I’ve received many requests to
comment on the article by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (henceforth M-W),
published in the London Review of Books, which has been circulating extensively
on the internet and has elicited a storm of controversy. A few thoughts on the
matter follow.
It was, as noted, published in
the London Review of Books, which is far more open to discussion on these
issues than US journals — a matter of relevance (to which I’ll return) to the
alleged influence of what M-W call “the Lobby.” An article in the Jewish
journal Forward quotes M as saying that the article was commissioned by a US
journal, but rejected, and that “the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful that he
and co-author Stephen Walt would never have been able to place their report in
a American-based scientific publication.” But despite the fact that it appeared
in England, the M-W article aroused the anticipated hysterical reaction from
the usual supporters of state violence here, from the Wall St Journal to Alan
Dershowitz, sometimes in ways that would instantly expose the authors to
ridicule if they were not lining up (as usual) with power.
M-W deserve credit for taking a
position that is sure to elicit tantrums and fanatical lies and denunciations,
but it’s worth noting that there is nothing unusual about that. Take any topic
that has risen to the level of Holy Writ among “the herd of independent minds”
(to borrow Harold Rosenberg’s famous description of intellectuals): for
example, anything having to do with the Balkan wars, which played a huge role
in the extraordinary campaigns of self-adulation that disfigured intellectual
discourse towards the end of the millennium, going well beyond even historical
precedents, which are ugly enough. Naturally, it is of extraordinary importance
to the herd to protect that self-image, much of it based on deceit and
fabrication. Therefore, any attempt even to bring up plain (undisputed, surely
relevant) facts is either ignored (M-W can’t be ignored), or sets off most
impressive tantrums, slanders, fabrications and deceit, and the other standard
reactions. Very easy to demonstrate, and by no means limited to these cases.
Those without experience in critical analysis of conventional doctrine can be
very seriously misled by the particular case of the Middle East(ME).
But recognizing that M-W took a
courageous stand, which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing
their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion. I’ve reviewed elsewhere what the
record (historical and documentary) seems to me to show about the main sources
of US ME policy, in books and articles for the past 40 years, and can’t try to
repeat here. M-W make as good a case as one can, I suppose, for the power of
the Lobby, but I don’t think it provides any reason to modify what has always
seemed to me a more plausible interpretation. Notice incidentally that what is at stake
is a rather subtle matter: weighing the impact of several factors which (all
agree) interact in determining state policy: in particular, (A) strategic-economic
interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate
linkage, and (B) the Lobby.
The M-W thesis is that (B)
overwhelmingly predominates. To evaluate the thesis, we have to distinguish
between two quite different matters, which they tend to conflate: (1) the alleged failures of US ME policy;
(2) the role of The Lobby in bringing about these consequences.
Insofar as the stands of the Lobby conform to (A), the two factors are very
difficult to disentagle. And there is plenty of conformity.
Let’s look at (1), and ask the
obvious question: for whom has policy been a failure for the past 60 years? The
energy corporations? Hardly. They have made “profits beyond the dreams of
avarice” (quoting John
Blair, who directed the most important government inquiries into the industry,
in the ’70s), and still do, and the ME is their leading cash cow. Has it been a
failure for US grand strategy based on control of what the State Department
described 60 years ago as the “stupendous source of strategic power” of ME oil
and the immense wealth from this unparalleled “material prize”? Hardly.
The US has substantially maintained control — and the significant reverses,
such as the overthrow of the Shah, were not the result of the initiatives of
the Lobby. And as noted, the energy corporations prospered. Furthermore, those
extraordinary successes had to overcome plenty of barriers: primarily, as
elsewhere in the world, what internal documents call “radical nationalism,”
meaning independent nationalism. As elsewhere in the world, it’s been
convenient to phrase these concerns in terms of “defense against the USSR,” but
the pretext usually collapses quickly on inquiry, in the ME as elsewhere. And
in fact the claim was conceded to be false, officially, shortly after the fall
of the Berlin Wall, when Bush’s National Security Strategy (1990) called for
maintaining the forces aimed at the ME, where the serious “threats to our
interests… could not be laid at the Kremlin’s door” — now lost as a pretext for
pursuing about the same policies as before. And the same was true pretty much
throughout the world.
That at once raises another
question about the M-W thesis. What
were “the Lobbies” that led to pursuing very similar policies throughout the
world? Consider the year 1958, a very critical year in world affairs. In 1958,
the Eisenhower administration identified the three leading challenges to the US
as the ME, North Africa, and Indonesia — all oil producers, all Islamic. North
Africa was taken care of by Algerian (formal) independence. Indonesia and the
ME were taken care of by Suharto’s murderous slaughter (1965) and Israel’s
destruction of Arab secular nationalism (Nasser, 1967). In the ME, that
established the close US-Israeli alliance and confirmed the judgment of US
intelligence in 1958 that a “logical corollary” of opposition to “radical
nationalism” (meaning, secular independent nationalism) is “support for Israel”
as the one reliable US base in the region (along with Turkey, which entered
into close relations with Israel in the same year). Suharto’s coup aroused
virtual euphoria, and he remained “our kind of guy” (as the Clinton
administration called him) until he could no longer keep control in 1998,
through a hideous record that compares well with Saddam Hussein — who was also
“our kind of guy” until he disobeyed orders in 1990. What was the Indonesia
Lobby? The Saddam Lobby? And the question generalizes around the world. Unless
these questions are faced, the issue (1) cannot be seriously addressed.
When we do investigate (1), we
find that US policies in the ME are quite similar to those pursued elsewhere in
the world, and have been a remarkable success, in the face of many
difficulties: 60 years is a long time for planning success. It’s true that Bush
II has weakened the US position, not only in the ME, but that’s an entirely
separate matter.
That leads to (2). As noted,
the US-Israeli alliance was firmed up precisely when Israel performed a huge
service to the US-Saudis-Energy corporations by smashing secular Arab
nationalism, which threatened to divert resources to domestic needs. That’s
also when the Lobby takes off (apart from the Christian evangelical component,
by far the most numerous and arguably the most influential part, but that’s
mostly the 90s). And it’s also when the intellectual-political class began
their love affair with Israel, previously of little interest to them. They are
a very influential part of the Lobby because of their role in media,
scholarship, etc. From that point on it’s hard to distinguish “national
interest” (in the usual perverse sense of the phrase) from the effects of the
Lobby. I’ve run through the record of Israeli services to the US, to the
present, elsewhere, and won’t review it again here.
M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals, but they recognize that the
Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class — at which point the
thesis loses much of its content. They also have a highly selective
use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion). Take, as one example,
arms sales to China, which they bring up as undercutting US interests. But they
fail to mention that when the US objected, Israel was compelled to back down:
under Clinton in 2000, and again in 2005, in this case with the Washington
neocon regime going out of its way to humiliate Israel. Without a peep from The
Lobby, in either case, though it was a serious blow to Israel. There’s a lot
more like that. Take the worst crime in Israel’s history, its invasion of
Lebanon in 1982 with the goal of destroying the secular nationalist PLO and
ending its embarrassing calls for political settlement, and imposing a client
Maronite regime. The Reagan administration strongly supported the invasion
through its worst atrocities, but a few months later (August), when the
atrocities were becoming so severe that even NYT Beirut correspondent Thomas
Friedman was complaining about them, and they were beginning to harm the US
“national interest,” Reagan ordered Israel to call off the invasion, then
entered to complete the removal of the PLO from Lebanon, an outcome very
welcome to both Israel and the US (and consistent with general US opposition to
independent nationalism). The outcome was not entirely what the US-Israel
wanted, but the relevant observation here is that the Reaganites supported the
aggression and atrocities when that stand was conducive to the “national
interest,” and terminated them when it no longer was (then entering to finish
the main job). That’s pretty normal.
Another problem that M-W do not address is
the role of the energy corporations. They are hardly marginal in US
political life — transparently in the Bush administration, but in fact always.
How can they be so impotent in the face of the Lobby? As ME scholar Stephen
Zunes has rightly pointed out, “there are far more powerful interests that have
a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the
Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other
special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far
surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to
congressional races.”
Do the energy corporations fail to
understand their interests, or are they part of the Lobby too? By now,
what’s the distinction between (1) and (2), apart from the margins?
Also to be explained, again, is why US ME
policy is so similar to its policies elsewhere — to which, incidentally, Israel
has made important contributions, e.g., in helping the executive branch to
evade congressional barriers to carrying out massive terror in Central America,
to evade embargoes against South Africa and Rhodesia, and much else. All of
which again makes it even more difficult to separate (2) from (1) — the latter,
pretty much uniform, in essentials, throughout the world.
I won’t run through the other
arguments, but I don’t feel that they have much force, on examination.
The thesis M-W propose does
however have plenty of appeal. The reason, I think, is that it leaves the US
government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, “Wilsonian idealism,”
etc., merely
in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape. [Joseph Nye &
Hillary Mann. Timothy Snyder & Timothy Garton Ash & Anne Applebaum.] It’s
rather like attributing the crimes of the past 60 years to “exaggerated Cold
War illusions,” etc. Convenient, but not too convincing. In either case.
