U.S. strategy to restore balance to the Middle East
In
the event of unrest and instability that dominated the Middle East, is
on Martin Indyk, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Studies
Brookings Institution, and Tamara Coffman responsible program of reform
in the Arab World at the Saban Center to develop a strategy
constructively to restore balance in the Middle East, as part of a
series (Chance 2008) interested in developing strategies and policies for the next U.S. president.
The study focused titled "re-balance in the Middle East .. some constructive strategy of containment" I have to divide the Sunni - Shiite and redrawing the U.S. role in the region has become a strong challenge for the next U.S. president. Which requires the need to return to work on many levels:
First, the need to revitalize diplomatic "balance of power" and confirm the consistency between values and American interests.
Second, work to contain the Iraqi civil war.
Third, the strong support of moderation
Fourth, to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, and finally support the democratic transition in the region.
The study points out that Iran has succeeded in extending arc of influence from Baghdad to Beirut via Damascus, an arc radicals, according to the study, which has increased strength because of the mistakes the United States in the region, and poor performance in Iraq, the stalemate of the peace process on the Arab level - the Israeli and the inability to stop Iran's nuclear ambition.
And draws the study drew attention to it is naive to divide the region into a strong moderate and other hard-line only, or between Sunni and Shia, the problem facing the next U.S. president is very complicated because the United States no longer controls the territory, and will be the new president will seek to support the coalition moderation in order to rein in Iran in the region.
That any future U.S. strategy in the Middle East must be based on the following elements:
- Renew efforts to Bhlhalh Arab - Israeli conflict and could lead to disengagement from Syria to Iran.
- To contain the repercussions of the civil war in Iraq.
- Negotiations with Iran must be aimed at reducing nuclear ambitions, and held bilateral negotiations in order to reduce the fears of its neighbors.
- Develop regional security arrangements to contain the Iranian threat and prevent a nuclear arms race in the region, in order to protect allies from falling under a nuclear umbrella.
- Develop an agenda for political and economic reform may contribute to the drafting of a new social contract between Arab governments and their peoples.
- In the least stable should focus on building democratic institutions, instead of interest only to conduct a fair election.
Find an effective strategy
Study points out that the new U.S. president, regardless of its name, will be forced to search for an effective strategy to protect American interests in the region and have to start this strategy by understanding what is happening there on the ground, and then determine what the United States can do.
In this respect it should be paying attention to two things, first is the nature of the strong competition between Sunnis and Shiites, and which has been lurking under the surface for many centuries, has now emerged because of the sectarian fighting in Iraq, which is the latest split between two large, one Shiite-led Iran, the second Sunni-led Saudi Arabia, Egypt and all the stream contains inside extremists and moderates, which will inevitably prompt the United States to support the moderates against the extremists.
The second thing is reduced U.S. ability to influence the course of the situation in the region and is worth mentioning that the U.S. influence in the politics of the region has reached the maximum levels of the early nineties after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
But the situation is now completely changed, where suffering of American hegemony over the region of the decline significantly, affected by the dire situation in Iraq, as well as the neglect of Arab-Israeli conflict, at which time it increased the effect of some other powers such as China and Russia.
This weakness in the American area of influence in the region impose on the next president will return to the strategic balance of power, even with its flaws the moral that can result from the application. It also imposes that the next U.S. administration looking to Approaches and new ways to solve problems of the region.
Strategic objectives is an urgent
Taking the study indicates that there are a set of strategic objectives that must be pressing on the next U.S. president work to achieve in order to protect American interests in the region, and these goals are as follows:
• contain the civil war in Iraq, in order to prevent access to the implosion of the rest of the Arab region.
• Support the forces of moderation in the Arab world, which can stand in the face of Iranian influence, and prevent the spread of radical currents in the region. Which can be achieved by pushing the peace process between Arabs and Israel, and strengthening the alliance between the two parties in order to confront Iran.
• prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and creating a security framework to prevent the consequences of any arms race in the Middle East.
• supporting the policies of economic liberalization and expand the scope of political reform in order to comply with the aspirations of the peoples of the region, which may reduce the radical tendencies in countries that alliance ties with the United States.
America and the Arabs .. Conflicting interests
Research shows that there is a contradiction of interests between the United States and the Arabs, despite the warning, "Sunni", which came from Egypt through Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the existence of a Shiite crescent in the region, but the United States did not pay attention to the matter at the beginning.
