WORLD_ Criticism of United States’ Mideast Policy Increasingly Comes From Allies

Criticism of United States’ Mideast Policy Increasingly Comes From Allies

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: October 23, 2013 342 Comments


ROME — As the United States grapples with some of the most intractable problems in the Middle East, it has run into a buzz saw of criticism, not from traditional enemies but from two of its strongest allies.

During stops in Paris and London this week, Secretary of State John Kerry found himself insisting that the United States was not facing a growing rift with oil-rich Saudi Arabia, whose emissaries have described strains over American policy on Egypt, Iran and Syria.

And during a stop in Rome, Mr. Kerry sought to reassure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel that the Obama administration would not drop its guard in the newly invigorated nuclear talks with Iran.

Mr. Kerry’s comments appeared to do little to persuade Mr. Netanyahu, whose demands that Iran dismantle its nuclear program are tougher than any compromise that the United States and other world powers seem prepared to explore as they seek a deal with Iran’s new president.

But the criticism by Saudi officials has been the most vehement, as they have waged a campaign against the United States’ policy in the Middle East in private comments to diplomats and reporters, as well as in public remarks by a former intelligence official.

Saudi officials have made it clear they are frustrated with the Obama administration — not just for its reluctance to do more to aid the rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, and not just for its willingness to engage Iran in negotiations, but also for its refusal to endorse the Egyptian military’s ouster of President Mohamed Morsi and the crackdown on Mr. Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood party.

Beyond criticism, the Saudis have been working against American policy in Egypt by providing billions of dollars in assistance to the authorities in Cairo, which has more than made up for aid the United States has withheld after the Egyptian military deposed Mr. Morsi. Mr. Kerry and other American officials have insisted that the United States was right to work with Mr. Morsi after he took office as the duly elected president.

In a speech on Tuesday at the annual Arab-U.S. Policymakers Conference held by the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, Saudi Arabia’s former spy chief and ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, also complained about the White House’s decision to embrace an agreement to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons instead of carrying out a cruise missile strike against Mr. Assad’s forces.

“The current charade of international control over Bashar’s chemical arsenal would be funny if it were not so blatantly perfidious, and designed not only to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to back down but also to help Assad to butcher his people,” said Prince Turki, a member of the Saudi royal family and a former director of Saudi intelligence.

Those comments followed Saudi Arabia’s decision to protest the West’s policy on Syria by rejecting a seat on the United Nations Security Council.

Some Middle East experts said that the unease over American policy went beyond the details of the United States’ position on Syria or a potential nuclear deal with Iran. It is also fueled, they say, by the perception that the Obama administration’s policy is grounded in the desire to avoid diplomatic and especially military confrontations in the Middle East.

“There is a lot of confusion and lack of clarity amongst U.S. allies in the Middle East regarding Washington’s true intentions and ultimate objectives,” said Robert M. Danin, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who was a State Department official on Middle East issues during both Democratic and Republican administrations. “There is also widespread unease throughout the Middle East, shared by many U.S. allies, that the United States’ primary objectives when it comes to Iran, Egypt or Syria are to avoid serious confrontation.”

On his trip through Europe, Mr. Kerry repeatedly sought to counter the impression that the Obama administration was ducking tough challenges. In a news conference in London on Tuesday, he acknowledged that the Saudis were “disappointed” that the administration had pulled back from its threats of a cruise missile attack against Syrian forces and seized instead on a Russian initiative to end Syria’s chemical weapons program.

Mr. Kerry said he had discussed Saudi officials’ concerns with Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, in Paris on Monday, and insisted that the two countries were now “on the same page” on the need to convene a peace conference that would seek a political settlement to end the civil war in Syria.

American and other Western officials say the elimination of Mr. Assad’s stockpiles of poison gas would be a major accomplishment.

On Iran, Saudi Arabia’s concerns that the United States might not be firm enough in nuclear negotiations appear to echo Israel’s. Mr. Kerry sought to assuage those worries as well.

“President Obama has said a number of times, and I reiterate today, no deal is better than a bad deal,” he said on Wednesday as he tried to reassure Mr. Netanyahu that the United States was taking a sober view of the possibility of a nuclear breakthrough with Iran.

“But if this can be solved satisfactorily, diplomatically, it is clearly better for everyone,” Mr. Kerry added before beginning a seven-hour meeting with the Israeli prime minister at the residence of the American ambassador here. “And we are looking for an opportunity to be able to do that.”

Mr. Netanyahu said he welcomed those general sentiments, but went on to list steps that he said Iran needed to take to assure the world that it was not pursuing nuclear weapons.

He called on Iran to get rid of all its fissile material, close its underground nuclear facilities and abandon its construction of a heavy-water plant that would produce plutonium. He also said Iran should not be allowed to have any centrifuges to enrich uranium.

Having set out these broad demands, Mr. Netanyahu argued that it would be a “tragic mistake” to end international sanctions against Iran in return for a “partial deal.”

Iran, by contrast, has insisted that the West acknowledge what it says is its right to enrich uranium as part of a negotiated compromise that would put limits on the nation’s nuclear program.

American officials did not publicly acknowledge that “right” in talks with Iranian officials in Geneva last week, but it is clear that the United States and other world powers are willing to explore a deal that is far less stringent than the one Mr. Netanyahu proposed.

The disagreements between the United States and Israel will not be easy to finesse. The United States and other world powers are scheduled to resume talks with Iran in Geneva on Nov. 7.
A version of this article appears in print on October 24, 2013, on page A8 of the New York edition with the headline: Criticism of United States’ Mideast Policy Increasingly Comes From Allies.



Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog".
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc . 
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị . 





conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
25102013 
___________
Cộng sản Việt Nam là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC