Month: October 2020

Improved relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates seem to have left Palestine on the outs. Palestinians have counted on Arab solidarity to deny normalized relations to Israel in order to keep the pressure of granting their statehood. In the last few months that solidarity is starting to flounder with Israel entering normalization agreements with the UAE, Sudan, and Bahrain. The Trump administration has recently assisted with brokering a deal between Sudan and Israel to normalize relations and set aside hostilities. 

The deal with the UAE takes it many steps further by establishing trade relations, allowing each other citizens to travel between countries without needing visas, and future plans of establishing embassies in each other’s capitals. To fully grasp how big of a deal it is to be able for Emiratis to be able to visit Israel and Jerusalem without a visa, Salem Barahmeh, the leader of the Palestinian Institute for Public Diplomacy states, “I need a permit issued by the Israeli military to visit Jerusalem. The city I was born in. But now an Emirati can go visa-free because two warmongering, human rights abusing regimes made a deal together for weapons. Does this sound just to you?”

The catalyst behind this unlikely partnership is the same as most unlikely diplomatic ties, weapons and oil. The first project would be the revival of the “Med-Red” pipeline which had been built to carry Iranian oil to Europe before the Islamic revolution in Iran. With Iran’s consequential adversarial stance on Israel, this pipeline would now be used to carry Emirati oil. 

Another project these enhanced relations lead to is a fund to upgrade and modernize checkpoints in the West Bank. Emirati money is now being used directly to enforce and legitimize Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the 2.7 million Palestinians living there. It has become quite clear that Palestine can no longer lean on the other Arab nations in the region for support. 

Halbfinger, D. M., & Ragson, A. (2020, October 20). Emiratis Land in Israel, Firming New Ties and Angering Palestinians. Retrieved October 25, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/20/world/middleeast/israel-uae-travel-checkpoints.html

Jakes, L., Walsh, D., & David. (2020, October 23). Trump Announces Sudan Will Move to Normalize Relations With Israel. Retrieved October 25, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/23/world/middleeast/sudan-israel-trump-terrorism.html

 

A few weeks ago, I wrote about how Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s imperial ambitions were creating tensions within NATO, particularly with Greece and France. Rather than de-escalating tensions, Turkish relations with France have continued to deteriorate in recent weeks.

The first area of tension is the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh between Azeri and Armenian forces. The United States, Russia, and France are unified in their pursuit of a ceasefire and peaceful solution to the conflict. The three nations, and Iran, who shares a border with both Armenia and Azerbaijan, do not want this to become a regional war, and Russia has a defense pact with Armenia. Turkey backs Azerbaijan, however, and is accused by Armenia and France of sending hundreds of Syrian fighters to help Azerbaijan. The bad blood between Turkey and Armenia, enhanced by Turkey’s continued refusal to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, plays a role in this conflict. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has accused Turkey and Azerbaijan of “pursuing a policy of genocide and ‘reinstating the Turkish empire.'” French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian has accused Turkey of and “internationalizing” the conflict, which Ankara denies.

The second area relates to recent events within France. Laïcité, or state secularism, is an essential component of French national identity. Macron announced an effort to study Islamic separatism amid fears the nation’s Muslim residents were forming a “counter-society” rather than integrating into French society. In a speech announcing new policies, Macron said, “Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world today, we are not just seeing this in our country.” Macron committed to ending foreign funding of mosques and sending foreign imams to France as well as increasing state support for economic and social mobility to keep radicals from filling a vacuum.

On October 16, a French teacher, Samuel Paty, was beheaded on the street by 18-year old Abdullakh Anzorov as Paty was walking home from school. He was targeted for showing satirical cartoons, including two of the prophet Muhammed that led to the mass killing at Charlie Hebdo, in a lesson on free speech and freedom of conscience. The brutal murder shocked France and heightened Macron’s calls for reform in Islamic communities. Macron posthumously awarded him the Légion d’honneur, France’s highest civilian award, and called him “the victim of stupidity, of lies, of confusion, of a hatred of what, in our deepest essence, we are.” He told Paty’s coffin, “We will continue this fight for liberty and for reason of which you have now become the face, because we owe it to you.”

Erdoğan chose to respond to this by calling for Macron to have a mental health check in a televised speech, saying “Macron needs treatment on a mental level.” “What’s the problem of the individual called Macron with Islam and with the Muslims?” he asked. In response, France has recalled their Ambassador to Turkey, a first in French-Turkish relations. Le Drian called Erdoğan’s comments unacceptable behavior from an ally, and called out Turkey for failing to offer condolences or support for Paty’s family or France in the wake of the murder. The Élysée also noted Erdoğan’s “very offensive comments of recent days, particularly on the call for a boycott of French products.”

In response today, Erdoğan’s director of communications, Fahrettin Altun, posted to Twitter that these “offensive caricatures” and “accusations of separatism against Muslims” are “dog whistle politics” meant to intimidate Muslims and are unrelated to free expression. He went on to say “Europe’s hostility towards Muslims… is inseparable from the increasingly widespread hostility towards Islam, Turkey, and our president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.” And, in what might be received as a threat, he continued: “Here’s what those Europeans need to understand: Muslims won’t go away because you don’t want us. We won’t turn the other cheek when you insult us. We will defend ourselves and our own at all costs.” Erdoğan also attacked Macron again today, calling him a head case who is “obsessed with Erdogan day and night.”

Macron appeared to respond in a Twitter thread, saying, “Our history is that of the struggle against tyrannies and fanaticisms. We will continue. Freedom, we cherish it; equality; we guarantee it; fraternity, we live it with intensity. Nothing will make us back down, ever.”

EU’s Josep Borrell, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, condemned Erdoğan and Turkey’s comments as unacceptable and called on Turkey to “cease this dangerous spiral of confrontation.” The Elysée has demanded Erdoğan and Turkey “put an end to its dangerous adventures in the Mediterranean and in the region” within two months or there will be consequences. “Measures will have to be taken at the end of this year.”

Turkey’s aggression and irresponsible behavior are a frequent and tremendous headache for NATO, but could become an existential threat if a solution is not found soon.

On Friday, President Donald J. Trump brokered a historic peace agreement between Israel and Sudan. According to the President, “They are choosing a future in which Arabs and Israelis, Muslims, Jews, and Christians can live together, pray together, and dream together, side by side, in harmony, community, and peace.”According to the press release on the White House website, Sudan became the third country to normalize relations with Israel, after the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

However, this news was not welcome at all back in Sudan. Sudan political parties reject the deal and see it as betrayal on the part of the Sudanese transitional government. A statement made by Sudan’s Popular Congress, the second most influential political coalition states that the people are not bound by the treaty and not obligated to accept it. In fact they say that, “our people will abide by their historical positions and work through a broad front to resist normalization and maintain our support for the Palestinian people in order for them to obtain all their legitimate rights.”

Historically, Sudan went to war with Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and the Six-Day war in 1967, even though it did not participate in the Suez canal crisis of 1956. So, we are already seeing geopolitics in play here, and in my perspective, brokering a peace agreement between Israel and the rest of the Arab world is not conceivable, at least not in the near future. I can even affirm it will be an utopia given in the exception of these three countries that have expressed good intentions, the rest are already “gnashing their teeth.”

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/24/sudans-political-parties-reject-israeli-normalisation-deal

The future of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) the Iran nuclear deal is uncertain, the deal signed back in 2015 between the Iranians and the P5+1 group; China, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the United States. The purpose of the deal is impose limitations on Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program, after years of  negotiations during Obama’s administration, finally JCPOA gave Iran relief from international economic sanctions as long as Iranians’ were willing to dismantle their nuclear program and allowing facilities’ inspections, but currently  the deal  has weakened after Trump officially withdrew the United States from the JCPOA in May 2018, arguing the deal was not effective to curtail Iran’s ballistic missile program or its intervention in the affairs of other countries in the Middle East.  Since Trump’s government reinstated US sanctions on Iran and looked forward punishing any other country who do trade with them, Iran has been increasing their uranium at Fordow nuclear plant, which is one of the limitations under the JCPOA.

Moreover, other incidents have increased tensions between The US and Iran such as General Qasem Soleimani was murdered in an airstrike in Baghdad, and an explosion in Natan, that the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization said was an attempt to obstruct their Iran’s enrichment site, in response Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated revenge awaits the criminals.

The upcoming presidential elections are crucial for JCPOA, if Trump gets reelected, he has promised to arrange a new deal which it may be simple not possible, on the other hand if Joe Biden wins, his administration will aim to rejoin the JCPOA seeking additional concessions from Tehran.  Nonetheless Iran is aware that the deal has all around benefits for states including global and regional security, but if multilateral sanctions are reimposed this could be push out Iran from the JCPOA encouraging to them work hard to enrich their nuclear program.

The Syrian civil war tends to be an ongoing multi-sided civil war, which has multiple actors involved in it. In one side, the US , Turkey and in the other side Iran and Russia. The article clearly states how Syria’s civil war long has provided a free-for-all battlefield for proxy fighters. But in its ninth year, it is drawing major foreign actors into direct conflict, with the threat of all-out confrontations becoming a real possibility.

Russia tends to have a major role in the Syrian civil war, because of its long history with Syria and its military bases. Also, Turkey has a key role in its need to overthrow the Bashar regime even though it did fail with the direct US and Russia  involvement.

The civil war in Syria is far from being a normal civil war or an overthrow of the Bashar regime, it is actually the new political confrontation , seek for world power and expansion of either the US or the Russian influence. I see it as the new indirect cold war era, between both sides once again. “The history repeating itself”, however this time will end up by destroying the middle east and getting control over it.

Since the outbreak of the civil war back in 2011 and the country being divided into sub-states fighting among each other in proxy wars. The East zone is occupied by the Syrian-Kurds and was previously supported by the United States, until president Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. military forces in 2018. The Northern Western zones of Syria are under Turkish control, and the rest of the country is dominated with Syrian government forces supported by Russia and Iran.

Many believe that Syria is on the road of dismantling external forces, given that the U.S. has already withdrew its troop and concerns arise more profoundly around Turkey and its position since it was reported to withdraw its troops on October 19^thin the northwest of Syria. Since observational posts were set up by the Turkish government to deescalate tension in Idlib region and northwest in general, the Syrian government has already surrounded several other Turkish observational posts by last year.

However, the Turkish government has reported that they are not considering evacuating another observational post. And they also indicated that withdrawing from Morek will have them consolidate their presence elsewhere in the region[1].

It has been noted that the withdrawal of Turkey was towards efforts of consolidating cease fire agreements with Russia back in March. Whether the withdrawal of Turkey from Morek is an indication of dismantling forces and cease fire or not. The country’s biggest enemy is Bashar al Assad a war criminal that now seeks sanction elevation from the U.S. to continue the war within his own country. The U.S does not have a vital interest in Eastern Syria anymore, not strategically vital for American national security[2]. Finally, Syria will be left with severe economic conditions being unable to rebuild the state due to the high sanctions imposed, and the 5.6 million refugees that have little incentive to come back in the country and rebuild it again. A country occupied by foreign powers from its north and east territories. A failed sate.

[1]  BIA News Desk, “Turkey withdrawal from Morek base in Syria”, 20 October 2020.

[2]Robert S. Ford, The Syrian Civil War, April 2019.

As voting begins pouring in across the country, Trump appears to be grasping at straws to remain Commander-in-Chief. In an attempt to keep his campaign promise to bring soldiers home, he announced his decision to withdraw troops out of Somalia despite having sent most of the current 650 troops currently there in mid-2017. Meanwhile, both Somalian President  Mohammad Abdullahi and advisers appear to disagree with this stance. They fear the troops leaving will create the opportunity for the Islamist militant group al-Shabaab to strike. The group continues its attacks claiming they killed 24 soldiers this past week.