And so came the war in Lebanon in the summer of 2006 and clarified the nature of the relationship between Syria and Hezbollah and Iran. And the insistence of Syria to thwart the efforts of Egypt in a deal that the launch of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
Arabs reject, according to the study, to extend Iranian influence than just the Gulf region, to Tehran to become a mediator in many of the files Arabic as is the case in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
It also condemns the Arabs along the Shiite crescent from Tehran through Iraq's government, as well as the relationship with the Alawites in Damascus and Hezbollah in Lebanon, according to the study was the war in Lebanon reflect, in fact, a struggle between two great camps, both of which carries a different vision for the future of the Middle East.
First camp includes Hassan Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad and both had a vision to convert the region to the resistance front against Israel and the United States and some Arab regimes.
The second camp fitted inside the leaders of the Sunni Arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Jordan (U.S. allies), and they believe that the Iranian threat is on different levels, not least the impact of letters of Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah, the Arab street.
Not to mention the threat to regional security of the Arab countries that share with the U.S. security umbrella in one.
So was the Arab leaders that the only way to stop the spread of Iranian influence in the region is that the United States to support the Lebanese government, and support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, as well as advancing the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis, and to prevent Iran from expansion in Iraq and stop developing its nuclear program.
But in contrast, the Arab leaders do not agree with Washington in the outlook for some Sunni extremists, according to the study, Hamas does not look like an extremist movement for Arab leaders, and to make friends and improve the relationship with them may lead to disengagement with Iran. The suppression of these leaders against the Sunni resistance in Iraq, and that would lead to an increase in Shiite influence there.
Diplomatic agenda
The study draws attention to the weakness of the American situation in the region has increased the need for the United States to help others, it has proved the failure of the famous saying of President Bush "is not with us is against us."
As a result of the tense situation in Iraq, and the results of the Lebanon war, must be recognized that effective military tool in solving the problems of the region, so you must return to the tool of diplomacy.
May have been understood by some to resort to diplomatic means weakness, as is the case with Iran, but has to be recognized that all the files in the Middle East need to be as much an art of diplomacy to manage the rules of the game there.
- Can be applied to diplomacy through the following points:
- Create an alliance with views of the Alliance of Iranian - Syrian - Iraqi - Hezbollah.
- Follow the cautious diplomacy with Iran based on pressure to halt its nuclear program, and try to push the peace process, Arab - Israeli conflict.
- To persuade Arab allies need to put more effort in the field of political and democratic reform.
- Find a configurable combination of the founders of moderate Arabs and the United States to cope with radical currents.
- Increase financial and economic efforts to promote economic and political transition in friendly countries such as Egypt.
- Test the seriousness of the shift towards Islamic moderation.
And all this according to the opinion of the writer mentioned in the source text, and without comment.
Source: Washington Report - Issue -117
The study focused titled "re-balance in the Middle East .. some constructive strategy of containment" I have to divide the Sunni - Shiite and redrawing the U.S. role in the region has become a strong challenge for the next U.S. president. Which requires the need to return to work on many levels:
First, the need to revitalize diplomatic "balance of power" and confirm the consistency between values and American interests.
Second, work to contain the Iraqi civil war.
Third, the strong support of moderation
Fourth, to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, and finally support the democratic transition in the region.
The study points out that Iran has succeeded in extending arc of influence from Baghdad to Beirut via Damascus, an arc radicals, according to the study, which has increased strength because of the mistakes the United States in the region, and poor performance in Iraq, the stalemate of the peace process on the Arab level - the Israeli and the inability to stop Iran's nuclear ambition.
And draws the study drew attention to it is naive to divide the region into a strong moderate and other hard-line only, or between Sunni and Shia, the problem facing the next U.S. president is very complicated because the United States no longer controls the territory, and will be the new president will seek to support the coalition moderation in order to rein in Iran in the region.
That any future U.S. strategy in the Middle East must be based on the following elements:
- Renew efforts to Bhlhalh Arab - Israeli conflict and could lead to disengagement from Syria to Iran.
- To contain the repercussions of the civil war in Iraq.
- Negotiations with Iran must be aimed at reducing nuclear ambitions, and held bilateral negotiations in order to reduce the fears of its neighbors.
- Develop regional security arrangements to contain the Iranian threat and prevent a nuclear arms race in the region, in order to protect allies from falling under a nuclear umbrella.
- Develop an agenda for political and economic reform may contribute to the drafting of a new social contract between Arab governments and their peoples.
- In the least stable should focus on building democratic institutions, instead of interest only to conduct a fair election.
Find an effective strategy
Study points out that the new U.S. president, regardless of its name, will be forced to search for an effective strategy to protect American interests in the region and have to start this strategy by understanding what is happening there on the ground, and then determine what the United States can do.
In this respect it should be paying attention to two things, first is the nature of the strong competition between Sunnis and Shiites, and which has been lurking under the surface for many centuries, has now emerged because of the sectarian fighting in Iraq, which is the latest split between two large, one Shiite-led Iran, the second Sunni-led Saudi Arabia, Egypt and all the stream contains inside extremists and moderates, which will inevitably prompt the United States to support the moderates against the extremists.
