Middle East and Central Asia
Ahmed Hany
August 12, 2009
The hot spots in the Middle East and the Central Asia are linked together in a way that an opportunity of peace or a risk of war in a site will rapidly spread to other sites. The international strategies of the global power USA and other superpowers EU, Russia and China or even the rising power India suffer from uncertainties. Therefore any decision needs a high level of risk taking. This is reflected on the regional and local powers in an opportunistic behavior to achieve targets during the phase of the international fluidity.
The hardliners try to push for confrontations and clashes against external threats and their internal opponents alike even if chances of success are meager. On the other hand pragmatics or moderates considered became adopted policies against the hardliners. They became hardliners themselves or anti-hardliners hardliners. Everywhere one witness failure of internal reconciliation and failure of exit strategies from external conflicts.
There is a high level of uncertainty due to the inability of the global power to achieve decisive victory at an accepted price against its declared enemies. This is reflected on the superpower´s hesitation to take proper decisions to build what is necessary for its global strategy. No one denies that Obama´s administration tackled things differently but it stopped short from deciding about settlements in the West Bank, the besieged Gaza strip and Jerusalem.
In Iraq, while there was news about talks with Baathists in Turkey it could not convince the Iraqi Premier Malki to engage them in the national reconciliation. That threatened the success of withdrawal of the American troops from Iraqi cities and even there is a high risk that things might go out of control there.
The American administration did not assure Syria about the future of Golan to start serious talks on the Israeli-Syrian track. In Afghanistan the victory in military terms of defeating the will of Taliban to force them to stop fighting or to succumb to the central government rule is not foreseeable in the near future.
Other force like Russia is hesitant to formulate clear Middle East policy. While it keeps the traditional oral support of the Palestinian cause it agreed to the Israeli request not to sell advanced anti-warplanes missiles to Syria. More it assured the Hebrew state that its arms sales to Iran and Syria will not change the military balance in the region.
The direct effect was that the Israelis talked with the Americans about attacking the nuclear facilities in Iran while the American administration was doing every effort to start talking with the Persian state. The failure of the American of even imposing a freeze on building settlements cast doubts about their ability to broker more difficult decisions about borders, refugees and Jerusalem.
Despite the good relations between Syria and Russia, the Russians failed to convince Syria that Moscow parley about the Middle East might lead to a breakthrough.
Even within the western allies, contradicting views about Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, Moslems and Tibetans in China threat the future of the alliance adding to the uncertainty. When the German Chancellor said that it hoped that it could leave Afghanistan after five to ten years and the Command of US Central Commandship said that Afghanistan is too important for the American strategy while others in the western allies in NATO think about withdrawal from the endless war that means a serious split in the alliance about the main front.
Both the US and Russia have strategic interests in Central Asia but their negotiations about partnership are affected by methodologies to stand against the supposed enemy. While the Americans want to build anti- missile wall in Eastern Europe and expand the NATO eastwards, the Russians see that a new security system in Europe would solve these problems. On the other hand Russia gave accessibility to the Americans to use its air field to supply their forces in Afghanistan because if the western forces left defeated the Shanghai Organization that Russia is one of them will start fighting there.
China did not study the Russian experience in the Islamic republics that kept good relations between Russia and the Islamic World. The Chinese army declared that it would crush any sectarian opposition and it declared that it would issue more antiterrorist laws. The improper use of force would extend troubles to its borders with Afghanistan.
The internal power conflict in Iran and Lebanon reflect the opportunistic behavior of forces to achieve goals. The hardliners took the role of the Godfather and try to impose their views on people by bullying them. Hezbo-Allah leader Hassan Nasr Allah after he failed to have the one third plus one member in the cabinet to block any decision he threatened Israel to attack Tel Aviv. This gives a golden opportunity for the ruling Israeli right wing to attack Lebanon to find an exit strategy from the peace process. This also helps the conservative Iranian president to apply more harsh policies against reformists and to close the file of fraud elections. The attack of Iraqi forces on Ashraf´s camp of Mugahedi Khalq reflects the pressure by Iranians on the Iraqi government. Border clashes between Iranian forces and Iraqi Kurds may be seen as preliminaries of an Iranian military action to relief internal pressure.
Even in Gaza the miscalculations continued and Hamas behaved like Mafia keeping Fattah members and refusing to let them go to share in the congress of the movement. They asked the authorities to send them more passports if they want their men. Strange enough one of Fattah faction responded in a Mafia like threat and said that they would arrest Hamas members in the West Bank. Later on the Palestinian Authority denied that. Both factions´ policies of intimidation and killing each other reflect a Mafia style thinking that puts influence higher than national interests. Fattah high profile member accused the Palestinian president Mahmood Abbas and Al Dahlan of poisoning the late president Yasser Arafat. For God´s sake why did keep silent for four years and who asked him to say that now?
