Δημοσιεύθηκε από το Κυπριακό Κέντρο Ευρωπαϊκών και Διεθνών Υποθέσεων
του Πανεπιστημίου Λευκωσίας
(Περιοδική έκδοση InDepth Vol.11 Issue 5 / 16.10.2014)
Published by the Cyprus Centre of European and International Affairs
University of Nicosia
The
ISIL has succeeded to change the Western agenda in the Middle East
within months, through their key military moves in Iraq and the
north-eastern Syrian territories and by means of a systematically
conducted psychological warfare through internet and social media. Following
the video footages of the Islamic State's military operations and
beheadings of western journalists and humanitarian aid workers, Western
and the Middle Eastern states are facing an unprecedented strategic
consensus. The numerous regional players are ostensibly setting aside
their contradictory interests and unilateral endeavors, reacting
positively to the formation of an American-led multidisciplinary
coalition against radical Jihadism, in general and ISIL, in particular.
President
Barak Obama in a dramatic televised address on 11.9.2014, called for a
regional alliance against the ISIL. Nevertheless, such a consensus
should not be misinterpreted that long-standing differences in the
region would ultimately disappear. On the contrary, it would not be
cynical to assess that the ISIL threat will eventually prove itself as
an important opportunity for the various regional players to promote
their own interests, which contradict those of their meant-to-be
temporary allies.
The
US administration for the last decade has failed to bring peace and
stability to Iraq. The US has failed to promote the peace negotiations
between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Washington was proven to
be reluctant to force an end to the Syrian civil war. American efforts
to bring Israel and Turkey back together did not reach any results.
US-Iran relations did not show any amelioration. The US has failed, so
far to impose a strong stance on the dispute over the natural gas
reserves between Turkey and Cyprus which could lead to the island's
reunification and to the end of the Turkish military occupation, while
the Kurdish rebels seem to be gaining points in the regional strategic
mosaic – a fact that Ankara is watching very closely. After the recent
conflict in Gaza, Egyptian President Al-Sissi reassessed his country's
pro-Western stance. Qatar, despite its strong ties with
the US-administration and the West, appears to have alienated itself
towards the other GCC countries and Egypt when it comes to exclusively
Arab affairs and this has resulted in Doha's diplomatic isolation from
its Arab counterparts. On the other hand, the internationally
delegitimized Bashar Al-Assad's regime in Damascus is being reinforced
on the ground, although the situation recently in the Syrian-Israeli
border is considered to be unstable.
The
general impression is that the US under the Obama administration does
not have – or is not willing to have- the same strong influence in the
Middle Eastern status quo, an area where for the past decades,
Washington has proven to be the main decision maker. Whether this
impression is rightly or wrongly, in an effort to boost a new era of US
policy in the region, the Obama administration seems ready to reclaim
its power and especially its prestige in the Middle East – and ISIL
could be the best opportunity in order to achieve this goal.
Targeting
a common enemy that is threatening all the regional players could be an
opportunity for regional cooperation and a practical way to prove that
the US is still able to determine facts and form alliances. After many
setbacks in the military, political and diplomatic arena, the US is
trying now to reshuffle the deck by offering a common ground, reminding
the regional political leaderships that Washington is the only factor
that still can overcome the numerous 'red lines' which have been drawn
during the unipolar international reality formed after the Cold War.
The
creation of a broad, regional Middle Eastern alliance is not
impossible, but not at all easy either. Israel seems to be suspicious
towards the US-Iranian rapprochement and Tehran's willingness to become a
part of the American Mid-East strategy since this new factor, according
to the Israeli point of view, might devaluate Israel's
exclusivity as the most reliable US ally while the Iranian nuclear
program remains high on the Israeli agenda. The traditionally
pro-Western Sunni Arab States, such as Saudi Arabia and its GCC
counterparts share most of the same fears by this unexpected American
openness towards previously isolated Iran. Nevertheless, intrusive
Qatari policy is continuing to preoccupy various Sunni leaderships which
have succeeded to remain intact despite the turbulences caused by the
so-called Arab Spring and are not willing to tolerate any kind of
internal political destabilization. Egypt is re-experiencing its
pro-Western past, with President Al-Sissi's fidelity to the well-known
Mubarak doctrine by re-establishing good relations with Israel and the
Saudis. Even so, Cairo is trying to exclude Turkey and Qatar, whose main
goal is to broaden their influence by forming their own agenda and
their newly discovered common grounds. Turkey on the other hand is
focusing on the Kurdish issue and is severely preoccupied by the western
and Israeli encouragement towards the emerging Kurdish factor in Syria.
On the other hand, the Assad regime is hoping to utilize its remaining
powers on the ground in order to regain its long-lost political and
diplomatic legitimacy, reminding the Obama administration and its
regional allies –even Israel- that Damascus' secularity could still
become a strong asset in order to repel radical Islam, the only
strategic factor threatening Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds – not to mention the
West and Turkey.
While
Washington is trying to keep control in this complex strategic and
diplomatic chess game, it is still not clear which Middle-Eastern
country will actually dispose its military ground forces, while the
other Western European countries do not seem to want any direct military
intervention – except for the United Kingdom, France and other EU
member states when it comes to airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. In the
meantime, Washington has gained political and diplomatic support against
ISIL. Nonetheless, and despite Turkey's recent decision to play more
active role to the military operations on the ground, the US
administration has not yet ensured an alliance, that it will be willing
to operate with ground forces in Iraq and Syria, by overcoming political
and ideological differences, as well as unilateral endeavors of each
and every player in the Levant, the Gulf and the South East
Mediterranean region.
In
order to reshuffle the deck effectively, the US will need to consider
their strategic allies' goals. Meeting their demands is a sine qua non
for the creation of a reliable cohesive factor against the ISIL – this
brand-new common enemy that even if it hadn’t existed, it seems like it
should have been invented long ago.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου