The CSM has the following story: Moderation rising in the Mideast, noting:
But in recent weeks, Libya has said it will abandon plans to pursue weapons of mass destruction. Iran has promised to allow international inspections of its nuclear facilities. Syria has announced that it is again willing to talk peace with Israel.Egypt and Iran are ending an era of mutual mistrust. So are Turkey and Syria. Saudi Arabia is allowing unprecedented internal debate.
"It's the end of radicalism," says Abdel Monem Said, director of the Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in ter for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "You have a general sense of accommodation taking place in the region."
Certainly this is all very good news, and it bolsters the arguments that I made in my Birmingham News piece from Sunday.
And while the article does take some issue with that interpretation, it does not dismiss it, either. Indeed, it ends with this quote:
"I hate to say it," says Said of the Al Ahram Center, " but at least from the results we are seeing the Iraqi thing was like a jolt in the region - it put a cap on radical politics."
Further, even if one finds the evidence unconvincing that the Iraq invasion has spawned greater cooperation, opponents and critics of the process have to concede a rather key point. That would be the argument, made prior to the war, that a US invasion of Iraq would cause radical uprisings, cause serious problems for moderate governments in the region, and lead to greater conflict. Remember all the talk about how volatile the "Arab street" was?
For example, this column by Bill Fletcher Jr. from 8/13/03, entitled "U.S. plan to attack Iraq unwise posted by
"The Progressive Media Project":
Regional consequences of invading Iraq are huge. Iraq could easily splinter to the benefit of Iran, part of the "axis of evil" identified by Bush. This could lead to relative anarchy, conflicts and, perhaps more seriously, greater anger with the United States. The environment would be ripe for rightwing Muslim extremists to gain support in destabilizing the region and intensifying terrorist assaults.
At this point, the opposite appears to be taking place.
And while I would hardly say that the task is done, or that negative consequences cannot ocur, I think it is far to state that many of the critics of the war were quite wrong in their predictions. And if, indeed, the events of 2024 helped fuel the dialogs mentioned above, then we are indeed much safer in the long run as a result of this action.
Posted by Steven Taylor at January 12, 2024 08:34 PM | TrackBack