Bush Administration - which led to the present mess.
Dennis Ross and David Makovsky were both staff members of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an offshoot of AIPAC (the America - Israel Public Affairs Committee) the very powerful pro-Israel lobbying group. Their book defines Middle East policy issues as supporters of Israel's policies would like to see them defined.
The book presents Middle East issues from an exclusively Jewish viewpoint. Nearly half of the book, up to page 123, mainly presents an extensive history of the US-Israel relationship from 1948 to the present, including detailed presentations of the views of Israel's supporters in the US government. In contrast, while three chapters (Chapters 7,8,9) are devoted to Iran, Ross and Makovsky make no attempt to study or describe the political history of Iran or its relationship with the US. Iran's `Islamist Revolution of 1979' which expelled the Shah of Iran, receives just that two-word description `Islamist Revolution' - with no attempt to explore or describe what forces were at work. The pivotal 1953 coup, engineered by the US Central Intelligence Agency, which overthrew Iran's government headed by Mohammed Mossadeq, is not even mentioned (read
All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer). Politics in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon or Syria receive not a word.
Amazingly, Ross and Makovsky do not even mention the long and bloody Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's, in which the US supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. The relationship between the US and Iran since the 1979 revolution in Iran, or since the 1953 US-supported coup, is not discussed or even mentioned. The origin and causes of the present hostility between the US and Iran are left totally unexplained.
Ross and Makovsky's implication is that to understand Middle East issues, the US-Israeli relationship should be studied in the greatest detail; for all other Middle Eastern countries, their history and politics are irrelevant. All that matters is how they relate to Israel at this moment.
If this book presents the best available US thinking on Iran, the future looks bleak. Israel's preferred course with Iran would be to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities - and count on the US to bail it out from any unforeseen consequences. But as von Clausewitz remarked 200 years ago, wars always develop in ways which are unforeseen (Vietnam, Iraq are recent examples).
Much of the book is devoted to attacking the "linkage" theory, which they attack by first presenting it in a ridiculous form (a common rhetorical trick in politics): "the idea that if only the Palestinian conflict were solved, all other Middle East conflicts would melt away." Of course, there are differences between Middle Eastern states unrelated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But Israeli's treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza underlies the fact that 90 percent or more of the populations of Moslem countries have a negative view of the United States and are hostile to Israel. Their governments cannot ignore such views. When Israel complained in 2009 that neighboring Arab countries treat it as a pariah, not allowing Israeli trade missions in their countries, or permitting flights by Israeli airlines in their airspace, the US proposed in 2009 (after this book appeared) that Arab countries break the ice with Israel by making such conciliatory gestures. Netanyahu, on the other hand, refused to halt expansion of Israeli settlements. Thereupon, Saudi Arabia (with close economic ties to the US) immediately declined to make any conciliatory moves to Israel.
Conveniently, this downplaying of the importance of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict justifies the Netanyahu government's refusal (supported by American Jewish organizations) to halt expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. This has put Israel in conflict with the Obama Administration, and is now blocking any peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. But in Ross and Makovsky's book, the issue of settlements is not even mentioned!
The final chapter, `A New Realism for U.S. Policy in the Middle East,' only 8 pages long, presents their recommendations. They are very, very skimpy, and vague. First, "we must start by seeing the region as it is" (who chooses not to?). We should help in "liberalizing regimes and helping reformers throughout the Middle East." How? Iranian opposition leaders in 2009 begged the US not to endorse them, since America's reputation in the Moslem world has become so toxic that US support would instantly discredit any Middle Eastern reformer. Finally, the US must not "walk away or leave Israel in the lurch" - as if anyone, from Douglas Feith to Mearsheimer, Walt or Zbigniew Brzezinski were proposing to do so.
Ross and Makovsky disparage the record of the Bush Administration in the Middle East. They have no choice: it was an obvious failure. Refusing to talk to Iran while hurling scarcely-camouflaged threats ("You're next!") has left the US with Iran's nuclear program to deal with. Bush's hands-off cowardice vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has left Israel on even worse terms with its neighbors. But while disparaging Bush's record, Ross and Makovsky support the same goals and many of the same methods, and share the same conceptual framework.
