FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Obama’s Multi-Polar Middle East

Back in the Bush days we had “the Greater Middle East” — born on the way to a G8 summit in 2004. To some, the term was a source of humor in a part of the world with little to laugh about. To others, the nomenclature could not counter the perception of American control over the region either directly or through its ally, Israel.

Now, in less than 100 days of its existence, the Obama Administration has uncovered a very different Middle East: a more multi-polar region where power is balanced between several actors. This mirrors the global realignment that the new administration is dealing with as a result of the military and economic excesses of its predecessors.

The move toward a multi-polar Middle East is incidental to special envoy George Mitchell’s mandate as he shuttles through the region. But it is important for Barack Obama’s smarter nuclear strategy, which situates the engagement with Iran within a declared United States goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

Two strands of this strategy are worth mentioning here. The first is the tacit recognition — in Obama’s Prague speech — that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has been breached by the very nations that have the power to uphold it.

The P5 — the UN Security Council’s five permanent, veto-wielding members — were supposed to eliminate their nuclear arsenals after the NPT was signed in 1970. They have not, and have left the other 183 NPT signatory nations the choice of living under the P5’s nuclear shadow or trying to acquire their own nuclear weapons.

A goal of US and Russian reduction of nuclear warheads is the second key strand of Obama’s strategy. But if this is to make sense then countries that have not signed the NPT must be brought into the fold. In the Middle East, this means India, Israel, and Pakistan. India and Pakistan are each believed to have some 35 nuclear devices. Israel’s nuclear stockpile is said to contain anywhere from 100 to 400 nuclear devices.

With two of the P5 committed to reducing the nuclear weapons they are asking Iran to forswear, the United States decision to engage directly in the P5+1 (Germany) talks with Iran becomes much more meaningful. Obama’s strategy appears to be also sending a quiet message to China, Britain, and France: One day, they too must bite the nuclear bullet.

Obama has not gone soft on Iran. The media has focused on Iran’s rebuff of his Persian New Year greeting. Less reported is the fact that his message came just a few days after America re-imposed sanctions against Iran, something that was not lost on that country’s leadership.

By contrast, the Iranian leadership has welcomed the less flowery but more significant US reengagement in the P5+1 talks.

In the Obama era’s multi-polar Middle East, Iran is being treated as a regional power with valid security concerns. Close observers of the US-Iranian courtship believe that the two are seeking a strategic rather than a tactical relationship.

Work on this strategic relationship is reportedly being managed through the National Security Council rather than the State Department. This further sidelines the hawkish Dennis Ross, whose appointment as Hillary Clinton’s advisor caused alarm in Middle East circles. Despite reports to the contrary, Ross does not — yet — exercise significant influence over the Iran relationship. Any advice he gives is said to go to the NSC.

Beyond Iran, Obama’s trip to Turkey also contributes to the multi-polar Middle East. He saluted Turkey not just as a solid ally but also as a country that is better managing diversity at home and abroad — as a model for the rest of the region.

As Syria slowly steps in from the cold, America’s traditional allies like Egypt and Israel face increasing irrelevance in this new Middle East. But the biggest threat to multi-polarity comes from Israel, which has aggressively guarded its capacity for uncontested deterrence, particularly its unilateral access to nuclear power.

Like its predecessors, the Netanyahu government has said it will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Israel’s threats don’t ring hollow: It destroyed Iraq’s French-built Osirak reactor in 1981, and a suspected Syrian facility in 2007.

So far the United States has kept a firm hand on the leash, but Israel is clearly raring to go. Several of Iran’s 27 nuclear sites are in major cities — Tehran, Isfahan — which would greatly add to the horror of any Israeli attack, and the magnitude of Iran’s response.

Obama’s biggest challenge will be to bring Israel into a multi-polar Middle East. So far he is moving very cautiously, and rightly so, to defuse this ticking bomb. But he is moving.

NADIA HIJAB is a senior fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies.

More articles by:

December 18, 2018
Charles Pierson
Where No Corn Has Grown Before: Better Living Through Climate Change?
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Waters of American Democracy
Patrick Cockburn
Will Anger in Washington Over the Murder of Khashoggi End the War in Yemen?
George Ochenski
Trump is on the Ropes, But the Pillage of Natural Resources Continues
Farzana Versey
Tribals, Missionaries and Hindutva
Robert Hunziker
Is COP24 One More Big Bust?
David Macaray
The Truth About Nursing Homes
Nino Pagliccia
Have the Russian Military Aircrafts in Venezuela Breached the Door to “America’s Backyard”?
Paul Edwards
Make America Grate Again
David Rosnick
The Impact of OPEC on Climate Change
Binoy Kampmark
The Kosovo Blunder: Moving Towards a Standing Army
Andrew Stewart
Shine a Light for Immigration Rights in Providence
December 17, 2018
Susan Abulhawa
Marc Lamont Hill’s Detractors are the True Anti-Semites
Jake Palmer
Viktor Orban, Trump and the Populist Battle Over Public Space
Martha Rosenberg
Big Pharma Fights Proposal to Keep It From Looting Medicare
David Rosen
December 17th: International Day to End Violence against Sex Workers
Binoy Kampmark
The Case that Dare Not Speak Its Name: the Conviction of Cardinal Pell
Dave Lindorff
Making Trump and Other Climate Criminals Pay
Bill Martin
Seeing Yellow
Julian Vigo
The World Google Controls and Surveillance Capitalism
ANIS SHIVANI
What is Neoliberalism?
James Haught
Evangelicals Vote, “Nones” Falter
Vacy Vlanza
The Australian Prime Minister’s Rapture for Jerusalem
Martin Billheimer
Late Year’s Hits for the Hanging Sock
Weekend Edition
December 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
A Tale of Two Cities
Peter Linebaugh
The Significance of The Common Wind
Bruce E. Levine
The Ketamine Chorus: NYT Trumpets New Anti-Suicide Drug
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fathers and Sons, Bushes and Bin Ladens
Kathy Deacon
Coffee, Social Stratification and the Retail Sector in a Small Maritime Village
Nick Pemberton
Praise For America’s Second Leading Intellectual
Robert Hunziker
The Yellow Vest Insurgency – What’s Next?
Patrick Cockburn
The Yemeni Dead: Six Times Higher Than Previously Reported
Nick Alexandrov
George H. W. Bush: Another Eulogy
Brian Cloughley
Principles and Morality Versus Cash and Profit? No Contest
Michael F. Duggan
Climate Change and the Limits of Reason
Victor Grossman
Sighs of Relief in Germany
Ron Jacobs
A Propagandist of Privatization
Robert Fantina
What Does Beto Have Against the Palestinians?
Richard Falk – Daniel Falcone
Sartre, Said, Chomsky and the Meaning of the Public Intellectual
Andrew Glikson
Crimes Against the Earth
Robert Fisk
The Parasitic Relationship Between Power and the American Media
Stephen Cooper
When Will Journalism Grapple With the Ethics of Interviewing Mentally Ill Arrestees?
Jill Richardson
A War on Science, Morals and Law
Ron Jacobs
A Propagandist of Privatization
Evaggelos Vallianatos
It’s Not Easy Being Greek
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail