The tragic incident in Benghazi, Libya that took the lives of the US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues is indeed shocking. Ambassador Stevens stood by the side of the people of Benghazi while the city was under attack from the army of Gaddafi. People of all walks of life have mourned the death of the ambassador. They came out in the streets with banners naming the late diplomat as their friend. This is a rare accomplishment of a diplomat who served in a country to represent his own country but in the process earned the trust and friendship of the people he was dealing with. Stevens will, no doubt, be remembered by the people of Libya as long as the nation travels on the path of democracy. The question remains why the people of Libya, Egypt and of the Muslim world rose in protest voicing sentiments against the US. The film Innocence of Muslims authored and developed by Nakoula Bassilly Nakoula denigrated Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). Bassilly is a Jewish American and lives in California. He has a record of drug trafficking and fraud and was imprisoned on these charges. The film was not developed overnight; it took several months and the Homeland Security and other intelligence services must have had prior knowledge of the film and yet took no action on it. It was released on new media and millions of people all over the world saw the film, which humiliated the founder of a faith practised by over a billion people. Unlike the followers of other religions, Muslims dearly love and respect the Prophet (PBUH). Any comment, description or reference that denigrates or attempts to denigrate God or His Prophet (PBUH) hurts their deep feelings and enrages them. The Satanic Verses of Salman Rushdie and the cartoons published by the newspapers in Denmark deeply offended Muslims. They came out in thousands all over the world condemning these acts. In the process, not only many lives were lost and properties worth millions of dollars destroyed, diplomatic relations with the Muslim world also suffered a setback. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly condemned the violence that swept the Muslim world and vowed to bring those responsible for the death of the American diplomats to justice. In the same breath, they denied the administration had anything to do with the film that denigrated the founder of the Islamic faith. Although the US has the wherewithal to bring the perpetrators to justice, would it not be prudent to address the root cause that gives birth to such tragic incidents? It is common knowledge that if any action of an individual or group is deemed to generate unrest in society, the people responsible are rounded up or kept under surveillance in order to prevent them from implementing their plans. This is done for public safety. In 2011, when Pastor Terry Jones from Florida began the Quran burning campaign, not many people showed the guts to protest. General Petraeus, the chief of the US troops in Afghanistan, voiced his concerns that such actions would put the lives of the Americans in Afghanistan at great risk and urged the administration to dissuade the pastor. Meanwhile, many copies of the Quran were distributed all over the US for cremation. A woman in Maryland received a copy of the Quran for burning but she decided to read it prior to putting it on fire. She read the English version, was overwhelmed with the substance, and decided to convert to Islam. If General Petraeus could sense that burning the Quran could destabilise society in Afghanistan and put the Americans at risk, why did the same realisation not work in the Obama administration? In the case of the film, the consequences have been far reaching and beyond the borders of the US. It provoked millions of Muslims all over the world. People from Morocco to Indonesia, Lebanon to Brunei, have risen in anger and protested the making of the film. People are not willing to accept the argument that the US administration has nothing to do with the film. The administration could have taken necessary steps. People not only protested against the denigration of the Prophet (PBUH) but also condemned the US for its attitude towards Muslims. The Obama administration, as recently as September last year, opposed the membership of Palestine in UNESCO and dismissed its bid to become a member of the UN General Assembly. President Obama told the UN that nations were not created by resolutions. Does the US prefer nations to be created in the battlefield? The US policy in the Middle East centres on Israel. She continues to get massive military assistance from the US. The US had applied a veto in the UN Security Council more than 40 times to block resolutions critical of Israel. President Jimmy Carter in his book Palestine — Peace not Apartheid wrote, “The United States is squandering international prestige and goodwill and intensifying global anti-American terrorism by unofficially condoning and abetting the Israeli confiscation and colonisation of Palestinian territories.” In a recent survey conducted by the Arab Centre for Research and Policy Studies in 12 Arab countries, it was revealed that over 93 percent of the respondents believe that the ‘US-Israeli coalition’ poses a major threat to the security of their countries. The biased policy of the US has alienated the population in the Muslim world. Israel attacked Lebanon in July 2006 and the country was torn to shreds. The US government strongly supported Israel, encouraged the bombardment of Lebanon and blocked the efforts of France and other countries to seek an immediate ceasefire. This brought worldwide condemnation. Iran has all along been claiming that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. Its nuclear programme began in 1970 in concert with the US when Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was in power. However, after the Shah was overthrown, the US withdrew its support. The programme was resumed after the war with Iraq was over. The US began to suspect that Iran was in pursuit of a nuclear bomb and mounted pressure on it to suspend the programme. Israel became an enthusiastic partner of the US to deny Iran the nuclear programme. It started to campaign that Iran was on the brink of acquiring nuclear capability and that would mark the end of not only Israel but democratic societies in the west as well. The IAEA in its November 2011 report suspected that Iran might have achieved 20 percent enrichment of uranium while scientists believe that a minimum 90 percent uranium enrichment is essential to make a nuclear bomb. Thus, Iranian enrichment of uranium has been blown out of proportion only to thwart a peaceful programme. The National Intelligence Report (US government) confirmed that Iran had suspended work on developing nuclear warheads in 2003. Israel, on the other hand, with technical assistance from France and financial support from the US acquired nuclear weapons capability decades ago but she denied the IAEA access to her nuclear sites. Israel is believed to be in possession of over 150 nuclear weapons. The Arab world is marching towards democracy. Elected governments have taken charge in Tunisia and Egypt and a democratic government has come into office in Libya. The regime in Syria is bound to collapse soon and popular governments are expected to emerge soon in other countries. Given this changed atmosphere, Washington should not lock itself in the past and ignore the reality. It is high time Washington pursued a balanced foreign policy in the Middle East. The writer is a former international civil servant, a former UN official and a freelance columnist. Currently based in the US, he can be reached at rahman.chowdhury@yahoo.com