A Lesson from Mideast Dictators

The Region: A Lesson from Mideast Dictators by Barry Rubin -- Jun. 30, 2003 | The Jerusalem Post

Years ago a perfume ad perfectly embodied one of the main features of contemporary Middle East politics. "Promise her anything," it said, "but give her Arpege."

The strategy: Pretend to comply with a request or plan, then sabotage it. Dare your adversaries to do something about your behavior, in the often correct belief that you can easily get away with it. The reasons for expecting such a method to succeed are persuasive:

Perhaps your adversaries won't be aware of the trespass. The Western media will, at least, report your denial as being equally valid as any claim that you are lying.

Perhaps they will not act at all for internal reasons because the problem is too low a priority, the risks too high, or any number of other reasons. If they complain you can ignore them, since they are bluffing.

You can then ask for still more concessions in return for delivering on a promise or deal already made. Often you will actually get more after which the whole process can be repeated. If they launch a limited attack you can mobilize international support against them. The Arabs and Europeans will come to your aid. The party that acts not the one that provoked the action will be blamed as the aggressor.

At worst, you can just wait until they get tired and go away.

Isn't this what Saddam Hussein did in confronting the United States in 1991 over Kuwait and then, with great success, for the next 12 years? Wait a minute! He's still doing it, carrying on a war of attrition from his hiding place, telling his lieutenants that the Americans will soon go home. In short, the lesson of Middle East leaders is that while deterrence may work no state is going to attack Israel or the United States pressure does not. Only on the rarest occasions can a superior power press a weaker state, even one that has just lost a war, into doing anything.

And so the region's dictators are confident that when they face economic sanctions, threats, speeches, even military pressure, they can lie, conceal and deny. They can make no concessions and wait it out, ignore the costs to their own people who can be mobilized to support them by being told that the pressure proves how evil the enemy is, and how necessary the dictator's continued leadership is.

Some brief examples:

Syria told the United States it had stopped the operation of Saddam Hussein's pipeline through its territory, but it hadn't. It claimed to have closed terrorist offices on its territory. Same thing. It says it isn't giving refuge to high-ranking Iraqi officials, or serving as a launching pad for anti-American resistance in Iraq and if it was doing such things before, it certainly isn't any more. No and no. Etc., etc.

Iran insists that it does not sponsor terrorism, is not really building nuclear weapons, and is quite ready to cooperate to prove its good faith. Teheran promises that it isn't subverting US-backed governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Etc., etc.

The Palestinian leadership has a track record going back to 1994. Yasser Arafat scoffs at the idea that he is organizing terrorism and periodically promises to stop. The Palestinian leadership is more than happy to promise frequently not to incite violence against Israel or tell its people the state should be destroyed. There is no terrorism, but if there was, they would be ready to stop it. Etc., etc.

Saudi Arabia says it has never provided aid to terrorists (even excluding attacks on Israel) and swears it is not giving them money any more. It affirms it is cooperating in the war against terrorism. And so on, and so on.

IN OTHER words, the more audacious the misrepresentation, the more stubborn the refusal to change or make concessions, the better a regime will do in retaining power. Thus goes the current regional wisdom; and with good reason, because this strategy is very often successful.

What is Israel going to do if the Palestinians refuse to make peace? Keep fighting and be blamed by the world for the conflict?

What is the US going to do if Iran builds a nuclear weapon? Attack it? Even if the invasion of Iraq seems to show one should not call America's bluff, regional regimes don't seem to be rushing toward cooperation and moderation as a result of Saddam's overthrow.

In contrast, Middle Eastern politicians scoff at the idea of there being much value in moderation. To the list that includes king Abdullah of Jordan and president Anwar Sadat of Egypt, both murdered for their pragmatism, one can add Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). Whatever his shortcomings he deserves credit for being horrified by the incompetence of Arafat's leadership, angry at the corruption of his colleagues and determined to end his people's suffering.

Had Abu Mazen kept his mouth shut, done nothing and lived quietly for a while he would probably easily have succeeded Arafat. Now, however, other Palestinians denounce him as a traitor for seeking peace.

How has working with the US helped him? Even if it forces Israel to make concessions the militants will only claim this proves their violent strategy has been successful.

More than two centuries ago Benjamin Franklin set down a poem on the folly of governments: "Look round the habitable world, how few/Know their own good, or, knowing it, pursue!" Yet the problem in the contemporary Middle East is that leaders do pursue their own good. And they understand that running against pragmatism taking risks, incurring losses, blocking progress, losing wars is a proven winning strategy for fulfilling their selfish interests.

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, part of the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC). His most recent book is The Tragedy of the Middle East.