The Crisis Management
The Roots of Crisis
Any independent nation, let alone the leading nation in the world has a foreign policy. In the process of carrying out its foreign policy objectives, a state will face other states, and a conflict may possibly arise between states as a result. Such a conflict is inevitable because states have different thoughts and ideas, which give rise to different interests and objectives. Thus, in order to deal with other states, any state must utilize both force and diplomacy in carrying out its foreign policy. Even the Islamic state used both means in carrying its foreign policy.
Diplomacy is defined as the process of a state building relations with other states. This process includes many things such as talk among nation through ambassadors or delegates., trade among nations, international agreements among nations, diplomatic missions, exerting economic pressure, and addressing the public opinion of the other side of the conflict as well as the world at large. Nations utilize diplomacy in order to achieve their foreign policy objectives: however, when diplomacy proves insufficient to achieve one�s objectives, a state resorts to force.
Ordinarily, force is uses as the last alternative after diplomacy has been exhausted, unless there is a point to be made by using force itself, such as establishing one�s military supremacy or imposing a specific political agenda which necessitates the use of force. For example, when America used the atomic bomb against Japan, the end result of the war wit Japan was known long before the bomb was used. The purpose of using the bomb was to send a message to the Soviet Union and to other nations with whom America would negotiate the post war agenda and world order that the destiny of the world would be decided by America. Howe ever, in general, a state will resort to force only as final alternative.
When each nation proceeds in solving a conflict with a solution which it deems appropriate, a crisis occurs which must be resolved once way or another. It an be resolved through diplomacy, and, in some cases, the situation mandates the use of force. Thus, war is defined as an alternative means of resolving a dispute when diplomacy fails. Usually, nations do not use force initially and would resort to it only as the final alternative. However, before using force, they may display the force, which by itself is a means of force, as America did recently in the Gulf.
The questions that comes is why crisis occurs in the first place. The roots of crisis have their origins in the reality of nations and states. Nations will always have different interests until life ceases to exist. Different interests are manifested due to the natural differences among people in their thoughts, points of view, and ways of life. Thus, continuous competition and rivalry exists not just among individual but also among nations, which will lead to disputes and possibly a conflict. As George F. Kennan said, �Every government is, in some respects, a problem for every other government, and it will always be this way so long as the sovereign state, with its supremacy self centered rationally, remains the basis of international life.�
When a dispute or conflict arises between tow nations, both seek a solution to resolve the dispute. The solution is sought with the objective of attaining the greatest utility or benefit for the nation. Even the ideological nation looks out for its interests. However, in this case, the ideology determines and defines the interest of that nation. In any case, crisis are an inevitable reality which exists by the mere existence of a state, just as gravity is reality of that exists with the mere existence of the matter. Thus, the main issue for each nation is how to be able to deal with a crisis effectively.
The Art of Crisis Management
Occurrence of crisis is natural, and therefore, the survival and success of a nations is achieving its objectives depends upon its ability to master the art of crisis management. For example, the united states as a capitalist country, establishes its foreign policy on the premise of dominating the economic and financial markets of the world. to achieve this objective, the US initiated several crisis in South America in order to generate business for its economy. As a result, the US was able to sell military hardware and open the South American markets for US merchandise. Had the US been unable to manage these crisis effectively, then it would have failed to carry out is objectives and consolidate its position in Latin America.
In Addition, failure to manage a crisis may not only lead to failure in foreign policy, but it may even turn against the nations which initiated the crisis. Sometimes nations may create a crisis and lose in the end when the crisis takes a life of its own. For example, Britain witnessed Germany build its power before WWII, yet it convinced France that there is not threat from Germany and same time, Britain began to build its own military power, thinking that it would be beneficial for itself. However, in the end, Britain suffered greatly because the crisis that it initiated reached that British isles when Germany attacked Britain. This shows that vital importance of being able to effectively initiate and manage crisis. Since war is not the first option in resolving any crisis, each nation tries to manage the crisis for its purpose. In this case, the nation with the most power, ways means, and well thought out objectives and the readiness and vision to use the appropriate measure of force when needed, will be able to manage the crisis towards fulfilling its objectives. Like a chess game, each side has to tread the other�s mind and anticipate their next move, and the one who has the ability to make an accurate anticipation will be able to manage the crisis. The end comes when the opponent blinks. The one who blinks first will lose even without initiating any war.
