The “Arab Spring”, over the past 4 years, has caused serious consequences for the countries it swept over. Conflicts and violence in the region are continuously intense and complicated, afflicting people’s life, and there is no way out. What are the causes? And as for the strategic environment of the Middle East with regional and world powers’ considerations and competitions, what is its coming trend?
It is clear that this is a matter of global concern, but the answer to it is still left unsaid. The United Nations reported that since the beginning of “Arab Spring”, the Middle East had experienced complicated and unpredictable developments, such as intensified violence in Iraq and Syria; bloody conflict between Israel and Palestine; Iran’s nuclear program; and especially, increasingly heightened activities of the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (IS). Those are fundamental factors affecting and shaping the regional security picture with mainly dark color.
The war against IS and the geopolitical competition
Vigorously rising as the world’s radical phenomenon, IS quickly occupied many parts of Iraq and Syria, becoming the most notorious terrorist organization of the times. Massacring thousands of innocents and many international journalists, IS has been a global and regional security threat. In response to this, an international coalition led by the U.S. launched series of air strikes targeting IS militants and facilities in Iraq and Syria. However, the results have not met their aspirations yet. Obviously, the war against IS continues to be strengthened.
 |
|
US Secretary of State John Kerry inspecting Baghdad (photo: Reuters) |
International analysts believe that in this war, besides confirming its influence in the region, the U.S. also has other purposes. Of which winning the geostrategic competition between it and other competitors, regarding politics, economics, and military, is the prime purpose with top priority in its global strategy for the region. Politically, through air strikes on IS in Iraq and Syria, the U.S. would like to establish a pro-US Iraqi government against Iran and Syria with a view to weakening Tehran and the Hezbollah, kicking Russia out of the region; also moving forward to the formation of a “Kurdistan Regional Government” in northern Iraq. Moreover, instead of cooperation with Damas Government to enhance the effectiveness of the war against IS, the U.S. supports opposition force called “Free Syrian Army” to isolate, then overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Economically, after the Iraq War (2003), US corporations won almost all of the contracts in the country’s largest reconstruction and oil production projects. Iraq’s volume of oil production for export in June 2014 reached the highest since 2003, which initially signaled its economic recovery. However, IS intense marching to Iraq threatened the US interests in the country; meanwhile the Iraq government was powerless and “disobeyed direction from Washington”. Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, at that time, set close relations with Iran, and publicly fostered relations with China and Russia, concerning the U.S. and the West. What is more, in June 2011, Iraq, Iran, and Syria signed a memorandum of understanding on the construction of a new gas pipeline (1500 km long) connecting the three countries, called “Islamic Highway”. When completed, it would bring great benifits to Syria but “destroy” the Nabucco pipeline project (from Iraq, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Turkey to Europe) which is being promoted by the U.S. and European Union (EU). Therefore, taking advantage of the war against IS, the U.S. and its allies will do their best to fulfil their following goals: breaking down Russia’s exclusiveness in oil and gas supply in Europe; reducing Turkey’s dependence on Iran’s energy; giving Israel an opportunity to export its gas and oil to Europe, and disrupting the supply of energy for China. On the other hand, air strikes on IS were opportunities for the U.S. and its allies to test their new weapons and the capability to neutralize Syria’s Russian air-defence system. This was also a good chance to annul their nearly invalidating weapons as it would be costly to destroy them.
Turmoil, crisis and conflict in several countries create favourable conditions for the US “Great Middle East” strategy
In 2014, al-Maliki government’s inappropriate internal policy put Iraq into more severe contradiction and crisis. Taking advantage of the situation, the Kurdistan forces in the North, who advocate their separation, occupied the city of Kirkuk to bargain with Iraq government over the establishment of their “Autonomy State”. Under pressure of parties in the Government and that of the U.S., Iraq Prime Minister al-Maliki had to resign, and a new pro-US government was formed. That provided Washington with a significant foundation to control other crucial points in the Middle East. At present, the U.S. is aiming at 3 large bases in Iraq, namely the airport in the suburbs of Baghdad, Tallil Air Base and Basrah airport. These bases are located in strategic road lines containing the pipeline to Jordan. If the U.S. can control them, it can lay siege to and block Iran and Syria when necessary.
