MIDDLE EAST CRISIS
Hansen
policy in Vietnam, and which has argued that Johnson's concentration on a war in Southeast Asia has caused him to slight more important interests elsewhere, especially an unparalleled opportunity to exploit the weaknesses revealed by the current government in the Soviet Union, dropped the sedate tone normally employed in its editorial columns and resorted to language not far from that to be found in the most chauvinistic gutter sheets.
On June 2, the Times scored de Gaulle, "who is apparently willing to throw Israel to the Egyptian sharks." It fulminated over "Nasser's illegal attempt to blockade the Gulf of Aqaba." And it did not hesitate to rattle the war drums against Moscow because of the encouragement from there to Nasser.
"Russia's present rulers are more cautious than Nikita Khrushchev," declared the editorial, "but the game they are now playing in the Middle East could prove almost as risky as the Cuban missile adventure that nearly incinerated the world and ultimately cost Khrushchev his job."
After this dark reference to the possibility of the world being incinerated and the game costing the present rulers of Russia their jobs, the Times dragged in the ancient theme about "the historic Russian expansionist drive toward warm water." This is "a kind of inperialism," we are informed, which "the capitalist nations have long since abandoned." (Are we to conclude that the capitalist nations long ago seized all the warm water they require and now reserve their expansionist drive only to warm land like Southeast Asia?)
Te Times hints in the final sentences of the editorial at the true causes of its emotional outburst:
"Combined with this is an effort [by Moscow] to achieve a position astride West Europe's vital oil sources that could be exploited for blackmail purposes in the future. It suggests that Moscow's sweet talk in Europe may be another effort, as in 1955, to put the Allies off guard while attempting to turn NATO's critical southeastern flank."
C.L.Sulzberger, the Times' expert on foreign affairs, put it with notable succinctness in explaining how it happened that the U.S. which "never even pretended to have a Middle East policy prior to World War II" was "forced" to "become interested in the area."
"American oil concessions along the Persian Gulf began to show signs of incredible wealth. The region's former suzerains, Britain and France, were respectively debilitated and destroyed. Finally, Hitler's diabolical persecution drove Europe's surviving Jews to Zionism and produced dynamic Israel. Petroleum, a power vacuum and political concern over Jewish Palestine thus brought the U.S.A. into the Middle East."
To be observed is the fact that in Sulzberger's list of U.S. interests oil comes first. This is a sufficient tipoff on the reasons for the sudden transformation of the New York Times from a dove into a hawk.
Johnson, we may be sure, is not less interested in the "incredible wealth" of the Middle East than the publishers of the Times. Why then didn't he react to Nasser's moves with his own famous "lightning draw?"
There are several reasons. The most. obvious one is that he is bogged down in Vietnam.
The New York Times is keenly aware of this and has been drawing some lessons about it for the edification of those entrusted with the destiny of U.S. imperialism. These make very interesting reading.