Form this, it is clear that managing the crisis is an art. How to escalate the situation until it reaches a climax is an art by itself. Pushing the situation to its climax without knowing the next step will have disastrous consequences. The nations may lose its footing, and its diplomacy may fails as a result.
Brzezinski once remarked that, �The use of force unguided by political end usually produces messy political results. In addition, John F Dulles remarked, �The ability to get to the verge without getting into the war is a necessary art. If you cannot master it, you inevitably get into the war. If you try to run away from it, you are scared to go the brink and you are lost.� But this does not mean that courage alone would suffice. The nation, which pushes the vents towards the climax or the brink, must be sure about its following step. If such a nation that is not in a position to manage the crisis allows its decision makers to use force, the pushing the events towards the climax amounts to nonsense and waster efforts. In this case, the one who initiated the crisis is going to blink first and lose.
Thus, crisis are a reality of this world that nations have faces and continue to face. Is order to shape the world order and exert any influence, successful crisis management is a necessity. Following are case studies of how states initiate and manage crisis, from the Islamic State during the time of Muhammad (saw) to the most recent crisis between American and Iraq. Through these examples, the article will illustrate the styles and tactics employed by states in initiating and managing crisis, in addition to showing the impact of successfully managing a crisis on the overall success of a state in carrying out its objectives.
Al � Hudaybiah : A Case Study
If we look to the seerah of the Muhammad (saw) we can see that he (saw) managed the crisis of Al Hudaybiah in a very effective manner. He (saw) initiated the entire cascade of events from beginning to end. He took the initiative and decided to march to Mecca and made public announcement among the entire Arabian Peninsula that he was not going there to confront Quraish but to make Umrah. This put Quraish I a no win situation from the start because Quraish, being the keepers and guardians of the Kaba had a reputation as the hosts of pilgrims from al over the world. if they allowed the Muhammad (saw) as a head of state into Mecca, then he could easily consolidate his influence there because the Islamic ideas were already penetrating among the people of Mecca. In addition, Muhammad (saw) made the decision on his own to approach Mecca without any invitation or approval from Quraish. Thus, giving him access would undermine their authority. However, if they refused him access as a pilgrim, then their reputation and stature would be destroyed, their credibility dismantled and the prophet (saw) could easily use this as a tool against Quraish in the entire Arabian Peninsula.
Thus, Quraish from the start were put on defensive. When the prophet (saw) camped near Mecca, Quraish began sending delegates to negotiate with the Muslims. At one point, Quraish sent some warriors to provoke the Muslims and push them into a confrontation. This would have worked to direct the crisis according to the plans of Quraish. If the Muslims reacted using force, Quraish could have used this as a negative propaganda weapon by claiming that the Muhammad (saw) intended to attack Mecca under the guise of the Umrah. However, the objective of the entire mission was not a confrontational one, and Muslims were not provoked. Instead, the warriors were captured and were immediately released. By this gesture, the Prophet (saw) not only contained the situation but turned the plans of Quraish against them by emphasizing that he was not going to Mecca to initiate a confrontation. In other words, the Muhammad (saw) did nto give Quraish a chance to direct the crisis towards any direction different than the direction he (saw) chose.