Trump continues to provoke confusion after tweeting on October 7th his plans to pull troops out of Afghanistan by the holiday season – multiple U.S. officials were reportedly “blindsided” by his plans. National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien had announced earlier that day “the 5,000 troops [in Afghanistan] will go to 2,500 by early next year”. In a frantic attempt to secure votes in his re-election, Donald Trump changed the timeline via Twitter.

This is not the first time the President has announced a military plan via Twitter only to be talked out of executing said Tweet. For example, Trump announced wanting to pull all forces out of Syria but that did not end up happening. Instead, less than 1,000 troops remain in Syria.

Perhaps Trump’s confusing militaristic strategies are working a little too well as the Taliban is now hoping he wins the election. The Taliban too wants U.S. troops out of Afghanistan and even noted they “think highly” of Trump’s “America first “narrative.

The next U.S. presidential administration will undoubtedly face continued challenges from our relations with Iran. In a second term, the Trump administration will likely continue a policy of maximum pressure. But how would a potential Biden administration approach Iranian relations?

One potential foreign policy outcome from a future Biden administration is rejoining the JCPOA.  We could see a  President Biden attempt to restore Iranian relations to resemble something from the pre-Trump era.

However, recent regional events will prove difficult to accomplish this outcome—for example, the assassination of General Soleimani. The assassination of General Soleimani is highlighted as a foreign policy accomplishment by the Trump administration. I tend to agree. Even a surface-level glance into Soleimani’s track record reviles a dangerous actor with numerous plans and attempts to strike American personnel with deadly force. The world and American personnel overseas are safer with Soleimani out of the equation.

The removal of Soleimani by the U.S. might negatively affect Iranian relations over the long-term. While Soleimani’s death brings short-term strategic gains for the U.S., it may also stand as yet another brick in the wall of deep-seated resentment and perceived grievances from the Ayatollah.

Additionally, a potential President Biden foreign policy agenda with Iran would likely face challenges from newly developed peace processes in the middle east. For example, recognition of Isreal by the UAE, Kosovo, and others likely in the future will further alienate Iran.

Statecraft can often be a bloody business; however, diplomacy’s importance to accomplish long-term strategic goals cannot be overemphasized. If Biden becomes president, his administration will have to balance the Iranian relationship carefully if they are to rejoin a negotiation table.

 

 

 

No matter how much I read and try to self educate myself about the Middle East varied topics (wars, uprisings, religious conflicts, interests, domestic and foreign relations, and much more), I am always left with the sensation that I don’t have the full picture or that I am missing the piece which will make me understand it all once and for all. But I never seem to find that piece either. As much as the challenge this region of the world poses on me, also the frustration of never fully understanding it embargoes me. 

I found this article on Foreign Affairs about why Washington keeps failing in the Middle East and I just couldn’t pass it up. Although this article didn’t do the full click on my mind (for me to understand the region in depth), it did explain some things that made sense to me and gave me a little more perspective on this region’s issues. It was also refreshing to read the opinion of an American “insider” (from 2013 to 2015, the author -Philip Gordon- served in the White House as Special Assistant to President Obama and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf Region) admitting the eternal failing of the U.S. trying to save the region and why Washington seems to never change its mind about it all despite the decade-long experience. 

One of the phrases in the article which caught my attention the most was that Washington (and the U.S. in general), institutions just as human beings, don’t always learn from the mistakes made and despite the outcomes continue repeating over and over the same mistakes. Again, this being said by a man who had power in the decision making not too long ago. The exact phrase was: “Americans also keep placing hope over experience when it comes to Middle East policy because of a persistent tendency to underestimate the degree of resources and commitment it will take to get rid of a hostile regime and stabilize the situation once it is removed”. 