The second thing is reduced U.S. ability to influence the course of the situation in the region and is worth mentioning that the U.S. influence in the politics of the region has reached the maximum levels of the early nineties after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
But the situation is now completely changed, where suffering of American hegemony over the region of the decline significantly, affected by the dire situation in Iraq, as well as the neglect of Arab-Israeli conflict, at which time it increased the effect of some other powers such as China and Russia.
This weakness in the American area of influence in the region impose on the next president will return to the strategic balance of power, even with its flaws the moral that can result from the application. It also imposes that the next U.S. administration looking to Approaches and new ways to solve problems of the region.
Strategic objectives is an urgent
Taking the study indicates that there are a set of strategic objectives that must be pressing on the next U.S. president work to achieve in order to protect American interests in the region, and these goals are as follows:
• contain the civil war in Iraq, in order to prevent access to the implosion of the rest of the Arab region.
• Support the forces of moderation in the Arab world, which can stand in the face of Iranian influence, and prevent the spread of radical currents in the region. Which can be achieved by pushing the peace process between Arabs and Israel, and strengthening the alliance between the two parties in order to confront Iran.
• prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and creating a security framework to prevent the consequences of any arms race in the Middle East.
• supporting the policies of economic liberalization and expand the scope of political reform in order to comply with the aspirations of the peoples of the region, which may reduce the radical tendencies in countries that alliance ties with the United States.
America and the Arabs .. Conflicting interests
Research shows that there is a contradiction of interests between the United States and the Arabs, despite the warning, "Sunni", which came from Egypt through Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the existence of a Shiite crescent in the region, but the United States did not pay attention to the matter at the beginning.
And so came the war in Lebanon in the summer of 2006 and clarified the nature of the relationship between Syria and Hezbollah and Iran. And the insistence of Syria to thwart the efforts of Egypt in a deal that the launch of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
Arabs reject, according to the study, to extend Iranian influence than just the Gulf region, to Tehran to become a mediator in many of the files Arabic as is the case in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
It also condemns the Arabs along the Shiite crescent from Tehran through Iraq's government, as well as the relationship with the Alawites in Damascus and Hezbollah in Lebanon, according to the study was the war in Lebanon reflect, in fact, a struggle between two great camps, both of which carries a different vision for the future of the Middle East.
First camp includes Hassan Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad and both had a vision to convert the region to the resistance front against Israel and the United States and some Arab regimes.
The second camp fitted inside the leaders of the Sunni Arab states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Jordan (U.S. allies), and they believe that the Iranian threat is on different levels, not least the impact of letters of Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah, the Arab street.
Not to mention the threat to regional security of the Arab countries that share with the U.S. security umbrella in one.
So was the Arab leaders that the only way to stop the spread of Iranian influence in the region is that the United States to support the Lebanese government, and support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, as well as advancing the peace process between Palestinians and Israelis, and to prevent Iran from expansion in Iraq and stop developing its nuclear program.
But in contrast, the Arab leaders do not agree with Washington in the outlook for some Sunni extremists, according to the study, Hamas does not look like an extremist movement for Arab leaders, and to make friends and improve the relationship with them may lead to disengagement with Iran. The suppression of these leaders against the Sunni resistance in Iraq, and that would lead to an increase in Shiite influence there.
Diplomatic agenda
The study draws attention to the weakness of the American situation in the region has increased the need for the United States to help others, it has proved the failure of the famous saying of President Bush "is not with us is against us."
As a result of the tense situation in Iraq, and the results of the Lebanon war, must be recognized that effective military tool in solving the problems of the region, so you must return to the tool of diplomacy.
May have been understood by some to resort to diplomatic means weakness, as is the case with Iran, but has to be recognized that all the files in the Middle East need to be as much an art of diplomacy to manage the rules of the game there.
- Can be applied to diplomacy through the following points:
- Create an alliance with views of the Alliance of Iranian - Syrian - Iraqi - Hezbollah.
- Follow the cautious diplomacy with Iran based on pressure to halt its nuclear program, and try to push the peace process, Arab - Israeli conflict.
- To persuade Arab allies need to put more effort in the field of political and democratic reform.
- Find a configurable combination of the founders of moderate Arabs and the United States to cope with radical currents.
- Increase financial and economic efforts to promote economic and political transition in friendly countries such as Egypt.
- Test the seriousness of the shift towards Islamic moderation.
And all this according to the opinion of the writer mentioned in the source text, and without comment.
Source: Washington Report - Issue -117
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق