As much of the Middle East sinks deeper into division between two competing political camps, Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) continues its unhindered march towards a twisted version of a Muslim caliphate. Many thousands have lost their lives, some in the most tortuous ways, so that Daesh may realise its nightmarish dream.
Of course, Daesh’s violence is hardly an anomaly, considering that the group was spawned in a particularly violent environment. It is difficult to imagine, for example, that if the Syrian regime, and its opposition, sought a political solution from the early days of the uprising, Daesh would have found a stable foothold for itself in Syria.
It was during the emergence of the violence carried out by the Syrian regime that Daesh, a dark force that neither believes in democracy, civil rights nor co-existence, appeared. The same scenario was repeated in Iraq and a host of other countries. In an article in the Independent newspaper, Patrick Cockburn, highlighted seven countries where Daesh’s influence is great or growing: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and north-east Nigeria. The group’s “successes have been possible because it is opposed by feeble, corrupt or non-existent governments and armies”, he wrote.
Yemen, which has undergone several stages of political crises — government corruption and violence, a popular uprising followed by a political stalemate, a civil war and finally a regional war — is a case in point. Daesh’s bombs, targeting mostly places of worship, is now another staple in Yemen’s bloody conflict.
Daesh thrives on conflicts, for conflicts set the stage for extreme polarisation in political, ideological and other discourses. Such polarisation has manifested itself in a very violent form of sectarianism that has plagued the Middle East for years. While sectarianism in the region dates back many years, its current expressions are mostly political, with specific goals. Initially, sectarianism distracted from a genuine push for reforms and meaningful political changes as sought by various Arab collectives. At a later stage, it served as a space for regional rivalries between Shiite-majority Iran and Sunni-majority Saudi Arabia.
Regardless of its ideological or religious claims, it is evident that Daesh’s violent vision, if allowed to continue, would constantly translate into greater death tolls from all sides — Sunni and Shiite — Christians, and other minority groups included. But does the situation have to continue to deteriorate at such a massive scale?
In an article in Al Jazeera Arabic, Arab thinker, Fahmi Al Hewaidi wrote in response to Iran’s regional ascendency following its nuclear deal with the US, reached on July 14. He mentioned three alternatives for Arabs in response to the deal: Become even more inclusive and continue to chase an unwinnable war on terror; unite against Iran; or resort to reason, thereby seeking a way to achieve an understanding with Iran.
The third scenario should, by virtue of the need for constructive negotiation, be an ideal or, at the very least, the most tenable point of consideration. It should, necessarily, be a primary focus not just for the Arabs, but for Iran as well. Even reaching a landmark agreement between Iran and the P5+1 (United States, Britain, France, Russia, China plus Germany) is hardly enough to redefine the US political agenda in the Middle East.
Indeed, the fundamentals of the American foreign policy have not changed. In the Middle East, this policy is governed by two overriding variables: One, economic — oil, gas, strategic control and influence — and two, Israel.
Unlike other US allies in the region, Israel has managed to break away from the role of client regime into an entity that has tremendous influence over US policies. Between powerful lobbies and an obedient US Congress, the likes of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have made Israel a top American priority.
Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. Although Netanyahu has angled for war against Iran, his wish is yet to come true. In fact, according to the 100-page-plus agreement, that wish is, perhaps, suspended for at least another 10 years, as Iran has agreed to curb its nuclear capabilities and allow international monitoring. This, in exchange for the lifting of US-led United Nations sanctions, which have greatly harmed the Iranian economy.
Despite the sabre-rattling, fiery speeches and all the chest-thumping that has lasted for years, Israel has lost its battle to lead another regional war against a formidable enemy in the Middle East. Israel has hoped, in vain, for a repeat of the Iraq-war scenario, which was almost a blueprint of Israel’s current attitude towards Iran.
The conflict with Iran was, and remains, a staple in US media, which paints the same horrifying image of the country as it did with Iraq prior to the invasion that resulted in the destruction of the country, and consequently, the region.
That destruction suited Israel well since another obstacle was removed from Israel’s path towards regional dominance. In the meanwhile, though, Iran, expectedly, rushed to secure post-invasion Iraq as an ally, not a springboard for a potential US invasion.
Fearing an empowered Iran, the US policies in Iraq eventually shifted to create a more balanced political equation, by arming Sunni tribes. The hope was that they would fight not only the rising influence of extremist groups, but also homegrown Iraqi resistance. The plan worked to an extent, but Al Sahwat tribal Sunni militias soon found themselves at odds with Shiite groups and, isolated, were eventually targeted by their own Sunni communities for what was perceived as an act of treason.
The American sectarian experiment in Iraq, and the entire region, never truly ceased even long after the troop ‘surge’ of George W. Bush, which, arguably, laid the groundwork for withdrawal under the presidency of Barack Obama.
Working with Iran and against Iran simultaneously has been a trademark American policy, itself symptomatic of America’s opportunistic foreign policy. For the US, it is a matter that goes beyond Sunni and Shiite sectarianism, to exploiting existing differences, which the Americans themselves hyped and manipulated. There should be little confusion that the rise of IS was a direct outcome of US meddling combined with the astounding degree of irresponsibility exhibited by its allies, and foes, in the region. The US is, perhaps, hoping that the 10-year truce with Iran will allow it to re-align its foreign policies to cope with the region’s momentous conflicts, beginning with the crisis of democracy and going on to the rise of Daesh. A decade is long enough, from the perspective of US politics, to co-opt Iran and/or for Washington to regain its Middle East initiative.
However, both Iran and its Arab foes could, in fact, see this as an opportunity. Instead of waiting for the cunning US to regroup and re-adapt to strike more division, Arabs and Iran should understand that it is, ultimately, their countries and people who will continue to suffer the consequences of war, sanctions, divisions and extremism.
By his own admission, in an interview with Thomas Friedman, Obama stated that the US was hardly affected by the sanctions on Iran, although others suffered greatly as a result of the economic siege. This is true in all aspects of US relations with the region. It is, in fact, Arabs and Iranians, Muslims and Christians, and Sunnis and Shiites who are truly suffering the bitterness of conflict.
Thus, it is time for Arabs and Iran to realise that their rivalry is fundamentally hollow and that dominance over a broken, disastrous region is, essentially, frivolous. The Iran nuclear deal should usher in an opportunity for rapprochement among all countries in the region so that they may face US-western meddling and Israeli regional ambitions and bring to an end the bloodbath in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere.
Dr Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London). His website is: www.ramzybaroud.net.
