Stanley Hoffman: Reflections on the Middle East in World Affairs
T
he George W. Bush era is about to come to a close. Where does that leave America? Stanley Hoffman of the Center for European Studies at Harvard University shared his reflections this week with Fletcher students and faculty. Pointing to the unresolved Israel-Palestine situation, the failure of neoconservative design in Iraq, and nuclear questions in Iran, Hoffman outlined the major foreign policy dilemmas—and possible solutions—facing the next US administration.
He first addressed the “rather lamentable record” of American leadership in Israeli-Palestinian relations. The US has consistently offered too little too late. There was too little attention in the aftermath of the Six Day War when Israel chose to remain in the occupied territories. The first President Bush organized the Madrid Conference very late in his presidency, and President Clinton also waited too long to address the conflict. In the case of the second President Bush, all that remains is “a sad record that historians will look at with puzzlement.”
The second dilemma, Iraq, is misunderstood by the Bush administration and presidential candidate John McCain. Some policy camps think that the center of the war on terror is in Iraq; if this is the case at all, it is because the US invaded it. There are terrorists there because of the fragile and unstable situation. Other camps believe that the front should be in Afghanistan, that the US fought the wrong war in the wrong place. Both of these views are dangerous because they miss the point about illegal invasion and occupation.
Iran is the third dilemma. Israel seems poised to invade if Iran demonstrates nuclear capability. Likewise, some in the Bush administration advocate unilateral military action by the US. If either scenario comes to pass, the invader will be isolated in the international community. The remaining option is negotiating with Iran, which its government has expressed it will do. Dealing with Iran on some front is critical, as it influences other countries in the region. Being the largest and most prominent Shi’a Muslim country, it holds considerable sway in Iraq, which hosts a Shi’a majority. Iran also influences Hamas and Hezbollah.
To move beyond these dilemmas, Hoffman identified two main points of action for the next US president. Firstly, maximum American engagement is necessary in trying to resolve the Palestinian issue. Secondly, America must disengage from things it cannot do or cannot do well. This means recognizing that the so-called “war on terror” cannot be won. He said, “If things are impossible, they cannot be done.” Easing up on the “war on terror” rhetoric may help reduce anti-American sentiment as well. The percentage of Muslims who commit terrorism is in fact miniscule; the notion of a war against terrorism feeds into negative stereotypes of Muslims, which in turn fosters anti-American feelings in the Muslim world.
American disengagement from Iraq would mean a withdrawal of American troops in exchange for a promise from Shi’as of fair integration of Sunnis—especially in the army—and continued decentralization. In Afghanistan too, there is little the military can do to provide a solution. However, there is a clear need for humanitarian aid, and the building of basic infrastructure for the legal and education systems. With regards to Iran, Hoffman advocated dialogue. This dialogue would be facilitated by a more fair, transparent, and coherent Israel policy. While Iran has a right to clean nuclear energy, any negotiations must include very strong guarantees against nuclear proliferation accompanied by strong inspections. Overall, Hoffman recommended that the US move away from pushing for democracy, and instead focus on human rights and basic development goals in its Middle East strategy.
Cybčle Cochran MALD ‘09
Photographer: Matthew Herbert F'10