Just in case there is someone out there who hasn't as yet noticed, under the inexperienced leadership of an untried president - America is about to lose the Middle East.

The product of diplomatic degradation, this rapidly approaching new reality is coming about even though we have at present more than 158,000 troops either stationed or fighting in two major countries in the area. And to date we have invested and sacrificed more than 5100 American lives. To make matters worse, we may be about to step into a quagmire know as the 'graveyard of empires', namely - Afghanistan.

Most frightening of all is that the Washington leadership is doing everything they can to stall a decision on a new decisive direction for U.S. diplomacy. For the White House the impediment to movement is the faltering presidency of Barack Obama (as columnist George Will has stated, "The world adores him and ignores him."), and for Congress it is the upcoming congressional elections in November of 2010.

Congress doesn't want to be seen as needlessly feeding more American lives into the jaws of a hopeless war, and the President doesn't want to be seen as running from a fight - even if it is one we cannot win. So in the uneasy interim congress chases a mythical Universal Health Plan and the president manipulated his stall tactic by charming his way through Europe in search of Olympic gold. Meanwhile our brave troops battle on against a relentless adversary and - die in ever increasing numbers.

Who Controls the Middle East Debate?

American newspapers and publications have for decades rendered as journalistic reporting, a view of the Middle East and its Arab inhabitants - skewered toward an Israeli point of view. That highly edited view (such as dictated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee - AIPAC) is not always true in all respects, when taken into consideration that everyone connected with its publication is terrified of voicing an editorial view of Israel that is critical of their politics and military actions. For example, virtually no major American journalist or periodical will state that the non-inclusive treatment of its Arab citizens by the democratic state of Israel amounts to - Apartheid.

In essence, they have held a political stranglehold on free expression in this area of commentary and opinion. And to many journalists and politicians, the message was simply - see it our way or perish.

A fairer appraisal of Middle East affairs and history, as concerns Israel vs. the Palestinians and the Arab world in general, is rendered in the following excerpted portions of an article published in the 2006 London Review of Books.

The Israel Lobby

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history.

Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of .... Israel – are essentially identical.

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Backing Israel was not cheap, however, and it complicated America’s relations with the Arab world.

It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank.

Beginning in the 1990s, and even more after 9/11, US support has been justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist groups originating in the Arab and Muslim world, and by ‘rogue states’ that back these groups and seek weapons of mass destruction.......In fact, Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.

Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its NATO allies and has turned a blind eye to - Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons

John Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. Stephen Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. (Click to read entire article: HERE)

.......................................................................................................................

A Delusional U.S. Middle East Foreign Policy

By what right does any one country have the right to tell another that it can or cannot develop nuclear power and, possibly, weapons? How about by way of a bogus Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that one party in the Middle East - refused to sign and in the end was not required to sign - namely - Israel.

Why is it that all U.S. presidents who have signed on the goal of a 'non nuclear Middle East' in the last 30 years, have consistently left Israel out of that commitment?

Why are we so concerned with volatile rhetoric coming from an Iranian leader who would like to see the destruction of Israel? Soviet Premier Khrushchev boasted that they would ' bury the United States', but we didn't advocate the nuclear disarmament of the Soviets. And the Chinese leadership once claimed that they could outlast the U.S. in a nuclear war. But despite this boast we didn't call for them to be disarmed of their nuclear weapons, so why the hoopla over Iran's possible acquisition of nuclear weapons?

If we analyze the historic actions of both key parties to the regional dispute, which is more likely to use violence against their neighbors? Israel occupies Syrian and Jordanian territory, while Iran is not occupying any territory other than its own. Iran under its present rule has never invaded any neighboring country, but Israel cannot make such a claim. As Mearsheimer and Harrison have stated in their 2006 editorial:

"Israel’s backers also portray it as a country that has sought peace at every turn and shown great restraint even when provoked. The Arabs, by contrast, are said to have acted with great wickedness. Yet on the ground, Israel’s record is not distinguishable from that of its opponents. Ben-Gurion acknowledged that the early Zionists were far from benevolent towards the Palestinian Arabs, who resisted their encroachments – which is hardly surprising, given that the Zionists were trying to create their own state on Arab land. In the same way, the creation of Israel in 1947-48 involved acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres and rapes by Jews, and Israel’s subsequent conduct has often been brutal, belying any claim to moral superiority."

