US Boilerplate Foreign Policy

I noticed the following in this morning’s Foreign Policy newsletter:

Jordan’s stability is a high priority for the United States. It is a main partner in fighting the Islamic State, in confronting Iranian expansionism, and in supporting a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Jordan’s quiet cooperation with its treaty partner, Israel, is a plus for U.S. regional interests. Domestic instability in Jordan — especially turmoil that threatens the leadership status quo — would endanger these important U.S. interests. Mounting pressures on Jordan’s meager resources from refugees — as well as corresponding austerity measures — could feed destabilizing anti-regime sentiment. Although Islamic State-inspired terrorist attacks in the kingdom would likely produce a rally-around-the-flag effect,  security incidents could further damage an already strained economy. Any further flow of refugees could tip the scales, triggering a crisis — potentially from malcontents among the refugee population and/or from disaffected Jordanians.”  (emphasis is mine)

So they actually consider ISIS attacks as a way to shore up the rule of the puppet Jordanian KIng.   Hmmmmm.  What to do – what to do?

You could turn the minuses into plusses and replace the name Jordan with Syria to see the planning of the status quo. I have written it below.   It sounds very familiar to the letters and plans that have recently surfaced regarding US policy towards Syria in the first decade of the 21st century, prior to the current conflagration:

“Undermining Syria‘s stability is a high priority for the United States.  It is a main obstacle to fighting the Islamic State, in confronting Iranian expansionism and in supporting a peaceful victory for Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Syria’s quiet resistance to Israel with it’s treaty partner, Iran, is a burden on U.S. regional interests.  Domestic instability in Syria — especially where turmoil might threaten the leadership status quo — would enhance important U.S. interests.  Mounting pressures on Syria’s meager resources from refugees — as well as corresponding (not an accurate word in either context – I’d use ‘neoliberal’) austerity measures — could feed desabilizing anti-regime sentiment.  Although Islamic State-inspired terrorist attacks in the republic would likely produce a rally-round-the-flag effect, security incidents could damage an already strained economy.   Any further flow of takfiris could tip the scales, triggering a crisis – potentially from malcontents among the takfiri population and/or from disaffected Syrians.”

Just fooling around here, BUT it certainly shows a consistency in US foreign policy between initiatives seeking very different outcomes.

Share Button

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
56 ⁄ 28 =