Basing Middle East policy on the use of military force as George W. Bush did, deploying US military supremacy in Middle Eastern countries while ignoring political forces, cultural traditions and public opinion in every country except Israel, has been disastrous for the US. Enormously costly wars are being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan under conditions where US military and technological supremacy give no advantage. This policy, to which Ross and Makovsky offer little alternative, has left the US militarily weakened and enormously weakened financially. It has been a disaster for the US national interest.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
13 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Failed ideas are back again, August 7, 2009
This review is from: Myths, Illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East (Hardcover)
The only chapters of this book that concern me are those the authors have allocated to the current Iranian regime. For one thing, I am so happy that Obama's attempt to legitimize the murdering regime of Iran have failed solely due to the recent uprising of the Iranian people. But these authors have me worried more because they are the men who will shape the Iran policy in the next few years. (Hopefully Obama will be out of office by 2012).
Okay here is my beef with the Iran related chapters:
1-The authors had me until they came to discuss the so-called Iranian Fax message on pages 188-189. The author implies that the United States spurned a legitimate Iranian offer to settle all debts, so to speak, by striking a "grand bargain" and this offer supposedly came in 2003 via a Swiss Diplomat named Tim Guldimann. The offer is often cited by the leftists as evidence that President Bush's administration recklessly flopped a legitimate opportunity to engage in meaningful dialog with Iran. But again, this is nonsense. As AEI's Iran expert Michael Rubin has explained (michaelrubindotcom) , the Guldimann memo was the work of a wishful thinking, freelancing, Western diplomat, and not a serious attempt by the Iranians to strike a deal. And guess who took that fax message to the US officials? A well-known Iranian regime agent named Trita Parsi whose organization is funded by the Iranian regime. So the authors lost credibility the moment they started discussing this fake grand bargain offer.
2- The authors want us to believe the Iranian regime is just like any other functioning government/state. The authors of this book fail to understand one thing: That the Iranian regime leadership/mullahs DO NOT care about the well-being of the Iranian people. They don't have the land of Iran on their list as something they'd like to protect. They consider ISLAM and their faith as something holy and more scared. This is a common belief among Iranian people (including those I know) that the Iranian regime acts as if it is an occupational army. To give you an example, I'd refer you to how they treat victims of natural disasters in Iran. The Iranian regime does not care about IRAN. Period! So how could you deter them if they don't care about that country? You can not deter bunch of radical Muslims whose top priority is to keep their Islamic faith intact.
3- I guess the authors have only found one label better than others to attack their critic: Neo-Cons. And this is what Left likes to do. They have mainly pointed at
The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots' Quest for Destruction Michael Ledeen. They do not attempt to refute what Dr. Ledeen has said in terms of his thoughts or policy suggestions. But the only thing authors do not in this book regarding their so-called Neo-Con critics is to tackle the policy suggestions made by the neo-cons. Why?
4- I understand that the main goal of the US govt should be to further its own interests in any possible way. This is what governments SHOULD do. That's why they are there. But what these authors propose in dealing with the current Iranian regime is way more expensive, costlier and more dangerous than any other method. Consider that what these authors propose (DIPLOMACY) fails. What will be left is DIRECT military intervention by the United States in Iran. Whereas if the United States help change the regime in Iran, the costs will be far lower. The job will be done by the Iranian people and not the US soldiers. Why would they not want to try the cheaper way? I hate to say this but it is in the nature of the left to come across as 'Imperialists'. It's either their way or highway. So let me make this clear: My understanding of this book was that if what the authors say fail, there will be direct US military intervention (either in offering deterrence or air strikes against nuke facilities). I still can not understand why regime change option is a bad option. Authors fail to explain this to me as a typical reader. They have not analyzed the possibilities that the removal of this regime can bring to the table. They want the status-quo and they are wrong to be for Status-quo. The benefits of regime change in Iran outweighs anything one can imagine. You could imagine the effect that a secular democratically elected Iranian government can have in the region especially for the Israelis and how it will weaken the Russians, Venezuelans, Syrians and other terrorist groups in the region. You can not deter a terrorist government. Can you?