As for Syria, after winning the Presidential election in June 2014, President al-Assad and his government gradually restored control over strategic areas; advocated peaceful solutions to crisis; annulled their stocks of chemical and biological weapons on the United Nations’ schedule and showing their wish to cooperate with the West in the struggle against IS. Replying to Syria’s goodwill, the U.S. and the West refused it and even established a no-fly corridor along borders of Turkey and Jordan using this area to gather weapons and train the “Free Syrian Army”; at the same time, isolating and weakening Syria army. In spite of a number of significant results gained, Syria government has not yet been powerful enough to take back its territories, even losing the upper hand. Meanwhile, the United Nations believe that Damas government and oppositional armed groups should be responsible for people’s “untold misery”. This shows that Syrian crisis is still complicated and hard to solve.
As for peace process between Israel and Palestine, even though they achieved an indefinite ceasefire after the bloody conflict (within 50 days) in Gaza Strip, resolving differences between the two sides has seen no considerable progress. That Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has just taken his fourth term, advocated not recognizing an independent Palestine state makes the peace process much more difficult.
Moreover, Iran’s nuclear program is still an unknown. Doing series of searches for a strategic partnership, the U.S. has not yet found really reliable state which can help increase the US strategic influence in the Middle East. Having an important geostrategic position and being rich in oil and gas sources, Iran thus becomes a target for the U.S. in the region. Accordingly, the U.S. wishes to improve its relations with Iran to gradually involve the country into its orbit. As for Iran, it also would like the U.S. and the West to lift their sanctions for its economic development and internal stabilization. On April 2nd, 2015, relevant sides agreed on a framework for a final, comprehensive deal on Iran nuclear program. However, immediately the framework was rejected by Arab Saudi, Qatar, and Israel, threatening both Iran and the Middle East security.
International analysts suppose that all of the moves above first and foremost resulted from the existing differences within and among countries in the region; at the same time, being impacted by calculation and geopolitical competition of the major powers both inside and outside the region; in which the US “Great Middle East” plays a key role. At present, Washington advocates the implementation of the American-style freedom strategy in the Middle East with a view to extending political rights of Islamic people so that they can fight against extremism in each country. By doing this, the U.S. can polish its image in the eyes of Islamic world and make it easy to control and engage in the important geostrategic region.
The foreseeable trend
The existing destabilization factors including civil war, ethnic tension, power competition among regional countries, and the rise of IS continue to make the Middle East complicated and unpredictable. The war against IS will continue to extend. Strategic competition and compromise between major powers will be a decisive factor in solving “hot spots” in the Middle East; however, it will be very complicated. Iraq will be in even a deeper crisis due to the authority’s powerlessness, especially its police and army; its new government has not been able to control the situation, depending on the US support. Military engagement with the combination of air strikes and special forces deployment in Iraq will be maintained by the U.S. and its allies. Countries such as Iran, Turkey, Arab Saudi will continue their engagement in Iraq.
Handling Syria crisis through diplomatic channels continues to be the mainstream in the upcoming time, but takes time as directly relevant sides have not yet reached a concession, and the crisis is still dominated by the U.S., Russia, and Iran. In the time to come, Syrian President al-Assad’s administration will push up military campaigns to annihilate Islamic terrorist forces and armed rebellion groups, and gradually control the situation. Peace negotiation between Israel and Palestine continues to be in a stalemate at least until the end of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s seventh term. Iran nuclear program seems to be resolved, especially when the U.S. and Iran are closer. However, a compromise between them will worsen Iran’s relations with countries in the Persian Gulf, especially with Israel and Arab Saudi.
To conclude, the unexpected strategic environment of the Middle East fills with geostrategic calculation of major powers, particularly the US “Great Middle East” strategy. That, together with the rise of IS, makes the region a long-standing “hot spot” hard to resolve in short term.
Major General, Assoc Prof, PhD. Tran Minh Son
Director of B70 Institute, General Department No.2