Getting a handle on the new Middle East, Part I

First of Two Parts

By Steve Kramer

ALFE MENASHE, Israel — Despite the recent conventional wisdom that America “could not drill itself out of energy dependence,” North America is estimated to be on the verge of doing just that. I believe that this fact is having important consequences for America’s foreign policy and Israel’s perpetually challenging situation.

Formerly, America was forced to rely on Arab and Iranian energy exports. In recent years, America’s oil appetite was satisfied mostly by other sources, but Europe and Asia still rely heavily on the Persian Gulf region. Thus, the United States’ military remained poised to prevent a conflagration there which would disrupt the world energy market and consequently, global finances.

This potential disruption in oil shipments may be even closer today, but the game plan in Washington, as the current administration tires of shouldering a leadership role, is to draw back from playing an active role in Middle Eastern affairs.

The administration has lost the confidence of its former allies, especially Egypt. This, plus taking a diplomatic back seat to Russia, has prolonged the Syrian civil war and enabled Iran to continue its drive for nuclear weapons. The only conflict in the Middle East which stirs American hyperactivity is the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

The reason for this is simple. While even the president of Afghanistan can afford to disrespect America, Israel’s leaders have grown fearful of saying, “No.” While not entirely isolated (Canada and Australia come to mind as supporters), Israel has become “the Jew among the nations.” Despite the fact that Israel is much  stronger militarily than in prior decades, and its environment is hugely more embroiled in intra-Arab violence, Israel’s leaders have become increasingly compliant with America’s leaders.

The Israeli icon, Ariel Sharon, who died recently after many years in a coma, said, “What you see from here (the PM’s chair) you do not see from there (the Knesset).” That is certainly true, but somehow former leaders such as arch-rivals David Ben Gurion and Menahem Begin both stood firm and defied America when each thought it mandatory.

In the perennial Israel-Palestine conflict, one fact stands out: Israel bends while the Arabs don’t. Israel’s “red lines” today are a joke. The “right wing” government presently takes positions that the left wing espoused decades ago, leaving Israel in a precarious position.

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, once was the bulwark that would prevent Israel from retreating to the “1967 borders.” Those so-called borders are actually the ceasefire lines of the 1948-9 War of Independence, which are untenable “Aushwitz borders” (so said former Foreign Minister Abba Eban). Now Israel is being forced by the US to negotiate based on 1949 plus “swaps,” ignoring 242 which prescribed “secure borders.” Israel’s leadership has been trapped into this by virtue of being America’s “closest ally in the Middle East.”

From the viewpoint of the remaining, viable Arab governments, Iran, a Shiite Muslim state, is seen as the region’s power broker. This is good news for other Shiite Muslims, who constitute the majority group in Iraq, Bahrain, and Lebanon. For Israel and Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and elsewhere, it’s terrible news. The “new Middle East” is shaping up as a Shiite stronghold, with Russia its predominant ally and supporter (although Shiites are outnumbered by Sunnis at a ratio of 6:1).

Middle East scholar Jonathan Spyer had this to say about the Obama administration’s Middle Eastern policy: “From the point of view of the current US administration, logic appears to support the idea of distancing oneself from former allies and reaching an accommodation with the new strong force in the region—Iran and its proxies.”

On just these points, the English Speaking Friends of Tel Aviv University was recently addressed by Eli Barnavi, Professor Emeritus in Humanities at the university. Barnavi is a distinguished historian, author and journalist (primarily in French), who served as Israel’s ambassador to France in 2000-2012. His discourse was about Israel in its historical context, which I paraphrase below.

The Sykes Picot Agreement between France and Britain in 1916 carved up the Middle East, marking the beginning of the dismantling of the Turkish empire. The League of Nations awarded Mandates to France in Syria and Lebanon while Britain received Mandates for the balance of the Middle East. (However, Saudi Arabia was not included in a Mandate.)

The result was nearly a century of order for the new countries, first as colonial states and then as fragile client states. Complicating the situation was the fact that the British had embroiled themselves in conflicting promises: a homeland in Palestine for the Jews and an Arab state in nearly the identical space to the Hashemite Arabs (who currently rule Jordan).

Sykes Picot’s legacy is artificially delineated nations composed of disparate, competing groups. The exceptions are Egypt and Morocco, whose territories have historic authenticity. France and Britain’s machinations produced many internal conflicts, necessitating strong dictatorships to keep order. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 ended the struggle between Russia and America, allowing previously unthinkable actions. Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, didn’t even wait for Moscow’s downfall. He attacked Kuwait in 1990, destroying the region’s equilibrium. A new Middle East had begun to emerge.

A “unipolar” America, the only remaining world power after the conclusion of the Cold War in 1991, was charged with keeping the balance of power. But the current administration has rejected the role of being the world’s Superpower, leaving open the question of what the next world order will be. One result: the unexpected Arab revolution, which, like all revolutions, was not foreseen.

The West immediately dubbed the uprisings in Arab North Africa and throughout the Middle East, the “Arab Spring.” This optimistic slant was premature, based on the expectation that what was occurring among the Arabs was similar to the democratic 1848 European revolutions. But democracy without democrats is impossible. The Arabs are not democrats and the West was misled by fanciful TV reports promoting the “Facebook/Twitter revolution.” The Islamist movement wasn’t pushed aside. It lurked in the background, waiting to come to power.

*
This article was previously published by the Jewish Times of South Jersey.  Author Steven Kramer is based in Alfe Menashe, Israel, and his works may also be read on the website, www.encounteringisrael.com