The Demise of America’s “New Middle East” Policy

June 23, 2007 – 3:15 pm

Standing beside Israeli Prime Minister Olmert in August 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said of the carnage visited on Lebanon by the U.S. sponsored Israeli invasion, “What we’re seeing here in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do we have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East; not going back to the old one.â€? When Hezbollah staunched the Israeli offensive one month later, the transition to the New Middle East took a decisive turn; but not in the direction the Bush administration sought to impose through the instruments of unilateralism, military invasions and imperial diplomacy. Quite the opposite, Hezbollah’s standoff with Israel ’s vaunted military machine unleashed the headwinds of political change from the Levant to the Persian Gulf . The emerging confluence of forces is giving rise to a New Middle East-one that has unraveled America ’s long-term strategic interests in the region and threatens the United States’ international leadership role for years to come.

The architecture of the Bush administration’s post-911 design for a New Middle East sought to build on the momentum amassed by toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan to re-establish American dominance of the Persian Gulf . The cornerstone of Bush’s plan to “run the table� in the region called for neutralizing Saddam Hussein, whose role as a reliable counterweight to check Iranian expansionism had long since been reversed. After standing-up a pro-American regime and establishing a permanent forward military presence in Iraq , the U.S. would set its sights on Syria . With Israeli support, Syria would be destabilized, and its inexperienced leader, Bashar Assad compelled to sever his alliance with Iran and end its protectorate status over Lebanon . Having cut Syria ’s logistical life line into Lebanon , Israel ’s role was to deliver the crippling blow to Hezbollah, and then take down the democratically elected HAMAS organization. With American forces positioned in Iraq and Afghanistan, supported by a massive buildup of U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf, an isolated Iran would have few options but to acquiesce to American demands to halt its nuclear program or risk invasion and surgical air strikes; in short, regime change.

But, if history has taught us anything, it is that wars have uncertain outcomes. The Bush administration miscalculated Iraq ’s complex internal political dynamics that turned on the Shi’a and Sunni Muslim divide. Ignoring the advice of every Middle Eastern nation that opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq , save Kuwait , the Bush administration rushed pell-mell into the invasion and occupation of Iraq . Rather than Iraq being transformed into a forward operations base against Iran , the Shi’a ascendancy to majority power status aligned Iraq more closely with Iran ’s Shi’a government. So formidable is Iran’s influence on the Shi’a led coalition government and the Kurds that the Bush administration was forced to dispatch Ryan Crocker to Baghdad to meet with Iranian officials for the first time since the 1979 revolution swept the Shah from power.

America’s debacle in Iraq and Iran ’s rise to power crystallizes the universe of change engulfing the Middle East . These seismic changes find expression in the following realities that are creating the real New Middle East:

· A New Center of Gravity — The U.S. attempt to re-establish its dominion over Iraq and Iran , signals a shift in the political center of gravity from the Levant (Israel-Palestinian conflict) to the Persian Gulf . Stability and control over the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz where twenty percent of the world’s oil is shipped from the Gulf States ( Saudi Arabia , Iraq , Iran , Kuwait , Oman , EAE and Bahrain ) is critical to the U.S. remaining the world’s dominant superpower. On the global strategic chessboard, the stakes are vastly more important than continued U.S. access to oil, and windfall profits for energy conglomerates, as many suggests. America ’s ability to project power is dependent on its capacity to influence and control access to oil by its potential global adversaries like China and Russia . The U.S. ’s inability to persuade Russia and China to support stronger sanctions against Iran ’s nuclear program has largely failed because both countries have long-term multi-billion dollar energy arrangements pending with Tehran .

· Iranian Rising — Iran ’s rise as a military and potential nuclear power is now a permanent feature of the new Middle East . As the world’s fourth largest producer of oil and possessing the world’s second largest natural gas reserves, Iran could emerge as a regional economic super state. Strategically situated in the Persian Gulf at the crossroads between the Middle East, the Near East, Russia and the Southern Caucuses, Iran is the geo-strategic crown jewel of the Middle East .

