|
Written by Ali Jawad
|
|
Sunday, 29 March 2009 19:53 |
Is the "New Middle East" Off the Table?
 There has been a lot of hustling and bustling in the Middle East lately, so much
so that you might be forgiven for thinking that the promised winds of “change”
are firmly on their way. Not since Condi Rice’s now infamous heralding of a “New
Middle East” -- whilst bombs rained over Southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006
-- has there been so much activity on the Middle Eastern chessboard by virtually
all of its players.
Despite being trailed closely by the starkest drift to the right in Israeli
politics, the election of President Obama by American voters on the declared
pledge of “change” has indeed led to a changed mood of diplomacy. The recent
four-way ‘mini-summit’ concluded in Riyadh involving the heads of state of Saudi
Arabia, Syria, Egypt and Kuwait, and an earlier visit by John Kerry to Syria,
following which, he discussed the possibility of “loosening certain sanctions”
on Syria “in exchange for verifiable changes in behaviour”[1], are
supposedly indicative of this new wave of diplomacy.
Given this milieu of unprecedented regional diplomacy, it is easy to be deluded
into thinking that the much awaited departure of former US president Bush has
not only invigorated a new dynamism into diplomatic forays, but has also changed
the political set of cards in play. In this respect, an immediate threat that
faces the global peace movement is precisely this self-consoling expectation of
dramatic change that would at once signal an end to all the precedents set by
the previous Bush administration.
If history is anything to go by, then promises of change should be viewed with a
measure of suspicion. When these promises emanate from an edifice of empire, a
level of mistrust given age-old historical experience to the contrary, is
justified.[2] Yet, the global peace movement and wider grassroots
activist circles were never informed by the subjectivity of suspicion when they
rose against the failed policies of Bush and his cohorts, rather, their
principled stands for justice were driven by a pursuit and appreciation of
reality. It is therefore necessary to objectively analyse the conditions
surrounding the “New Middle East” experiment that was openly declared in 2006,
and contrast its basic frameworks against the early moves of the Obama
administration.
In the summer of 1996, an Israeli thinktank, the Institute for Advanced
Strategic and Political Studies, issued a paper entitled: ‘A Clean Break: A
New Strategy for Securing the Realm’.[3] Contained in it was not only the
blueprint for the invasion and overthrow of the Saddam regime, but also a more
comprehensive strategy of “redrawing the map of the Middle East”. Amongst the
“prominent opinion makers” who contributed to the paper were the usual hawkish
neo-cons and pro-Zionism advocates in the US -- Richard Perle, Douglas Feith,
James Colbert, David and Meyrav Wurmser, the latter of whom was a co-founder of
the MEMRI project. More significantly, there remain three markedly
relevant features in the substance of the so-called ‘clean break’ strategy that
have the potential to decisively influence the shaping of the current Middle
East.
Firstly, the ‘clean break’ strategy was specifically formulated for
implementation by the Netanyahu-led Likud government, which has now been elected
by the Israeli electorate. Its major premise of throwing aside the “land for
peace” track for a romantically phrased “peace for peace” paradigm effectively
dovetails with Netanyahu’s vision for how ‘peace’ is to be achieved in the
Occupied Territories, with Syria and the wider Arab world.
Secondly, the paper places central importance on the role and strategic position
of Syria. In it, its destabilization is suggested with the aim of undoing the
nation’s perceived role as a lynchpin in this connected chain of “dangerous
threats” in the region stretching from Iran to Southern Lebanon. Particular
detail is given to this factor so much so that the paper moves from offering a
geostrategic appraisal to providing a surmised methodological framework on how
to destabilize and/or overthrow nations; suggesting an assortment of military
direct/indirect strikes, using anti-Syrian proxies (both politically and
militarily), embarking on a regional strategy to effectively ostracize the
country, and finally launching a massive PR campaign that would demonize Syria
and would thereby “remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime”. As
peace activists, it is worth storing the above points in our deeper recesses
because in addition to being expressly illegal according to norms of
international law -- not that we are under any delusions about whether or not
the neo-cons respect any law -- they also outline the general methods that are
employed by empires in dealing with adversaries.
Finally, the role and efficacy of regional neighbours that are allied with the
US, in fostering the right conditions and pretexts for implementing this new
strategy is to remain paramount in achieving the desired results. These regional
players can play a significant aiding role in shaping the “strategic
environment” by “weakening, containing, and even rolling back” the threats posed
by the Iran-Syria-Hizbullah alliance.
Deconstructing the “New Middle East”
George W. Bush’s failed promise of a “global democratic revolution” following
the “watershed event” of the “establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the
Middle East”[4] did not only fail miserably, but instead led to several
inescapable eventualities that remain a symbol of this grand strategy. Firstly,
the politicization of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program in order to exert pressure
on Iran and to contain its’ perceived threat to the stability of the region
(read: desired geopolitical order). Secondly, the saliency of sectarian and
ethnic divisions on the Middle Eastern socio-political landscape. Thirdly, the
formation of a so-called ‘Moderate-bloc’ of nations constituting regional
players that act as a front against the Iran-Syria-Hizbullah alliance. Finally,
the declaration of a “New Middle East” created an almost mythical worldview in
the Israeli mindset, whether by design or accident, which believed that the
Arab-Israeli question could not only be settled on unilateral terms but also
decisively, once and for all, with sheer Herculean force. On all four accounts,
the Obama administration has yet to hint at any significant “change” that
requires the altering of these yardsticks which remain symbolic of the “New
Middle East” agenda.
In spite of the deep economic crisis that has gripped world capitals, the
historical ‘prerogatives’ (i. Natural resources, ii. Security of the state
Israel, iii. Preservation of a certain regional geopolitical order which thereby
realizes a significant chapter in wider US preponderance in the Eurasian space)
held by the US for securing the strategic Middle East region remain firmly in
place. The Middle East will thus remain a focal point of Obama’s foreign policy
efforts. A recent talk by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a top foreign policy advisor to
Obama, provides a keyhole premonition of the continuity of an age-old policy of
confrontation and threat of military force against Iran.[5] Writing for
the Asia Times, Pepe Escobar disclosed this new US position, contained in
a letter to Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, as follows: “if you help us get
rid of non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons, we’ll get rid of our missile
shield”.[6]
The verbose politics of “clenched fists”[7] should not leave the peace
movement under any illusions about the nature of things to come, just as much as
new Secretary of State Ms. Clinton is under no illusions about the next steps on
the empire’s to-do list: “We’re under no illusions. Our eyes are wide open on
Iran.”[8]
Heightened sectarian saliency in Middle Eastern politics cannot be viewed
independently from a strategy of isolating Iran from regional politics. Selling
anti-Iranian rhetoric to Arab kingdoms necessarily determines the nature of
discourse toward the sizeable and strategically positioned Shia populations
across the Persian Gulf rim. When Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak pronounced in
April of 2006 that “Shias are mostly always loyal to Iran and not the countries
in which they live”, it was by no means a slip of the tongue but rather a well
calculated move that even lead one of the ‘clean break’ strategy’s “prominent
opinion makers” to label Shias in the Persian Gulf as “Iran’s Levant clients”.[9]
It is altogether not surprising on the back of this grand regional strategy, for
the tiny emirate kingdom of Bahrain to accelerate a process of ‘demographic
engineering’ by providing citizenship to extremist anti-Shia hotheads from Saudi
Arabia and elsewhere, to undercut its majority Shia population.[10]
Although the systematic marginalization of Shias reflects a deep-rooted policy
of the Bahraini Al-Khalifa monarchy, nevertheless, one can neither ignore
current justifications for this suppression on rationales of the “New Middle
East” agenda, nor intentional American indifference to grave human rights
violations which take place in a nation that hosts the central base for the
Naval Command’s Fifth Fleet.
In the aftermath of recent clashes in Saudi Arabia, in which three Shia Saudi
citizens were killed in the close precincts of the second-holiest site in Islam,
a prominent Shia leader latched on to the occasion to highlight the deep-seated
discrimination and marginalization of Shias. He also issued a resolute warning
to the establishment by declaring in no uncertain terms that the “dignity” of
the Shia population “is greater in worth than the unity” of the Kingdom.[11]
Mai Yamani, a Saudi national and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Middle
East Center, whilst writing about these clashes notes that the suppression
of Shias constitutes “part of the Kingdom’s strategy to counter Iran’s bid for
regional hegemony”.[12]
With respect to rising political sectarianism, the policy of the Obama
administration has thus far been virtually identical in both respects, namely;
in its sustenance of a political agenda that leads to heightened sectarian
tensions on the one hand, and its deliberate disregard of sectarian-motivated
agendas by regional ‘allies’ on the other, which effectively cement these
divisions.
