U.S. policy hinders influence
Much negative can be said about the regimes of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) and Syria's Bashar Assad. But on most outstanding issues of the peace process -- the extent of the Israeli withdrawal, Jerusalem's status, the fate of Israeli settlements and the nature of security guarantees -- the Palestinian and Syrian negotiating positions are actually more consistent with international law and outstanding U.N. Security Council resolutions than are the U.S. or Israeli positions.
The Palestinians, in signing the Oslo accords in 1993, ceded 78% of historic Palestine to the Israelis. They are not likely to give in to U.S. demands to give up large swaths of the West Bank, Gaza Strip (news - web sites) and most of Arab East Jerusalem to accommodate Israeli settlements, which remain in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and three U.N. Security Council resolutions.
On a broader scale, as long as the United States continues to arm and support dictatorships in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Uzbekistan -- which terrorize their citizens -- calls for greater respect for human rights and the end of support for terrorists will not be taken seriously.
And as long as the U.S. rejects calls for a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone for the entire Middle East and demands disarmament only for its perceived enemies, U.S. efforts at non-proliferation will fall short.
Furthermore, such demands for acquiescence from an outside power are -- for a people who have resisted invaders from the West for many centuries -- an invitation not to meekly comply, but to resist.
The initially successful invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) underscores the fact that no nation-state in the region can counter the United States militarily. Unfortunately, that may result in a pull to employ non-state actors -- such as terrorist groups -- to challenge American hegemony. For if conventional warfare cannot defeat a foreign power seen to be bent on conquest and domination, this could lead to a growing reliance on various methods of asymmetrical warfare that will be far harder to defeat than Iraq's Republican Guards.
Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, is author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism.