Friday, November 28, 2014

The New Middle East’s New Problems

BERLIN – When hostilities flared in Gaza last month, it seemed like the same old story was repeating itself. The world again witnessed a bloody and senseless surge of violence between Israel and Hamas, in which the main victims were innocent civilians maimed and killed on both sides.

This time, however, things were not what they seemed, because the Middle East has undergone a significant change in the past two years. The political epicenter of this troubled region has shifted from the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians toward the Persian Gulf and the struggle for regional mastery between Iran on one side and Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and now Egypt on the other. In the emerging struggle between the region’s Shia and Sunni powers, the old Middle East conflict has become a sideshow.

Today, the key confrontation in this power struggle is Syria’s civil war, where all of the region’s major players are represented either directly or indirectly, because that is where the battle for regional hegemony will largely be decided. This much is clear: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his Alawite/Shia power base will not be able to maintain control against the Sunni majority in the country and the region as a whole. The only question is when the regime will fall.

When it does, it will be a major defeat for Iran, not only entailing the loss of its main Arab ally, but also jeopardizing the position of its client, Hezbollah, in Lebanon. At the same time, a variant of the Muslim Brotherhood will come to power in Syria, as has been or will be the case almost everywhere in the Middle East as a result of the “Arab Awakening.”

From Israel’s viewpoint, the rise to power of Sunni political Islam throughout the region over the past two years will lead to an ambivalent outcome. While the weakening and rollback of Iran serves Israeli strategic interests, Israel will have to reckon with Sunni Islamist power everywhere in its vicinity, leading directly to a strengthening of Hamas.

The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots has come at the expense of secular Arab nationalism and the military dictatorships that supported it. Thus, the Brothers’ rise has de facto also decided the internal Palestinian power struggle. With the recent war in Gaza, the Palestinian national movement will align itself, under Hamas’s leadership, with this regional development. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party will be unable to offer much opposition – all the more so in view of Hamas’s break with Iran (despite ongoing arms deliveries) a year ago.

This development most likely means the end of prospects for a two-state solution, because neither Israel nor Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood has any interest in it. Hamas and the Brothers reject territorial compromise, because, for them, a Palestinian state means a Palestine that incorporates all of Israel.

This is by no means a tactical position or an expression of political naiveté. On the contrary, the territorial question has morphed into a religious one, and has thus fundamentally redefined the conflict.

Hamas is playing a long game. As long as it lacks the strength to achieve its more ambitious objectives, its intransigence in no way precludes negotiations with Israel or even peace treaties, as long as such agreements advance its long-term goals. But such agreements will produce only truces of shorter or longer duration, not a comprehensive settlement that ends the conflict.

The recent success of Abbas in the United Nations General Assembly – securing observer-state status for Palestine – will not alter the basic aspects of this trend. Palestine’s promotion is an alarming diplomatic defeat for Israel and a demonstration of its growing international isolation, but it does not imply a return to a two-state solution.

Paradoxically, the position of Hamas fits the political right in Israel, because it, too, puts little stock in a two-state solution. And neither the Israeli left (of which little remains) nor Fatah is strong enough to maintain the two-state option. For Israel, a future as a bi-national state entails a high long-term risk, unless the option of a West Bank-Jordan confederation, lost in the 1980’s, is rediscovered. This is again a possibility.

Indeed, after the Assad regime falls, Jordan could prove to be the next crisis hotspot, which might revive the debate over Jordan as the “real” Palestinian state. Israel’s settlement policy in the West Bank would then have a different foundation and take on new political significance. While I do not believe that a West Bank-Jordan confederation could ever be a viable option, it might be the last nail in the coffin of a two-state solution.

Along with Syria, two issues will determine this new Middle East’s future: Egypt’s path under the Muslim Brotherhood, and the outcome of confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program and regional role.

The Egyptian question is already high on the agenda; indeed, it spilled into the streets after President Mohamed Morsi’s non-violent coup attempt. Morsi’s timing was remarkable: the day after winning international acclaim for his successful efforts to broker a truce in Gaza, he staged a frontal assault on Egypt’s nascent democracy.

The question now is whether the Brothers will prevail, both in the streets and by means of Egypt’s new constitution (which they largely wrote). If they do, will the West withdraw its support for Egyptian democracy in the name of “stability”? It would be a bad mistake.

The question of what to do about Iran’s nuclear program will also return with a vengeance in January, after US President Barack Obama’s second inauguration and Israel’s general election, and will demand an answer within a few months.

The new Middle East bodes poorly for the coming year. But one thing has not changed: it is still the Middle East, where it is nearly impossible to know what might be waiting around the corner.

Read more from our "Iran’s New Man" Focal Point.

  • Contact us to secure rights


  • Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (3)

    Please login or register to post a comment

    1. Commentedjracforr jracforr

      We can speculate on the developments in the Islamic world by comparing it to Christianity or with the Roman Empire, in this event I would compare it with Christianity.The Islamic world arose in 622 AD, which makes it 1390 years old this year.When Christian Europe was at this corresponding age, it was locked in a bloody Hundred Year War, between the Norman English and the French seeking to control the Atlantic coast of France. Eventually the French prevailed and the Norman English were drive off to England.British Palestine which later became Israel is locked in a similar struggle for it's survival,with Arab nationalist.This could have a similar outcome in which the Jews are forced to surrender Palestine to the Arabs, as did to the Norman English to the French. Those who wished to submit to their conquerors were permitted to remain in the land all others were forced to flee.

    2. CommentedKaleem Alam

      Joschka Fischer should be aware that it is always the Palestinians (Most deprived community of the world) who suffer the most or all. Israel is fully backed by western powers with funds and guns. It is well known fact that Israeli attitude towards Palestinian is worse than “inhumane” or “inhuman”. Why do the authors of his stature feel the need to balance their writings? They always add “both sides”, is it not because they’re afraid to be labeled as ‘anti-sematic’? But then how did ‘anti-sematic’ become such a powerful tool? Can he answer that? It is this which has kept the scholars, politicians and journalist away from stating the truth, describing the facts, and from giving the evidence to the visible ground realities. Why the funds for Palestine were blocked when Hamas came to power “democratically”? Why the “Islamic party” in Algeria was denied power by French help and complete silence by west?

      He should also know that Sunni Islam is not rising in Middle East; it has been there for centuries. I hope the people of the region are allowed to decide their destiny without excessive interference from outsiders; the world can be a better place to live. The western power must be fair to all and should not become “Islamophobic”. Thank you for honouring the wishes of Egyptian people. Islam means PEACE and Peace will survive.

      He may be right about post Israeli election, things could be tricky indeed.

      Kaleem Alam

    3. CommentedZsolt Hermann

      I wish everybody focusing solely on the Israel vs Palestinians issue, hoping for "peace" when a two-state solution comes to reality would read this very precise, fact based overview article.
      Indeed the situation in the Middle East is so complex, and can swing in so many directions that it is impossible to predict what might happen tomorrow.
      The solution is the same as for any other conflict or crisis humanity is facing right now: the understanding that there are no more isolated regions, isolated conflicts, friends or foes, East, West, South or North.
      We have evolved into a totally interconnected and interdependent network where any movement, any impulse, affects the whole network with violent force.
      It is not about energy or polarized geo-political issues any more, it is about the integrity and sustainability of the whole system, in short about human survival.
      If any violent, possible even nuclear conflict would break out in the Middle East, or in Asia, or at any other location, it would drag the whole world with it, causing unprecedented destruction and suffering.
      And if not by military conflict, than we are ready to exterminate ourselves by economical, financial catastrophes, depleted resources and food and water supplies or environmental imbalance.
      The global crisis, the impending global disaster can only be solved by a mutual, global cooperation.
      Without exception, regardless of culture, religion or location the strongest human desire, instinct is survival, the hope for a better future.
      This is what is common for all of us, this is what we have to grab and we do not have much time left.