A United Arab Army: To Be Respected and Feared
One of the direct results of the exchanges in U.S. Middle East policy, and in particular of the steps taken to change the direction of relations with Iran, is the growing feeling among its traditional Arab allies that they can no longer trust America in matters of security. Add to this the Islamic State, the chaos ruling the Middle East and the unclear state of Syria’s future — all of these and their strategic consequences have caused the Arab League to urgently establish a unified Arab military force.
Around two weeks ago a meeting was held between the chiefs of staff of the Arab nations — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, and the Gulf principalities — in Cairo, where the decision was made to establish a unified military command. The Arab nation leaders will be required to discuss the execution of this decision by the end of June, and we can assume that Washington is less than pleased with this Arab strategic initiative — if only because it clearly indicated the withdrawal from the government’s political strategy regarding Iran and its intentions to reach an agreement with Iran on the nuclear issue. In response, Washington decided to take two courses of action: to officially congratulate the decision reached in Cairo while signaling to various Arab authorities that it is unnecessary, that not only is America not planning to withdraw its involvement from activity in the Middle East, but it is determined to demonstrate this by supplying mass amounts of weapons and other arms to the various Arab armies.
Indeed, as reported by the Washington Times, a newspaper well connected to the U.S. defense institution, the government is planning to offer Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf nations more advanced weapons, so far provided only to Israel. France has also signed an arms deal, with Qatar of all countries.
Clearly, all of these developments have potential consequences, in political and security aspects, on the State of Israel — both positive and, at least potentially, negative. From a positive view, it is again apparent that Israel’s concern regarding the gradually strengthening nuclear agreement with Iran is shared by the Sunni Arab allies of the U.S., and that in this respect there is in fact a de facto united front, albeit an unofficial one, among Jerusalem, Riyadh, Cairo, Amman and others. What Secretary of State John Kerry describes as “hysteria” is nothing but a sober observation made by most of the region’s countries of the Iranian threat. The prime minister referred to this regional consensus in his speech at Latrun to mark the 70th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany, and reiterated the potential chance deriving from these preparations to also promote an arrangement for the Palestinian issue. In this context it should be mentioned that although this issue appears theoretical, one of Israel’s basic requirements regarding the establishment of an independent Palestinian state is not only for it to be demilitarized, but for it to be prohibited from entering into agreements of a military nature with other countries.
Israel also cannot ignore the possibility that, whether the plan to establish a united Arab army is carried out, or Arab militaries receive extensive enhancement to their weaponry and equipment, the result may, in certain circumstances and considering the unstable state of our region, turn out to be negative. While Washington promises that any reinforcement of the military power of Arab armies will not harm the high quality Israeli military advantage, and it indeed plans to deliver on this promise — it is also committed to do so according to the 2008 Congress resolution — as already seen in the past, there have been occasional breaches to this commitment.
The U.S., in its strategic considerations, does not need to take into account a military threat from its neighbors, Canada or Mexico, but Israel is not exempt from dealing with the ever-changing situation in the Middle East and any potential development, even when the subject is a country with which it has signed peace agreements, not to mention a united Arab army that also includes other countries. An army established to halt the sprawling intentions of Iran and its agents in Syria, Lebanon, Sinai and Yemen is a positive thing, as long as we remember that even that which appears safe and steady may sometimes turn out to be temporary.
Around two weeks ago a meeting was held between the chiefs of staff of the Arab nations — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, and the Gulf principalities — in Cairo, where the decision was made to establish a unified military command. The Arab nation leaders will be required to discuss the execution of this decision by the end of June, and we can assume that Washington is less than pleased with this Arab strategic initiative — if only because it clearly indicated the withdrawal from the government’s political strategy regarding Iran and its intentions to reach an agreement with Iran on the nuclear issue. In response, Washington decided to take two courses of action: to officially congratulate the decision reached in Cairo while signaling to various Arab authorities that it is unnecessary, that not only is America not planning to withdraw its involvement from activity in the Middle East, but it is determined to demonstrate this by supplying mass amounts of weapons and other arms to the various Arab armies.
Indeed, as reported by the Washington Times, a newspaper well connected to the U.S. defense institution, the government is planning to offer Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf nations more advanced weapons, so far provided only to Israel. France has also signed an arms deal, with Qatar of all countries.
Clearly, all of these developments have potential consequences, in political and security aspects, on the State of Israel — both positive and, at least potentially, negative. From a positive view, it is again apparent that Israel’s concern regarding the gradually strengthening nuclear agreement with Iran is shared by the Sunni Arab allies of the U.S., and that in this respect there is in fact a de facto united front, albeit an unofficial one, among Jerusalem, Riyadh, Cairo, Amman and others. What Secretary of State John Kerry describes as “hysteria” is nothing but a sober observation made by most of the region’s countries of the Iranian threat. The prime minister referred to this regional consensus in his speech at Latrun to mark the 70th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany, and reiterated the potential chance deriving from these preparations to also promote an arrangement for the Palestinian issue. In this context it should be mentioned that although this issue appears theoretical, one of Israel’s basic requirements regarding the establishment of an independent Palestinian state is not only for it to be demilitarized, but for it to be prohibited from entering into agreements of a military nature with other countries.
Israel also cannot ignore the possibility that, whether the plan to establish a united Arab army is carried out, or Arab militaries receive extensive enhancement to their weaponry and equipment, the result may, in certain circumstances and considering the unstable state of our region, turn out to be negative. While Washington promises that any reinforcement of the military power of Arab armies will not harm the high quality Israeli military advantage, and it indeed plans to deliver on this promise — it is also committed to do so according to the 2008 Congress resolution — as already seen in the past, there have been occasional breaches to this commitment.
The U.S., in its strategic considerations, does not need to take into account a military threat from its neighbors, Canada or Mexico, but Israel is not exempt from dealing with the ever-changing situation in the Middle East and any potential development, even when the subject is a country with which it has signed peace agreements, not to mention a united Arab army that also includes other countries. An army established to halt the sprawling intentions of Iran and its agents in Syria, Lebanon, Sinai and Yemen is a positive thing, as long as we remember that even that which appears safe and steady may sometimes turn out to be temporary.