Changes in the Middle East Challenge U.S. Interests

Currently the Middle East is experiencing the most fundamentally influencing changes, on the largest scale and the most consequential since the end of the Cold War. Of the 22 Arab countries, 20 are seeing unrest within a very short period. Tunisia and Egypt have had their regimes overthrown, while Libya’s future is still uncertain, and Yemen and Bahrain are attracting eyeballs from all over the world. Since the Gulf War, the U.S. has dominated the Middle East, and after 9/11, it remodeled the Middle East, and expanded its scope to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The U.S. strategies in the Middle East are one of the most important factors leading up to the current changes, and now the changes are severely impacting U.S. strategies in the region.

The strategic pivot of the U.S. hegemony

Since setting its feet in the Middle East after World War II, the U.S. has increased its interests in the region. After the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has become the sole superpower in the world and consequently established itself as the sole power in the Middle East after the Gulf War. Thus the importance of the Middle East is slotted in U.S. global strategies. In the 1990 National Security Strategy, the Bush administration reported on the importance of the Middle East’s energy to the free world. In 1999, the National Security Strategy for a New Century report by the Clinton administration showed that changes in the Middle East would fundamentally influence the future of the U.S. And in the eight years of the Bush administration, after 9/11 the U.S. explicitly pinpointed the Middle East and the pan-Middle East region as the focus of its national security strategy. When the Obama administration sought reform in the economic crisis in 2009, it remained a top priority to re-establish U.S. leadership in the world.

Though the past few governments put different priorities on the issue of Middle East, generally speaking U.S. interests there include oil, Israel’s security, stability of Arab allies, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism, Islamic movements, instability and unrest in Arab countries.

All seemed well when the Obama administration began withdrawing all of its troops from Iraq, brokering a peace deal between Palestine and Israel and launching a new round of talks for Iran’s nuclear issue. The dramatic changes taking place in the Arab world, led by Tunisia, is seriously challenging U.S. interests in the Middle East.

The most significant loss for the U.S. is instability of its allies

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Yemen, Oman, Qatar and Iraq in the Gulf region of the Middle East, and Jordan in the eastern Mediterranean and Egypt in North Africa are all allies of the U.S., the most important among which are Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq. The Ben Ali government of Tunisia had been following the West’s policy since stepping on stage in 1987. The Gadhafi government of Libya improved relations with the West by giving up weapons of mass destruction in 2003 and re-establishing diplomatic relations with the U.S. in 2005. In 2008, the U.S. sent ambassadors to Libya, and the country was even seen as a role model of transformation. Obviously, Tunisia and Libya were friendly countries to the U.S. The U.S. needs support and cooperation from these countries to carry out its Middle East strategy and to maintain its leadership in the region. So when Obama came to power, he gave a speech in Cairo, Egypt, expressing his intention to improve relations with Islamic countries by winning their support through answering their call for peace negotiations between Palestine and Israel.

Now, as dramatic changes have undergone in the region, those countries have either had their government shifted or are badly hit by unrest or the risk of unrest. Among them, the collapse of the Mubarak government in Egypt is the most frustrating for the U.S. As an important member of the Arab League, “Egypt has always been a steady ally on many key issues, an important partner in regional affairs and helpful in solving many problems in the Middle East,”* as pointed out by Obama and Hillary. As a reward, the U.S. provided large amount of aid to Egypt for a long time, including $1.3 billion in military aid. Even if the new Egyptian government adopts a hostile position against the West, it can promote itself through the strategic Suez Canal. If Bahrain’s government is toppled, the base of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet will be threatened. As the most important ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah is unhappy about the fact that Obama has given up on Mubarak, and this will push Saudi Arabia away from the U.S. If Saudi Arabia changes its government, one of the strategic pillars of the U.S. may collapse, and as an important member of OPEC, Saudi Arabia’s policies cannot be predicted.

While those Arab countries are being hit by unrest, the U.S. is worried about the growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Not long ago the Justice and Development Party of Turkey cracked down on secularization with military force. If more and more Arab countries are hit by unrest for a significant amount of time, Islamic fundamental forces may use this opportunity to grow and provoke. Al-Qaida is one of them. The Maghreb-based al-Qaida is agitating Libya people. All of this is what the U.S. government has been wary about. Though the Obama administration didn’t put anti-terrorism as the top task in Middle East strategy, its military and intelligence agencies have been treating it as top priority. The U.S. national intelligence watchdog testified with regard to the threat recently at an appraisal of global threats.

A rising Iran poses a challenge to the U.S.

The second consequence of changes in the Middle East on the U.S. is the improvement in the Iranian strategic posture. From the U.S. point of view, threats from Iran have been increasing since the Islamic revolution in 1979. The 2003 war against Iraq and the fall of Saddam’s regime brought unexpected consequences. A long-lasting enemy was removed for Iran, and the Shia in Iraq, who of the same strain of Islam as Iran, rose to power. After the regional environment improved for Iran, it didn’t remain reserved; instead, it’s been flexing its muscles. The month-long military conflict between Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Israel in July 2007 is thought to have resulted from support from Iran. This was testified by the warm greetings to Ahmadinejad when he visited southern Lebanon in 2010.

Now Najib Mikati, the candidate nominated by Lebanon’s Hezbollah, will be sworn in as Lebanon’s premier soon. From Iran’s point of view, the current unrest in the Arab countries is in reality Islamic uprisings against the secular governments supported by the West, and an Islamic Middle East is rising. That means Iran may take advantage of its power and ideology to help Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood and all Islamic groups to expand their influences. While Syria and Iraq are following Iran’s steps, if Bahrain’s government is toppled, the Shia, which is a majority, making up 70 percent of the total population, may come to power in the country. If the Shia gain momentum, the region will develop in favor of Iran. After Egyptian President Mubarak stepped down, Iran’s warships passed through the Suez Canal, demonstrating its increasing influences in the region.

Israel’s deteriorating security impacts U.S. interests

Unrest in the Middle East combined with Iran’s growing power is deteriorating the security of most important ally of the U.S., Israel. For Israel, declining Western power in the Arab world means the worsening of its security. At the very beginning of unrest of Egypt, Israel felt insecurity as a neighbor. Though the interim government will observe the ex-government’s agreements, it’s doubtful that the new government will honor the Egyptian peace agreement and cooperate with Israel in blocking off the Rafah border crossing to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. As the second country in the region to establish diplomatic relations with Israel and as a supporter of peace talks between Israel and Palestine, Jordan also faces a politically uncertain future.

More important is that from Israel’s point of view, if Iran gains power, it will support the Muslim Brotherhood and its associates, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas. To make things worse, Turkey is making friends with the Arab world in the east and south, and its leader is visiting Iran for further cooperation. This, combined with the incident of the humanitarian ship, has increased the odds between Turkey and Israel and redirecting the situation against Israel’s favor.

In view of the complexity of the challenges, the U.S. is maneuvering to cope with the crisis. For the time being, it’s trying to minimize the losses and to benefit both itself and Israel. Those measures are: establishing a new political architecture in Egypt, stabilizing the situation in Yemen, keeping the military presence in the region, maintaining its anti-terrorism strategy, preventing a further destabilization of the region through the worsening Libyan riots and at the same time, planning a new strategy in North Africa.

*Editor’s note: This quote, while accurately translated, could not be verified.