Late last December, Saudi Prince Turki Al-Faisal charted out his ‘path to peace’
for the Middle East in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post.[13]
The central concerns outlined in his vision for peace are not only symptomatic
of those shared by the wider so-called ‘Moderate-bloc’ of Arab nations, but they
in fact also provide a good indication of the changing tides in the Persian Gulf
that have been the cause of much unsettling for the likes of Saudi Arabia. In
particular, these concerns revolve around two core headings: i) the future of
the Arab Initiative, and ii) the growing influence of Iran.
Viewed from another angle, the apparent urgent emphasis provided to the Arab
Initiative and the closing window of ‘opportunity’ for its implementation,
reveals an interesting reality that reflects the successes achieved by the path
of Resistance; a path that evidently stands starkly at odds with the
gifted job-roles given to the so-called ‘Moderates’ in the region. The highly
agitated Saudi-Jordanian-Egyptian alliance views a resistance that has forced
concessions upon a hereunto invincible Israeli adversary as a major threat to
their own thrones. These realities are not hidden from the Arab street, and the
growing grassroots support for Hizbullah and Hamas are a testament of this
shift.
The second concern i.e., the growing influence of Iran or what Prince Turki
Al-Faisal conveniently terms ‘Iranian obstructionism’, bears many
commonalities with the first but transcends it in one vital respect: Iran
symbolizes the possibility of the success of the ‘alternate path’. In the Arab
consciousness, Iran provides a successful paradigm of a state that is
self-dependent and stands up to imperialism in spite of long years of imposed
wars and backbreaking sanctions. The findings in last year’s poll carried out by
the University of Maryland and Zogby International hardly come as
a surprise in this regard.[14] Additionally, Iran has not been shy to
recognize the path of resistance and in showing its’ unreserved support for it,
whereas the standard position of the so-called ‘Moderate-bloc’ of Arab nations
has been to undermine the path of resistance. This factor has also played a
major contributory role in developing a positive view of Iran on the Arab
street.
On the basis of this outlook, the geostrategic importance of Syria as a nation
that stands by the side of the resistance, as well as an Arab state that
positions itself outside of the so-called ‘Moderate-bloc’ and its chosen
political agenda, becomes not only apparent but very significant. When President
Bashar Al-Assad announced in the Doha Summit (during the height of the brutal
war on Gaza) that the Arab Initiative was “dead” and all that remained was to
“transfer the registry of this Initiative from the registry of the living to
that of the dead”[15], it left the likes of Saudi Arabia shuffling their
cards as they weighed their next options.
In very crude terms, the death of the Arab Initiative would at once spell the
exclusion of the Saudi-Jordanian-Egyptian alliance from the Middle Eastern
chessboard or at least mark their modest insignificance. The recent overtures
made to Syria by the US and the Saudi-Jordanian-Egyptian alliance thus need to
be viewed against this context. From the standpoint of the US and its Arab
allies, the popular ‘public anarchy’ on the Arab street -- in support of
resistance movements -- can no longer be contained except by fragmenting the
Iranian-Syrian-Hizbullah alliance, even if this were to require swallowing
bitter pills.
The victory of the Netanyahu-Liebermann coalition in Israel presents an immense
challenge to the Arab coalition’s attempts to effectively sell this façade of a
viable ‘peace track’ to Syria and to the Arab world in general. Even by the
shoddy standards of truth that we have become accustomed to in our times, the
sudden metamorphosis of a racist-bigot like Liebermann, whose comments about the
‘transfer’ of Arabs are not concealed from the Arab world[16], into a
‘kingmaker’ for a track of peace comes across as simply ridiculous. In this
respect, one of the salient but less spoken about roles that is presently being
played out by the Saudi-Jordanian-Egyptian alliance, is its transformation into
a mouthpiece replacement for Israeli silence.
Nevertheless, it is important to underline the mounting support within Israel
for engaging in Syrian peace talks as evinced by the recent advice offered to
Netanyahu by a panel consisting of “prominent figures who formerly served in key
posts in the defense establishment, government and the business community”.[17]
Writing in a Ha’aretz op-ed, diplomatic editor Aluf Benn emphasised the
need for Netanyahu’s government to accede to the track of the Arab initiative --
a stance that is antithetical to the classical Likud position -- by noting:
“Netanyahu can go further than previous prime ministers and announce that the
Arab initiative is an unprecedented opportunity for closing ranks against the
threat of Iran and the extremists in the region…”[18]
At any rate, selling an image of Israel as the sincere peacemaker at times and
expansionist war-monger on others does little to straighten out any ‘path to
peace’. On March 2nd 2009, the Israeli advocacy group Peace Now released
a report saying that the Israeli Ministry of Construction and Housing had plans
to build 73,302 housing units in the Occupied West Bank -- of which 15,000 units
have already been approved. The report noted that if all the plans are realized
“the number of settlers in the Territories will be doubled”.[19] In a
confidential EU report leaked to the Guardian, Israel was noted to be
“actively pursuing the illegal annexation” of East Jerusalem with present
settlements expansion progressing at a “rapid pace”.[20] In the face of
these terminal threats to the two-state solution, the Obama administration has
responded with a timid and pathetic characterisation of Israel’s actions as
“unhelpful”.[21]
The Challenges Ahead
Whether this geopolitical tug of war to redraw the battle lines in the sands of
the Middle East will end up in the favour of the US, Israel and their Arab
allies is yet to be seen. Recent comments by Syrian top officials indicate that
Damascus is not about to be moved by mere words and promises of change.