After countless interventions, intentions to bring peace and democracy to countries of the region, diplomatic dialogues, and even economic and trade sanctions throughout the decades, the U.S. keeps repeating the same mistakes with the region. In my opinion, 3/4 of the times due to national American interests in doing so and the other 1/4 of the times because of a superhero complex. Nevertheless, and the end of the day, the consequences are always paid by the common men of the region there and here as well. 

As it is listed in the article, none of the times the U.S. intervening in some form and shape on the region, the outcome was better than before. Not only more extremist power took over the overthrown governments, countless local lives were lost (not to mention the American soldiers lives lost in conflict), the armed conflicts spread out to neighboring countries and so did the anti-American feeling of the locals and neighbors, devastation and overall hopeless circumstances, but in many cases the situations escalated to unmanageable ends such as internal security vacuums (which is define as “in the absence of security, people feel no alternative but to organize and arm themselves and to turn to kinship networks, tribes, and sects for safety, exacerbating sectarianism and internal rivalries and sometimes leading to demands for secession”). 

Having said this, I also give a little credit to Washington only because you can never please people entirely. Yes, we know the U.S. many times goes to “help” when its help is not requested, however: how many times we have also heard “the international community is not acting upon the circumstances and action is needed instead of words and dialogues”? And in all honesty, the international community is the U.S and to some extent Europe. So, sometimes the U.S. is an interventionist, and other times the U.S. does not react fast enough. In this sense, if we want the U.S. to stop minding other people’s businesses, then we also need to stop requesting their actions and help whenever we find it convenient (I know I am being naive but I do feel this way!). 

I sincerely recommend this article for someone like me who never fully understands the region and also for the more avid connoisseurs of the region. 

Thank you for your time! 

Maria Rodriguez Ferreno. 

Link to the article: https://fam.ag/2HfPELJ 

For the past three years, Qatar has managed to successfully forge and strengthen economic and diplomatic ties with foreign allies outside the GCC despite continued strife and backlash in the region following the 2017 air, land, and sea blockade imposed by its close Arab neighbors – Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt. These strengthening of ties with transcontinental nations have led to rumors of Qatari foreign minister Lolwah al-Khater announcing the severing of relations altogether with the Gulf Cooperation Council. Al-Khater has since denounced these rumors, calling for the prospective reintegration into the policy platform for further cooperation and coordination.

 

Since the inception of the council back in 1981, n0t much strides have been taken collectively to ensure the economic security of the region. Many projects and economic initiatives have now been either downplayed or not fully agreed upon by all member states, which has put into question the viability of encompassing multilateral cooperation around foreign defense and economic policy in the Gulf States. As a result, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait have begun forming bilateral alliances amongst themselves. The Saudi-UAE Joint Co-operation Committee (JCC), announced in December 2017 that the two governments would cover “all military, political, economic, trade and cultural fields, as well as others, in the interest of the two countries”. The Saudi and Emirati governments had previously run a number of joint retreats of their officials while their forces are also both fighting on the same side in the ongoing Yemen conflict. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have also implemented a bilateral cooperation council to ensure successful coordination with oil production activities within their shared neutral zone, which highlights Riyadh’s defined interest in regional bilateralism. 

 

More justification on why the GCC may not be a sturdy collaborative force in regional diplomacy may derive from the nations’ lack of desire to establish a common currency, institute a Central Gulf Bank, or co-sponsor the infrastructure for a GCC rail project, and so forth. Ultimately, all of these factors have either guided or influenced the Qatari ministry on Foreign Affairs to act decisively in their future economic and diplomatic endeavors with nations beyond the Arab region. It is still too soon to tell whether Qatar may take decisive action to solidify its departure especially with the GCC’s policy track record.

Sources:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/07/25/is-time-running-out-for-the-gulf-cooperation-council/#7c20c6c756b8

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/5/qatar-blockade-five-things-to-know-about-the-gulf-crisis

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/6/4/qatar-will-roll-with-the-punches-with-gcc-crisis-analysts