The Middle East floats on oil, is mired in blood and threatens to be swallowed up in semantics. Take the word “geopolitics” for instance. It is often employed to explain subtleties peculiar to the area—its geography, demography, politics, peoples and places, its natural resources and, especially, its oil. Sometimes it is deployed to avoid the responsibility of spelling out exactly what one means. Nevertheless, it is a convenient term. But one thing that can be agreed upon is that—however used—it precludes moral considerations in international relations. It is my contention, however, that where the moral suasion is lacking, the geopolitical factors will be found wanting and the “national interest” thwarted.
But before we go into the matter of “national interests” and “vital stakes” and the geopolitical carapace that often embraces this terminology, it is best to try to defoliate a couple of myths surrounding our general Middle East policy. Most notable the notion that the United States needs to make some redress for its “one-sided” support of Israel, necessitating a more “even-handed” approach in order to strike some balance of support in the area.
Comments