Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 1987, page 13

180 Degrees

"180 Degrees" appears every Friday in Florida Today, parent publication of USA Today. Whenever space permits, the Washington Report will present a debate between George Thompson, a retired US foreign Service officer, and Dan Warrensford, an engineer, on some aspect of Middle East affairs.

The scenario is beautiful, Dan. The nasties who held our diplomats hostage in Tehran for more than a year are getting a little taste of the dirty end of the stick.

Now, we side with their enemy in the Persian Gulf to "stick it to 'em."

Like that? You should. The Reagan administration does. Israel doesn't.

It interferes with arms sales. It reduces income from foreign exchange. It loosens the increasingly tenuous tie that binds it to our increasingly disastrous "no-policy policy" in the Middle East.

Israel long ago decided that Iraq is a threat to Zionism's giant land-grab and should be fought no matter the cost, so long as it doesn't interfere with the $3 billion annual tithe it's getting from us.

At long last, it would appear that US and Israeli interests are divergent. It's about time—even though it's for all the wrong reasons. The Reagan administration has little love for Khomeini and company. It holds considerably less for Gorbachev and the USSR.

That's why we're in the Persian Gulf today, old son. We're not there because Reagan loves Iraq. We're not there because we love the Arabs. We most assuredly are not there because we adhere to some higher principle of international law.

We're there because the Reagan administration needs the Russians to divert attention from what's happening on the domestic front in the US.

It needs the Russians because without them it could not justify the graft and corruption surrounding that deepest-of-all-money-pits Eisenhower aptly named "the military-industrial complex."

It needs the Russians because without them it could not explain why it bled domestic programs to feed an increasingly bloated defense establishment, resulting in the largest deficit in the nation's history.

It's a question of values, Dan. First, of the dollar. Second, in how we spend it. Unfortunately, Reagan & Co. has not done well with either one.

—George Thompson

Sit down, George. Calm yourself and consider some geopolitical realities.

There are three crucial reasons why we have a military presence in the Persian Gulf: First, we cannot allow a superannuated theomaniac—like Khomeini—to dictate how or where we may protect our interests; that includes merchant and/or naval movements on the "high seas." Second, if we are to remain the leader of the Western alliance we must—at least—assist in the maintenance of the integrity of that alliance. To allow interdiction of the flow of oil from the Middle East would be disastrous. Third, our forces in the Gulf are not there to "keep the Russians out." Despite the fact that the world would be much safer if the Soviets had no navy, the USSR has (unfortunately) a right to enjoy the peaceful use of international waters.

However, if we create a vacuum by abandoning the Gulf-area it would not be long before: (a) The maritime flow of oil would stop; (b) The Iran-Iraq conflict would escalate and expand; (c) Gulf nations—including Iran—would collapse and; (d) The Soviets would fill the aforementioned vacuum. A major Soviet dream would come true; it would be a nightmare for the West.

Now, unless the press reports I've been reading have been egregiously wrong, most Arab nations (Libya excepted) support our involvement in the Gulf. We may be awkward, diplomatically, but we believe in the fundamental rights of nations—including Arab states—to enjoy sovereignty as long as they respect the rights of their neighbors. Soviet hegemony in the region would be a terrible alternative. Typically, George, you attempt to cloud the issues with epithetical verbiage about "no-policy policies," "Zionism"(BOO!), 'land-grabs," blah, blah. Form in lieu of substance. For shame.

Well, fiddle-dee-dee, everyone has private bogey-men. Yours, obviously, are Israel and Ronald Reagan. If someone were to yell "ISRAEL!" OR "REAGAN!" in a crowded theatre, you'd break your neck trying to reach a fire exit.

In fact, our policy in the Gulf is logical, "measured" (too much so, perhaps), effective, and beneficial to the West and most Arab nations—to the detriment of the USSR. Get on board, pal.

—Dan Warrensford