Hit reset on Mideast policy

The Middle East is a complex place. Some dictators we bomb. Others we back. Is that any way to run a foreign policy?

This is a caricature, of course. The reality is that the world is messy and nations have to deal with all kinds of governments. Inevitably some will be bad, but these are usually preferable to the truly odious, and of such distinctions foreign policy is made.

Yet recent developments in the Middle East demonstrate that America's approach to the region is flawed and dangerous. We are much too involved in this volatile part of the world, we make too few friends in the process, and we are associated with too many unstable and unloved despots there. It's time to change course.

The good news is that our difficulties have been brought to the fore by one of the most hopeful global developments since the fall of the Iron Curtain: the spread of spontaneous democratic uprisings from Tunisia right across the region to Syria. The Middle East always seems to be in the midst of a crisis; here at last is one we can embrace.

So how should we deal with the region? A coherent approach would rest on several key principles.

Kick the habit. The single most important principle would be to reduce our pathological reliance on oil. The world's addiction funds the region's despots, and America's special dependence provides a powerful rationale for meddling in far-off countries better left to themselves. Conservation and funding for energy alternatives -- especially for new technologies that could be exported -- would make the Middle East much less important to the world. It would benefit the environment as well.

Avoid counting on tyrants. If foreign affairs meant dealing only with Sweden, Canada and other exemplars of democracy, diplomacy would be easy. But the world insists on being a lot more complicated. There are even times -- rarely -- when it's necessary to actively support an authoritarian ruler.

Yet if we must support a tyrant we can at least press for political and economic reforms -- and if they are not forthcoming, prepare for the inevitable day of his downfall. In retrospect we were too close to Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's longtime ruler, and needed him less than we thought. The same may yet prove true elsewhere in the Middle East.

Try weapons of mass instruction. The United States has been too ready to supply money, arms and military force in a region that we don't understand particularly well. As a result, we often do more harm than good.

We need to stop making enemies in the Middle East, so it's time to work more on connecting with people, nurturing local institutions, increasing cultural exchanges and expanding trade. The departure of kleptocrats like Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, if he is ultimately ousted, should make this easier on the Arab side and more palatable on ours.

End the endless conflict. One astounding aspect of the recent uprisings is that Israel is hardly mentioned, suggesting that many Arabs realize their nations' problems are unrelated to the Jewish homeland in their midst.

Yet the hostility between Israel and the Palestinians is a constant regional irritant -- and an invitation to tyrants seeking to divert attention from their own shortcomings. Both sides face dangers in the current upheaval, which could bring them to the negotiating table -- especially if Washington seizes on this crisis as an opportunity.

Israel risks finding that democracy in nearby lands brings more fervent enemies to power -- or that dictators, in suppressing democracy, only work to foment animosity. The Palestinians must know that Arab democracies will focus on domestic issues like jobs -- and may lose their appetite for vilifying and isolating Israel.

The current "Arab spring" may not last. But a saner Middle East policy would help us cope no matter what the region's weather.