At the end of the Gulf War in 1991, then US president George H W
Bush announced that a "New World Order" had emerged and henceforth
the problems of the world would be resolved peacefully. In the
Middle East, he added, the time was at hand to reach a settlement
in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the US began to push toward the
realization of that end. Under US auspices, the Israelis and
Palestinians signed the Oslo Accords in 1993, Jordan and Israel
concluded a peace treaty in 1994 and Syria and Israel entered into
negotiations that regrettably broke off following the assassination
of former Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin.
In spite of such auspicious beginnings, however, changes in the
international and regional climate determined the course of
subsequent developments. Most significantly, the US now stood alone
at the peak of the world order and its prime concern was to retain
that position. In the Middle East, the by-product of this was that
Israel acquired greater freedom to act as it saw fit. It was at
this juncture that the rules of the game changed and both Israeli
and American practices took a new turn.
In addition to ending the Palestinian problem, Israel wanted to
eliminate what it perceived to be threats to its security from Iraq
and Iran. Simultaneously, the US wished to eliminate what it
regarded as obstacles to its policy in the Middle East; namely the
political attitudes of Iraq and Iran. This convergence in outlook
was behind Israel's rush to accelerate its negotiations with the
Palestinians, and Washington's hurry to reshape the region in
accordance with the US-Israeli vision, and it underscores the
connections between the various problems in the Middle East.
Contrary to widespread belief, the events of September 11 did not
alter US foreign policy objectives, though they did change the
means employed to achieve them. From recourse to political and
diplomatic channels, Washington rapidly adopted a preference for
direct military intervention to advance its political objectives.
This shift was the product of a fundamental change in US political
and strategic thinking. Washington's focus on Iraq, in particular,
serves at least two ends: The first is to tip the strategic balance
in the Middle East further in favor of Israel and to facilitate an
end to the Palestinian issue in accordance with US-Israeli
conditions.
The second is to secure its interests in the region and complete
the encirclement of what it perceives as another threat to Israel,
Iran, which can then be dealt with at a later stage, perhaps by
different means. Washington, however, overlooked the fact that
military might, no matter how fierce, cannot produce peace,
stability and security - not in the Middle East nor anywhere
else.
The Aftermath of the Iraq War
The end of the war in Iraq has led to geopolitical and geostrategic
changes in the Middle East, particularly in the Gulf.
Geopolitically, from the American perspective, the relative
political weight of the nations of the region has shifted, a shift
that could threaten regional stability. Geostrategically, American
military forces are still heavily based in the Gulf, but the US has
moved most of its central command structure to Qatar, while the
largest part of its military capacity is now concentrated in Iraq.
This change matches Washington's political objective of
reorganizing the region in accordance with its own interests and
contrary to the security of the states in the region.
These shifts have triggered a number of other developments in the
region, taking into account the disappearance of the "Eastern
Front." Israel's role has been enhanced and a new Middle East
"peace process" - with different rules - has been launched. In
addition, the Gulf Cooperation Council is set to be remodeled: It
has been proposed that the GCC's membership be expanded to include
other states, including Iraq, once some sort of internal stability
has been achieved there. This will be extremely significant,
representing the de facto creation of a new Middle Eastern
organization to replace the Arab League. It will, in essence, be
the concrete realization of Washington's plan for fundamental
changes in the Middle East, and a sign that US forces will remain
in Iraq - and the region - for the foreseeable future.
So far the US seems determined to continue the process of change
that has been set in motion in Iraq and the Middle East.
Nevertheless, the successful execution of this plan is contingent
on several factors. There will be political obstacles, both from
the American public and from friends and allies abroad. Regular
American loss of life will recall the experience of the Vietnam War
and will inevitably have an impact on the US public. Moreover, the
financial cost of control through conflict and occupation is
draining and has already debilitated the domestic US economy.
The US will have to rely on the political and strategic
consequences of the war to shape the future of the Middle East, and
while it might seem the regional balance of power has already been
altered, these changes remain fluid. It is still possible today for
other parties to influence the course of events. This is
particularly true with respect to stability in the Gulf, the
resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the new threat
represented by the role of some of the neighboring non-Arab states.
US policy in the Middle East is completely inconsistent with the
urgent needs of the people of the region and the world at large. It
may be out of proportion with existing threats in the Middle East
as well as a dangerous adventure that risks perpetuating current
conflicts in the region and beyond for years to come.
Iran and Syria
Two countries deserve special attention during the coming stage:
Iran and Syria. Iran now finds itself in an extremely difficult
situation. It senses it is the next American target, and that
regime change there represents the next step toward enhancing
Israeli security and furthering regional US objectives. Certain
Iranian officials have stated that Iran has not only been put on
the defensive, but in effect has its back to the wall. As a result,
it is attempting to mobilize resistance to US policies and to
establish a new framework for security that will help it when the
moment of confrontation arrives. The question is: Why is the US
threatening Iran?
Again, the reasons are closely associated with Israel and the
regional balance of power. Were Iran to produce nuclear weapons
(for which it has the technology, even though the political
decision to do so remains suspended), Israel would no longer have a
regional nuclear monopoly. The Iranian deterrent, in this case,
would neutralize Israel's ability to use its nuclear threat to
advance its regional policy. The US is not about to let this
happen.
Syria is still in the spotlight, as the US openly pressures it to
align with American and Israeli objectives. The US administration -
supported by Congress - has prepared the charge sheet in advance:
Syria, it argues, possesses weapons of mass destruction, gives
refuge to terrorist organizations and maintains a military presence
in Lebanon. The pressure on Syria, furthermore, has increased as a
result of its new geostrategic position. Syria is now surrounded by
Israel, Turkey, the "new" Iraq and Jordan, where policy-making is
determined in tandem with the US. The US position towards Iran and
Syria also adversely affects the Palestinian position in
negotiations with Israel for a resolution of the Palestinian
predicament and the Middle East problem in general.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Israel is the sole proven nuclear power in the Middle East.
Moreover, the US did not exert any effort to control nuclear
weapons and their proliferation in the region as a whole. As far as
the Bush administration is concerned, Iraq is only the first in a
long list of countries that must be stripped of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD). Washington's sudden interest in pursuing
countries suspected of secretly developing WMD, of course, does not
extend to Israel, despite the fact that Israel's arsenal of nuclear
and other WMD has been an open secret for years.
Somewhere along the way the issue of terrorism came to be
identified with the issue of WMD. This is a particularly critical
problem when it comes to the Middle East, where Israel, with the
full knowledge and support, not to say connivance of the US, has
been allowed to build up a "secret" arsenal of WMDs. This is not
only a factor of instability in a region already ripe with social,
political and economic problems, but an obvious incentive for other
countries to follow suit, and to set in motion an arms race that
will be difficult, if not impossible, to control or contain. It may
be argued that Washington's drive to ensure the banning of WMD
should receive the unqualified support of all right-thinking
people. Nevertheless, the credibility of Washington's position is
compromised by what many see as the double standard it applies to
the issue. There is one benchmark for Israel, which allows it to
maintain its arsenal of nuclear weapons, thereby threatening
neighboring countries in the region and beyond, and another
benchmark for other states in the Middle East, which are required
to dismantle whatever arsenals they possess and desist from
developing nuclear programs, even for non military use.
One important question remains to be asked: Will these new
conditions in the Middle East affect Egypt? The immediate answer is
yes. The ongoing transformations have already had an impact on the
situation in Europe and across the globe, and they have brought
about a shift in the balance of power in the region. The most
significant ramifications have been economic, and this will affect
Egypt, too. Another ramification is President George W Bush's
desire to force the region to accept the US formula for change
through political, economic, cultural and military means. The
question is whether the region - including Egypt - will comply with
US designs, or whether it will be coerced into temporary, but
volatile acceptance. While it is still too early to tell what the
future may hold, the US seems determined to follow its
endeavor.
The New World Order, as implemented by Bush, may not yet be stable,
but markers are already plain. The situation in the Middle East is
crystallizing, and the changes being affected are profound. States
of the region will have to work hard to understand these new
regional changes if they are to act effectively upon them. States
of the region must also react to the ongoing international and
regional changes, and must take advantage of the present state of
political and strategic flux to play a positive role in
international relations. The US itself, though dominant, will
continue to adapt to the consequences of its war on Iraq and will
further develop its political and economic strategies, if not for
the sake of the region, then for its own interests.