There were two sides to President Bush as he toured the Middle East last week. One was Bush the peacemaker, who called for an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and vowed to see negotiations culminating in a peace treaty between the two sides before the end of his term in about a year. The other side was Bush the Iran basher — not exactly the warmonger since no one believes the president of the United States has the clout or the stomach to launch another war in this troubled region.
In Israel and the Palestinian territories, the president appeared to be playing the role of the honest broker. He tried to give each side something that they needed. The Palestinians got the presidential commitment to see their independent state created within the year, a solution to the refugee problem and an end to decades of occupation. The Israelis, on the other hand, were reassured of America’s special relationship, the right to have their Jewish state protected from foreign enemies and an admission that the fate of Jerusalem will be determined through negotiations.
Yes, he talked about painful compromises that both sides will have to make, but for the Israelis the president did nothing to determine the outcome of negotiations. As far as the thorny issues of settlements, Jerusalem and refugees, the president did not lean heavily on Israel. As for the Palestinians, the fact that President Bush failed to tackle these issues with force and candor left them despondent. In all, the administration got what it wanted from the president’s visit to the holy land. President Bush underlined his renewed interest in bringing about a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. In spite of the negative press coverage he got — mainly from the Arab media — the president did appear, for a while, as a peacemaker. Perhaps this is precisely the image he wants to foster until his departure from the White House, and why not?
His father played the role of a peacemaker before him and so did his predecessor, President Clinton. And besides, no one blames presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton for failures to end the conflict in the holy land. If Bush Jr. was looking for a legacy to mark his controversial two-term presidency, then this could be it.
Of course the president and his team know that achieving success in the long-winded peace negotiations requires much more than ceremonial visits to Israel and the Palestinian territories. Unlike Clinton, President Bush has no patience for tedious mediation between the two key leaders on specific issues. Personal involvement is not his style and he knows that an unpopular Ehud Olmert and a weak Mahmoud Abbas do not have the stamina or the courage that Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat had.
Such intermittent mediation is better left to Condoleezza Rice and her team. So only the optimists — and they are few on all sides — believe a just and durable peace between Israel and the Palestinians is possible within the time frame set by the president.
In fact all parties run the risk of losing control over events if the current peace drive runs out of steam. The Palestinians, divided both politically and geographically, will have to prepare for renewed internal turmoil if the peace process runs aground.
Olmert’s coalition government is shaky and the Israeli prime minister may not even last until Bush’s departure from the White House.
But the Bush team believes that the president had to make such risky commitments, which were announced last July and culminated in the Annapolis meeting in November, if he is to salvage his crumbling Middle Eastern policy. Today America faces complex challenges in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Somalia and the Sudan. Its Arab allies, especially in the Gulf, are becoming vociferous in their distaste for Washington’s end-game in Iraq and its current showdown with the Tehran regime.
This is the other side of the Bush visit to the region. Once in Kuwait, the first leg of his Gulf tour, the theme of his speeches and discussions changed completely. The President tackled topics that have so far shaped his presidency. He talked about fighting the war against terror, bringing freedom to Iraq and standing up to the Iranian threat to world security. This was the tough Bush, a toned down version of the warmonger, who first appeared to the world in the aftermath of the bloody events of 9/11.
Surprisingly and unexpectedly, President Bush accompanied his warnings of Iran’s potential threat with renewed calls to the leaders of the region not to shy away from democratization, reforms, human rights and normalization of relations with Israel. His Abu Dhabi speech offered a potent mixture of all his previous policies and doctrines — some it was thought he had dropped, since the Washington gurus who first came up with the approaches have long since bailed out.
As to be expected, the perceived Iranian threat surfaced frequently and it was clear that in spite of the US intelligence exoneration of the intentions of Tehran’s nuclear program, Mr. Bush was still adamant on presenting the Iranians as a clear and present danger to the Gulf states and the world at large.
In a polite diplomatic rebuttal of the Bush instigation, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister, Prince Saud Al Faisal, reiterated his country’s sober approach to the Iranian affair by underlining the Kingdom’s keenness on maintaining peaceful relations with its neighbors.
His carefully chosen words echoed the GCC’s policy toward Iran, especially when Tehran has been cooperating closely with the IAEA and its head.
The best that Washington could get at this stage is to reinforce its policy of containment where Iran is concerned. Having suffered strategic upsets in Iraq, the Americans now see Iran emerging as a major regional power, one which they will have to deal with now or in the near future.
As President Bush rapped up his historic visit to the Middle East, he returned to Washington neither a peacemaker nor a warmonger, at least from a regional perception.
Perhaps we all failed to see him as he really is: A weakened leader who is simply trying to conclude the remaining weeks and months of his troubled presidency.
— Osama Al-Sharif is a veteran journalist and publisher based in Amman.
