The sub-national groups in different countries of this region are trying to build coalitions to overthrow, what according to them, are unacceptable and corrupt Muslim regimes in both the secular and the traditionalist realms, and sweep aside European imposed borders

Re-assessing the Middle East situation

The British Foreign Office in the 19th century arbitrarily created the term ‘Middle East’ as a part of its colonial approach to a complex geo-political paradigm. To facilitate their administrative process, the British decided to divide the regions beyond the European horizon- on the basis of their proximity to Europe.
The area closest to Europe and Britain was termed as the ‘Near East’ (which included the Levant and North Africa). After that was the ‘Middle East’- the area stretching from the borders of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan to the borders of the Indian domains of the British Empire. ‘Far East’ referred to areas to the east of British India.
In this region, the political entities were modeled on existing European nation ideas. The British shaped the Arabian Peninsula which had been inhabited by tribes forming complex coalitions, into Saudi Arabia, a state based on one of these tribes, the Al-Sauds. The British also created Iraq and crafted Egypt into a united monarchy. Quite independent of the British, Turkey and Iran shaped themselves into secular nation-states.
This process however ended up creating two fault lines within the Middle East matrix- European secularism and Islam. This division was exacerbated during the Cold War when the then Soviet Union involved itself within this region. The evolving consequence was the formation of a region which was secular, socialist and built around the military.
The pro-western States in general on the other hand focused on those Arab countries which were potentially resource-rich but had the inherent intricate arrangement based on tribes, clans and ethnic groups that not only made up the States but also were divided by western agreed and sponsored borders. At the same time, within the two levels of political dynamics, the higher level was broad religious loyalties to Islam and to the major movements within Islam-Shiaism and Sunnism- both of which laid a transnational claim on loyalty. To this was added the concept of the pan-Arab
movement espoused by former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who believed that Arab States should be united into a single Arab nation.
This perspective of political geography needs to be effectively understood to crack the code of the evolving social and political realities of this region.
The inter-active relationship that has existed within the countries of this area since the break-up of the Soviet Union has to be interpreted against the perspective of attempts by groups to embrace     secularism or traditionalism and use them as tools to manage both the sub-national groupings and the claims of broader religiosity. There was within this equation only one least common denominator- opposition to Israel.
Over the last decade and half, another element has also surfaced- the question of values. Gradually, the socialist-secularist movement has lost its backing and other groups have emerged within the cross-current that has embraced the only ideology they think is correct- Islam.
Analysts have observed that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Mujahedeen defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan definitely energized the role of Islam in Middle Eastern politics. On the other side of the coin there has been the gradual emergence of the United States taking on the past British role in this region- especially in the context of the Gulf- in Saudi Arabia and also in the liberation of Kuwait from Iraq. In a manner of speaking this brought some stability in the region.
On the other hand there was also the gradual pan-Islamic resurrection- where Shiite dynamism of Iran helped it to acquire the position of politico- military spokesman for radical Islam.
It has been this factor, according to George Friedman, that has in all probability encouraged the idea of “a transcendental Caliphate- a single political entity that would abolish existing States and align political reality with Islam”.
This in turn has resulted in efforts of sub-national groups in different countries of this region, trying to build coalitions to overthrow, what according to them, are unacceptable and corrupt Muslim regimes in both the secular and the traditionalist worlds, and sweep aside European imposed borders.
It was this element that in all likelihood resulted in the emergence of Al-Qaeda. Their action, in a manner of speaking ended up in not only demonstrating American vulnerability but also in compelling the United States to take a more hands-on approach in this region.
In the first phase of its involvement with Al Qaeda, the United States had a measure of success in the reshaping of Iraq and Afghanistan. There were tactical solutions but some of the major strategic problems of this region remained unresolved. They are now surfacing in different corners and creating their own footprints on the sand.
Earlier in this decade, there was also the liberal democratic uprising which has since been anointed with the name of ‘Arab Spring’. It started in Tunisia and gradually spread to Egypt, Libya and Syria. It toppled regimes and has since, embroiled Libya and Syria in prolonged civil wars. It has been particularly harsh in Syria where the civil war in that country and the presence of Islamic militants and sectarian strife has resulted in more than 2 million refugees and more than 2,30,000 deaths. Currently, the scenario has become further complex with exacerbation on certain battle fronts due to active participation of ISIL forces keen to curve out their own areas of dominance and power.
Palestine continues to face uneven evolution of political factors, particularly after the re-election of Netanyahu as Israel’s Prime Minister. The situation has become more complex with another US Presidential election round the corner and the opposing Republican Party openly supporting the Israeli point of view. The latest effort by Israel trying to paint the recent Gaza hostilities (which cost Palestinians 2200 deaths) as a ‘lawful’ and ‘legitimate’ military action in an inter-Ministerial Report has been dismissed by the Palestinians as unacceptable.
They are now awaiting the report of the international community that has been undertaken by the UN Human Rights Council with regard to this hostility. That report is due to be published on 29 June, 2015. Nevertheless, it looks unlikely that there will be any major shift in Israeli efforts with regard to Palestine, particularly because they know that Arab unity is in tatters.
Egypt, on the other hand, over the last three years has witnessed its own political evolution where an elected President and Party- the Muslim Brotherhood- have been sidelined. Another military strongman has taken over the helms. His efforts and emergence has however not been uniformly accepted by the Gulf powers with Qatar not according him the necessary support.
Libya has now become a focal point for concern among the Western powers and particularly the European Union. The continuing instability in this country and lack of coordinated accountable governance has resulted in its shoreline becoming the staging point for illegal immigration to Europe.
This latest evolution in the strategic reality within the Middle East has created its own ramifications. The United States in its own way has been able to occupy and pacify Iraq and do the same in a limited way also in Afghanistan. However, it is clear today that their efforts have been only partially successful not only in these two countries but also in the contiguous regions of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. They have been unable to find the common denominators to establish peace with the current al-Assad government in Syria. They have also been unable to suitably confront the growing sphere of influence of ISIL whose competing forces are now encroaching over the Jordanian and Lebanese borders and emerging consequentially as a transnational power that now stretches across transcended borders.
These changes in ISIS/ISIL proximity have become a source of anxiety and concern for Saudi Arabia who now view this organization as an existential threat within the context of fundamentalist Wahhabi tradition. Other GCC members and Jordan are also feeling insecure with this demonstrated transnationalism of ISIL.
To that has also been added the prospect of a resurgent Shiite presence in the form of Iran (with its own points of influence on the Shia dominated government of Iraq) ready to spread its wings with the eventual signing of a nuclear deal (with the G5+1 powers led by the USA) that will free it from sanctions and financial constraints.
The US-Iran nuclear deal has invoked many questions. While Israel has rejected the US-Iran deal, Saudi Arabia has supported it in the hope of securing US support for its regional endeavors - starting with its military campaign in Yemen - that are directed mainly against Tehran. The US obliged so as not to alienate its Gulf allies, and has since supported the Saudi-led coalition with intelligence, logistics and weapons.
However the US is also warming up to Iran and so is Turkey. In fact, Turkey is moving in parallel terms with both Saudi Arabia and Iran. There has been a Turkish-Saudi summit despite major disagreements on Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and even on Syria. Tehran has also given Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan a grand reception despite their tensions and his damning criticism of Iran, criticizing its regime of fomenting regional strife in an attempt to dominate the region.
The two sides have however recognized the importance of moving forward with their relationship despite
their major differences on Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere. They have even committed to doubling their trade from $14bn to $30bn.
One can only conclude that the current situation in this region is not only critical but also sensitive. The countries east of the Suez Canal are particularly poised at a fatal junction. Consequently, instead of belligerence, their efforts need to move to discussion where they and also Iran can easily vent their perceived grievances. The Arab countries could possibly designate a delegation composed of their national leaders.
The OIC could then host the meeting in Istanbul or Geneva. An effort is being made with regard to Yemen, so why not Iran? They need to understand that there can be no military solution to the political and communitarian problems facing the region. Neither side of the sectarian divide is going to gain out of their animosity. Give diplomacy a chance.

The writer, a former ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance.
 He can be reached at <[email protected]>

The sub-national groups in different countries of this region are trying to build coalitions to overthrow, what according to them, are unacceptable and corrupt Muslim regimes in both the secular and the traditionalist realms, and sweep aside European imposed borders

Re-assessing the Middle East situation

The British Foreign Office in the 19th century arbitrarily created the term Middle East as a part of its colonial approach to a complex geo-political paradigm. To facilitate their administrative process, the British decided to divide the regions beyond the European horizon- on the basis of their proximity to Europe. The area closest to Europe and Britain was termed as the Near East (which included the Levant and North Africa). After that was the Middle East- the area stretching from the borders of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan to the borders of the Indian domains of the British Empire. Far East referred to areas to the east of British India. In this region, the political entities were modeled on existing European nation ideas. The British shaped the Arabian Peninsula which had been inhabited by tribes forming complex coalitions, into Saudi Arabia, a state based on one of these tribes, the Al-Sauds. The British also created Iraq and crafted Egypt into a united monarchy. Quite independent of the British, Turkey and Iran shaped themselves into secular nation-states. This process however ended up creating two fault lines within the Middle East matrix- European secularism and Islam. This division was exacerbated during the Cold War when the then Soviet Union involved itself within this region. The evolving consequence was the formation of a region which was secular, socialist and built around the military. The pro-western States in general on the other hand focused on those Arab countries which were potentially resource-rich but had the inherent intricate arrangement based on tribes, clans and ethnic groups that not only made up the States but also were divided by western agreed and sponsored borders. At the same time, within the two levels of political dynamics, the higher level was broad religious loyalties to Islam and to the major movements within Islam-Shiaism and Sunnism- both of which laid a transnational claim on loyalty. To this was added the concept of the pan-Arab movement espoused by former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who believed that Arab States should be united into a single Arab nation. This perspective of political geography needs to be effectively understood to crack the code of the evolving social and political realities of this region. The inter-active relationship that has existed within the countries of this area since the break-up of the Soviet Union has to be interpreted against the perspective of attempts by groups to embrace secularism or traditionalism and use them as tools to manage both the sub-national groupings and the claims of broader religiosity. There was within this equation only one least common denominator- opposition to Israel. Over the last decade and half, another element has also surfaced- the question of values. Gradually, the socialist-secularist movement has lost its backing and other groups have emerged within the cross-current that has embraced the only ideology they think is correct- Islam. Analysts have observed that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Mujahedeen defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan definitely energized the role of Islam in Middle Eastern politics. On the other side of the coin there has been the gradual emergence of the United States taking on the past British role in this region- especially in the context of the Gulf- in Saudi Arabia and also in the liberation of Kuwait from Iraq. In a manner of speaking this brought some stability in the region. On the other hand there was also the gradual pan-Islamic resurrection- where Shiite dynamism of Iran helped it to acquire the position of politico- military spokesman for radical Islam. It has been this factor, according to George Friedman, that has in all probability encouraged the idea of a transcendental Caliphate- a single political entity that would abolish existing States and align political reality with Islam. This in turn has resulted in efforts of sub-national groups in different countries of this region, trying to build coalitions to overthrow, what according to them, are unacceptable and corrupt Muslim regimes in both the secular and the traditionalist worlds, and sweep aside European imposed borders. It was this element that in all likelihood resulted in the emergence of Al-Qaeda. Their action, in a manner of speaking ended up in not only demonstrating American vulnerability but also in compelling the United States to take a more hands-on approach in this region. In the first phase of its involvement with Al Qaeda, the United States had a measure of success in the reshaping of Iraq and Afghanistan. There were tactical solutions but some of the major strategic problems of this region remained unresolved. They are now surfacing in different corners and creating their own footprints on the sand. Earlier in this decade, there was also the liberal democratic uprising which has since been anointed with the name of Arab Spring. It started in Tunisia and gradually spread to Egypt, Libya and Syria. It toppled regimes and has since, embroiled Libya and Syria in prolonged civil wars. It has been particularly harsh in Syria where the civil war in that country and the presence of Islamic militants and sectarian strife has resulted in more than 2 million refugees and more than 2,30,000 deaths. Currently, the scenario has become further complex with exacerbation on certain battle fronts due to active participation of ISIL forces keen to curve out their own areas of dominance and power. Palestine continues to face uneven evolution of political factors, particularly after the re-election of Netanyahu as Israels Prime Minister. The situation has become more complex with another US Presidential election round the corner and the opposing Republican Party openly supporting the Israeli point of view. The latest effort by Israel trying to paint the recent Gaza hostilities (which cost Palestinians 2200 deaths) as a lawful and legitimate military action in an inter-Ministerial Report has been dismissed by the Palestinians as unacceptable. They are now awaiting the report of the international community that has been undertaken by the UN Human Rights Council with regard to this hostility. That report is due to be published on 29 June, 2015. Nevertheless, it looks unlikely that there will be any major shift in Israeli efforts with regard to Palestine, particularly because they know that Arab unity is in tatters. Egypt, on the other hand, over the last three years has witnessed its own political evolution where an elected President and Party- the Muslim Brotherhood- have been sidelined. Another military strongman has taken over the helms. His efforts and emergence has however not been uniformly accepted by the Gulf powers with Qatar not according him the necessary support. Libya has now become a focal point for concern among the Western powers and particularly the European Union. The continuing instability in this country and lack of coordinated accountable governance has resulted in its shoreline becoming the staging point for illegal immigration to Europe. This latest evolution in the strategic reality within the Middle East has created its own ramifications. The United States in its own way has been able to occupy and pacify Iraq and do the same in a limited way also in Afghanistan. However, it is clear today that their efforts have been only partially successful not only in these two countries but also in the contiguous regions of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. They have been unable to find the common denominators to establish peace with the current al-Assad government in Syria. They have also been unable to suitably confront the growing sphere of influence of ISIL whose competing forces are now encroaching over the Jordanian and Lebanese borders and emerging consequentially as a transnational power that now stretches across transcended borders. These changes in ISIS/ISIL proximity have become a source of anxiety and concern for Saudi Arabia who now view this organization as an existential threat within the context of fundamentalist Wahhabi tradition. Other GCC members and Jordan are also feeling insecure with this demonstrated transnationalism of ISIL. To that has also been added the prospect of a resurgent Shiite presence in the form of Iran (with its own points of influence on the Shia dominated government of Iraq) ready to spread its wings with the eventual signing of a nuclear deal (with the G5+1 powers led by the USA) that will free it from sanctions and financial constraints. The US-Iran nuclear deal has invoked many questions. While Israel has rejected the US-Iran deal, Saudi Arabia has supported it in the hope of securing US support for its regional endeavors - starting with its military campaign in Yemen - that are directed mainly against Tehran. The US obliged so as not to alienate its Gulf allies, and has since supported the Saudi-led coalition with intelligence, logistics and weapons. However the US is also warming up to Iran and so is Turkey. In fact, Turkey is moving in parallel terms with both Saudi Arabia and Iran. There has been a Turkish-Saudi summit despite major disagreements on Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and even on Syria. Tehran has also given Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan a grand reception despite their tensions and his damning criticism of Iran, criticizing its regime of fomenting regional strife in an attempt to dominate the region. The two sides have however recognized the importance of moving forward with their relationship despite their major differences on Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere. They have even committed to doubling their trade from $14bn to $30bn. One can only conclude that the current situation in this region is not only critical but also sensitive. The countries east of the Suez Canal are particularly poised at a fatal junction. Consequently, instead of belligerence, their efforts need to move to discussion where they and also Iran can easily vent their perceived grievances. The Arab countries could possibly designate a delegation composed of their national leaders. The OIC could then host the meeting in Istanbul or Geneva. An effort is being made with regard to Yemen, so why not Iran? They need to understand that there can be no military solution to the political and communitarian problems facing the region. Neither side of the sectarian divide is going to gain out of their animosity. Give diplomacy a chance. The writer, a former ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance. He can be reached at [email protected]