Impact of the Changing Situation in the Middle East to the U.S. Strategy

Gao Zugui

Impact of the Changing Situation in the Middle East to the U.S. Strategy

Gao Zugui

When the world is entering into 2011, a large-scale social and political movement, with some new features, is unfolding in the Middle East, engulfing more than 20 countries including Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Amman, and Iran, etc. Such a situation is likely to spill over to other regions of the Middle East and provoke political turmoil in many countries. The United States, being the exterior force most deeply involved in the region, has the biggest strategic interests in the Middle East. Washington’s strategy in the region itself played a major part in leading to the current evolving upheaval. Now this strategy is suffering severe shocks. American interests, objectives and policy implementation are confronted with the most complicated challenges since the end of the cold war. America’s handling of these challenges as well as its possible policy readjustments will exert important impacts to the evolving situation and the posture in the region.

I. America’s Interests in the Middle East

The United States started its engagement in the Middle Eastaround the conclusion of the World War II, and its interests in the region have kept on expanding. After the Cold War and since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, America has become the only superpower in the world, and its dominating position was established after the Gulf War in the 1990s. The importance of the Middle East in Washington’s global strategy has been defined gradually. In 1990 the Bush Administration noted in its National Security Strategy that the Free World’s reliance on pivotal Middle East energy supplies as well as Washington’s close relations with many countries in the region continued to constitute America’s important interests. The Clinton Administration formulated its second report of National Security Strategy for a New Century in 1999, which gave a full show of America’s unprecedented hegemonic perception following a decade-long growth in strength since the end of the Cold War. The report also predicted America’s prominent strategic concerns in the aftermath of the 9/11 incident. The report said that “developments in the Middle East will profoundly affect America’s future”, “they will determine whether a just and lasting peace can be established by Israel and the Arab countries; whether nations of the region will fully join our fight against terrorism and drug trafficking; whether they will agree to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction.”

Since the beginning of the 21stcentury, and especially after the 9/11 incident, America has paid more attention to the Middle East. During the 8 years when George Bush junior was in office, America made the Middle East and even the “greater Middle East”the priority in its national security strategy. Barack Obama became the president in 2009 amid a financial crisis. He made great efforts for “transformations”, and he made it a priority that, to renew American leadership, America should first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and refocus its attention on the broader Middle East. In 2010 National Security Strategy, President Barack Obama pointed out clearly that the United States has important interests in the greater Middle East. “They include broad cooperation on a wide range of issues with our close friend, Israel, and an unshakable commitment to its security; the achievement of the Palestinian people’s legitimate aspirations for statehood, opportunity, and the realization of their extraordinary potential; the unity and security of Iraq and the fostering of its democracy and reintegration into the region; the transformation of Iranian policy away from its pursuit of nuclear weapons, support for terrorism, and threats against its neighbors; nonproliferation; and counterterrorism cooperation, access to energy, and integration of the region into global markets.” By that time, the U.S. interests in the Middle East were specified in clearer and detailed terms, and its basic roads to these interests also became more obvious.

The importance of the Middle East in Washington’s global strategy has been redefined gradually.

We could say that American administrations at different times have different ways of expressions and choices of priorities on its Middle East interests with changing focuses. For instance, the Bush (Junior) Administration, during its first and second terms, focused on anti-terrorism and the conclusion of the Iraq war. However, the Obama Administration makes it its priority to push the peace process between Israel and Palestine and the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. In general, the United States has the following major interest concerns in the Middle East: oil export, a safe Israel, the stability and security of the Arab friends, prevention of the spread of weapons of massive destruction, and the freedom and democracy. The threats to America in the Middle East come from terrorism, political Islamic movements, instability in Arab nations as well as their domestic conflicts. These interests and threats can be analyzed from angles of geopolitics, energy resources and security concerns. Geopolitics is the basic pillar in America’s global strategy; energy resources, closely linked with geopolitics, not only sustain Washington’s drive for supremacy, but also become the focus of major powers’ strategic rivalry. WMD together with terrorism, pose direct threats to the U.S. Mid-east interests as well as overall U.S. overseas interests and security at home, and eventually could weaken America’s endeavor for maintaining its global supremacy. The U.S. ultimate goal in the Middle East is not only to assure its interests in the region, but also to maintain and strengthen its sole superpower status by overpowering and containing Europe, Japan, Russia, China, India and other strategic forces. Because of this, the Middle East has been a big challenge to any American president over the last 7 decades. And the region, in almost all circumstances, has been both the source of threats to America’s geopolitics and an unpleasant and enduring pain in the neck, let alone it is also a very difficult and sensitive problem which had to be managed from the frontline of domestic politics.

II. Shocks: Diminishing Arab Friends, Increasing Iranian Threats and Declining Security for Israel

When the Obama Administration is phasing out all U.S. troops from Iraq and pushing actively Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, and when Perm 5 plus Germany with Iran are engaging in a new round of dialogues on nuclear issues, a social and political turbulence erupted in the Middle East, spreading rapidly from Tunisia to other Arab countries and to a broader area. As a result, the United States finds its important interests in the Middle East being seriously challenged. They are as follows:

Firstly, the undermined stability and security in some friendly Arab states constitute the most direct and obvious loss to the United States. Domestic turmoil has spread from one state to another like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirate, Bahrain, Yemen, Amman, Qatar and post-Saddam Iraq in the Gulf region, Jordan in the East Mediterranean, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia in North Africa. These countries are American allies, or at least countries maintaining friendly cooperation with the U.S. and other Western countries. Among them, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq are more important than others to the United States. President Ben Ali, since he came to power in 1987, led the Tunisian Government with a pro-West policy and was regarded by the United States and Europe as a good student of neo-liberalism. Libya’s Gaddafi took the initiative in the end of 2003 to give up WMD in exchange for improvement of relations with America and Europe. In 2005 Libya resumed its diplomatic ties with the United States and Washington dispatched an ambassador to Tripoli in 2008. So Libya was labeled as a good example which was transformed by the United States. In this sense, both Tunisia and Libya can be regarded as friends of the United States. To push forward its Middle East strategy and maintain its dominating position, Washington needs the supports and cooperation from these friendly Arab countries. Therefore, President Barack Obama made a speech in Cairo in June 2009, soon after he entered the White House, focusing on improving relations with Islamic countries, in which he pushed peace talks between Israel and Palestine so as to answer the appeal from moderate Arabs and to win their supports.

However, in the face of massive social and political turbulence, these countries either have had regime change or are undergoing serious turmoil, or are on the verge of troubles. President Ben Ali of Tunisia has left the country. Husni Mubarak’s government was overthrown; Jordan is still unstable although the prime minister and the cabinet were changed. The Hamad Government of Bahrain stabilized the situation only with the help of armed forces sent by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirate on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council. In Yemen, the situation only got quiet when the Saleh Government made concessions on early abdication and political and economic reforms. Saudi Arabia stepped up implementing policies of providing more jobs and improving social welfare so as to reduce public dissatisfaction and prevent turmoil. In Libya the clashes between Gaddafi Government and the opposition have turned into a large-scale civil war following the arms embargo imposed and the military strikes conducted by America, Britain, France and other Western countries.

The United States regards Egypt as an important member in the League of Arab States. For many years America provided large amount of assistance including an annual military aid of over US$1.3 billion to Egypt. However the Mubarack government’s step-down was undoubtedly a major setback to Washington in the Middle East. Both President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described Egypt as America’s ally on many key issues and important partner on wide-ranging regional issues and they said that President Mubarack was of great help to America on series of Middle East issues. It is expected that the new government in Egypt will not be so close to America as Husni Mubarack was. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is regarded by the U.S. as radical terrorists and was suppressed for a long time by Husni Mubarack, will undoubtedly play an important role in the future political framework of Egypt. If the future Egyptian government takes an anti-Western policy, then it will probably enhance its status by making full use of the Suez Canal, an important strategic gateway to the Mediterranean Sea from both the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. If a change of government occurs in Bahrain, the continued presence of the U.S. Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain will be threatened. Saudi Arabia is the most important U.S. ally in the Middle East. King Abdullah is dissatisfied with Washington for its eventual abandoning of Husni Mubarack, and he might keep some distance from the United States. Any government change in Saudi Arabia will lead to the collapse of one of the U.S. strategic pillars and, as a dominating country in the OPEC, Saudi’s oil policies will become uncertain. What is more important is that the current regional instability is expected to lead to a further uplifting of Islamic influence. The Turkish government, led by the Justice and Development Party, has already started its suppression against the military force which advocates secularization. If more and more Mid-east Islamic countries are besieged in protracted turbulence, it will provide opportunities and conditions for many radical Islamic forces to increase their influences and provoke incidents. Some terrorist groups like the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, particularly the al-Qaeda in Iraq, will take chance to make troubles. The Islamic Maghreb al-Qaeda has already called on Tunisian and Libyan peoples to wage a holy war, Rashidal-Ghnnushi, leader of the Islamist forces exiled in Europe over 20 years, returned to Tunisia after the government change. Such a scenario has been the concern of all American administrations in the post Cold-War time, which they all worked hard to avoid. Although the Obama Administration did not prioritize the anti-terrorism in its Middle East strategy, yet the U.S. military and intelligence still take anti-terrorism and anti-extremism as their primary task. This is clearly stressed both by Mike Mullen, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the U.S. National Military Strategy on February 8, 2011, and by the Director of National Intelligence in his February 16, 2011 testimony in the Senate on U.S. intelligence assessment of worldwide threat.

The United States finds its important interests in the Middle East being seriously challenged.

Secondly, the strategic environment for Iran is further improved by the current Middle East situation, and Iran has gained an upper hand in the evolving regional structure, thus posing more threats to the United States. Since its 1979 Islamic revolution, Iran’s challenges to America have been on the rise. The unintended consequence of the Iraqi war in 2003 and the overthrow of the Saddam regime is the removal of an enemy of Iran and the gaining of a dominating position by the Shiite force which is under strong influences of the Iranian Shiite political force. Americans think that Iran, instead of restraining itself, has taken steps to expand its influence in the wake of a much improved environment. It is pushing forward sabotaging policies through its revolutionary guards and the Republic guards, and expanding its influence by non-state agents such as Iraq’s Mahdi army, Hamas in the Palestinian Gaza strip, and Hezbolla in Lebanon and in other parts of the world. It is also seeking to subvert other governments and strengthen its influence in the Persian Gulf and the Greater Middle East region, threatening to eliminate Israel and working hard to gain possession of nuclear weapons or the technologies with which it could produce nuclear weapons at any time. This poses a special challenge to the United States. The 30-day armed conflicts between Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Israel in July 2006 was also viewed as the result of Iranian support, because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was welcomed as a leader during his 2010 visit to the Hezebollacontrolled southern Lebanon.

Iran regards the current political and social changes in many North African and Western Asian countries as an Islamic uprising against secular pro-Western regimes, and even the former reformist President Mohammad Khatami also said that a new Middle East, based on Islamic principles, is rising. To the United States, this means that Iran might make full use of its relations with the Shiite Muslims and the Islamists, two special resources and channels, to further consolidate its position and increase its influence. In terms of its relations with Shiite Muslim network, after Syria and Iraq moved closer to Iran, Najib Mikai, a candidate supported by Iran and named by Hezhollah-led “March 8 Alliance”, will certainly become the new Lebanese Prime Minister well before turbulence erupted in the Middle East. The Bahrain Shiite people account for 70% of the population, and they might come to power if there is a government change in current social and political unrest. The Shiite forces in Yemen and Saudi Arabia will also be encouraged to seek more power. This means that the Shiite Crescent covering Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Bahrain will be expanding. In terms of its relations with Islamism, Iran has been playing an important role in the Islamism since its revolution in 1979. Under the current large-scale social upheaval, Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas in Palestine, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Islamic Fighting Group in Libya and other Islamist factions, as local representatives in their respective countries, will play greater role in the future development in the countries concerned. Developments in the above-mentioned two aspects will make the Middle East situation move towards the direction favorable to Iran. When Egypt’s Husni Mubarack stepped down, the Iranian warships made its maiden voyage through the Suez Canal since Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979, showing evidently its rising regional influence. Then as a follow-up, Iran declared that it, as a country with the possession of nuclear fusion technology, would engage in active nuclear technology cooperation with other countries, including the sell of nuclear technology.

Finally, the combined factors of the Arabic upheavals and the Iran’s strengthened strategic status have worsened the security environment of Israel, America’s most important ally in the Middle East. Israel figured prominently in the mind of America in its politics, culture and foreign policy. For millions of Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, a strong tie with Israel, driven by shared values, sympathy for Jewish victims of historic anti-Semitism and support for Israel’s perilous security predicament, has become an integral part of the American story. Therefore, since the founding of Israel in 1948, all U.S. presidents without any exception maintain a special relationship with Israel, no matter whether this relationship is beneficial or harmful to American interests and values. The current upheaval in the Middle East is a challenge not only to America, but also to Israel. Situated in the region, Israel actually feels the challenges and threats in a more straight-forward and urgent way. And its perceptions and understandings of the threats will affect America’s related decision-making. To Israel, the weakening of the pro-West moderates in the Arab world means a reduction of favorable security factors. Egypt is the first country which made the peace with Israel. Now Israel feels very much uneasy because this neighboring country is now in turmoil and Husni Mubarack is out of office. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which controls the country in the transitional time, proclaimed that Egypt will abide by all international agreements signed by the previous government, however, it remains a big question whether the new government, to be in power 6 months later, will still recognize the peace accord with Israel and whether Egypt will continue its coordination with Israel to block the Rafah crossing, the only passage to the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip. Jordan is the second frontline country to establish ties with Israel, and King Abdullah has given long-term support and assistance to the Palestine-Israel peace talks. While dissolving the government, the King had dialogues with leaders of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood to cope with the dissatisfaction of the public. However it remains uncertain whether the situation in Jordan will be problem-free.

To Israel, the passage of the Iranian fleet through the Suez Canal signifies an uplifting of Iran’s strategic position and its influence, and this will boost the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and its local branches, Lebanese Hezbullah and other forces which uphold persistently anti-American and anti-Israel policies. What should be mentioned in particular is that there is a possibility that Hamas on Palestinian territories will win general election in July 2011 following a consensus on internal reconciliation reached between the Hamas and Fatah, and after the announcement made by Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas not to participate in the presidential election of the Palestinian National Authority. Turkey is showing a strong tendency to move closer to Arab countries by implementing a policy of eastward and southward drive. President Abdullah Gul of Turkey paid a visit to Iran from February 13-16, 2011 to seek an increased cooperation. This constituted an unfavorable posture to Israel since Turkey and Israel had more clashes concerning humanitarian assistance ships. The overall situation in the Middle East is moving to a direction favorable to anti-Israel forces, and this is a reality Israel can not accept. President Netanyahu has made it clear that Israel will strengthen its military force to cope with the evolving situation.

All these challenges have caused severe clashes between America’s idealistic interests and realistic interests.

To sum up, the evolving Middle East situation has brought about the following setbacks to America: diminishing allies in Arab states, increasing threats from Iran, and declining security for Israel, the most important ally of America. The continued deteriorating situation in Libya has caused a fluctuation of world oil price. In Iraq, the situation is not stable yet, and America has still not got itself completely free from the trouble there. All these changes have caused severe clashes between America’s idealistic interests based on democracy and values and its realistic interests based on economic benefits and security. And Washington finds it more difficult to coordinate and make choice concerning interest objectives and policy implementations. Fundamentally speaking, the current political upheaval in the region poses the most complicated challenge to America since the end of the Cold War. At the same time, America is faced with the challenging situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the scope of the greater Middle East region. These two challenges interact and intensify with each other and are likely to damage America’s strategic interests in the greater Middle East, threaten American security and even shaken its foundation of global hegemony.

III. America Faces Major Readjustments of Its Middle East Strategy

Taking into account of the above-mentioned complex reality and severe potential challenges, Washington has to take prompt measures to manage crisis and readjust its strategy.

First of all, America has to reassure its Arab allies, repair their relationships which have been hurt and shaken, and reduce direct and short-term damages caused by the current situation.In dealing with crises, many Mid-east states believe that America’s influence in the region is declining and they also question the credibility of America as an ally. Even Israel which is the most intimate and important American ally is no exception. On the one hand Israel seeks more security reassurance from the Obama Administration by asking a military aid of US$20 billion, and on the other hand it tries to find aid and assistance from other countries. Director-General Rafi Barak of the Israeli Foreign Ministry said that Israel could not rely solely on one ally; it should develop diversified bilateral alliances and establish closer relations with emerging powers in the region. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during his visit to Russia in March 2011, looked for more supports to the peace talks with Palestine. To prevent Arab countries’ drifting-away tendency and a rapid declining of the U.S. influence in the region, and minimize short-term and direct damages to its interests, Washington carries out different policies towards countries in different conditions, in an attempt to seek a balance between its long-term strategy of expanding democracy and the maintenance of stable regional allies. Many American high-ranking officials, including Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen and Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, make efforts to keep “active contacts” with the countries concerned through channels of phone calls, meetings with ambassadors in Washington and visits, to reaffirm the security commitments to Israel, Jordan and other important partners, and give supports to countries, Yemen and Bahrain in particular, for their stabilizing measures such as firm suppressions and energetic push for reforms. The provision of assistance to the countries concerned for their social and economic development is still the ways and means the U.S. uses to exert its influence. America’s economic and military aids to the Middle East in its 2011 annual budget is over US$7 billion, (excluding reconstruction in Iraq), with Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon being still the main recipients. Washington makes it one of its priorities at present and sometimes in future to exert its influence to the future political build-up in Egypt. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates paid respective visits to Egypt to contact political forces. As a positive response to their demands, America will provide a new package of economic aid of US$150 million on the basis of continued annual military assistance of US$1.3 billion.

A second, the United States gives continued supports to the Mid-east democratization, in particular the cyberfreedom, and the development of civil society and youth movement, in order to assure its dominating position in the evolving situation.Prior to the 9/11 event, when America’s two major objectives of democracy and stability clashed and America had to make a choice, it often opted for the stability at the cost of democracy. After the 9/11 event, the Bush Junior Administration, in light of its strategic perception of reform to the greater Middle East, focused on supporting democracy and exerted pressures on its Arab allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia and pushed for democratic reforms including general elections in these countries. The Obama Administration, through flexible approaches of more dialogues and active proposals, encourages the countries concerned to take an initiative to develop democracy. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke in unequivocal terms that America would give an impetus to the development of cyber-freedom, NGOs and social networks of Arabic languages. The purpose is to influence the social and political development in Arab countries. According to the statistics published by the United Nations in November 2010, young people under the age of 30 account for 60% of the whole population in the Islamic Middle East countries, and 56% of them are netizens who use Internet every day. This means taking a grip of the young people’s political trends will help manipulate the political situation in these countries to a great extent.

A third, the United States is considering a change in its policy towards Islamist forces, and accumulating motivating force and possibility to readjust its relations with major players there and to reshape the political configuration in the region.America’s policy dilemma in dealing with Islamist forces in the face of the current upheaval has made it more difficult for the U.S. to have a policy shift. While clearly expressing its supports to the Middle East states for their development of a Western-style democracy and civil society, the United States is very much concerned about a rapid and excessive expansion of radical and terrorist Islamist forces. Being tempered in the changing situation, those broad-based local forces like the Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jordan, Turkey’s Justice and Development Party, and Iranian Mullahs all have increased their influences, driven by the rising regional awareness of keeping the initiative in their own hands. This has brought about more difficulties for Washington to choose the policy: America will be in an unfavorable position in the Middle East if it could not pull itself out of the above-mentioned dilemma; or America has to change its cognition and policy of the Islamism so as to prevent a further decline of its influence or to regain the initiative in the region. In 2006 Hamas gained the power by winning election in Palestine and this brought about strong setbacks to America. Since then there is a growing voice in America which calls for a policy change in accordance with fresh realities in the Middle East, especially that Hezebollah and Muslim Brotherhood have given up their drive for theocratic regimes and moved gradually to become reformist political parties. It also calls for the administration to redefine Islamism, to avoid distinguishing political forces simply by pro-America or pro-Iran, pro-Israel or anti-Israel, moderate or radical, and Islamist or secularist, etc. This voice also seeks to work out a strategic concession with Iran. In this respect a series of articles focused on “reshaping the Middle East” were published by the Foreign Affairs on 9/10 issue of 2010, including “beyond Moderates and Militants”,“Bring Israel’s Bomb Out of the Basement”, “How to Handle Hamas” and “An Unlikely Trio: Can Iran, Turkey and the United States Become Allies?”, etc. In the present upheaval, the Foreign Affairs in its 3/4 issue of 2011 once again published articles to discuss issues of whether to contain Iran or to seek a strategic concession with Iran. The United States is expected to find it increasingly urgent and possible to make major policy readjustments and have a strategic turnover if its strategic dilemma worsens in future.

And finally, America will use the solution of Libya question as a breakthrough and opportunity to reshape its strategy in North Africa and even a broader area.In cooperation with its European allies, Washington resorts to the UN 1973 Resolution on Libya and the protection of civilians as its legal basis to carry out large-scale air strikes against Libya, in order to help the Libyan opposition get Gaddafi out of power. Although America claimed that its interest concerns in the Middle East are more important than those in Libya, the situation in Libya has a direct impact on the overall situation in the region. Taking into account the fact that Libya is rich in oil and gas resources in Africa and occupies an important location leading to Western and Central-Southern Africa, the United States is making full use of the opportunity of regime-change to turn Libya into a strategic pillar in Africa in future. During this process, America, instead of playing a leading role as it usually did in the past, is relying more on the UN, NATO and other multilateral mechanisms, and encouraging the EU with Britain and France as the leaders, and other important regional organizations like Arab League, Gulf States Cooperation Organization and African Union to play a bigger role in the settlement of Libyan issue. Such a policy change might lead to new games of competition and cooperation in the Middle East among major powers and related multilateral mechanisms.

The present turbulence in the Middle East has a deep“seismic” source. It is the result of chronic problems of longterm population growth, high unemployment rate and severe disparity of wealth, interwoven with new problems of food shortage and financial crises, leading to an eruption and rapid intensification of social and political contradictions. And the turmoil has been accelerated by networks like Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, SMS and other means of communications, and caused a regional and even world-wide turmoil. The Middle East states, whether there is a government change or not, are bound to make reforms and policy changes to various extents. The whole region is expected to enter into a new period of turbulence, transformation and reshaping. As a result, the political landscape in the region will be redrawn. A regional regrouping of forces will take place, with some of them becoming ambiguous and complex. Under such a long-lasting complicated turbulence, the United States has to face major challenges in its Middle East strategy readjustment.

Gao Zugui is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of the International Strategic Studies of the Central Party School.