With a dramatic campaign brought to an end, it is reasonable
to let loose the festivities and celebrate the second term of the 44th
president of the United States. Yet, behind the stunning smile and the
theatrical performances, Obama’s to do list is filling up with major
challenges, and celebrating along Michelle is far from being the paramount
priority of the overburdened president thus far.
From the Iranian nuclear aspirations to the growing Chinese
influence in the Middle East, this short article will draw on the time urgency and
contextual realities of the MENA region in order to bring the casual reader a
step closer to understanding how the US policies should evolve with regard to
the Arab World if the US interests are to prevail in the region.
“Iran is now 4 more years closer to the production of a
nuclear bomb”, how familiar this seems given that Romney’s foreign policy
hovered around this very sentence throughout his campaign, yet, as we see it
today, the round of international sanctions championed by the Obama are bearing
fruitful results and bringing the Iranian regime closer to a financial
meltdown. While the economic sanctions might prove to be the way to salvation,
regional powers dependent on Iranian oil might beg to differ on the US
strategic vision to impede the ayatollahs from procuring themselves nuclear
capabilities. The Obama administration is faced with the choice of continued
sanctions that might prove inefficient given the continual opposition of China
(resources driven) and Russia (geopolitically immersed in the safeguard of the
Iranian regime), or with the alternative of striking deep down in the Iranian
territory. Such military venture, as foolish it might be, is rebutted by the
former national security adviser and world renown strategist Brzezinski in the
following terms:
“A war in the Middle East, in the
present context, may last for years, and the economic consequences of it are
going to be devastating for the average American: High inflation. Instability.
Insecurity. Probably significant isolation for the United States in the world
scene” Brzezinski to Newsmax TV
Two choices, neither as promising as marketed to be, puts
the US administration in the embarrassing position of accepting a nuclear Iran
as a reality, a reality that might serve the American interests in fact,
regardless of the catastrophic image the Israelis attempt to wave in mass media
in order to favor a preemptive strike.
While Israel’s ties to the US are unshakable and enhanced by
a certain sense of commonality in terms of political, cultural and historical similarities,
the Arab states converge with the US strategic vision only when mutual
interests are involved. These interests range from security (as in the case of
the Gulf countries) to economic assistance (Egypt among others), yet the
critical aspect of such interests is that they are not exclusive to the United
Sates, but are tightly linked to the economic and geopolitical performances of
international and regional hegemon. Such regional hegemon is embodied by China,
an aspiring world player with an economy large enough to have its take on
international politics and regional influence. China has been absent from the
Middle East largely due to the US status in the region, yet as the US foreign
policy accommodates the growing needs and fancies of Israel (ultimately alienating
the Arab street), and as Washington’s tight policies increase pressure on
post-revolutionary governments with a leadership not ready to accept a full
allegiance to the white house, alternatives start shaping and Arab states are
most likely to identify regional powers who can substitute the US in the Middle
Eastern chessboard. China, with an appealing financial portfolio and a
reassuring posture in the world scene is prone on undertaking the role of the
major player in Middle Eastern politics, a role that doesn’t stem from choice
but from necessity given the growing needs in oil of the Chinese industry and
economy.
“China’s presence in the Middle East
has grown exponentially over the past decade and is affecting the region’s
strategic environment. Chinese influence is multidimensional, encompassing
economics, defense, diplomacy, and soft power.” [1]
In such circumstances, attending to the fancies of a certain
ally become less urgent than securing states whose allegiance can be lost to
potential competitors, thus the Middle Eastern agenda of Barack Obama should
cut on the support to Israel (not much of a political suicide given the fact
that the presidential campaign is over and the super PACs are not as meaningful
now that the results are out), and deploy a strategic vision preliminary aimed
at accommodating the post-revolutionary Arab states through financial,
political, diplomatic and military support. Such attempt would leverage the US
interests on two levels: first by providing a stronger geopolitical stance in
the region for American interests through US-friendly governments, and second
through the establishment of a pressure regional bloc that can downsize Chinese
access to oil resources.
Such US foreign policy, coupling stronger unconditional support
for post-revolutionary Arab states and firm refusal to bend to Israeli appeals
will inevitably disarm Iran from its main source of support in the Arab and
Islamic world, depriving it from popular compassion and thus disabling proxy
factions such as Hezbollah from tapping into anti-US feeling as main recourse
for recruitment and military support to the mullahs in Teheran.
As pragmatic as US foreign policy has been found to be, I think their unwavering support for Israel is not limited merely to the question of elections, which inevitably play a large factor. On that point, any move to distance themselves from Israel would hurt not merely Obama, who might not have much to loose by way of an election, but rather the Democratic brand which arguably has a bigger foreign policy impact in the long run. Elections aside, questions of ideology and religion come into play. Put simply, the US lacks the sort of collegiate relationship with many Arab countries and building trust takes time. Ironically, US's support for Israel can in some respects be mirrored with China's support for North Korea: a large power seeking to maintain stability in a country that would otherwise be subject to the might of the international community and likely act more beligerently than it already does.
ReplyDeleteI think 'White House' ought to be capitalised