New Strategic Design of the Middle East

Photo 1 cover (Nikkei Asian Review)

New Strategic Design of the Middle East

Ties between Israel and the Gulf have grown exponentially in recent years. What began as whispers of covert intelligence cooperation gradually transformed into increasingly public signs of amity. And, these covert contacts came to the fore recently when within a span of only a month, the US President Donald Trump successfully brokered peace between Israel and two Arab countries—first the United Arab Emirates and then Bahrain. Both deals are revolutionary in scope as by normalizing ties and focusing on business, trade and travel, these “warm peace” agreements go beyond the often tenuous “cold peace” that Egypt and Jordan made with the Jewish state decades ago. This dramatic turn of events and Arab states’ breaking away with the old pan-Arab consensus reflects a sea change in the region and we can say that it’s a brand new Middle East.

 

On September 15, US President Donald Trump hosted United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed, Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Abdullatif al-Zayani and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House where they signed historic new normalisation agreements—The Abraham Accords. The Trump-brokered agreement aims to not only suspend Israel’s controversial plan to annex parts of the occupied West Bank but also boosts other interrelated bilateral agreements regarding “investment, tourism, direct flights, security, telecommunications, technology, energy, healthcare, culture, the environment, the establishment of reciprocal embassies, and other areas of mutual benefit” between the two countries.Iran-map-1024x683

As touted by many analysts, the Abraham Accords not only set the stage for a sea change in Arab-Israeli relations, but they might even present a novel opportunity to finally solve the most intractable issue between the two sides: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At first glance, it looks nice and promising in the sense that the longstanding conflicts in this part of the world might be resolved through diplomatic negotiations. After all, according to the contemporary perception of international relations and politics, as well as according to the common-sense view of life, it is what is expected of the countries: solve their disputes through political dialogue.

However, given the ambivalent and untrustworthy attitude of the United States and Israel, which the world has witnessed for decades and which is evident from the fact that both these countries never complied with any resolutions taken against their atrocities in the region, it is hard to believe that they are sincere and reliable in their attempts to bring peace to the already-wrecked region. On the other hand, it is also impossible to count how many peace attempts have failed without a genuine and fair end. So, no one believes in any peace attempt initiated by the US and Israel, but we all laugh about it. For example, just after the announcement of the so-called “normalisation” agreement, Israeli premier, Benjamin Netanyahu, said that he had only agreed to ‘delay’ the annexation, and that he would “never give up our rights to our land.” He continued to state that “There is no change to my plan to extend sovereignty, our sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, in full coordination with the United States.”

Moreover, Israel made its intentions very clear when on Sept. 16, just one day after the signing of the UAE and Bahrain deal, the Israeli military carried out a series of air raids on the besieged Gaza Strip targeting “areas in Deir al-Balah, a city in central Gaza, as well as parts of Khan Younis in southern Gaza.Eh-s36rXYAEKfJk

Palestinians from across the political spectrum have condemned the Abraham Accords as an act of “betrayal” of their struggle against illegal Israeli occupation as they say the accords violate a longstanding pan-Arab position that Israel could normalise relations only in return for an end to the occupation.

Palestinians’ apprehensions become more profound when we find David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel, saying that Israel’s pledge to halt the annexation of the occupied West Bank under its recent normalisation deal with the UAE and Bahrain would not stop it going ahead in future. “We said in our statement that sovereignty will be postponed, and this does not mean that it has been abolished, but rather that it has stopped. It has been suspended for a year, maybe more, but it has not been cancelled,” Friedman said in his conversation with the Israeli Army Radio on 30th September. So, given this state of affairs, how could one trust this agreement which aims at bringing the so-called “normalisation” and “peace” to the Middle East? If this agreement does not give a sense of confidence, what could be behind it?

Following is a recount of the principal reasons that both the United States and Israel may have found attractive to bring the so-called peace and normalisation in the Middle East.

First, the agreement allows both the US and Israel to employ the imperial “divide and conquer” policy to control and condition Gulf countries under the guise of “normalization” and “peace” in a position, in which these countries have no chance but to follow what is ordered— that is, they organize their policies in line with what they are ordered. This cover-up policy is a well-known tactic, often applied by neo-imperial powers to control their interest in a country or a region because they do not like to see a strong unity or a resilient leader against them.50346518091_48450e6af1_o-scaled

Thus, the easiest way, which will not stir a hornet’s nest, is using a “divide and conquer” policy. For them, the weaker, the better. The “divide and conquer” policy could also be seen in the “normalization” agreement between the UAE and Israel. This policy has broken up further not only the already-shaking Arab unity and regional balance but it has also left Palestine alone in its rightful struggle against the Israeli occupation.

Moreover, Arab countries are divided among themselves. On the one hand, the UAE and Bahrain—probably Saudi Arabia and Oman may join them very soon—are on the one side with a sense of enmity. On the other hand, other Arab countries such as Qatar and Kuwait, taking an opposite stance, prefer to remain silent and neutral, showing their reaction in different ways. They feel enmity towards each other as witnessed in the Qatar crisis in 2017, in which Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain not only cut off their relations with Qatar but also imposed sanctions on it.

Arab countries seem to have lost both confidence and a sense of unity; when the sense of confidence is seriously damaged, it will be easier to put them at odds, and this regional division, as everywhere, makes Arab countries and their leaders dependent on external forces for their security and existence.

Besides the “divide and conquer” policy, what is also of vital significance is that the so-called “normalization” agreement softens the Arab reaction against the Israeli occupation and gradually accustoms the Arab public to the new situation. Generally, Turkey, Iran and many Arab countries have reacted strongly to the Israeli occupation of Palestine; however, they also have some covert or overt trade relations with Israel. Egypt and Jordan signed peace accords with Israel. Thus, the so-called “normalisation” agreement will create a perception in the region that establishing diplomatic relations with Israel is not something scary, but normal.

Of course, peace is what people want, yet it may give rise to a perception that justifies Israel’s legitimacy and occupation in the region.U.S. President Trump hosts leaders for Abraham Accords signing ceremony at the White House in Washington

Furthermore, to gauge public opinion regarding the November presidential election, foreign leaders are looking closely at the polls and some of them are sprinting to take advantage of Trump’s willingness to tolerate initiatives they know would be unacceptable to Joe Biden, if he moves into the White House. None are running faster than Benjamin Netanyahu—who, along with Vladimir Putin, has already been the biggest international beneficiary of the Trump administration. The Israeli premier fighting hard at home to escape being formally charged for corruption is also looking for foreign adventures to divert domestic attention. He is already involved in two activities, both audacious and risky. One is to annex 30 percent of the West Bank it occupied in 1967 under the guise of President Trump’s dormant Middle East Peace Plan developed by Jared Kushner, Trump’s devout Jewish son-in-law. The other involves Iran, a favourite Trump target and also that of his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.

So, another result of the so-called “normalization” agreement between the UAE and Israel may be a veiled effort not only to expand the imperial space but also to form a bloc against Iran and Turkey in the Middle East. Iran is a non-Arab country and an arch-enemy of the United States and Israel; Iran collaborates with Russia and China, the US’ arch-rivals, and sometimes with Turkey, which may threaten both the US imperial interest and Israeli security in the region. Hence Iran’s regional power and influence should be jettisoned and driven into a corner.

There are some analysts who believe that Trump is not beyond creating a foreign crisis to shore up his chances in the elections. The Middle East is one geographic space where he may be contemplating some kind of military play. They expect more trouble in the Middle East and believe that if Trump acts to have a foreign adventure help him in the elections, Iran will be the most likely target.

In the past few weeks, Israel has been conducting what amounts to a slow-motion, semi-covert military campaign against Iran’s nuclear and missile program, and perhaps other industrial and infrastructure targets as well. Mysterious explosions and fires have struck a key centrifuge production facility, a military base where missiles are produced, as well as power plants, aluminum and chemical factories, and a medical clinic. In late September, a fire erupted at the port of Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, destroying seven ships.

But, on the other hand, with all the hostility Washington has shown towards Tehran, there has been no change in the approach the Islamic regime has pursued in its neighbourhood. Not only that, Iran has quadrupled its stockpile of enriched uranium in response to Trump’s withdrawal from the multinational accord limiting its nuclear program. Iran is now closer to going nuclear than ever before. If that happens, it would start a nuclear race in the Middle East.

In conclusion, although the so-called “normalization” agreement among the UAE, Bahrain and Israel was launched as a “historic breakthrough” to bring “peace to the Middle East, it also raises doubts.

Countries like the UAE and Bahrain are seen in the foreground and used as pawns so that the story has multi-layered faces hidden from the public—Israeli security, the imperial interests of the US, Britain and France, the isolation of Turkey and Iran in the region, and the struggles over who will eat how much of the cake.

Given these multi-layered facets of the story, therefore, the agreement appears beyond “normalization” but targets a new strategic design of the Middle East whose further implications will be seen in the months and years to come.

The writer is an advocate of High Court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.