In the third part of Andrew Sullivan’s tri-partite column, he bemoans the tendency of today’s political class to pick sides in foreign disputes and rivalries, between Trump and his autocrats of whom he speaks so highly, and the liberals being sucked in by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince’s charm. Then he mentions, almost in passing, one of the most important principles of foreign relations management:
I have no time for the despicable Iranian regime, although the gamble that it could be forced to abstain from nuclear brinksmanship has been proven right. But the case that it is in America’s interests to take a firm side in the Sunni-Shiite feud in the Middle East — and simply back the Sunnis — makes no sense to me. American power is, in my view, best wielded through playing the two sides off each other, and providing some way for co-existence without devastating conflict. We have no interest whatever in the Shiite-Sunni theological struggles which now go back centuries. Yes, we should cautiously encourage any kind of democratic opening in Saudi Arabia (though count me super-skeptical), just as we should (and have) in Iran. But another war — this time for the Sunnis? Led by the neoconservatives? In defense of an absolute monarchy? In a cynical alliance with the Israeli far right? This is what this Saudi charm offensive is all about. And all of Washington seems to be falling for it.
Right. The danger of backing one side over the other is that we then inherit their sins – and, especially in the Middle East, there’s plenty of sin to go around. I don’t mean this theologically. I mean this in the practical sense that other nations will notice who we back and what we’re willing to tolerate, and our reputation will suffer accordingly.
Let them use themselves up between each other, and provide mediation services when possible. Putting our troops in harm’s way is the option of the man ambitious for legacy – or money.
