Is U.S. Foreign Policy in the U.S.'s Best Interests?

To the insightful observer, it has long been obvious that U.S. foreign policy is largely devised in Tel Aviv in conjunction with so-called neoconservatives in the U.S., most of whom are Jewish-Americans with dual allegiance to Israel and the U.S., in that order.

The problem with this approach is that what is deemed in Israel's best interests by these individuals is, more often than not, not in the U.S.'s best interests.

In fact, the never-ending, bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict has fueled resentment and hatred in the region against both, Israelis and their U.S. sponsors for decades and is one of the root causes that led to terrorism in the region.

Reason: The humiliation of Palestinians is viewed in the Arab/Muslim world as the humiliation of them all.

If there if there are two words in the Arab/Muslim world with a negative connotation, they are...public humiliation.

After seven years of neglect, Mr. Bush, in a belatedly effort to save something, anything to make his legacy less painful, has directed his attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the behest of his Sec. of State, Ms. Rice.

Needless to say, skepticism prevailed when representatives of 49 nations met in Annapolis, Md. this week. This skepticism was well placed given that just a few short days after the conference adjourned, members of the Administration, at the behest of Israelis, withdrew the document that had called for a U.N. resolution based on the agreement for a peaceful resolution of the conflict before the end of 2008.

Soooooo, what else is new?

Time and time again the Administration embraced policies devised by neoconservatives in the U.S. and Likudniks in Israel whose primary objective was "to restructure the Middle East."

In essence, the U.S. would use military force to get rid of Israel's neighboring leaders whom they deemed as their enemies, starting with Iraq.

Bush-Cheney, on the other hand, had promised their campaign supporters in the energy field that they would have access to contracts in Iraq once the occupation had succeeded. Given the U.S. embargo against Iraq, U.S. corporations had been unable to participate in the development of oil fields. Contracts signed by Saddam were primarily with Russian and French corporations.

The alternative course of action, namely, to await the result of inspectors who had been given carte blanche by Saddam to inspect his nation at will after they were re-admitted, was cut short before they were able to certify WMD non-existence.

Since war had been pre-determined, the last thing Bush-Cheney wanted to hear is that WMD were indeed nowhere to be found in Iraq.

Had inspectors been allowed to complete their task, the embargo could have been lifted and U.S. companies could have proceeded to bid for contracts, given their unsurpassed expertise in building energy infrastructures.

But, that was not to be, given that hawks in the U.S. and Israel were, unfortunately, in charge and the decision to go to war had been before the tragedy of 9/11 occurred.

The fact that Iraq had nothing to do with this tragedy played absolutely no role in making the decision. It simply played a role in convincing the American people that getting rid of Saddam was "of the essence" since he supported "terrorists" and "mushroom clouds" were building on the horizon.

And so, the world was "shocked and awed" as bombs and missiles were dropped on a largely unprotected population. As the bombs fell, the goodwill toward the U.S. that had prevailed after 9/11 around the globe, instantly evaporated.

And, the rest is history....a bloody history that continues unfolding with no end in sight.

By the way, I noticed that Mr. Rove is busy these days attempting the re-write history on this issue. But, that will be a blog for another day.