Moderation Rising in the Mideast ; This Week Israel Debates Syria's Offer of Peace Talks, While Relations Thaw between Egypt and Iran, Turkey and Syria
Cameron W. Barr writer of The Christian Science Monitor, The Christian Science Monitor
The Middle East - a region long known for its rancorous politics - is trying something new: pragmatism and moderation.
Two caveats must come early in any discussion of regional improvements. The success of the US attempt to remake Iraq is by no means guaranteed. And the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is moribund.
But in recent weeks, Libya has said it will abandon plans to pursue weapons of mass destruction. Iran has promised to allow international inspections of its nuclear facilities. Syria has announced that it is again willing to talk peace with Israel.
Egypt and Iran are ending an era of mutual mistrust. So are Turkey and Syria. Saudi Arabia is allowing unprecedented internal debate.
"It's the end of radicalism," says Abdel Monem Said, director of the Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in ter for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "You have a general sense of accommodation taking place in the region."
Dr. Said, who defines radicalism as the struggle for unobtainable goals, adds that "radical movements, whether pan-Islamic or pan- Arab, have come to the conclusion that continuation of confrontation with the status quo or the West in general is either futile or very costly."
In Washington, some of these events are interpreted as a victory for President Bush and his combative foreign policies. Others are not so certain of any direct correlation. "It's not as if Libya went from being a total pariah outlaw to poster boy of the new moderation simply because of the invasion of Iraq," says William Quandt, a Middle East specialist at the University of Virginia.
Mr. Quandt and other experts note that many of the regional developments are the fruit of internal factors and years of diplomacy that long predate the Iraq war.
"Certainly, the administration is interested in getting the message out that anything good that's happening is because we're firm, we're resolute ... so that everything falls neatly under the headline of 'We led, and the world follows,' which I don't buy," says Richard Murphy, a former diplomat who is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
Still, Mr. Murphy and other critics of Bush policy concede something is happening, though where it will lead, no one can say. "We may have started something [in Iraq] that will have a highly positive effect," he says, though he is reluctant to link the war and the appearance of a new moderation in the Middle East.
Murphy will go this far: "You can't invest the billions and the blood that we have in Iraq and not make a change. We have made a great change."
Perhaps it should be no surprise the administration is placing more emphasis on the follow-on benefits of the Iraq invasion. The key rationale for going to war in the first place - to eradicate Iraq's alleged development of weapons of mass destruction - seems increasingly groundless. …