In the complex puzzle of the Middle East, the USA returns to the front line (by Bepi Pezzulli)

The tormented scenario of the Middle East, perpetually trapped between centuries-old tensions and ever-new geopolitical ambitions, has returned to requiring consolidated approaches, and the world's expectations are once again placed in the United States of America. Tested by the facts, the US disengagement attempt from the region has proven to be an elusive undertaking.

The US withdrawal from the Middle East was theorized by President Barack H. Obama between 2009 and 2017, and was characterized by a series of policies that reflected the US Administration's desire to reduce direct military effort and refocus foreign policy priorities USA towards the Indo-Pacific.

The two mandates of the Obama Administration were characterized by a series of decisions breaking with traditional foreign policy positions accompanied by radical actions.

Troop Reduction in Iraq and Afghanistan : One of the first disengagement actions was the gradual reduction of US troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a paradigm shift, the Obama Administration decided to replace direct military involvement in crisis theaters with the training of local security forces to ensure regional stability.

Focus on multilateralism : At the same time, the Obama Administration has relied almost faithfully on diplomacy in resolving regional issues. Both the First Obama Administration, under Secretary of State Hillary D. Rodham Clinton, and the Second Obama Administration, under Secretary of State John F. Kerry, emphasized the pursuit of multilateral diplomacy and the resolution of conflicts through diplomatic means and politicians rather than by strengthening the military deterrent.

Iranian nuclear deal : A crucial element of the disengagement policy was the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The US delegation, made up of Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns, Under Secretary of State Wendy R. Sherman and Jacob J. Sullivan, National Security Advisor to then Vice President Joseph R. Biden, negotiated a multilateral agreement aimed at limiting Iran's nuclear program in exchange for easing economic sanctions. Gary Samore, former White House coordinator for arms control and weapons of mass destruction, later explained that the Iran nuclear deal was aimed at managing the nuclear threat without resorting to the use of force, an argument some contradictory way.

Avoid new military interventions : The Obama Administration has also demonstrated a certain reluctance to launch new military interventions in the region, trying to avoid involvement in complex conflicts such as the one in Syria. However, she has also been criticized for her handling of the aftermath of the Syrian civil war.

In this context, and with reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Obama Administration has supported the idea of ​​a two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine coexisting side by side. He underlined the need for an agreement that would lead to the creation of an independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as a shared capital. Obama has strongly criticized the construction of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, considering it an obstacle to the peace process. He called for a freeze on Israeli settlements as a goodwill gesture to resume negotiations.

President Biden picked up where Obama left off, reversing President Donald J. Trump's maximum pressure policies toward Iran.

In 2018, the Trump administration announced a unilateral US withdrawal from the JCPOA, citing concerns about its long-term effectiveness and the need for broader talks on Iran's nuclear activities, missile program, and regional activities. In 2019, the The Trump administration had stepped up sanctions against Iran, including the imposition of restrictions on Iranian oil exports. With the Biden administration taking office in 2021, efforts have been underway at a negotiating table in Vienna to bring the US back into agreement and get Iran to respect its terms again.

Democratic administrations have sought to forge regional partnerships to involve key regional actors in managing local issues. This reflected the desire to shift responsibility for security and stability to regional actors.

Evidently, the democratic strategy did not work.

National Security Advisor Sullivan is now the central figure in a precarious negotiation in Qatar, focused on a slow and progressive prisoner exchange between Israel and Hamas. Such a move, whose risks are clear, could be interpreted as an attempt to induce Israel to confer political legitimacy on a terrorist organization. Unfortunately, these exercises in realpolitik are not new; A similar political move was made by East Germany during the Cold War against the US, when the German Democratic Republic, under Soviet occupation, used the policy of prisoner exchanges to gain diplomatic recognition from the US in 1974.

This move, while bold, suggests a strategy that could lead to a broader political resolution of the complex issue of the Middle East.

The expectation of a peaceful solution is based on the idea that, in crises, the US demonstrates unparalleled political brilliance. However, the path to a sustainable resolution is far from linear.

Post-war Gaza: Three options on the table

An in-depth analysis by Karl Meier for Bloomberg News identifies three options on the post-conflict table. First, the possibility of granting temporary control over Gaza to countries in the region, supported by a multinational force that would include American, British, German and French troops, along with possible contributions from Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia or the Emirates . The second option contemplates the establishment of a peacekeeping force, inspired by the model operating in the Sinai, charged with enforcing the conditions of the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. An idea that, surprisingly, could gain Israel's consent. Finally, the third option proposes a temporary government for the Gaza Strip under the auspices of the United Nations, thus offering an internationally legitimized solution. However, Israel's reticence towards the UN, and the UN's lack of credibility, could complicate the feasibility of this proposal.

While the future of the Middle East remains uncertain, the focus on the US and its diplomatic moves could play a crucial role in shaping a lasting solution.

The succession of power in the Palestinian territories: The return of Barghouti and Dahlan

In the complicated post-conflict landscape in the Middle East, two key figures emerge as potential leaders for the Gaza Strip: Mohammed Dahlan and Marwan Barghouti. These names have come to international attention at a crucial moment, when the transition of power seems inevitable.

Abu Mazen's twenty-five-year term at the helm of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) is nearing its end, and the need for new leadership is becoming increasingly pressing. However, the choice is not obvious, since the old leader is perceived as corrupt and ineffective. In this scenario, two names emerge as possible successors: Mohammed Dahlan and Marwan Barghouti.

Mohammed Dahlan, 62, originally from the Khan Yunis refugee camp in Gaza, is a prominent figure in Palestinian politics with eleven detentions in Israeli prisons. His experience and knowledge of Hebrew, acquired during his detention, make him a similar and "reliable" interlocutor in dialogue with the enemy. His story links him to the Abraham Accords between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, in which he allegedly acted as a facilitator. His influence has been so significant that the mere threat of forming a list in the West Bank was enough to postpone the elections, indicating his potential key role in the future of the region.

Marwan Barghouti, another leadership contender, is equally a prominent figure in Palestinian politics, known for his participation in the first and second intifadas. Elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council in 1996, he championed the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and established himself as Secretary General of Al-Fataḥ in the West Bank. His figure, despite being controversial, represents a secular alternative to the ambiguous supply chains of the Muslim Brotherhood. His stay in Israeli prisons, while keeping him safe, may be a strategic move to preserve his life and consolidate his influence in Palestine's political future. He has hastily been credited as the Nelson Mandela of Palestine.

The US appears determined to strengthen the PA, and could use Barghouti as a card to restore credibility and weaken support for terrorist groups. The combination of political and military pressure, with Israeli military pressure aimed at reducing the military potential of terrorists, could outline a new chapter in Palestinian politics.

In this intricate context, the choice of Abu Mazen's successor will not only define the future of Palestine but will also have crucial implications for regional stability. With Barghouti and Dahlan on the table, the stakes are high, and the fate of the Middle East hangs in the balance between history and the need for change.

Abraham Plus: A new economic approach for peace in the Middle East

Within the complex Israeli-Palestinian scenario, the need for an "Abraham Plus" appears, an expansion of the Abraham Accords that goes beyond the simple normalization of diplomatic relations. This “Plus” translates into targeted investment resources, a fundamental catalyst for the well-being of both parties involved.

This approach had already been offered to a large extent as part of the Kushner-Berkowitz Plan, presented in June 2019, which represents one of the key US initiatives to address the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Drawn up by Jared C. Kushner, AvrahmBerkowitz and Jason D. Greenblatt, the plan aims to improve the economic conditions of the Palestinian population, paving the way for subsequent political progress.

The plan proposed a number of key elements:

Financial Investments : The initiative includes significant financial investment in the West Bank, targeting infrastructure, tourism, agricultural and industrial projects, with a total estimate of $50 billion. More than half of this sum would be allocated to the Palestinian territories, while the rest would be divided between Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan.

Regional approach : The plan also encourages investment in surrounding countries, creating economic opportunities and jobs for Palestinians.

Institutional Development : Proposes programs aimed at improving Palestinian institutions, such as education and healthcare, in order to develop the skills of the workforce.

International Participation : The initiative calls for the collaboration of other countries and international organizations to support and implement the plan.

However, the Kushner-Berkowitz Plan has come under criticism, especially from Palestinian leaders, who see it as an attempt to sidestep key political issues. The traditional Palestinian position has always sought a political solution and an independent state, rather than an exclusively economic approach.

According to Ambassador Sergio Vento, former Italian head of mission in the USA and at the UN, the Plan represents the continuation of the "Casablanca Process" conceived by Shimon Peres in 1994, following the Oslo Accords of 1993. The Casablanca Conference brought together regional and international leaders to promote economic cooperation in the Middle East region. This initiative, supported by King Hassan II of Morocco, reflected the goal of improving economic ties between states in the region, including those with Israel.

In both cases, the combination of economic and diplomatic efforts sought to promote stability through cooperation. However, the challenge remains in addressing key political issues, such as the status of Jerusalem, the borders of the future state, and Palestinian citizenship. While the economic approach can contribute to progress, it is crucial to overcome Palestinian fundamentalism and find a comprehensive political solution to ensure lasting peace in the Middle East.

The complex Middle Eastern scenario: A turning point in Israeli-Palestinian relations

The current discussion follows the path traced by the Abraham Accords, with the aim of strengthening diplomatic ties in the region. While normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel seemed in question, a deeper analysis reveals a skillfully managed process, defying expectations and involving multiple actors.

The recent negotiation between Saudi Arabia and Israel for the normalization of relations went beyond the well-known security issues. This development not only revives the impression of a robust process but demonstrates an all-round involvement, ranging from diplomacy to military power plays. The notable military buildup has already effectively intimidated Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah, outlining a new dynamic in regional geopolitics.

The Arab League, historically united in its condemnation of Israel, suffered a significant split during its emergency summit in November. Saudi Arabia played a key role in blocking the attempted military and economic isolation of Israel proposed by some Arab and Muslim countries. The requests, if implemented, would have had substantial implications, including the suspension of diplomatic contacts, the limitation of oil sales to the US and the restriction of Israeli air traffic over the skies of the Gulf.

Opposition to such measures has emerged primarily from Israel's Abraham Accords partner states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco. Also worth underlining is the support from Egypt and Jordan, countries with consolidated peace agreements with Israel. Surprisingly, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania and Djibouti also rejected the proposed measures.

The temporary freeze in Israeli-Saudi ties after a terrorist attack has cast a shadow over normalization but does not appear to have undermined long-term efforts. Mauritania and Djibouti, which already had diplomatic relations with Israel in the past, show a new openness, while Iran sees its request to designate the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as a terrorist organization rejected.

In this intricate diplomatic game, the Middle Eastern region is facing a substantial change in the relationships between the main players. Astute management of political and economic dynamics could shape the future of the area, outlining a new era of collaboration or, vice versa, consolidating pre-existing tensions.

The Return of Tony Blair: An Injection of British Experience into Middle Eastern Theatre

The possible return of Sir Anthony CL Blair as humanitarian coordinator for the Gaza Strip has attracted international attention, fueling speculation about the key role the former British prime minister could play in strengthening ties between Israel and the United Kingdom in the Middle East .

According to unofficial sources, Israel is considering installing Blair to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza, a strategic move to reduce international pressure on its campaign against the Palestinian enclave. Benjamin Netanyahu appears keen to capitalize on Blair's experience as a former Quartet envoy to the Middle East, aiming to ease growing global concerns over the civil consequences of the conflict in Gaza.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has contacted Blair to discuss the possible appointment, and talks are reportedly ongoing. Blair's office responded to the rumors by saying that a position had not been given or offered, but did not directly deny the talks.

Blair previously served as the Middle East Quartet representative from 2007 to 2015. The Quartet, made up of the US, European Union, UN and Russia, was created in 2002 with the aim of promoting peace and facilitating negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

During his tenure, Blair worked to improve the Palestinian economy, facilitate political and institutional reforms, and promote international investment in the Palestinian territories. However, the Quartet has come under criticism, with some Palestinian supporters and critics of Blair's approach deeming it ineffective in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Blair's possible involvement in a new capacity in Gaza can be interpreted in relation to the recent appointment of Lord David Cameron of Chipping Norton as Foreign Secretary in the Sunak government. This marks the return of key figures in British politics and introduces an element of experience into delicate diplomatic ties, clearly outlining the direction of travel in the attempt to avert the opening of a third contemporary crisis front in the Indo-Pacific. Cameron is softer on China, but resolute in his support for Ukraine against the war launched by Russia and firm in containing Iran's regional influence.

The need to contain China to avoid tensions in the Pacific is now fundamental. It is no coincidence that for the first time since 2011 (then it was in Honolulu, Hawaii), the USA hosted the annual APEC summit in November. The APEC meeting was attended by – among others – China, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea and Russia, represented, obviously not by President Vladimir V. Putin, but by the deputy prime minister Alexei L. Overchuk. But the main event of the summit actually took place behind closed doors: on Wednesday 15 November there was a face-to-face meeting between President Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The meeting was held against the backdrop of the frosty relationship between China and the US and very complicated global situations.