This picture of uncertainty needs strategic revision from all parts. The holistic approach of all problems will fail because the superpower is able to impose solutions. The alternative is to concentrate on the Middle East with its three tracks the Palestinian, the Syrian and the Lebanese. The feedback will directly affect the wide geopolitical area. When the Israelis and the Palestinians could not decide it would be another catastrophe if the American Administration did not decide.
The hardliners try to push for confrontations and clashes against external threats and their internal opponents alike even if chances of success are meager. On the other hand pragmatics or moderates considered became adopted policies against the hardliners. They became hardliners themselves or anti-hardliners hardliners. Everywhere one witness failure of internal reconciliation and failure of exit strategies from external conflicts.
There is a high level of uncertainty due to the inability of the global power to achieve decisive victory at an accepted price against its declared enemies. This is reflected on the superpower´s hesitation to take proper decisions to build what is necessary for its global strategy. No one denies that Obama´s administration tackled things differently but it stopped short from deciding about settlements in the West Bank, the besieged Gaza strip and Jerusalem.
In Iraq, while there was news about talks with Baathists in Turkey it could not convince the Iraqi Premier Malki to engage them in the national reconciliation. That threatened the success of withdrawal of the American troops from Iraqi cities and even there is a high risk that things might go out of control there.
The American administration did not assure Syria about the future of Golan to start serious talks on the Israeli-Syrian track. In Afghanistan the victory in military terms of defeating the will of Taliban to force them to stop fighting or to succumb to the central government rule is not foreseeable in the near future.
Other force like Russia is hesitant to formulate clear Middle East policy. While it keeps the traditional oral support of the Palestinian cause it agreed to the Israeli request not to sell advanced anti-warplanes missiles to Syria. More it assured the Hebrew state that its arms sales to Iran and Syria will not change the military balance in the region.
The direct effect was that the Israelis talked with the Americans about attacking the nuclear facilities in Iran while the American administration was doing every effort to start talking with the Persian state. The failure of the American of even imposing a freeze on building settlements cast doubts about their ability to broker more difficult decisions about borders, refugees and Jerusalem.
Despite the good relations between Syria and Russia, the Russians failed to convince Syria that Moscow parley about the Middle East might lead to a breakthrough.
Even within the western allies, contradicting views about Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, Moslems and Tibetans in China threat the future of the alliance adding to the uncertainty. When the German Chancellor said that it hoped that it could leave Afghanistan after five to ten years and the Command of US Central Commandship said that Afghanistan is too important for the American strategy while others in the western allies in NATO think about withdrawal from the endless war that means a serious split in the alliance about the main front.
Both the US and Russia have strategic interests in Central Asia but their negotiations about partnership are affected by methodologies to stand against the supposed enemy. While the Americans want to build anti- missile wall in Eastern Europe and expand the NATO eastwards, the Russians see that a new security system in Europe would solve these problems. On the other hand Russia gave accessibility to the Americans to use its air field to supply their forces in Afghanistan because if the western forces left defeated the Shanghai Organization that Russia is one of them will start fighting there.
China did not study the Russian experience in the Islamic republics that kept good relations between Russia and the Islamic World. The Chinese army declared that it would crush any sectarian opposition and it declared that it would issue more antiterrorist laws. The improper use of force would extend troubles to its borders with Afghanistan.
The internal power conflict in Iran and Lebanon reflect the opportunistic behavior of forces to achieve goals. The hardliners took the role of the Godfather and try to impose their views on people by bullying them. Hezbo-Allah leader Hassan Nasr Allah after he failed to have the one third plus one member in the cabinet to block any decision he threatened Israel to attack Tel Aviv. This gives a golden opportunity for the ruling Israeli right wing to attack Lebanon to find an exit strategy from the peace process. This also helps the conservative Iranian president to apply more harsh policies against reformists and to close the file of fraud elections. The attack of Iraqi forces on Ashraf´s camp of Mugahedi Khalq reflects the pressure by Iranians on the Iraqi government. Border clashes between Iranian forces and Iraqi Kurds may be seen as preliminaries of an Iranian military action to relief internal pressure.
Even in Gaza the miscalculations continued and Hamas behaved like Mafia keeping Fattah members and refusing to let them go to share in the congress of the movement. They asked the authorities to send them more passports if they want their men. Strange enough one of Fattah faction responded in a Mafia like threat and said that they would arrest Hamas members in the West Bank. Later on the Palestinian Authority denied that. Both factions´ policies of intimidation and killing each other reflect a Mafia style thinking that puts influence higher than national interests. Fattah high profile member accused the Palestinian president Mahmood Abbas and Al Dahlan of poisoning the late president Yasser Arafat. For God´s sake why did keep silent for four years and who asked him to say that now?
This picture of uncertainty needs strategic revision from all parts. The holistic approach of all problems will fail because the superpower is able to impose solutions. The alternative is to concentrate on the Middle East with its three tracks the Palestinian, the Syrian and the Lebanese. The feedback will directly affect the wide geopolitical area. When the Israelis and the Palestinians could not decide it would be another catastrophe if the American Administration did not decide.