· The Shi’a-Sunni Divide – The Middle East is dominated by Sunni Islamic authoritarian regimes. Shi’a Muslims comprise 50% of the population in the Middle East and 80% of the population in the Gulf States . As a persecuted and politically oppressed minority, the Shi’a are clamoring for social inclusion and political power. Led by Iran , the world’s only Shi’a Islamic Republic, and buoyed by the Shi’a-led government in Iraq , this revival will continue to challenge Sunni domination and by extension the United States that supports these reactionary regimes. Shi’a based Hezbollah is now the most potent political and military force in Lebanon . Their growing prominence could well represent an omen of things to come. American foreign policy must shift to encourage political accommodations for the Shi’a or risk increased turmoil in the future.

· The Decline of American and EU Influence – The failure of the United States and the EU to halt Iran’s nuclear program, conclude an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord and stabilize Iraq is illustrative of the diminished capacity of the West to dictate events in the Middle East . This trend will continue over the next decade. The global scramble to secure energy resources portends the future political and military involvement of other nations in the Middle East. It’s only a matter of time before China and other countries introduce naval fleets in the Persian Gulf waters to protect their growing energy needs. Whether the energy scramble invites more chaos or leads to a durable security arrangement in the Middle East remains questionable.

· The Balkanization of the Middle East – The threat of Iraq’s Kurdish region evolving into an independent state foretells the possible break-up of other Middle Eastern nations. Kurdish population centers cut across Syria , Iran and Turkey . The creation of Kurdistan’s Regional Government has already provoked threats of Turkey invading Iraq . Ongoing sectarian battles between Sunni and Shia are fueling calls for partitioning Iraq along religious lines. Similarly, the continuing turmoil endemic to Lebanon ’s “confessionalâ€? system to balance Shi’a, Sunni and Christian interests has allowed Hezbollah to establish a virtual state-within-a-state. Palestine ’s two-state solution continues to hang in the balance, while Iran ’s combined Baluchi, Kurd, Arab and Azeri communities make up half the nation’s population. Targeting these minority groups is a central feature of the Bush administration’s ongoing efforts to destabilize Iran . Across the Sunni Arab Diaspora, momentum is building to decouple Mecca and Medina from Saudi Arabia as a separate Islamic entity, similar to the Vatican ’s status. Some “New Middle Eastâ€? theorists suggests America is pitting different nationalities, ethnic and religious groups against each other to create new states, thereby making the Middle East more “manageable.” The U.S. Iran Peace Project does not share this view, but recognizes the current configuration of Middle Eastern nation-states is likely to change. It remains to be seen if these changes are beneficial to America ’s current perceived interests.

Without question, the Middle East is undergoing a period of profound transition that will extend over the next decade; and perhaps longer. Democratic movements will continue to assert themselves and challenge U.S. backed authoritarian regimes. Radical Islamists will fish in these troubled waters seeking to leverage the economic suffering and political disenfranchisement percolating on the Arab street. By default, the battering ram of globalization will impinge on traditional Middle Eastern and Islamic traditions with greater force. Internet access and 24-hour Arab satellite news stations like Al Jezeera will accelerate the pace of change.

The New Middle East articulated by Condoleezza Rice and carried forward by the Bush administration is a tragically flawed foreign policy. Rendered more catastrophic by their ignorance, arrogance and Democratic Party complicity, the Bush Doctrine has crashed and burned. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was correct when she said we cannot go back to the old Middle East . Indeed, that Middle East is gone forever. Nurturing the “birth pangs� of the real New Middle East, requires a more enlightened and nuanced portfolio of American diplomacy—one that anticipates the trend lines of a volatile region in transition. If America’s best hope to craft such a policy change resides in the presidential victor of the 2008 elections, the prospects of reversing our foreign policy failures in the Middle East will remain in grave doubt.

Webster Brooks 111 is the Editor of the U.S.-Iran Peace Project’s website: www.usiranpeace.com The U.S. Iran Peace Project advocates the full restoration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran.