Iran vs. USA
In the AACI-Netanya lecture series at Netanya College, Dr. Jonathan Spyer of the Herzliya Inter-disciplinary Center gave a truly excellent talk entitled "The changing Middle East and its consequences for Israel". He focussed on the nature of the root problem, namely the competition between Iran and the USA for hegemony in the Middle East.
Since WWII, the US has been the major power in the world and since the late 1980s has been pre-eminent in the Middle East, particularly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The "peace process" between Israel and the Palestinians that has been around for nearly 30 years, with its constant ups and downs, is actually an American invention. It is an outcome of the American belief that if two sides sit down together and talk they are bound to arrive at a compromise solution. Without going into the pros and cons, it is clear that this is an overly optimistic view . But, nevertheless, there has not been a major war between Israel and the Arab states since 1973, and no major war since the first Lebanon war of 1982. So things have gradually improved between Israel and the Arabs, the fundamental move by Pres. Sadat of Egypt to make peace with Israel was one that he took despite US policies.
The broader challenge to US hegemony in the Middle East is that of the Iranian regime. The islamization of politics in Iran has produced an elite that came to the fore in the wake of the Iranian revolution and the Iran-Iraq war, and they are only now taking control of Iran with a renewal of revolutionary fervor. The so-called Arab-Israel conflict has for some time actually become an Israeli-Islamic conflict, because Iran with its proxies Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza has been preparing the ground for some time for an assault on the Israeli State. Why are the Iranians so intent on destroying Israel? They have two reasons, first they see Israel as the major ally of the US in the Middle East, and second they see the Palestinian cause as a way of gaining support in the Sunni Arab world. They have plotted their moves carefully to fill the vacuum created by US strategic confusion under Pres. Obama. The Iranians are patient, and they are prepared to spend a lot of money, even though they are virtually bankrupt and despised by their own people, in order to achieve the greatness that they passionately believe is their due as Shia Muslims and Persians. They fervently believe that Israel will eventually collapse due to its own internal dissensions, but they fail to understand the values of democracy.
Viewing the uprisings in the Arab world thru the prism of the rivalry between Shia Iran and the USA, then the score so far is two for the Iranians and two possibly for the US. Hosni Mubarak was a major US asset in the Middle East. It cost the US about b$1-2 pa in order to keep Egypt afloat, but obviously the population were not happy, neither with their economic situation nor with their level of personal freedom. The loss of Tunisia and Egypt is a blow to the US, even though we don't know what the eventual outcome will be it is unlikely that they will end up being pro-American again. So this is a net gain for Iran's ambitions in the region. The two possibles for the US are Bahrain, that is now firmly under the control of the Khalifas with Saudi military help, and Syria.
Syria is a complex case, since the Assad regime consists mainly of the Shia-type Alawite minority that constitutes 12% of the population. Assad is ruthlessly suppressing the uprising to avoid any possibility of the Sunni majority taking over. Given this fact it is unlikely that the Assad regime will fall, like the Mubarak regime in Egypt, but the most likely outcome will be a weakening of the regime and hence a gain for the US. So the net score so far is more or less even.
Iranian ambitions of hegemony in the region have put Israel and the Sunni Arab regimes on the same side. The gambit of Iran to be a leader of the Sunni Arabs has been shown to be a false one, given that Saudi Arabia is now playing the role of the Sunni leader against the Shias in Bahrain. It probably was not a smart move by Iran to back the Shia in Bahrain because it undermines their pretense to also be the leader of the Sunnis against Israel. Also, Iran has no model to persuade the Arabs that they can run a successful state, their own is a repressive police state that is undergoing economic meltdown. Turkey is a better model for the Arabs, it is Sunni and it can boast a successful economic system. The move of Turkey towards the Islamic east has been widely noted, but Turkey will never be a number two to Iran, it wants to be number one and is just waiting for Iran to fail.
The danger for Israel is that in the complex turmoil of the Middle East, the US abandoned Mubarak but weakly supported the Khalifas in Bahrain, and has no clear strategic policy. If the UN General Assembly does approve Palestinian statehood by a majority in September, the UK is likely to go along and the US may also cave. However, in the final analysis, such a declaration will not really help the Palestinians achieve a state, for that they will still need Israel. With regard to Hamas, Israel requires deterrance, and this can only be achieved by strong counter-reaction to any attack. There is a split within Hamas between the political wing under Haniyeh that wants a ceasefire and the military wing Izzadin al Kassem, that wants to continue shooting. There may come a time in the future when Israel will be forced to take action to remove this Iranian proxy on the Mediterranean, and then the whole of the Middle East could unravel.
Since WWII, the US has been the major power in the world and since the late 1980s has been pre-eminent in the Middle East, particularly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The "peace process" between Israel and the Palestinians that has been around for nearly 30 years, with its constant ups and downs, is actually an American invention. It is an outcome of the American belief that if two sides sit down together and talk they are bound to arrive at a compromise solution. Without going into the pros and cons, it is clear that this is an overly optimistic view . But, nevertheless, there has not been a major war between Israel and the Arab states since 1973, and no major war since the first Lebanon war of 1982. So things have gradually improved between Israel and the Arabs, the fundamental move by Pres. Sadat of Egypt to make peace with Israel was one that he took despite US policies.
The broader challenge to US hegemony in the Middle East is that of the Iranian regime. The islamization of politics in Iran has produced an elite that came to the fore in the wake of the Iranian revolution and the Iran-Iraq war, and they are only now taking control of Iran with a renewal of revolutionary fervor. The so-called Arab-Israel conflict has for some time actually become an Israeli-Islamic conflict, because Iran with its proxies Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza has been preparing the ground for some time for an assault on the Israeli State. Why are the Iranians so intent on destroying Israel? They have two reasons, first they see Israel as the major ally of the US in the Middle East, and second they see the Palestinian cause as a way of gaining support in the Sunni Arab world. They have plotted their moves carefully to fill the vacuum created by US strategic confusion under Pres. Obama. The Iranians are patient, and they are prepared to spend a lot of money, even though they are virtually bankrupt and despised by their own people, in order to achieve the greatness that they passionately believe is their due as Shia Muslims and Persians. They fervently believe that Israel will eventually collapse due to its own internal dissensions, but they fail to understand the values of democracy.
Viewing the uprisings in the Arab world thru the prism of the rivalry between Shia Iran and the USA, then the score so far is two for the Iranians and two possibly for the US. Hosni Mubarak was a major US asset in the Middle East. It cost the US about b$1-2 pa in order to keep Egypt afloat, but obviously the population were not happy, neither with their economic situation nor with their level of personal freedom. The loss of Tunisia and Egypt is a blow to the US, even though we don't know what the eventual outcome will be it is unlikely that they will end up being pro-American again. So this is a net gain for Iran's ambitions in the region. The two possibles for the US are Bahrain, that is now firmly under the control of the Khalifas with Saudi military help, and Syria.
Syria is a complex case, since the Assad regime consists mainly of the Shia-type Alawite minority that constitutes 12% of the population. Assad is ruthlessly suppressing the uprising to avoid any possibility of the Sunni majority taking over. Given this fact it is unlikely that the Assad regime will fall, like the Mubarak regime in Egypt, but the most likely outcome will be a weakening of the regime and hence a gain for the US. So the net score so far is more or less even.
Iranian ambitions of hegemony in the region have put Israel and the Sunni Arab regimes on the same side. The gambit of Iran to be a leader of the Sunni Arabs has been shown to be a false one, given that Saudi Arabia is now playing the role of the Sunni leader against the Shias in Bahrain. It probably was not a smart move by Iran to back the Shia in Bahrain because it undermines their pretense to also be the leader of the Sunnis against Israel. Also, Iran has no model to persuade the Arabs that they can run a successful state, their own is a repressive police state that is undergoing economic meltdown. Turkey is a better model for the Arabs, it is Sunni and it can boast a successful economic system. The move of Turkey towards the Islamic east has been widely noted, but Turkey will never be a number two to Iran, it wants to be number one and is just waiting for Iran to fail.
The danger for Israel is that in the complex turmoil of the Middle East, the US abandoned Mubarak but weakly supported the Khalifas in Bahrain, and has no clear strategic policy. If the UN General Assembly does approve Palestinian statehood by a majority in September, the UK is likely to go along and the US may also cave. However, in the final analysis, such a declaration will not really help the Palestinians achieve a state, for that they will still need Israel. With regard to Hamas, Israel requires deterrance, and this can only be achieved by strong counter-reaction to any attack. There is a split within Hamas between the political wing under Haniyeh that wants a ceasefire and the military wing Izzadin al Kassem, that wants to continue shooting. There may come a time in the future when Israel will be forced to take action to remove this Iranian proxy on the Mediterranean, and then the whole of the Middle East could unravel.
posted by Jack Cohen at 6:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home