Sunday analysis

This week, the analysis of Arabic and Occidental news and reports identified two strategic moves within the Middle East region. Iraq is still one of the key issues to explain them. Arab leaders, while following their American ally, now have to develop parallel strategies in order to face the Iranian crisis. The following analysis seeks to shed some insight into this dual policy.

We will start with an interesting move concluded this week in Jordan, where King Abdallah II explained that his country is willing to push for nuclear energy in order to obtain access to this source of energy within ten years from now. It is quite relevant to see that this declaration comes at a time when the tension is rising in the region, especially a few days before the King is visiting his neighbors, among them Saudi Arabia. He will also be going to France, which is widely seen as currently being eager to sell its nuclearexpertise/know-how to Arab countries. President Sarkozy explained a few days ago that France was ready to trust its Arab partners and to give them access to this knowledge. Sarkozy was already quite generous with Ghadafi, and could well be willing to help Jordan’s interests too.

At the same time, the GCC‘s decision to go nuclear, a reaction to Iran’s hegemonic aspirations in the region, seems to be going ahead as the IAEA, after having given its green light, will issue a feasibility report beginning of March 2008. In this respect, Sunnis will catch up with Iran in civil nuclear energy, of course in a few years from now.

From a political and diplomatic perspective, the past week has shown a lot of activity in ongoing trends in the Middle East:

The Saudi- Syrian clash was continuing at the beginning of the week, but Kuwait was offering its help as an intermediary in order to stop this diplomatic conflict. It seems that Syria is still acting as a proxy for Iran, who can’t afford to attack the Kingdom directly, but is trying to target it through its supposed satellite.

Russia is playing a strange game in the region. They are playing a double game according to Israel : though they are a key partner in the resolution of the Iranian problem, they are also selling missiles and advanced military technologies to Syria, and having one thousand military specialists help Syria renovate its defense system. At the same time, they are helping the Shia (Iran and Syria) in their attacks toward Israel, spreading rumors against Israel and trying to bring confusion in the relations between them and Arab countries.

Nevertheless, Bush’s decision to push for an international peace conference is sill relevant, King Abdallah Bin Abdulaziz as well as King Abdallah II of Jordan have been supporting it and asked Israel to join this conference to try and find a peaceful solution. For the past months this was only classic diplomatic-speak but it now seems that both Arab countries and Israel are willing to find a real solution to be united against a common enemy, Iran. It is interesting to follow Olmert’s lastest moves in trying to solve the conflict.

Solving this conflict meets the U.S.’s interests. Many countries think, and maybe they are right, that Washington is pushing hard for Arab countries to follow its advice and unite against Iran. Saudi Arabia is still using oil as a powerful weapon against Iran, where the prices are steadily increasing. At the same time, as Maliki said last Friday, some Saudi clerics are attacking Shias and explaining that most of them have to be destroyed because they are infidels. Bush also pointed out that Iraq is the main front line against Iranian and Shia extremism. That could explain why he chose to support Sunni in Iraq in the past days, explaining that he was ready to help them in countering Iranian Shia in the country.

But even if we can see an overall pro U.S. strategy trend in the region, supported by many U.S. congressmen who are happy to see that last month’s US$ 20 billion weapons deal was helpful, there are other factors showing that Arab states are also following another strategy because they cannot rely on Washington all the time.

In the Middle East, the U.S. is seen to be losing the war in Iraq. That means that many countries are now pushing to replace the United States as leader/primary force etc in the region. Russia’s lastest move in Syria may be interpreted accordingly. Likewise, Iran’s aspiration to become the new regional leader stems from a similar push. Saudi Arabia, though they are going slower, could become the real new leader of the region, through the use of efficient and discreet diplomacy.

KSA would deploy as many as 35 000 guards to oil fields in the Eastern region, if Iran were to attack them, as they can no longer trust the United States and wish to protect their territory and their most important source of revenue, oil, by themselves. The U.S., who are viewed to be losing in Iraq, are also seen as facing an enemy there, namely Iran. That would mean that Iran is winning in Iraq. And the Saudi cannot let such rumors spread in the region, otherwise they would face a loss of credibility in the Arab world. Therefore they have to react by themselves and show that they do not rely on their American partner for diplomacy or protection.

Therefore, even if Bush is supporting Sunni in Anbar in Iraq, that is not enough for the Saudis, who have to act by themselves, even if that implies moving against Washington, as they did when concluding a free trade pact with Iran.