Foreign Minister Walid Moallem underlined that Damascus would not accept any
less than a complete return to the 1967 borders and respect for the natural
rights of Palestine: “Syria would be willing to renew only indirect talks, on
two conditions: Israel’s commitment to withdraw to the 1967 borders, as well as
its commitment that the Syrian channel will not be used to harm the
Palestinians.”[22] Muhsin Bilal, the Syrian Information Minister, was
less reserved with his choice of words when he declared that the victories
exacted by the Lebanese and Palestinian resistances against the “Zionist” entity
had botched the “New Middle East” agenda.[23]
Regional developments such as the growing mediating role of a pragmatic Qatar
and increasing Turkish buoyancy, have also worked in the favour of the
Iran-Syria-Hizbullah alliance by somewhat distorting the traditional ‘power
blocs’. In addition to these regional changes, a sense of Syrian ‘realism’ in
dealing with a ‘defeated’ Israel, augmented by the natural dynamism and unequal
grassroots support for Iran and resistance movements in the region, present a
formidable and hitherto undefeated opponent.
To peace activists, the success or failure of this political squabbling is
insignificant when placed against the grave human price that is almost certain
to result from the pursuit of such a political agenda. For Western politicians
who still value rational strategic planning; the analysis of ‘facts’ -- and not
engineered ‘truths’ – and their synthesis in forming a balanced perspective of
reality, the inescapable calamities that would be the necessary resultant of
adopting this aggressive, confrontational political agenda cannot be overlooked.
At this juncture, it is important to highlight a common fallacy that is epidemic
in the Western media and unfortunately, one that has also trickled into the
discourse of certain sections of the peace movement. Neo-con and pro-Zionist
voices were quick to highlight that any sort of engagement with the likes of
Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas (collectively homogenized as radical ‘Islamists’)
poses a high-risk to the ‘civilized world’. These radical Islamists, we were
told, can simply not be engaged with; talks with Iran would run parallel to the
building of the ‘bomb’, talks with Hizbullah would create a ‘state within a
state’, engaging with Hamas would signal the exclusion of (the illegitimate)
president Mahmoud Abbas.[24] Although the truth is far distant from these
sensationally irrational spurts, unfortunately, the ‘radical Islamist’ tag has
remained firmly embedded in building perspectives towards the likes of Hizbullah
and Hamas within some quarters of the peace movement.
In addition to being a classical tactic to ‘otherize’ the enemy if a process to
‘dehumanize’ it fails, we should note that despite adhering to a different kind
of politics, these entities are neither irrational political players nor is
their existence qualified by a ‘culture of death’. For the sake of example, the
Hizbullah resistance movement overlooks an extensive social programs network
that is virtually unequalled throughout the entire Middle East. Its longstanding
record of peaceful coexistence and a highly-advanced integration paradigm (infitah)
within the public sphere of a multi-sectarian Lebanese topography are doubted by
none. The same however, cannot be said of US-Saudi sponsored Salafist client
groups in Lebanon for whom the tag ‘Islamist’ fits rather well.[25] All
in all, resistance movements like Hizbullah and Hamas enjoy a great deal of
popular support on the Arab streets. They have also shown a great degree of
tolerance towards the West in spite of the long list of grievances that have
resulted from negative Western interference in their countries. Here, it is
highly beneficial to refer to a speech delivered by Nadine Rosa-Rosso at the ‘International
Forum for Resistance, Anti-Imperialism, Solidarity between Peoples and
Alternatives’ that was held earlier this year in Beirut.[26]
In summary, the politicization of the Iranian nuclear programme and the
recycling of false pretexts by Israel to launch regional wars should not be
viewed as haphazard aberrations, but rather as logical consequences of a grand
regional geopolitical strategy. The “New Middle East” agenda is the
infrastructure upon which an imperial superstructure of hegemony, sustained by
the disregard of law and rule of brute force, is raised to control this region.
