America, Middle East and the challenges ahead
From our experience of the twentieth century, argued John B. Alterman in his “The Age of Proxy Wars”, basing his argument on the recent happenings in Syria wherein major regional and global powers are resolved to define the future of a country, we have learned a lot about proxy wars. One is how it nurtures […]
From our experience of the twentieth century, argued John B. Alterman in his “The Age of Proxy Wars”, basing his argument on the recent happenings in Syria wherein major regional and global powers are resolved to define the future of a country, we have learned a lot about proxy wars. One is how it nurtures extremism (depending on how one gives meaning to it), as the leading parties are not in most cases affected directly by the consequences of the wars. This is evident in how United States and Russia, each backed by its allies, are shaping the destiny of Syrians today.
Syrian multi-faceted civil war which started about seven years ago as a peaceful uprising when pro-democratic demonstrations erupted in March 2011 in the city of Deraa – inspired by Arab uprisings that destabilized the governments in some countries and on which Barack Obama capitalized to depose American perceived foes in the region – has reached a very critical stage. On 10th May, 2018, Israel launched its most extensive attack on Iranian army camps. The bombardment, first of its kind, was in response to what Israel Defence Forces (IDF) allegedly termed as the first of Iranian rocket attack on its army in Golan Heights, which has brought the two mortal enemies to the brink of war. The question is: why the war is heading to another direction?
It has not come to us as a surprise that Trump has pulled out of Iran nuclear deal on Tuesday 8th May, 2018 that was signed by his predecessor, Barack Obama, calling it “decaying” and “defective at its core”, knowing fully how dangerous pendulum of proxy war is swung by world major powers, namely; US and Russia in Syrian these days.
The Iran nuclear deal was forged between Iran and permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and European Union that shortens Iran’s right to refine “nuclear fuel and requires that the nuclear programme be put only to peaceful usages”, instead of the production of weapons of mass destruction, as Asli Bali and Aziz Rana argued. However, the deal may slow down Iran’s progress towards its goal, but in his “Iran Nuclear Deal Will Hunt the Middle East” Luke Goffey believes that Iran may be the significant threat in the region maybe because it has snake into Iraq, Yemen and now Syria.
Many analysts have called US’s decision a “profound mistake” as Joe Biden has written – taking into consideration “the years the deal has taken”, strenuous diplomacy involved, and soft-landing it enjoyed from the international communities.
A critical look at the whole saga will lead one to a sudden shift in Trump’s stand from an indecisive candidate then who believed that it was “very hard to decide” on the destiny of the deal to a die-hard ant-Iranian nuclear deal to support Benjamin Netanyahu and the hard-line Israel side of the Middle East “peace negotiations” if it may be called one, as Anthony Zucher would phrased it, you know proxy war is secret war that hardly exposes the intentions and the parties involved.
Two gaps need to be filled to understand where the world is heading to, whether to a cul-de-sac that will never allow the globe to swell or open-endedness that will serve as a springboard to the emergence of other “authoritarian states” perhaps Russia and China. This will be determined by the fate of the impoverished United Nations and relationship between America, multilateral cooperation and international constraints.
For one, by finally cutting down its funding, which will be slashed by over $28 million, America is gradually giving the United Nations a coup de grace (blow of mercy to wrench out the remaining growl it possesses). This reduction would also be applied to the United States’ management of internal security. Beyond the surface are devastating consequences. Such reduction will weaken vital counter-terrorism missions, peacekeeping, humanitarian, health and different development programmes at this trying time when global problems of both security and stability are worsening. America’s decision will have catastrophic consequences on many lives – consider the recent outbreak of cholera and chemical attacks that left more than 80 people dead in Syria and the fresh outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo and what will happen If America finally ditches its humanitarian aids.
Reports have it that the health security team Ziemar was leading in Congo has left which is a clear indication that US is underprepared for any pandemic. Whether the approach will bode well is a topic of another day. Although there are debates of Russia and China taking over the responsibilities when the US finally decides to shake it off, the claim needs the test of time to be proven true.
Two, there are too much contradictions in US’s authoritarian relationship with regards to multilateral ties: US may have embarked on a mission that would loosen its military muscles and international hegemony by going against some of the policies it once preached such as principals of declaration of independence: self-governance, universal equality and personal liberty, as many commentators predict. However those commentators need some rethink on what would be the aftereffect of this twisted knot of war – whether Iran deserves kid-glove treatment or not due to the threat it poses in the region is evident in its direct involvement in the Syrian war.
This argument can also be built on the idea that America lacks the required respect for international ties, treaties, whatever. The Bush administration’s military enterprise in Iraq and Afghanistan that side-lined the international order, Obama’s military intervention in Libya, by hiding behind the curtain of counter-terrorism operation and now Trump is aiming to overshadow these American signature achievements by opening more frontiers of war are the cases in point.
One can also reason with argument that Trump is aiming at killing two birds with one stone: one, he wants to obliterate the footsteps of his predecessors’ signature achievements which were built upon wars by creating new wars. Both Bush and Obama have carved niches for themselves in American tradition of building statues upon wars. While W. Bush invaded Iraq in the year 2003 based on an allegation that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction that was later proved to be blatant lies, Obama spearheaded the military intervention in Libya in 2011 under the guise of saving the lives of peaceful, pro-democracy protestors who found themselves under the thorny shoes of the then Muammar Al-Qaddafi.
Ultimately, by pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, Jonathan Marcus, BBC diplomatic and defense correspondent wrote, Trump is clearing ways for a new “and catastrophic regional war in the weakened and battle-destroyed Middle East”. The danger, in the final analysis, is not overestimating the risk of war by Trump’s action; but underestimating its consequences on the region.
Trump’s recent decision is signaling the “Final death throes of U.S global leadership”, hence the end of the America’s century-long dictatorship in the world and the rise of possibly two super powers, namely, China and Russia wrote Asli U. Bali. True or not, time will tell. But for sure “Trump’s worldview of “America First” will not augur well for the international collaboration required for global security and health; and it cast doubt on Truimp’s top priority of making America stronger and safer.
AbdulHamid wrote this piece from Kano