ARE the US foreign policies, issued at the beginning of the last century, suitable for the current times, considering the terrorist organizations have become the enemy who does not regard geographical boundaries and sees the entire world as its playground?
This question lingers in the minds of those who have been following up US politics throughout the past decades, particularly the way it interfered in several places around the world where it did not pose any direct threat like what happened as a result of its failed politics in the beginning of the 1990s that led to the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath.
Perhaps, the current US administration would have realized that the slogan, “Preemptive war on terrorism,” which prevailed during the administration of GW Bush, is the correct way to push direct threat away from it, as well as to support and protect its allies who are confronting the terrorist groups.
Pushing towards the opening of cracks to intensify the flames of sectarian and creedal conflicts in the Middle East as part of the strategic interest circle of the US is not the right way. The US should think that being able to satisfy itself with oil will exclude it from this circle.
Anyone following up the policies of US President Barack Obama knows that his policies will put the United States of America to where it was during World War I, when it merely satisfied its needs and was not interested in the radical changes on the world map.
This kind of politics is wrong because the circumstances are different from the past. The current global events will definitely affect it before anyone else, since the conflict is not on boundary, but on the existence of terrorist groups.
If Washington is now waiting to face direct threats before making a move, similar to what happened in the Second World War with Japan and other members of the axis alliance; it will endanger the lives of its people. Was the 9/11 incident in 2001, when about 3,000 Americans died in a single day, not enough to learn a lesson?
Perhaps, President Obama, who expressed his pride in his recent speech on the nuclear deal with Iran as a way of averting war on the US, is failing to realize that he has opened more grounds for terrorism because Iran’s regime, which the US is striving to return to the global spectrum, is the top supporter of terrorism, including the ISIL that is worse than al-Qaeda.
If the US administration does not see direct threat from this organization, it means that it is benefiting from the interlocking of its interests with Israel and Iran – the two countries which are still far from the operations of these terrorist groups, because they agree with the latter in terms of objectives.
Currently, the US politics appear to be the same as the act of playing with fire near a store of gunpowder. This is the reality that decision-makers in the US need to realize, since it let go of Libya after overthrowing Gaddafi’s regime as it did not continue supporting the political process, leaving it at the mercy of ISIL.
ISIL is easily expanding and it poses direct threat to the US allies, especially Tunisia, Egypt and Europe. This is in addition to the fact that Washington is blocking the international alliance movement by limiting its involvement to military air strikes only.
It is as if the US has placed its bet to open the doors to rehabilitate ISIL, the way it did with Afghanistan’s Taleban that seemed qualified to be a political partner recently. This means the US acknowledges its defeat, which is the same as its defeat in Vietnam.
Does this politics protect the United States? It is necessary for the US voters to raise this question to their electoral candidates. They should also ask their current administration, which is engulfed in floundering and contradictions, before swamps of blood spread in their country, caused by al-Qaeda’s offspring – the ISIL that is more savage than any of its ‘relatives’.
By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times