Later on, Muhammad (saw) sent Uthman bin Affan to negotiate with Quraish. However, Quraish kept him in Mecca for a while, and shortly thereafter, a rumour spread saying that Uthman was killed. It seems that Quraish were behind the rumour to take advantage of the situation by testing the reaction of the Muslims to this provocation. This incident surrounding Uthman illustrates that importance of reading the mind of ht others and anticipating their next move. Perhaps, Quraish thought that because Uthman was very highly respected, in addition to being the Prophet�s delegate and son in law, consequently his death would have provoked the Muslims.
If the Muslims backed away, Quraish would have emerged as the winners by establishing their dominance. If the Muslims reacted and fought, then the Muslims would lose because the questions would be asked: where is Muhammad�s claim that he came for a peaceful mission? Furthermore, how could the Muslims initiate a war based only on a rumour without verifying it? Thus, Quraish attempted to read the Prophet�s mind, anticipating that he will either back away or fight. However, they failed to anticipate correctly because the Prophet (saw) stood his ground and showed the force by taking the baya from Muslims to fight when he heard of the rumour and saw escalation. He did not directly engage in fighting; rather he declared that he was ready to fight by taking the baya.
Thus, using force was not the objective of the mission. Muhammad (saw) only threatened that he is ready to resort to force if needed. This manoeuvre help tremendously. Now the Prophet (saw) is pushing the crisis to the brink. Had the prophet (saw) not taken the baya and backed away, the mission may have failed. But Quraish was the first to blink, and the Treaty of Hudaybiah, which soon followed, secured the Prophet�s (saw) objective by isolating Quraish and breaking their alliance with the Jews of Khyber. The Treaty was such a great victory for the Muslims and the same time such a great loss for Quraish that the Quran referred to the incident as a �Fathan Mubeenan,� The Clear Victory.
This example from the seerah shows that the one who wants to initiate a crisis must know what he is doing. The objective of a crisis is not necessarily to engage in war. The war by itself it not and never was an objective of any nation at all. War is always used as a method to achieve an objective and once the objective is served there is no need for war. Sometimes the objective of the war is valid and sometimes the objective of the war is wrong. For example, Hitler�s objective of establishing nazi supremacy was invalid because it was based purely on racists� sentiment and ideas.
Once the crisis is concluded, the nation, which was able to achieve its gaols, would start capitalizing upon this success in its foreign policy and such a nation would proceed towards achieving other objectives based upon its agenda. After the Hudaybiah incident, the prophet (saw) capitalized on his achievements of eliminating the threat of Quraish and braking their alliance with Khaybar. Immediately after concluding the treaty, he besieged the Jews of Khyber and eliminated their influence, he began sending delegations to the kings and emperors outside the Arabian Peninsula inviting them to accept Islam and join the state and he turned Islamic state towards engaging the Romans and Persians.
The Battle of Al Khandaq (the Ditch) : The Case Study
In the previous example, the Prophet (saw) initiated a crisis in order to address the issue of Quraish. The events surrounding the battle al Khandaq is an example of crisis that was not initiated by Prophet (saw). Instead, it was initiated by others, in particular some Jewish leaders and was imposed on the Prophet (saw) . this is a natural phenomenon; sometimes a state, regardless of its power, would enter a crisis initiated by another state against its will. In this case, the main issue would be how to counteract the crisis, and how to emerge victorious. Studying the events leading to and during the battle of Al Khandaq shows that the Muhammad (saw) not only as able to manage the crisis that was initiated by the Jews but as able to direct the course of the crisis to his advantage.
This crisis of Al Khandaq began during the 5the years A.H. when some Jewish leaders approached Quraish and called them to fight against Prophet (saw), offering Quraish their support in return. Quraish agreed, after which the same leaders approached another Jewish tribe by the name of Ghatafaan, which also agreed to join. In addition, they also approached many other tribes, both Arab and Jewish, and soon they were able to form an alliance.
The Prophet (saw) heard about this alliance and after consulting with the sahaba, he decided to dig a ditch to defend Medina, in this instance, the Prophet (saw) was forced on the defensive, in which he responded to the initiated of the others. He dug the ditch every where except the area inhabited by the tribe of Banu Qurahdha, because Prophet (saw) had a treaty with them.
However, after Quraish and the allies arrived they managed to persuade Banu Quraidha, to join their side and break the treaty. The hypocrites also started an internal campaign to demoralize the Muslims, and they did not even join the Prophet (saw) in digging the ditch or defending Medina. Thus, the Prophet (saw) faced enemies from all sides. He had opponents from the outside (the alliance), opponents from within (banu quraidha and the hypocrites( and part of Medina exposed. Thus, the major question is: How did the Prophet (saw) managed this crisis and eventually turn the situation around?
In order to manage and redirect the crisis imposed on him, the Prophet (saw) executed many manoeuvres. Among the most important are:
During the process of digging the ditch, the Prophet (saw) expanded the scope of the Muslims thinking and concern. At the time of the crisis, the thinking of the Muslims was purely defensive and they were concerned only about defending their own lives. However, the Prophet (saw) changed their thinking. While they were digging the ditch, the Prophet (saw) came across a rock, and he struck the rock three times, each time a spark coming out. He told the companions after the first strike that he saw Magreb and Sham opened by the Muslims; on the second strike, he saw the Muslims conquering Persia and on the third strike, he saw the Muslims conquer Yemen.
This incident delivered a strong point to the Muslims that their responsibility was not just to themselves but to the entire world, and that it was their mission to save humanity and to carry Islam regardless of how desperate their situation was. Thus, the Muslims realized that, in order to achieve this objective they had to survive the current crisis. As a result, the morale of the Muslims was uplifted.
The Muhammad (saw) exercised all the necessary measured to maintain the situation under high alert. In one situation, when some of the allies, under the leadership of Amr ibn Abdu Wudd, tried to penetrate a weak point in the ditch, Ali ibn Abi Talib, and some others faced them and defeated them.
When the Muhammad (saw) heard the news of Banu quraidha breaking the treaty with him, he send Saad ibn Muadh to verify the news. The Prophet (saw) informed sa�ad that, upon his return, if he found that the agreement was not broken, to speak about it openly in order to encouraged the Muslims, but if otherwise, to inform the Prophet (saw) in a sign that only he could understand so that the morale of the Muslims would not be undermined. When Sa�ad returned with the news that Banu Quraidha broke the treaty, he informed the Prophet (saw) and the Prophet (saw) then shouted to the Muslims �Allahu Akbar1 O Muslims be delighted of the good news and the glad tidings.� By doing so, the Prophet (saw) maintained the high moral of the Muslims, and he did not give any opportunity for the hypocrites to take advantage of the situation.
In addition to these measures, Muhammad (saw) also started thinking of how to dismantle the alliance which threatened the state. For example, he approached the tribe of Ghatafaan to persuade them to break away from the alliance, offering them a third of the crops of Medina in return. But when the Prophet (saw) saw the determination from the Muslims to fight until the end, he saw no reason to proceed and withdrew his offer.
Another opportunity came when Nu� Yum ibn Masood, who was well known by all the parties of the alliance, embraced Islam and offered his services to the Prophet (saw) in helping himn to break the alliance. Because of his own people were unaware of him embracing Islam, the Prophet (saw) gave him the authority to approach the different parties. First, the went to Banu Quraidha, and telling them that when the coalition leaves, they would have to deal with the Prophet (saw) alone. He convinced Banu Quraidha not to join any coalition unless the other tribes surrender some of their people to them and this measure would prevent the other tribes from abandoning them if the situation became to serious.
At the same time, Nu yam approached Quraish, informing them that Banu Quraidha, are revaluating their situation and to be cautious about their demands. He told Quraish that Banu Quraytha would ask them to surrender some of their own people, possibly to offer them to the Prophet (saw) in order to show him that they still have their loyalty to him to avoid retaliation by the Prophet (saw). By this manoeuvring, Nu yam ibn Masood was able to not only to save the nation but also the blood.
