The West and the Middle East

The protests and revolt in the Middle East have nothing to do with the 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe. In those former communist countries the fall of the regimes meant liberal democracy and a strategic alignment with the West.

It is not certain that the same will happen in the Middle East. There is a non-democratic opposition that rejects alliances with the Western countries. In other words, the anti-communist revolutions were pro-Western while in the Middle East the revolts there are movements that are extremely anti-Western. This is a fundamental difference and it requires that a simple truth be understood. In the Middle East, the end of the dictatorships and the introduction of democracy do not automatically imply the formation of governments allied to the U.S. and Europe. Comparisons to 1989 can hide this essential point.

This makes us understand better the difficulties that the U.S. administration and the European governments are facing. On the one hand, the political legitimacy of the regional allied dictatorships has been really shaken, which means that the strategy of supporting them, initiated in the post-Gulf War era, is coming to an end. On the other hand, the Middle East continues to be of great importance to the U.S. and Europe. A drift to anti-Western policies in the more powerful countries would constitute a disaster.

From Morocco to Iran nothing will be the same. The former regimes are either falling or they will have to deeply reform themselves. Resistance to change is not a realistic solution anymore. After the change in regimes the confrontation will be between the political forces that want to work with the West and the anti-Western movements. This conflict is common to almost all the countries in the region and it will be decided primarily in Egypt and Iran. The Obama administration has already understood this. This is the reason why Obama is acting with such determination in Egypt and the reason behind the immediate support provided to the opposition forces during the recent protests in Iran. He has also understood that he is facing the biggest challenge in foreign policy since he came to power. And given the huge difficulties, he has acted well and fast.

With the attention turning to the divided internal politics of the regimes, it will become clearer that the true problem of the region is the foreign policy of the Iranian regime and not the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Tehran’s government is the leader of an anti-Western coalition in the Middle East. Israel has been making mistakes and carries some responsibility for the peace process deadlock but it is the most pro-Western country of the region. The Obama administration has no doubts about this crucial point.

In the West, those who do not understand the difference between Israel and Iran are not only very wrong but are not true to their own political values. Now, more than ever, a trans-Atlantic strategy in the Middle East is vital, to support the pro-Western forces. This is the big strategic challenge for the West: to help reforms and political change so that pro-Western governments are guaranteed. To do so successfully would be a proof of strength. Hiding behind the argument of non-intervention would be a sign of weakness.