5- What the authors have offered were tried in 1990s and from 2004 to 2008. It did not work. The US govt offered apology for 1953 incidents in Iran during the 2nd term of Clinton presidency. Pres Bush did not approach the Iranian regime in 2005-08 period the way he did in 2002-03 period. He was cautious and less aggressive. The United States offered all sorts of carrots to the regime in these periods and none worked. One wonders why? So why should the United States try failed approaches again? Should the authors not investigate the nature of the regime rather than blaming the US good intentions during those periods?
6- The Europeans have been negotiating with the regime for as long as one could possibly imagine. The Europeans are more important to the regime than the US is. Why? Because if we consider the trade an important tool of foreign policy, the EU holds more sway over the mullahs in that field. The amount of EU-Iran trade is far more than the amount of US-Iranian trade. They could offer anything to the Iranian regime to have them stop the pursuit of nuclear weapons/energy. They have failed. The authors do not realize that no amount of bargaining and negotiations will stop the dangerous agenda of the current Iranian regime. The Europeans offered airplane spare parts, economic incentives, technology and WTO invitation and so on. If the Iranian regime genuinely believed in advancing the quality of lives of its citizens and its own standing in the international community, it could have taken up on those offers, halts its nuke program and be reasonable. Mullahs have not done so. Why? I won't provide the answer but the authors did not provide the answers either. Again why not?
7- The authors constantly refer the reader to dubious Iran experts like Ray Takeyh
Guardians of the Revolution: Iran and the World in the Age of the Ayatollahs who is a very suspicious individual in terms of his loyalties. Many in the Iranian community (iranianlobbydotcom) believes that individuals like him do not take their orders from where they should. Some point at his loyalties and how he is advancing the Iranian regime agenda within the American media or government. Why would the authors refer to such sources whose fairness is in question by so many people? Then there are names like Mahdi Khalaji, Trita Parsi, Karim Sadjadpour... etc. These individuals have little or no credibility among serious Iran experts. They have been exposed for who they really are. It's important that readers know who these guy work for.
There are so many points to make about this terrible book. But a few things are clear to me. The failed ideas of 1990s that led to terrorist attacks of September 11th are back again and those who are put in charge of Iran policy KNOW NOTHING about Iran personally. They have never been to Iran. They don't speak the language and those who advise them are dubious characters like the ones I mentioned above. The authors suggest that Neo-Conservatives suffer from wishful thinking and they see the region as they wish. It's not the case. The authors who happen to be REALISTS suffer from this illness. They want to shape the region the way they want and they CAN'T see the region for what it really is. They want us to believe that the Iranian regime is just like any other nation-state. Well, they are wrong. They've been proven wrong.
Again, I am so happy that Obama's effort to legitimize the current Iranian regime has failed and I hope the effort to negotiate with the Iranian regime fails even more. The Iranian people deserve to be free and the best thing people like Dennis Ross, Hilary Clinton or 0bama can do is to leave us alone. We don't need their help (since they offer no help) and we demand that they stop trying to legitimize our oppressors.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Clever Argument Lacking Balance/Context, March 22, 2010
I found this book very frustrating. Throughout the book, I felt as though Ross and Makovsky are largely on a soapbox about how they are essentially better informed and 'get it' while neo-cons and realists are both out of touch and misguided. However, the authors base their arguments on very narrow quotes and then selectively interpret/apply such quotes to advance their agenda. By taking quotes out of context, it conveniently positions the authors to argue that neither side 'gets it' because -- wait for it -- they ignore context. Can anyone else smell the hypocrisy in the argument? It's quite laughable.
I'm sure the targets of his criticism -- such as Walt/Mearsheimer -- would take issue with the authors for poorly representing their positions, though I haven't done research to find out whether they have responded to the book. Ross and Makovsky can't honestly defend their positions/solutions as more balanced/effective without providing the readers with a fairer view of those they criticize.
Ross and Makovsky do offer some substantive and valuable historical background and analysis. However, their tone and approach to writing the book was done in a very convenient way so as to come out looking more clever than everyone else. If you keep this in mind while reading it, you will be better off.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