A few days later, after their long standoff, Quraish approached the other tribe, stating that they have waited too long and they have to fight. Banu Quraidha replied that they are not prepared to fight because it was Sabbath and because they were concerned that Quraish would abandon them if the war became serious. Thus, banu Quraidha asked Quraish to surrender some individuals to make sure that they would not back off. Quraish refused their conditions, and soon afterwards, the coalition was broken. In addition, Allah (swt) sent a severe storm which further demoralized the allies, causing them to disperse.
From this situation, it is clear that the Prophet (saw) was able to mange the crisis and was able to maintain the high morale of the Muslims in order to fight if necessary. He did not just wait for the alliance to decide the destiny of the events, nor did he waist for the wind to come from Allah. Instead, he initiated some acts, which succeeded in turning toe course of the crisis in his favour.
Muslims throughout their history confronted many crisis which they were able to mange successfully. For example, Abu Bakr�s management of the internal rebellion. Salahuddin�s management of the external threat of the Crusade and the internal threat of groups such as the Fatimids and many other events showed how Muslims were able to manage the crisis that confronted them.
As a result of being able to successfully initiate the manage crisis, the Islamic State was able to achieve its foreign policy objectives by spreading Islam to the world. because of this, the Islamic state was able to shape the world events and other nations were put on the defensive. When the Khilafah lost its ability to initiate and mange crisis, it was unable to impact the world in any significant manner. In addition, other nations took the initiative to impose crisis upon the Khilafah and the Khilafah being unable to deal with these crisis soon became overwhelmed by them.
The Current Crisis
The most recent crisis between the US and Iraq is another example which illustrates many of the concepts of crisis management. It is clear that the US initiated the entire episode in order to achieve something out of it. Because if this fact, two things must be kept in mind, first, because the US initiated this crisis, then it must manage the crisis in an effective manner and not allow any other entity to redirect the crisis towards a different direction. In a crisis between nations, a third party may try to intervene and attempt to pus the crisis in a different direction, and this could be seen in the current crisis by the role of the British. Britain attempted to push the crisis into a war scenario, hoping to achieve some gain as a result of dragging American prematurely into a war with Iraq. Most importantly, the British manoeuvre was an attempt to redirect the crisis in a direction different than that of America�s plan for the region.
Comparing what the British Foreign minister said before he arrived in Saudi Arabic and what the Saudi Foreign minister after they met together with what Cohen and prince sultan agreed upon shows that different approaches of the US and Britain. The London Daily (Electronic) Telegraph, Monday February 9, 1998, explicitly indicated that there is difference in the Saudi Position, saying, �Prince sultan�s remarks seem at odds with the statement by the Saudi Foreign Ministry put out by the Prince Saud bin Faisal after he met Mr. Cook.� The newspaper said that the offical policy is what the Sultan said and not what Saud Al Failsa said, which is true. It must be noted that Saud is from the British wing of the family and the Sultan is from the American wing. Saudi Arabic, after the assassination of king Faisal had been with the US regardless of some princess here and there.
Thus, Britain was pushing towards war, while the US was pushing the event to a climax while leaving for all opinions in order to direct the crisis towards the direction needed to achieve its objectives. If Britain had succeeded in its plans then American would have lost, not because it would have lost in a military confrontation with Iraq but because it allowed another nation to dictate the events and direct the course of the crisis that the US initiated. Thus, America must control the situation if it hopes to achieve its objectives in the region.
Secondly, the US initiated the crisis for a reason. It would be na�ve to think that such an incident created itself spontaneously. In the real world, events are not created from nothing and for no reason; behind every incident, there is an objective in mind. Thus, the main question is: Why did America initiated this crisis with Iraq in the first place? In other words, what objectives does America hope to achieve in the region? Answering those questions is essential in order to understand the direction and the motive behind the movements of each nation.
