MOSCOW (Yevgeny Satanovsky, for RIA Novosti) - Americans are good at defeating their rivals.
They have better control over former British and French colonies than Britain and France, and a stronger grip on the southern borders of Russia than Moscow. Nobody likes them there, but they come in handy as a counterbalance to the former rulers. In this context, Washington is responsible for the entire situation in the region. However, although the United States often scores short-term tactical successes, these are usually followed by a strategic disaster.
The problem is that the United States pursues global interests but its military and economic resources are not unlimited. Just over a decade ago, the Soviet Union dropped its bid to establish global supremacy out of exhaustion. Unlike the Soviet Union, wealthy America does not have enemies who can challenge it militarily. But the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has put the United States on the horns of a dilemma: It must either introduce a draft in the near future, or else convince its allies to send many more troops to the area. But would they go for it?
It is not easy to keep allies sympathetic while blatantly ignoring their interests at the same time. It is even more difficult to do so when putting them under constant pressure.
France, Germany and Russia have opposed the second war in the Persian Gulf. U.S. policy towards the Kurds has led to a considerable cooling in U.S.-Turkish relations. The United States has subjected Israel to unprecedented pressure over its military and technical ties with China, and insisted on a settlement with Palestine that has turned into a ten-year war for Israel on its own territory. Now the Israelis feel that the United States is stifling them in its embrace.
American efforts to export Western-style democracy to the Middle East and South West Asia, regions that follow their own laws, have been as successful as the Soviet attempt to export socialism there in the past. Now it is common knowledge that socialism acquires fascist features in that part of the world, whereas democracy inevitably brings radical Muslims to power.
Failure to understand this means that Washington is either deliberately rocking the Middle Eastern boat, or that it has already achieved the adequacy of the Soviet Politburo.
The U.S. administration also pursues a contradictory policy on nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Here we are not talking about Israel, a stable Western-style democracy that does not spread any nuclear technologies - if only because of bad relations with its neighbors.
Pakistan and Iran are a different matter. Unstable Pakistan is a nuclear power. Its government is being torn apart by constant pressure from the fundamentalists who once produced the Afghan Talibs, and from Pushtu leaders. But even when Pakistani scientists were caught red-handed spreading nuclear technologies to their Muslim neighbors, no sanctions ensued against Pakistan. Instead Washington concentrated its attention on Iran, whose rapid headway toward nuclear-power status has been facilitated by the U.S. pressure. The examples of Pakistan and North Korea, and the abortive attempt by Iraq to acquire its coveted weapons of mass destruction are prompting Iran to join the nuclear club in the wake of its Eurasian neighbors: Pakistan, India, China and Russia.
The war on international terrorism, proclaimed to be the core of U.S. foreign policy by President George W. Bush after September 11 attacks, is more in the vein of settling scores with America's old foes, Iran and Iraq. While waging a battle against terrorism, the United States occupies bridgeheads on vital energy routes, as well as on the approaches to China, the only country that may challenge America in the years to come.
This policy is not conducive to solidarity with America. Other nations are trying to unite in blocs and alliances in order to stop U.S. expansion. These nations are U.S. partners, but they are concerned that in reaching out the United States totally ignores both their national interests and those of the ruling elites.
The decision of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to demand the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Central Asia is the direct result of the revolutions in Georgia and Kyrgyztan and Islamic unrest in Uzbekistan. It does not matter much whether the United States stands behind these events or just shows its support for the "revolutionary masses."
Destabilization under democratic slogans in the Caucasus and Central Asia is no less dangerous than it is in northern Africa, the western Mediterranean and the Arabian Peninsular. Events in Iraq have made it clear that the Americans can quickly do away with any totalitarian regime in the region, but are not able to make life safe for the people in the wake of its collapse.
The rout of the Talibans, the successors of the American struggle against the USSR, did not bring life in Afghanistan back to normal. Instead it has turned into the center of the world's drug production. Iraq's occupation has liberated its citizens from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, but all they have received is the right to destroy each other. Iraq has turned into an arena of civil war and a breeding ground for Muslim terrorists.
There is little doubt that democratization in Syria or Egypt would produce the same effect. The withdrawal of Syrian troops from the Lebanon has put it on the brink of another civil war. The ethnic and religious minorities of the Middle East have suffered a tragic fate, as the first victims of the ruling regimes' collapse. Christian communities are perishing in Palestine and Iraq. Those in the Lebanon are also doomed. This is primarily a consequence of American political experiments.
Americans have never been liked in the Middle East. But in the past they evoked fear and envy, and some tried to emulate them or develop long-term relations. But today the Americans are hated. No one is afraid of them anymore. They are being used but kept at a distance. The American way of life, education, state system and economy are no longer considered an example to follow.
The United States achieves much by using its power and money in the Middle East. Regrettably, the United States traditionally comes to the right decision after having made all the wrong ones. The price is not just enormous economic and political damage, but also the loss of human lives.
There are reasons to laugh at the United States and to mistrust it, to repent the destruction it creates at every step, to be terrified by its blunders. But for all that, we should still wish the United States success and help it - even contrary to its own wishes. The whole world will pay dearly for a U.S. defeat in the Middle East. Last week's bombs in London bear this out once again.
Yevgeny Satanovsky is president of the Institute for Israel and the Middle East.
