Crescent International
American neo-cons are alarmed at the proposal by some US officials that the Islamic resistance movement, Hizbullah in Lebanon, should be engaged. The neo-cons' concern springs primarily from the consequences such engagement would have on Israel.
MD, Toronto,
July 16, 2010, 17:00 EST
American neo-cons are alarmed at the proposal by some US officials that the Islamic resistance movement, Hizbullah in Lebanon, should be engaged. The neo-cons' concern springs primarily from the consequences such engagement would have on Israel.
Unable to degrade Hizbullah’s influence and popularity by military and political means, some US officials have called for negotiations with the movement. In May 2010, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan suggested that the US should reach out to certain elements within Hizbullah. A more comprehensive suggestion on engaging Hizbullah came from a team of senior intelligence officers at theUS Central Command -- CENTCOM – known as the "Red Team."
The CENTCOM report issued on May 7 and titled "Managing Hizbullah and Hamas", questioned the current US policy of isolating and marginalizing the two movements. The “red team” recommends that the US should work to integrate Hizbullah and Hamas into the Lebanese and the Palestinian security apparatuses respectively. The report says this policy “would be more effective than providing assistance to entities -- the government of Lebanon and Fatah -- that represent only a part of the Lebanese and Palestinian populace respectively.”
CENTCOM's suggestion immediately drew a reaction from the pro-zionist lobby in the US. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-zionist group, launched a vicious attack on CENTCOM proposals.
WINEP's policy proposal on Hizbullah published on July 14 states that “reaching out to Hizbullah, however, at a time when it is politically and military emboldened, would be an exercise in futility that could prove counterproductive.” WINEP recommends that the US should increase pressure on “Syria and Iran in order to increase the costs of support for Hizbullah” along with putting pressure on the Lebanese government to condition Hizbullah’s participation in the government.
WINEP also suggests that the US should empower “independent Shiites” through facilitating funding and encouraging “stronger links between moderate Shiites in Lebanon and Iraq.” It also advises enhanced consultations with Israel along with making it clear that “it [US] will stand by Israel if the latter is forced to act against Hizbullah’s military capabilities, but will also seek to limit actions that could undermine the government or pro-Western forces in Lebanon.”
CENTCOM's report represents a new trend in US policy making circles which have been promoting the concept of co-opting rather than directly fighting Islamic movements that resist US hegemony. It seems US policy makers have realized that they cannot defeat Islamic revival through direct confrontation; they are, therefore, looking for ways to discredit the Islamic movement by co-opting it.
Aware that any association with the US and its allies amounts to political suicide, the US is attempting to initiate dialogue with Islamic movements in order to discredit them. This concept was implemented in Iraq with some success.
The co-option policy will first target more vulnerable Islamic organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood. However, it is unlikely to gain much traction with Hizbullah and Hamas. Their mode of operations and strategic objectives revolved around confronting the illegal US presence in the Muslim world.
Hizbullah and Hamas follow the line of Imam Khomeini and are part of the Islamic thought process revived by him which is resistant to such processes. The landslide victory of President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in June 2009 clearly manifests this quality of the line of the Imam.
Hizbullah and Hamas are fully aware that the US agenda of “engagement” is aimed at undermining, and ultimately destroying them. Therefore, unless there is evidence that the US has abandoned its hegemonic agenda, “engagement” will never work out, no matter how much sugar coating is applied.
END
