A sliver of hope in the Middle East
By Victor Kotsev
TEL AVIV - Not that this is news in itself, but the Middle East presents us
with yet another paradox. Amid great turmoil - most recently in Lebanon and
Tunisia - the voices prophesying war have strikingly quieted down.
Major reshuffles are happening on all sides, and at the very least this should
mean that nobody has an interest in major violence in the short term. Surprises
are certainly possible, but right now they need not be the kind of surprises
that lead to war. In fact, it appears increasingly likely that the embattled
Barack Obama administration will get a fresh chance to try diplomacy out.
First of all, a major personnel change is happening at the White House. Obama
is trying to rebuild his core team practically from
scratch, and at least one influential former critic is raving. "This is rapidly
becoming an administration that has as its central foreign policy precept the
idea that strength begins and must be cultivated and preserved at home," writes
David Rothkopf for Foreign Policy. "It is just the kind of inside-out foreign
policy America needs right now and frankly, it is the only kind of foreign
policy approach the American people will support." [1]
The Israeli government - as well as security establishment - is also being
restructured. In a surprise move on Monday, the influential Defense Minister
Ehud Barak, resigned from his party and formed a new faction. The implications
of this move are complex, and in the long term it can be seen as both a sign of
danger and of hope. Neither peace nor war, however, appears imminent.
On the one hand, it is a way for Barak and his Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, to counter some of the pressure of the American administration, and
to keep the option of striking Iran open. This should be understood in the
context of a dramatic reversal in Israeli rhetoric vis-a-vis the Islamic
Republic that took place in the last three weeks.
The outgoing chiefs of several Israeli intelligence agencies, including the
Mossad's legendary Meir Dagan, announced that the projected timetable for an
Iranian nuclear weapon has been delayed by several years, possibly until 2015.
This projection contrasted sharply with previous intelligence estimates, which
pointed to the end of 2011 as the time when Iran would obtain "breakout
capacity". It was, moreover, backed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
and other American officials.
Many saw this as a triumph for the US and Israel, and a confirmation of the
efficacy of the Stuxnet worm, which, according to a recent New York Times
investigation, was a complex cyber weapon developed and tested jointly by the
two allies [2]. However, this is only part of story, as the announcements
reportedly angered Netanyahu and Barak. According to Israeli analyst Aluf Benn,
Dagan's statements "point to an intense debate in the top ranks of the
[Israeli] political-military leadership: to strike or not to strike".
The outgoing army and intelligence chiefs are trying to avert military action,
whereas Netanyahu and Barak are leaning toward a strike. It is not certain who
will come out on top, but at least until the new leadership of the security
establishment is comfortably in place, an attack is most likely out of
question.
The US is pushing hard in support of the moderates, and as part of this
campaign, it tried to utilize the opposition against Barak inside his own
party. [3] By splitting up Labor, Barak pre-empted a move to boot him out of
government. He established a "centrist" party, and it is likely that he is also
hoping to split up the main opposition party, Kadima, which occupies more or
less the same political niche.
A number of Kadima members of the Israeli Knesset (parliament) feel unhappy
with what they perceive as an overly left-wing course of their party, and they
may be tempted to join the new faction. This would also explain the scathing
attack that Kadima's leader, Tzipi Livni, launched on Barak in response to his
move. "The public in Israel sees its leaders, who will sell anything for a
seat, abandon their road, past and heritage for a dubious present time at the
expense of the state's future," Livni said on Monday.
However, a strengthened Israeli government could also bode well for peace
negotiations. As "sources close to Netanyahu", quoted by Israeli newspaper
Ha'aretz, put it, "The Palestinians saw the threats of the Labor ministers and
toughened their stance because they thought the Israeli government will
collapse. Now they understand that the government is going nowhere and now they
will return to negotiations."
There are some other hopeful recent signs. After a series of violent
confrontations on the Gaza border, a few days ago Hamas managed to persuade the
other militant groups in the strip to halt their rocket and mortar fire at
Israel, and even posted a force to enforce the ceasefire.
This came in response to a semi-public Israeli threat to embark on a military
campaign in Gaza, and was widely seen as a victory for the more moderate wing
of the Islamist movement against the Damascus-based hardliners who take their
orders from Tehran. This interpretation is bolstered by reports of progress in
the negotiations for the release of captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
The Palestinian leadership in the West Bank has also signaled its readiness to
toe a more moderate line for the time being. Whereas Palestinian President
Mahmoud Abbas and his team insist on introducing a resolution condemning
Israeli settlement construction at the United Nations Security Council, they
have reportedly worked hard to moderate the wording of the draft in a way to
accommodate American objections. In addition, on Sunday the Palestinian Foreign
Minister Riyad al-Malki promised to hold off from announcing independence at
the UN at least until September.
Lebanon is in turmoil after Hezbollah quit the coalition and toppled prime
minister Saad Hariri's government last week, but despite early concerns that
this might lead to an outbreak of hostilities with Israel, so far this is only
a remote possibility. "The latest political crisis in Lebanon does not threaten
to spill over into Israel for the time being," writes Israeli analyst Ron
Ben-Yishai. "Chances are that this crisis will also prevent violence within
Lebanon, and this is the reason why Hezbollah quit the government." [4]
The ongoing violence in Tunisia, on the other hand, is for now too remote and
localized to have a real impact on the international conflicts in the Middle
East. However, it is a cause for concern for several regimes that are allied
with the US, including Egypt's, Jordan's and Saudi Arabia's. In this way, it
could indirectly tie into the only front that is currently heating up: that
between the US and Iran. According to influential American think-tank Stratfor:
The
United States now faces a critical choice. If it continues its withdrawal of
forces from Iraq, Iraq will be on its way to becoming an Iranian satellite ...
If Iraq becomes an Iranian ally or satellite, the Iraqi-Saudi and Iraqi-Kuwaiti
frontier becomes, effectively, the frontier with Iran ... The nuclear issue is
not all that important ... The pressure is coming from the Saudis. As Stratfor
has said and WikiLeaks has confirmed, it is the Saudis who are currently
pressing the United States to do something about Iran, not because of nuclear
weapons but because of the conventional shift in the balance of power ...
It should be added that an Iranian domination of Iraq could destabilize both
Saudi Arabia and Jordan, which is not an acceptable option for the Americans.
Thus, the covert war between Tehran and Washington is in full gear. On Sunday,
Iran claimed that it had shot down two US spy planes outside its airspace,
after previously complaining several times of violations.
As of Monday night, there was no official reaction from the American
administration, but if confirmed, this would constitute a clear provocation.
Still, there are no signs for now that the covert war will spill into a
military campaign. There will be significant developments - specifically in
Lebanon and inside Iran - but neither side right now wants full-scale war.
According to some unconfirmed reports, we could even expect the Special
Tribunal for Lebanon to indict Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Furthermore, there are indications that the fiercely anti-Western Iranian
President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, is losing further ground domestically, and that
the opposition is rising up again. According to a recent statement by
opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi, "[The Iranian government] surpassed
[Nazi propaganda chief Joseph] Goebbels in telling lies. Leveling accusations
and telling lies is part of their ossified faith."
In all, it is far clear how the current crises will play out, but they can
certainly be seen as a moment of opportunity to change the unsustainable status
quo in the Middle East without resorting to war. This appears to be exactly
what Obama is hoping to do. If he achieves it, he would still fall short of his
self-assigned goal of solving the Arab-Israeli (and other Middle East)
conflicts, but he would nevertheless have a major foreign policy feat on his
record. Better still, he would earn his Nobel Peace Prize.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