To lay claim to a fair and Morally Legitimate Middle East Foreign Policy, America cannot speak with two faces. We cannot call for a Non Nuclear Middle East that pertains only to the Arab states - while leaving Israel out of the equation. Such a policy is humiliating to the Arab world. ( Click HERE to see Iran attack plan )

Iran's Bait and Switch Diplomacy

It is my personal opinion, as stated in previous editorials in 2008, - Iran already has the bomb, or at the least the makings thereof.

The Iranians have worked and planned too long and hard to achieve their obvious goal of Nuclear Equality with the developed world, and Israel in particular, to simply walk away at this point in time. Not a chance! And I have to hand it to the Iranians for, diplomatically, they have managed to pull it off again.

In an analysis by CNN's Elise Labott, a respected and seasoned reporter, on October 3, 2009 she published the following excerpted analysis under the title - Iran is winner in nuclear talks, at least for now:

CNN) -- The United States and its partners in the P5+1 -- Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China -- left Thursday's talks with Iran in Geneva, Switzerland, rightfully claiming progress......Or so they thought.

Iran cleverly revealed its not-so-secret nuclear facility at Qom to the IAEA hours before Obama was to speak to the G-20 industrialized nations, where Iran's nuclear program was featured prominently on the agenda in his meetings with various leaders

Earlier in the week, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, having softened from the Obama administration's efforts to "push the reset button" on its relationship with Iran and its decision to scrap missile defense in Poland and Russia, said he could consider tougher international sanctions if Iran did not comply with international demands.

But after Iran's disclosure, Medvedev suggested that Tehran's offer to open the site to IAEA inspectors could satisfy Moscow, which in turn would satisfy China, which has been just as reluctant as Russia to impose new sanctions.

Iran's supposed about-face also blunts the threat of Israeli attack, at least for now. (Click to read entire editorial analysis: HERE)

Clearly, the Iranians are simply stalling for time - and the Israelis know it.

Do or Die: The Afghanistan Debacle

In an article published in the Wall Street Journal on October 1, 2009 entitled: U.S. Credibility and Pakistan, the following excerpt pretty much sums up the Afghanistan government viewpoint as to the intransigence of the Obama administration:

in an interview at the Journal's offices this week in New York, Pakistan Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi minced no words about the impact of a U.S. withdrawal before the Taliban is defeated. "This will be disastrous," he said. "You will lose credibility. . . . Who is going to trust you again?" As for Washington's latest public bout of ambivalence about the war, he added that "the fact that this is being debated—whether to stay or not stay—what sort of signal is that sending?"

Mr. Qureshi also sounded incredulous that the U.S. might walk away from a struggle in which it has already invested so much: "If you go in, why are you going out without getting the job done? Why did you send so many billions of dollars and lose so many lives? And why did we ally with you?" All fair questions, and all so far unanswered by the Obama Administration. However, a literal interpretation of the Afghani complaint is - they want us to stay and bleed for them - every day.

Now, here's the bad part - do we have a choice? Yes we do, but it is little better than no choice at all. We cannot allow al Queda to set up a stable headquarter state to once again launch attacks against the U.S. But we are severely pressed for the money, manpower and length of engagement the military is insisting on. America is broke and bleeding badly! So what will be President Obama's decision in this matter?

Place your bets everyone.

The Pakistan Gamble

There is one fact about Pakistan that cannot be disputed - they have nuclear weapons: which in turn means Pakistan represents the here and now long feared - Islamic Bomb.

The debate however, centers on how secure is that country's nuclear arsenal in their present environment of internal warfare and semi invasion by the Taliban? And since we know that the Taliban and al Queda both have their eyes on the dream of just one nuclear device (another nightmare scenario for the Israelis), the first rung on the ladder of insecurity is that we have this discussion at all. But most of all, in the name of American security what will the Obama White House team do?

Place your bets everyone.

The Final Question

The Iranians are going for the prize of becoming a nuclear state, and there is no way America can stop them - short of an all out air assault. On the other hand the Israelis have made it patently clear they will not tolerate a Iranian Nuclear Weapon coming into existence. Meanwhile, the Russians have also made it patently clear they will not allow the destruction of their showcase nuclear power projects in Iran.

Therefore, all that remains is what part will America play in the very messy upcoming Middle East party. And since it may come about on President Barack Obama's watch, will he foolishly ask for an invitation - or wisely keep us off the dance floor on this one?

Place your bets everyone!

Your comments - The voices of our readers

Well written as always.  Love George Will's comment on BO.  So true!  The Olympic thing is one more blunder. Jim McAllister, Scottsdale, AZ Are you serious dude? Jews control our politics? You foolish person you. Get serious man what Israel wants Israel gets. D. Faber, Orlando, FL