The Middle East and the New Sham Project; fantasies or Real politique

 

The Middle East and the New Sham Project; Fantasies or

 Real Politique

by

Dr. Michael Sakbani

A look backward

After ww1, the British strategic plan for the Middle- East, was to put their hand on the newly discovered oil in Iraq, Kuwait  and Iran. With energy under their control, they thought their British Empire, will prosper and survive.

The Sykes- Picot secret accord divulged by the Bolsheviks in 1917 marked a high water level in duplicity and double dealings. The gullible Sharif  of Mecca, Hussain bin Ali, in his correspondence with Henry McMahon, the British representative diplomat in Cairo, was promised an Arab kingdom in the Asian part of the Ottoman lands if he launches the Arab revolution against the Ottoman Turks. The Sharif did his part, but the British signed behind his back the Sykes-Picot accord in which they divided these lands between themselves and the French, thereby transporting the Arabs from Turkish suzerainty to Western colonial occupation for decades.

On the heels of that, the Balfour declaration, was given to the Jews and the British appointed a Zionist, Sir Herbert Samuel, to manage their mandate over Palestine. When Israel was established at the end of the British mandate, the Eastern Middle East would be severed from Egypt.

 In the 1940s oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia by American drilling. Thus, the US joined the British in energy suzerainty.  

In the 1950s Iran inversed the Pahlavi regime and brought to power a nationalist government headed by Dr. Moussadegh, which proceeded to nationalize the British Oil Company. The CIA under Allen Dulles did not approve of this action. Dulles and his brother John- Foster, the US`Secretary of State, ordered the CIA middle East station manager Kermit Roosevelt to organize a coup in Iran led by General Fazlullah Zahidi to restore the Shah and depose Prime Minister Moussadegh. Soon after, the Americans replaced the British there.

A 20th Century Strategy in the 21^st Century  

After the tragic events of 11/9, Condoleezza Rice, the US` Secretary of State floated the project of the new larger Middle East, a project that aims at integrating Israel into this new Middle East, which should be divided into smaller sectarian and ethnic states, less dangerous to Israel. The idea was the brain-child of David Ben-Gurion, who voiced it out as the ultimate security for Israel.

Some of the ideas in Rice`s project are now floated again after several Gulf states recognized Israel and normalized their relationship with it. The new project, in addition to normalizing with Israel, aims at, eventually, bringing the prevailing authoritarian regimes to accept a measure of sharing power with their people to stabilize the area and, as a complement, ushering a measure of economic well-being to the people.

In the actual situation at this moment, there are now two groups of God -fathers shepherding different schemes: the Iranians and Chinese on one hand, and the US- Gulf states on the other.

The Iranians want to establish energy-transport lines from Iraq through Syria to the Mediterranean, which passes by Northern Syria, where the Kurds are in control. This is a resurrection of the Iranian dream of the Shiite-Crescent. However, Turkey has for the time-being blocked this project by its military intervention in Syria. Given that, the pipe-lines might be moved South to get to Lebanon through Syria and end up in Sour (Tyre) on the Mediterranean.

The Chinese want to come to the Middle- East to secure energy supplies, open markets for their exports, invest and establish binding trade and consequential debt relations. This is in fulfillment of their Silk-Road project for which billions are allocated. Their relationship to Tehran is the starting point in this scheme through the Middle- East.

The US -Gulf project is to transport energy from Southern Iraq and the Gulf  through Jordan and Syria to Haifa-Israel. Israel is behind this scheme, and the US therefore can be counted upon to give its support despite its peripheral interest in the matter.

Syria presents a geographic problem to this scheme. The scheme, however, would be implemented regardless of whether Assad stays in power or goes. However, the economic interest of several states, in particular Jordan, could not wait long for a real viable Syrian peace settlement. Therefore, various Gulf states in addition to Jordan have changed their position on Assad and the political solution to the Syrian problem and opted instead to reestablish their relationship with Assad and refloat his regime.

One is right to wonder if such a policy make much sense in this time of energy transformation. Oil and gas are combustibles needed for only a decade or a few more years while the world economy transition to carbon- free state. Alternatives to oil and coal are already cheaper, even though they are still in short supply. But that is only for a few more years. It is a question of a short time when gas, and particularly oil, as energy sources, should become obsolete. The world is fast transforming to renewable energy. And just as important, the environmental green technology and climate awareness are changing the way people eat, build, drive and live.

Examination of the Geo-Politics

 Russia is a crucial player in Syria, but on these pipe-lines it is more or less neutral. If its interests and investments in Syria, can be assured, the Gulf leaders think it would go along. The Iranians and the Chinese do not entirely disagree but the Iranians, for the sake of rhetoric, would prefer the Lebanese end of the line, postponing normalization with Israel to use it as a bargaining chip in their negotiations with the US on a possible return to the nuclear deal thrown out by President Trump.

 That the Syrian people political problem with the regime was ignored does not seem to matter. It is believed that economic gains might overlay the sacrifices and the blood of the Syrian people. To this end, the proponents are seeking the US green light to re-construct Syria and invest in it without incurring the penalties of the Caesar- law.

Another motive is the idea that by bringing Syria back to the Arab fold, Assad might kick out the Iranians or at least be able to resist them. A third justification is that with stability, Assad might change his regime's behavior and allow real power-sharing with the majority Arab-Sunnis.

These ideas in the heads of the  gulf states leaders are suppositions that run contrary to all that we know. In the first place, Assad knows that he is an exchangeable currency as far as the Russians are concerned. He knows that the Russians would eventually want to reduce their presence in Syria, which requires a political settlement with the opposition that secures their interests. This would enable them to use Syria as a bargaining chip in their dealings with the West. On the other hand, he knows that the Iranians support him to the hilt, because his regime has offered them everything. The regime and Assad are indispensable instruments for Iran`s hegemonic designs in the Middle East and its position in Lebanon. Assad realizes that on the ground, the Iranians are stronger than the Russians, and have numerous agents, including people in his entourage. Furthermore, after the Ukranian crisis, the Russians have handed to the Iranians most of what they control. Today, Iran controls all the power levers in Syria. Assad has no control and no ability to do anything without the consent of the Iran. 

In the second place, after 11 years of war, the regime has offered absolutely nothing. All it accepts is a return to the ex-poste- ante. It would never accept sharing the levers of power with an elected majority. These levers include reorganizing the army and the security forces, and electing a parliament under a civilian transitional authority organizing free election under the UN supervision. The regime knows that If it plays fair, it will lose control and all its beneficiaries would lose their corrupt levies. So, for it, sharing control is nonnegotiable. It holds on the premise that it is either a dictatorship or disappearance.

Karl Marx remarked that economics dictates policies. But that requires a consenting non-aggrieved  populous. The blood and destruction that Assad wrought upon Syria, the crimes his regime has committed, and the sacrifices of Syrian sovereignty he banded all around, are all there screaming for accountability. The partisans of the new Sham are building castles in the sand if they ignore the sufferings of the Syrian people and give no head to their democratic aspirations.

The oil exporting small states of the Gulf have simmering political and demographic problems, and their long-term interests surely lie with the consent and support of the people of their region. That necessarily extends to those of the large populated Arab countries, and not fanciful economic schemes imagined by autocratic sheikhs.  

Israel is a part in this fanciful scheme. It is a real puzzle in this scene how a successful, developed country like Israel, founded by the iron will and imagination of its people, is so blinded by its Zionism that it does not seize this historical opportunity to settle reasonably its conflict with the Palestinians and live in just peace with its Arab neighbors. Its normalization with autocratic sheikhs will bring it no acceptance by the Arab people. The Middle East does not only lack stability and peace, but equally, it lacks good, let alone visionary, leaders.

Geneva, 14/11/2021.