Approach of Middle East Problems
Ahmed Hany
March 21, 2009
The Middle East now is like a timed bomb. It is too difficult to predict whether a next war would happen and whether this war would be limited or a full scale one. The fragile truces on the Palestinian and Lebanese fronts might be the flame that would ignite a big explosion.
The new American Administration showed some positive interests to end the Palestinian Israeli conflict. However it still seeks methods to deal with Syria and Iran. Internal crisis in Lebanon may take a serious path next summer after the parliamentary elections that may add fuel and ruin the American efforts. Hamas is trapped between unfulfilled Iranian promises and Egyptian efforts to solve problems in the Palestinian home. One notices that Egypt applies a policy that declares stances of every partner so that Palestinian leaders would be asked by their people about their decisions. Iran threatens the Arab Gulf States from now and then. Palestinians knew that the Persian State would support them just spiritually. Syria tries to find a way to the negotiation table. Israel tries to divert the American interest away from Palestine to the nuclear Iranian file.
Yet the American administration did not devise its strategy to deal with the Middle East as a whole. It aims at withdrawal from Iraq but this needs some pressure or dialogue with Syria and Iran. It could not afford to lose the Afghanistan war and victory is a difficult target to achieve until now.
There are three methods to address interconnected and interrelated problems. The first is the holistic approach. This means devising a strategy that solves all problems and having the ability to impose it. Its main prerequisites are being neutral and trusted by all parts. Until now all parts are optimistic but still cannot trust the new administration fully. There is a big trust problem between the American Administration and the future Israeli right wing government. The American military failure in Iraq limited its ability to impose solutions. Even if it had the ability imposing unbalanced solutions would be the beginning of new ones.
The second approach is creating separate paths to deal with each problem. This needs disengagement between problems and drawing red lines for each partner. In the Middle East each partner tries to play the cards of others for his sake. When problems have a religious background it would be too difficult if not impossible to disengage them.
The third approach is the core problem approach. In fact, we have two core problems in the region now. Palestine is the first. Nothing would be solved if Palestinians did not have their state either in a Two-States or One-State formula. The second core problem is the nuclear files both the Israeli and the Iranian. As long as Israel keeps two hundreds nuclear warheads, it would be difficult to set a system of permanent security in the region. The Iranians would have sympathizers with their ambiguous nuclear plans. Others may think seriously about having a deterrent. In fact the presence of open problems about the nuclear capabilities of Israel and Iran serve each otherīs file. It is difficult to solve one away from the other. In addition, it is impossible to have permanent peace with the presence of either one unsolved.
While the American Defense Minister declared that Iran still has a long way to industrialize a nuclear weapon, his Chief of Staff said that Iran has enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb. It is strange because both men get their information from the same sources. However this means that the US keeps all options open for the Administration to decide.
As long as the US tries to reach a solution that satisfies the Israeli security needs only without considering othersī needs it would be too difficult to settle a just and permanent peace. As long as Israel is exempted from applying international laws the American Administration would face trust problems in the region. Regardless of justice, this would lead to another failure of the American strategy and would expose Israel to serious strategic risks.
The Israeli lobby will be very active to create problems for the American administration not to persuade Israel to participate in a real timed peace process. The Arabs should have open channels with the US and they should develop their peace initiative to accommodate their security. They should draws lines for themselves that bind their security and stability with the long term American Strategy. If they did not do that the Americans would draw these lines for them. The second case carries the risk of big loses.
Before the long waited American-Iranian dialogue the Arabs should devise their strategy for the Gulf security to be considered. They do not like to see Iran having nuclear bomb or seeing its army to occupy an Arab country. They should have a perspective to deal with post elections problems in Lebanon.
They have to tell both the Americans and Israelis that the alternative to the Two-States solution is One State that extends from the river to the sea and not killing innocent Palestinian and Lebanese children and civilians. If the Americans need the Arabs for their global strategy then they should consider Arabsī rights and security needs. Solving the Palestinian problems might serve American global strategy in the Islamic world. Postponing peace would harm the American interests in a wide geographical area from Morocco to China. The problem is that President Obama may be sincere but he has a presidential election after four years. That is why the Arabs should be very active not only in official circles of Washington but in the media as well.
