Sunday analysis 071007

This past week seemed to be relatively quiet on the Middle Eastern front. Verbal attacks and provocations between Shia, Sunnis, U.S. or Israel were not on the rise. Russia did not openly play its customary dual game. Ahmadenijad did not attack U.S. nor Israel. At first glance, therefore, it would seem there is a lull but diplomacy can be deceiving, especially viewed through the media.

This week, the CRS “Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Countries 2006” was released. This explains many moves in the region (and in the world as well, but the focus will be narrowily kept). It seems that Russia and United States are fighting again to divide and rule the world. Global sales give particularly interesting clues as to current trends. Russia has been selling a lot to Iran and Syria but the U.S. has been selling as well :

“The Near East has generally been the largest arms market in the developing world. However, in 1999-2002, it accounted for 36.5% of the total value of all developing nations arms transfer agreements ($29.7 billion in current dollars), ranking it second behind Asia which was first with 47.6% of these agreements. But, during 2003-2006, the Near East region accounted for 46.6% of all such agreements ($46.7 billion in current dollars), again placing it first in arms agreements with the developing world. The United States dominated arms transfer agreements with the Near East during the 1999-2002 period with 68.4% of their total value ($20.3 billion in current dollars). Russia was second during these years with 8.1% ($2.4 billion in current dollars). Recently, from 2003-2006, the United States accounted for 48.9% of arms agreements with this region ($22.8 billion in current dollars), while the United Kingdom accounted for 16.5% of the region’s agreements ($7.7 billion in current dollars). Russia accounted for 13.7% of the region’s agreements in the most recent period ($6.4 billion in current dollars)”

Between 2003 and 2006, three main countries have been sharing the Arab market among themselves, according to the CRS:

United States

349 tanks and self-propelled guns

715 APCs and armored cars

2 major surface combatants

5 minor surface combatants

71 supersonic combat aircraft

66 helicopters

465 surface-to-air missiles

87 anti-ship missiles

Russia

120 APCs and armored cars

20 supersonic combat aircraft

30 helicopters

1,240 surface-to-air missiles

China

20 artillery pieces

- 50 anti-ship missiles

This could explain the different positions staked by the U.S. and Russia at the U.N. Security Council. Weapons, energy and economic deals represent a large amount of incoming money for both governments, so analyzing them as well as diplomatic moves in the region is key to understanding current policy directions. Morality and Wilsonian logic can only explain policy so far, and the current Bush administration certainly practices a good dose of Realpolitik. That means controlling energetic assets, as well as huge markets like the near East. Losing those markets or the control of those assets would be a huge strategic setback for the U.S. It is crucial to read beyond diplomatic or political moves when analyzing the media. For example, this week, we learnt that Iran was about to open an oil marketing bureau in China. That could be interpreted as a threat to the U.S and another reason for them to take Iran on. China and Russia’s shares in the region are increasing, which means that in order to control the energy and weapons markets in the Gulf and Middle East region, the U.S. might have to show their willingness to do so. This might have to be done through a show of strength or force. Maybe by intervening in Iran?