In short, America initiated the crisis with Iraq for several reasons. Perhaps one of the main objective behind the crisis with Iraq was to address Israel, and the reasons for this will be explained in the next section. However, there are many other reasons which American had in initiating the crisis in Iraq. First and foremost, American sees the control of the Gulf as one of its vital issues, and this was the case since the Eisenhower Doctrine. Thus, America sees its continuing presence of the Gulf as one of the primary importance. And the confrontation with Iraq serves the objective by giving a justification to maintain its military presence, to increase the Gulf as a client for American Military Hardware. In addition, there are other reasons why America initiated the crisis, such as sending a message to Turkey and to test how Russia would respond. Thus, the crisis with Iraq served to address many issues, although some issues were more important that others.
How is this Crisis uses to Pressure Israel?
One major objective behind the crisis initiated by the US was to pressure Israel. To understand how, one must realize that sometimes crisis are created in some places to address another issue different than the area where the crisis was created. For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis had nothing to do with Cuba per se, rather, it was used as a justification for US to dismantle some of its missiles in Turkey and to push Britain to leave some of its bases in South Yemen. In addition, the Vietnam War was initiated to contain China and had nothing do with Vietnam. Thus, the real objective behind the crisis may not necessarily have any relation to the area where the crisis is initiated but rather have its impact on a different areas.
Thus Gulf region is now under US dominance. Even if some nations are British puppets, they cannot exert enough impact to create any obstacles to the US foreign policy that would necessitate the US to initiate a crisis specifically to address the Gulf area. Iraq�s looming threat remains a pretext for the US to further consolidate its position in the Gulf. Thus, there is no problem in the Gulf region that would require a crisis of such proportions in order to address.
However, in the middle east, the real challenge facing the US is Israel because the creation of a Palestinian state would win over the faith of the people of the middle east and the Muslim world in general towards the US. The Muslims would look at the US as a saviour who resolved one of their most central issues by creating a homeland for the Palestinians, and this would facilitate the penetration of American interest as well as American Capitalist culture into the Muslim world. thus, the US perceives the success of the Middle east peace process and the creation of a Palestinian Sate as an issue that is vital to its interest not only in the Middle East but in the Muslim World. the only nation that is creating obstacles to the establishment of this state is Israel and therefore, this challenge must be addressed.
American used the crisis do address Israel from two vantage points. First, the people in the region already accuse the US of taking Israel�s side, which causes the US to lose its credibility in any unilateral confrontation with an Arab Nation. Outwardly, the US portrayed itself as taking a tough stance on Iraq while simultaneously doing little to oppose Israel in its opposition to the peace process or its violation of UN resolution, or its continued oppression of the Palestinians. Thus, the American Foreign Policy was viewed as a double standard policy throughout, and as a result, the entire Muslim World allied against Israel and the US.
By doing so , the US not only gave itself a justification to change its policy towards Israel but also pressured Israel to change its political thinking and to make some concessions. In fact, once the crisis was diffused, the US immediately took an active role in pressuring Israel openly. For example, Clinton alluded to publicly declaring a plan that would have Israel withdrew from 13% of the West Bank in return for an increase in Palestinian effort against �Terrorism.� Notice that, in American plan, the part addressing Israel is very specific and clear, whereas the section addressing the Palestinian role is vaguely worded, which means that the proposal is not asking for concessions from the Palestinians but from Israel.
It addition, several events occurred, almost one after another, each one sending a message, either directly or indirectly to Israel. First was the meeting of Arab League representing in Cairo which Yasser Arafat attended and explicitly mentioned Israel. Then was British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook�s tour of the Middle East and Israel, in which he expressed to Egyptian President Husni Mubarak, King Hussein and to the Israelis, the EU�s commitment towards the peace process. It seems that the US agreed on a European role in the peace process in order to put additional pressure upon Israel. Afterwards, Un secretary General Kofi Annan visited Israel and echoed that same commitment to the peace process, in addition to bring up the issue of Israel�s relationship with Lebanon and Syria. This visit was immediately followed by a trip to the region by US mediator Dennis Ross. Thus, it is apparent that the US immediately after the crisis, dramatically intensified its activities in the middle east to such an extent that the Israel spoke openly about a confrontation between the US and Israeli Policy.