The new American Administration showed some positive interests to end the Palestinian Israeli conflict. However it still seeks methods to deal with Syria and Iran. Internal crisis in Lebanon may take a serious path next summer after the parliamentary elections that may add fuel and ruin the American efforts. Hamas is trapped between unfulfilled Iranian promises and Egyptian efforts to solve problems in the Palestinian home. One notices that Egypt applies a policy that declares stances of every partner so that Palestinian leaders would be asked by their people about their decisions. Iran threatens the Arab Gulf States from now and then. Palestinians knew that the Persian State would support them just spiritually. Syria tries to find a way to the negotiation table. Israel tries to divert the American interest away from Palestine to the nuclear Iranian file.
Yet the American administration did not devise its strategy to deal with the Middle East as a whole. It aims at withdrawal from Iraq but this needs some pressure or dialogue with Syria and Iran. It could not afford to lose the Afghanistan war and victory is a difficult target to achieve until now.
There are three methods to address interconnected and interrelated problems. The first is the holistic approach. This means devising a strategy that solves all problems and having the ability to impose it. Its main prerequisites are being neutral and trusted by all parts. Until now all parts are optimistic but still cannot trust the new administration fully. There is a big trust problem between the American Administration and the future Israeli right wing government. The American military failure in Iraq limited its ability to impose solutions. Even if it had the ability imposing unbalanced solutions would be the beginning of new ones.
The second approach is creating separate paths to deal with each problem. This needs disengagement between problems and drawing red lines for each partner. In the Middle East each partner tries to play the cards of others for his sake. When problems have a religious background it would be too difficult if not impossible to disengage them.
The third approach is the core problem approach. In fact, we have two core problems in the region now. Palestine is the first. Nothing would be solved if Palestinians did not have their state either in a Two-States or One-State formula. The second core problem is the nuclear files both the Israeli and the Iranian. As long as Israel keeps two hundreds nuclear warheads, it would be difficult to set a system of permanent security in the region. The Iranians would have sympathizers with their ambiguous nuclear plans. Others may think seriously about having a deterrent. In fact the presence of open problems about the nuclear capabilities of Israel and Iran serve each otherīs file. It is difficult to solve one away from the other. In addition, it is impossible to have permanent peace with the presence of either one unsolved.
While the American Defense Minister declared that Iran still has a long way to industrialize a nuclear weapon, his Chief of Staff said that Iran has enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb. It is strange because both men get their information from the same sources. However this means that the US keeps all options open for the Administration to decide.
As long as the US tries to reach a solution that satisfies the Israeli security needs only without considering othersī needs it would be too difficult to settle a just and permanent peace. As long as Israel is exempted from applying international laws the American Administration would face trust problems in the region. Regardless of justice, this would lead to another failure of the American strategy and would expose Israel to serious strategic risks.
The Israeli lobby will be very active to create problems for the American administration not to persuade Israel to participate in a real timed peace process. The Arabs should have open channels with the US and they should develop their peace initiative to accommodate their security. They should draws lines for themselves that bind their security and stability with the long term American Strategy. If they did not do that the Americans would draw these lines for them. The second case carries the risk of big loses.
Before the long waited American-Iranian dialogue the Arabs should devise their strategy for the Gulf security to be considered. They do not like to see Iran having nuclear bomb or seeing its army to occupy an Arab country. They should have a perspective to deal with post elections problems in Lebanon.
They have to tell both the Americans and Israelis that the alternative to the Two-States solution is One State that extends from the river to the sea and not killing innocent Palestinian and Lebanese children and civilians. If the Americans need the Arabs for their global strategy then they should consider Arabsī rights and security needs. Solving the Palestinian problems might serve American global strategy in the Islamic world. Postponing peace would harm the American interests in a wide geographical area from Morocco to China. The problem is that President Obama may be sincere but he has a presidential election after four years. That is why the Arabs should be very active not only in official circles of Washington but in the media as well.
Print
Email