Human rights activists and lawyers who advocate against the innumerable abuses
that have occurred so far in this “War on Terror” cannot ignore this political
agenda which is in fact the origin of all ills.
One cannot speak of dealing with the looming threat of military strikes against
Iran without first dealing with the “New Middle East” agenda. Similarly, one
cannot speak of a post-Bush era or lavishly mark “new beginnings” without first
doing away with the lasting remnants of a policy that has brought on so much
suffering to the region, and continues to leave it on a knife’s edge. Strangely,
most would say criminally, the experiences of the failures in Afghanistan and
Iraq appear to have done little to develop a more informed US foreign policy in
its dealings with this region. If there is any special disgust within the global
peace movement with respect to these failed wars, it lies in the fear that a
repeat is as likely to occur.
With the proclaimed advent of a “new beginning” by the Obama administration,
there is a pressing need for the peace movement to engage in a comprehensive
study of the “New Middle East” agenda in its different aspects and dimensions.
Our collective failure to critically examine this agenda on the one hand, and to
circulate its underlying assumptions and necessary consequences to the Western
public on the other, will inevitably expose the peace movement to accusations of
adherence to an outdated, dogmatic discourse.
The “New Middle East” agenda is inherently confrontational and raises the
spectre of war in the region. For as long as it remains on the table, the whole
Middle East will teeter on the brink of unspeakable calamities.
Notes:
1. ‘Kerry
calls for easing US sanctions against Syria’, The Boston Globe, March 5th
2009
2. ‘Generic
Invader Nonsense – Obama on Iraq’, Media Lens, March 5th 2009
3. ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for
Securing the Realm’, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies,
June 1996
4. ‘Bush
demands Mid-East democracy’, BBC News, November 6th 2003
5. ‘US-Russian
partnership will end shield row’, Press TV, March 16th 2009
6. ‘The
Obama-Medvedev Turbo Shuffle’, Asia Times Online, March 5th 2009
7. ‘From
‘axis of evil’ to ‘clenched fist’’, Asia Times Online, February 28th 2009
8. ‘Hillary
Clinton offers handshake of friendship to Syria’, The Times, March 3rd 2009
9. ‘The
Iran-Hamas Alliance’, Hudson Institute, October 4th 2007
10. ‘Bahraini
rulers importing extremism’, Press TV, February 15th 2009
11. ‘Thank
Sheikh al-Nimr instead of imprisoning him’, Rasid News Service, March 17th
2009
12. ‘Saudi
Arabia’s Shias Stand Up’, Project Syndicate, March 2009
13. ‘Peace
for the Middle East’, Washington Post, December 26th 2008
14. ‘Nasrallah
most admired Arab leader’, Press TV, April 17th 2008
15. ‘President
al-Assad at Gaza Summit: Gaza Destiny is ours, Arab Peace Initiative Dead,
Standing by our People and Resistance in Gaza with all Available Means’,
Syrian Arab News Agency, January 18th 2009
16. ‘Liebermann,
Avigdor – Israeli politician and deputy prime minister’, Electronic Intifada
17. ‘Netanyahu
advisors tell him to push ahead with Syria track’, Ha’aretz, March 16th 2009
18. ‘A
way out for Netanyahu’, Ha’aretz
19. ‘The
Ministry of Construction and Housing is planning to construct at least 73,300
housing units in the West Bank’, Peace Now, 3rd March 2009
20. ‘Israel
annexing East Jerusalem’, says EU, Guardian, 7th March 2009
21. ‘Criminal
Unhelpfulness’, Agence Global, 18th March 2009
22. ‘Syrian
FM: Still at war with Israel’, Ynet News, 22nd March 2009
23. ‘Bilal:
Arab solidarity in confronting challenges’, Syrian Arab News Agency, 18th
March 2009
24. ‘What
do the financial crisis and US Middle East policy have in common?’,
Jerusalem Post, 6th December 2008
25. ‘The
Redirection’, The New Yorker, 5th March 2007
26. ‘The
Left And Support For Anti-Imperialist Islamist Resistance’, Counter
Currents, 11th February 2009
---
Ali Jawad is a political activist and a member of the AhlulBayt Islamic Mission (AIM).
 |
|
Announcements
Weekly Stall
A weekly stall selling Islamic books and other merchandise, including exclusive framed portaits will be available on Thursday nights from 9pm until 10.30pm during the Dua Kumail Programmes at the Islamic Centre of England.
|