Second is the role of security, which Israel considers vital to its existence. Because of its importance to Israel, the US constantly uses the issues of security as a means of applying pressure on Israel. A case in point was when chief Weapon Inspector Richard Butler commented that Iraq has enough weapons to �blow away Tel Aviv.� Which was clear message to Israel, and in particular, Israeli security. One thing that must be noted is that American from the beginning anticipated that Israeli response and planned the events accordingly. Although America did not end up using force (at least for the time being), it nevertheless achieved its objectives. For one thing, it has secured its continued military presence and American officials even noted that the US military presence will remain after the confrontation with Iraq was concluded, furthermore, the message was sent to Israel that its security is at stake. In addition, the confrontation with Iraq was never officially over, only temporarily diffused, by doing so, American has retained the option of using force in the future.
However, assuming that America did utilize force and strike Iraq, then Iraq would most likely strike Israel, which would force Israel either to retaliate or to keep silent. In either case, Israel would lose. By retaliating, Israel would drag itself into a war with the entire Arab World. Had Iraq struck Israel and the Israelis retaliated, then Syria would have responded by striking Israel, which would cause Egypt to enter the war, followed by Everyone else. Egypt has said frequently that it will honour its joint defence agreement with Syria. The only thing that may have come to Israel�s aid in this scenario would be Turkey, and it seemed that Turkey was not going to join Israel in such an open confrontation. As a result, Israel would be forced to think twice and to change its political orientation and thinking.
However, if Israel chose not to retaliate, then this would undermine Israeli security. It would give the impression that Israel is an open target that anyone can strike at without fear of retaliation . furthermore, assuming that no conflict occurred, the US could still use this situation by continuing to show that Iraq has the �capabilities� to attack and showing that the public opinion around the world is against Israel and the Israel has to compromise. In addition, the US can show that Israel live in a state of fear, which may cause them to change their political thinking. Thus, from the beginning the Israel were cornered because in either scenario, America would have achieved its objective by putting pressure upon Israel.
The fact that America initiated this crisis to pressure Israel cold also be clearly seen in some countermeasures taken by Israelis. While the crisis was progressing, Shimon Peres stated in a speech in California, �Jews must hurry to make peace with the Palestinians, for others are hurrying to make war.� Also, not alone after Annan�s visit to Iraq, Netanyahu and their top Israeli officials paraded throughout the US in an intense campaign to lobby support against the Clinton Administration from publicly announcing specific proposals for the peace process. The situation escalated to the extent that, on one occasion, at a dinner during the conference for Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, Netanyahu openly attacked the US pressure by stating: �Only the people of Israel can determine what their security needs are,� and that, �no third parties can impose what it should have as its security needs.�
In addition, Howard Kohr, executive director of American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, echoed similar opposition to American Pressure when he said, �we believe that a strategy of pressure will be counterproductive for the peace process, leading the Palestinians to look to the United rather than Israel as their negotiating partner.�
Furthermore, after his tour in America, Netanyahu embarked on a tour around the European countries in order to rally support. This ended in Netanyahu expressing a firm opposition to European involvement, and shortly after Cook�s visit to Israel, this opposition quickly degenerated into a massive anti-European sentiment among the Israelis, in which Israeli officials were quoted as saying some very strong statements towards Europe. Although on the surface this may seem like an Israeli opposition to Europe, in actuality it was a direct message to America. Israel knows that European have a much weaker influence upon them than America; thus, by confronting Europe openly which is easier for Israel, they sent a message to the Americans that Israel would not be easily intimidated.