Brexit, which gave the UK greater autonomy in trade and security policies, contributed to the consolidation of London's influential role on the international scene. The return of Blair and Cameron highlights the UK's potential to help manage complex regional dynamics and highlights the growing gap between the EU and the UK in terms of geopolitical influence, with Brussels effectively non-existent, and London playing a central both in Ukraine and in the Middle East.

Abramo Plus: A new investment paradigm to defuse conflict

In a context full of tensions and hostility, the "Abramo Plus" initiative emerges as a powerful tool to relaunch the dynamics of investments in infrastructure, removing Israel from the surrounding sea of ​​hatred and the poorly concealed hostility of some regional government elites. The key idea is to use economic power as a catalyst to defuse entrenched hatred, bringing tangible benefits to the region.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia could play a crucial role by investing not only in Israel, but also in renewed Palestine. This would not only improve economic stability, but also create an opportunity for a more credible and attractive PNA, which could emerge as a force for positive change.

The unresolved issue: Israeli internal politics

However, the internal issue remains unresolved: the type of counterpart that Abramo Plus could find in Israeli politics. With the possible post-Netanyahu political transition, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Sullivan's efforts could focus on a new chapter in Israel-Palestinian relations.

Netanyahu's controversial leadership, marked by excessive interdiction power granted to allies Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir and divisive actions on the secular and democratic character of the Jewish state, such as the controversial justice reform, raises the question of a necessary change. The respected figure of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant emerges as a possible solution to the call for change. Perhaps it is time to also reform Israel's electoral law, which has contributed to excessive fragmentation of politics. Compromised government stability and the power of fringe parties pose significant challenges.

The two-state solution remains questionable, and the viability of an autonomous Palestinian state is called into question by its economic sustainability. As the region faces several unknowns, including political uncertainty in the US, post-conflict reconstruction could be a vehicle for a new beginning.

The focus on a “Jordan Rift Valley” and the project of elevated bridges to connect the 3 Palestinian cantons designed by the Kushner-Berkowitz Plan could lead to an economic revival.

In a speech before a joint session of the US Congress on December 12, 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres stated: “Before coming here, I visited King Hussein, a loyal friend of the United States. We explored the prospects of transforming the Jordan Valley, an elongated desert, into a Tennessee Valley. Drawing inspiration from your experiences, we are resolute in a broad initiative to reclaim the desert, stop the war and end hatred once and for all.” Indeed, Peres's words from 1995 resonate prophetically today, reflecting a vision beyond his time. The idea of ​​transforming the Jordan Valley, once a forward-thinking concept, now resonates with timeless relevance. Peres' commitment to reclaiming the desert, ending conflict and eradicating hatred takes on renewed significance as enduring challenges but also aspirations for peace remain in the region.

Alongside the Abraham Accords (and Abraham Plus), inextricably intertwined with Ariel Sharon, the most creative figure in Israeli politics, lies the alternative perspective. The idea that “Jordan-is-Palestine” has consistently underpinned the strategic ethos of the Likud party. In a 1988 paper, Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes recounts how, back in the 1920s, the Likud's ideological originator, Vladimir Z. Jabotinsky, postulated that Palestine, as a territory, boasted a “principal geographical feature.” where the Jordan River, far from delineating boundaries, meandered elegantly through it. Jumping to 1982, Pipes notes, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir stated that the main dilemma was not the lack of a homeland for Palestinian Arabs, since Transjordan (i.e. eastern Palestine) served that purpose. Shamir stated categorically: “A Palestinian state west of the Jordan River is a recipe for anarchy.” History has proven Shamir right.

Regardless of perspective, as Israel faces a crucial turning point, innovative solutions detached from historic Palestinian recriminations, such as a Marshall Plan for the Middle East; and regardless of past Palestinian aspirations, such as the historic idea of ​​Palestinian Jordanization, they are imperatives for a secure Israel and a peaceful Middle East.

Bepi Pezzulli is a Solicitor of the Superior Courts of England and Wales, specializing in international law. His research interests include the Middle East and hybrid warfare.

---

---

The article In the complex puzzle of the Middle East, the USA returns to the front line (by Bepi Pezzulli) comes from Scenari Economici .

---

This is a machine translation of a post published on Scenari Economici at the URL https://scenarieconomici.it/nel-complesso-puzzle-del-medio-orientegli-usa-tornano-in-prima-linea-di-bepi-pezzulli/ on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:58:50 +0000.