America’s decision to withdraw “non-essential” staff from a number of Muslim countries is symptomatic of a crisis in its foreign policy. The move admits of two interpretations. First, the US administration has been shaken by the capture of its embassy and the continued captivity of its diplomats in Teheran, the destruction of its mission by an angry mob in Islamabad and other similar developments and does not wish to find itself in a similar frustrating and humiliating position elsewhere. Secondly, President Carter is serious about his threat to punish Iran at some stage and is afraid that such an action on his part will expose Americans to serious risks in certain Muslim countries if they are still there. It is difficult to be sure which of these interpretations is accurate. But in spite of all the stern warnings coming out of Washington, we tend to take the view that in rational terms it is not open to the United States to punish Iran even after the hostages have been released. For that can produce results which will ill-serve American interests. It can help consolidate the present arrangement between the radical right (mullahs) and the radical left (Tudeh Party), strengthen the influence of the Communists and their sympathisers in Iran, provoke a lot of sympathy for Teheran’s present set-up in other third world, especially Muslim, countries, and even alienate America’s West European and Japanese allies who do not wish anyone to aggravate the already high level of turbulence in the oil-rich Gulf region. We are, therefore, inclined to believe that Washington is being cautious, and is not planning to adopt a provocative policy. But that itself would be an indication of how things have deteriorated for the United States in the Muslim world.
Though light is not visible at the end of the tunnel in Teheran, it is not unreasonable to believe that somehow or the other the problem will be resolved. But even when it is, it is not likely to be business as usual for the United States in the Muslim world. One Muslim country is, of course, very different from another and it is wrong to speak of the Muslim world as if it is a monolith. But one common thread runs through developments in almost all of them – the challenge of coming to terms with the modern world. This has let loose turbulent forces of varying intensity in all of them. What has happened in Iran is no doubt the result of special circumstances there – the Shah’s highly repressive regime, the speed of modernization, accentuation of disparities, inflation, the influence of the generally austere Shia ulema among the people, and so on. But it is representative of the problems facing other Muslim countries in their march into the 20th century. Xenophobia is an essential component of Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism and it is almost unavoidable that hate will be directed at America, symbol of the West by virtue of its economic and military power. This is especially so in the context of the unresolved Arab-Israeli dispute. Washington cannot end this long-term foreign policy problem, but it can ease it if it can produce progress on the Palestinian issue.
The Times of India, 3 December 1979