Thus, Israel attempted many manoeuvres in order to diffuse the crisis. However, in spite of these attempts, America was able to manage the crisis successfully and maintain the situation under control. For one thing, Israel was backed into a corner, and it continues to remain on the defensive long after Annan�s visit to Iraq. Secondly, the recent conflict between Israel and Syria and Lebanon over the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon is keeping Israel occupied. Lastly, America has maintained the potential in the region for another crisis with Iraq to emerge.
What Next?
Not only was the US successful in managing the crisis throughout, but it also was able to successfully diffuse the situation while simultaneously keeping the potential alive for another risis to arise again in the future. After the agreement that was reached between Kofi Annan and Iraq, it is clear that the crisis was never officially over, and American intends to maintain the situation as a potential crisis region should it need to use the crisis in order to achieve its objective in the future. It seems that the agreement concluded between Kofi Annan and Iraq has many loopholes. These loopholes will maintain the crisis and will keep the situation in America�s hands in order to use it in the future if the Americans find a need to use it.
In addition, it was indicated that Iraq will have had months to prepare the sited to be inspected and officials admitted on several occasions that any element of surprise would not exits. Also, during the finalization of the agreement, there was considerable debate over what action the US would take should Iraq violate the agreement reached with Annan which ended only in the threat of �severest consequences� should Iraq renege on its agreement. Thus, even before the agreement was finalized, the atmosphere was indicative that the US was giving signals for another confrontational resolution in the US congress which branded Saddam Hussein a war criminal indicating that the crisis with Iraq is far from over. It is interesting to note that on the passing of the resolution, US officials were quoted as saying that removing Saddam would endanger US interest in the Gulf, thus emphasizing the stance that US does not want to topple Saddam but wants to maintain his presence as a pretext for continuing to consolidate its interests, most notably justifying its presence in the Gulf and exerting pressure upon Israel. What further events America will initiate remains to be seen.
Conclusion
Since the beginning of the Human history, nations and states have faced crisis. Just like the universe will never be without gravity as long as matter exists, the world will never be free from the potential for crisis to emerge as long as there are nations. The occurrence of crisis is a necessary outcome of two nations, which seek to resolve an issue after all other measures have been exhausted. The main issue confronting each nations is how to manage a crisis successfully, both in the case of when a nation initiates the crisis and when a nation is forced into a crisis against its will. While the objectives and motives behind each nation in initiating a crisis as well as they styles and means they employ, may differ depending upon each nations unique point of view, the concept of crisis management is a universal.
The Prophet (saw) face many crises during his lifetime, as did the Sahabah and the generations of Muslims, which followed. He did not simply stand by and allow events to dictate the destiny of the Muslims. Instead, the Prophet (saw) took an active role as a statesman in managing crisis, and on some occasions, such as in Al Hudaybiya, he was one to initiate the crisis.
Thus the Muslims must understand the art of crisis management as necessary tool in politics. A Nation cannot simply stand still and expect the crisis to resolve itself spontaneously, nor can a nation expect event to unfold in its favour in the absence of intensive planning, preparation, and the means and platform to carry out its plans and objectives.
Today, the Muslims have neither the vision to shape the world events not the initiative and power to make this vision into a reality. As a result, the Muslims are always the ones caught in the Middle of events dictated by the other nations. Muslims must realize that they live in a real world, and there mere fact of being Muslims without discharging their duties correctly will not give them the victory form Allah (swt). The realities that apply to states and nations also apply to Muslim Ummah. No doubt the Muslims, when they establish the Islamic Khilafah, will encounter crisis because, like any other nation, the Khilafah is a state which still exist in the real world and will deal with other states. Therefore, there is no reason to expect that the Khilafah will not encounter a crisis. If the Muslims do not know how to successfully manage a crisis, they will always back away whenever they face an obstacle. In this case, they will always be the first to blink and as a result they will be the first to lose.
Back