The Mideast crying out for American leadership
The headlines from the Middle East are becoming more apocalyptic by the day. The latest deadly news to capture the headlines was the 19 November bombing of the Iranian embassy in Beirut by an al-Qaeda affiliate, which sparked headlines of a coming Mideast-wide catastrophe. The Times of London was not alone in suggesting that “the bombs in Beirut might be the catalysts for an ideological struggle [between Shia and Sunni Islam] that could devastate global Islam”.
We would not disagree with the proposition that events in the Middle East could be moving towards uncontrollable mayhem. There is civil war, or near civil war, or the potential for civil war in all of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Libya, not to mention Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia. There is also the potential for inter-state war between Israel and Iran. Then there are the unfulfilled national ambitions of the Palestinians and Kurds that still have to be resolved. And all this is happening at a time when the United States is trying its hardest to avoid any further military engagements in the region.
When contemplating this desperate mess, it is helpful to return to basics - to understand cause and effect. Many have made the point that the key destabilizing action was the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the removal from power of the minority Sunni Arab regime of Saddam Hussein and, with it, the principal barrier to increasing Iranian influence. That, however, is only partially true.
The removal from power of a brutal dictator representing a minority community and with a history of aggression against his neighbours cannot be categorized as all bad. The real problem is that while the Sunni-minority regime in Iraq has been overthrown, the Shia/Alawite-minority regime in Syria has been left in place. It is that imbalance that has frightened, above all others, Saudi Arabia while emboldening Shia Iran.
Now the fact that all this is being followed by what appears to be a serious US move towards rapprochement with Iran has multiplied the adverse effects (of frightening Riyadh and emboldening Tehran).
This service is not a natural supporter of interventionism; where possible we believe in local solutions to local problems. But the dangers in the Middle East have become so great that we are now of the view that nothing will improve until the Assad regime is removed from power, thereby ameliorating Saudi Arabian fears of Iranian encirclement. The worst possible outcome is the one that is now being contemplated, namely to reach an accommodation with Iran while leaving Assad in power.
The message of the 19 November bombing in Beirut is that the Sunni Arabs will not allow this without a serious fight.
The reaction in Saudi Arabia to the Beirut bombings was instructive. A commentary in Asharq al-Awsat, for instance, while not quite approving of the bombing noted: “Iran and its allies in the region believe that they can play with fire without getting burnt. That is certainly a mistake.” The fact that there is any level of approval in Saudi Arabia for the Abdallah Azzam Brigades, the Sunni jihadist group that perpetrated the bombings, is a sign of the level of Saudi desperation. In the past the Abdallah Azzam Brigades have called for the overthrow of the Saudi government.
Israel’s concerns are slightly different. It is not, for instance, overly concerned by the Assad regime. It has, after all, lived in a no-peace, no-war stand-off with the Assad regime since 1973. Nor is Israel particularly concerned by Arab internecine strife. Its greatest post-Arab Spring concern was that powerful Muslim Brotherhood regimes could be established in both Egypt and Syria, possibly to be followed in time by Jordan, thus re-establishing the threat of encirclement by hostile Arab nation states. That threat has now all but disappeared, and the further disintegration of previously united Arab states is not a concern to Israel. But Iran is, and the threat of a nuclear-threshold (if not nuclear-armed) Iran has, if anything, increased since the election of President Hassan Rowhani in the summer.
Where Israel is at one with Saudi Arabia is in sharing a belief that the Obama administration is (in the words of the Saudi daily al-Watan) “soft to the point of spinelessness”.
One of the most dispiriting bits of intelligence to emerge from the Middle East in the past week was the suggestion that “advisors close to Obama” are keen to reach an interim deal with Iran over its nuclear ambition so that the problem can be pushed on to the next administration. Given the current state of Mideast tensions, this would seem to be a woeful abnegation of power – and it is why Israel has been stepping up once again its suggestions that it can tackle Iran on its own.
During the past week Deputy Foreign Minister Zeev Elkin has backed recent statements by former national security adviser Yaakov Amidror and Economy Minister Naftali Bennet arguing that Israel has the capability to stop Iran’s nuclear programme on its own.
Israel’s influential Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) has also recently issued a paper arguing that Israel has little to fear from Iranian retaliation provided that Israel confines its attacks to Iranian nuclear facilities. The key point for INSS is that the main Iranian interest is regime survival and so it would have to consider carefully whether any response to a unilateral Israeli strike would increase the threat to its existence by sparking a sharp escalation. The INSS says that “the regime would seek to respond without causing escalation and significant American intervention in the crisis”.
The same would apply if the US were to be involved in the initial strike, argues the INSS. It says: “If Tehran’s assessment is that the United States is limiting its attack to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and that it is likely to broaden its attack against the regime only in response to an Iranian response, the chances would increase of Iran exercising restraint in order to avoid escalation that would threaten the survival of the regime”.
The point of all these Israeli comments and commentaries is to re-establish belief (in Tehran and elsewhere) in an Israeli military option against Iran’s nuclear programme. For what it is worth, our own sources are certain that the key policymakers around Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu believe in this option and would, if necessary, use it.
In summary, therefore, what we are now faced with in the Middle East is a widening and intensifying sectarian war between Sunni and Shia, with Saudi Arabia likely to step up its support for Sunni groups that are anathema to the United States in order to counter Iran. At the same time Israel is moving closer to considering a unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities if it is not satisfied with the outcome of the present 5+1 talks to neutralise Iran’s nuclear programme.
The key to halting this downward spiral is held by Washington. It has to re-establish Saudi Arabian belief in its determination to rid Syria of the Assad regime – and thereby empower Syria’s Sunni Arab majority – and it has to re-establish Israeli and Saudi Arabian trust in its determination to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-threshold state. Unfortunately, the impression in the Middle East is growing that the Obama administration is determined on only one thing: to get through its second term without engaging in further military action in the Middle East. But nothing will improve without far stronger American leadership (which, in extremis, might entail military action); and, in its absence, much will get worse, even much worse. JdeC.
NOTE: On 20 November, on the eve of the resumption of nuclear talks in Geneva, Iran’s Supreme leader Seyyed Ali Khamenei launched a fierce verbal attack against both the US and Israel.
In a speech to commanders of the paramilitary Basij in Tehran, Khamenei attacked Israel for saying that Iran was a threat to regional peace. He said: “Such statements are being made by the mouth of the filthy rabid dog of the region, the Zionist regime. Those who had nothing for the world but evil things are the real threat to the world, such as this illegitimate regime.”
Khamenei added that Israel was a “regime created by force” and that it is “doomed to annihilation”.
The Supreme Leader also said that he had told Iran’s nuclear negotiators that “there are red lines, some limits” and that these limits “should be observed”. He added: “I have told officials that they are obliged to consider the limits and not be afraid of the fuss made by the enemy.” They should not give up Iran’s nuclear rights “even by one iota”.
Finally, Khamenei said that “the Iranian nation will not surrender under pressure from anyone.”