Is the Middle East becoming less Arab?(Sunni hate Shia-loving Obama?)

President Obama’s letter to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in which he laid out the foundation of a new relationship emanating from a nuclear compromise, and stressed shared U.S.-Iranian interests in combatting the extremist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is emblematic of a gradual and subtle shift in Washington’s attitudes towards the region in general and its Arab actors in particular. In this rapidly changing Middle East, the U.S. sees a diminishing Arab influence brought about by the erosion of the state system, lack of political legitimacy, decades of autocracy, and the rise of identity politics that is fueling an unprecedented sectarian bloodletting on a wide front stretching from the Gulf to the Mediterranean.

In this new, not necessarily brave or promising Middle East, where non-state actors like ISIS and Hezbollah are challenging century-old state boundaries, the U.S. finds itself compelled to cooperate and rely more on non-Arab actors, like Iran, the Kurds and to a lesser extent Turkey, to solve what seems to be the intractable problems that the Arabs themselves have created over the years, and yes, made worse with a little help from the U.S. and some in the neighborhood.

Analyzing, how the U.S. is leading and conducting the war against ISIS, a savvy European diplomat observed, before the Wall Street Journal revealed Obama’s secret letter to Khamenei, that the U.S. is increasingly tempted to rely on Iran’s considerable influence in Iraq and Syria. While he did not say it explicitly, the implication of his observation is that Iran, directly and or by proxy is the country with the most sway in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, and that it is on its way to play a similar role in Yemen. The seasoned diplomat noted with fascination America’s increasing reliance on Kurdish muscle to check and repulse ISIS in both Iraq and Syria.

“President Obama has been a dogged suitor in his pursuit of Iran's affection” Hisham Melhem Not only the U.S. is supporting and arming the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga, but also aiding and arming the Syrian Kurdish militia the People’s Defense Corps (YPG), which is valiantly defending the town of Kobani in Syria against ISIS’s relentless attacks, even though the YPG is allied with the Turkish Kurdistan Workers' Party PKK which was designated years ago by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. The rise of Iran’s influence in Iraq and the Levant, its extensive support and collaboration with Shiite militias in the three Arab states, and the increasing assertiveness of Kurdish power and influence in Iraq, Syria and Turkey, their growing, and effective military role in blunting ISIS’s military machine, in northern Iraq and northern Syria signified to the European diplomat that the “Middle East is becoming more Iranian, more Kurdish, more Turkish…” and when I interjected “ and less Arab?” he replied “yes, less Arab”, stressing that he was just describing the new reality. In the last few years, I have written about the diminishing influence of the Arabs in their own world, where they find themselves chafing under the shadows of their more powerful – but not necessarily magnanimous - neighbors.

The depredations of Arab autocrats have gutted their states and societies, lead to the erosion of state authority and weakened the Arab state system that dominated politics and regional rivalries during the decades that followed the Second World War. Arab states competed among themselves and with their non-Arab neighbors for regional leadership and formed alliances with regional non-Arab and outside powers. There was a long Arab cold war, and some short hot ones, Iraq invaded Iran and triggering the longest conventional war in the 20th century. There were five Arab-Israeli wars involving states (including the invasion of Lebanon), although Israel’s recent wars were waged against non-state actors like Hezbollah and Hamas.

Throughout these years the state was the dominant actor, and Arab identity was the prominent one, projecting a veneer of secularism in countries like Egypt, Syria and Iraq, at the expense of the identity (ethnic, linguistic or religious) of other important groups living in majority Arab states. That old Arab world with its clear political and ideological divisions based on rational states competing for leadership that was chronicled by scholars like Malcolm Kerr, Patrick Seale, Michael Hudson, and others, is no more.

Today, Iraq and Syria are convulsed by brutal internal wars and drawing to their maelstrom other Arab actors, Iran, Turkey the U.S. the Europeans and Russia. These states as well as other brittle ones like Yemen, Libya and Lebanon, are being threatened and or controlled by armed militias or very powerful non-state actors like ISIS and Hezbollah. Even old resilient states, like Egypt are no longer cohesive or as strong as they used to be. In 1973 the Egyptian army crossed the Suez Canal, to do battle with the Israeli army occupying Sinai. Today, the Egyptian army is still fighting in Sinai, but today the enemy is a home grown Islamist insurgency.

With the fragmentation of some states, the diminishing appeal and power of the Arab identity, which is being undermined further by rising toxic sectarianism, the category “Arab”, the cultural identity of generations in the modern history of the Arab Middle East, is being sidelined as a category of analysis, and being replaced by more visceral primordial identities such as “Sunnis” and “Shiites”. Ironically, these identities, that are as old as Islam itself, are making the Middle East today more sectarian and “less Arab”.

President Obama has been a dogged suitor in his pursuit of Iran's affection. From the beginning of his tenure he extended a friendly hand to the Islamic Republic, only to be greeted with the clenched fist of the leader of supreme rejection. For all of his lofty general rhetoric about a new beginning with the Muslim world, his early –genuine, but tentative- attempts at pursuing peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, his early support for the goals of reforms and empowerment generated initially by the season of Arab uprisings, Obama’s supreme objective in the Middle East was and still is a historic opening to Iran that would be initiated by a nuclear accord that would prevent the Islamic Republic from developing nuclear weapons.

If some Iranians have the tendency to see their country as “the center of the universe“, President Obama views Iran as the center of the Middle East. Last March, Obama told author and journalist Jeffrey Goldberg that Iran is a rational actor seeking to play a major role in the world. One could see a tinge of admiration of Iran in Obama’s observation to Goldberg “What I’ll say is that if you look at Iranian behavior, they are strategic, and they’re not impulsive. They have a worldview, and they see their interests, and they respond to costs and benefits. And that isn’t to say that they aren’t a theocracy that embraces all kinds of ideas that I find abhorrent, but they’re not North Korea. They are a large, powerful country that sees itself as an important player on the world stage, and I do not think has a suicide wish, and can respond to incentives.”

According to the Wall Street Journal “the letter appeared aimed both at buttressing the campaign against Islamic State and nudging Iran’s religious leader closer to a nuclear deal.” The Journal added “Mr. Obama stressed to Mr. Khamenei that any cooperation on Islamic State was largely contingent on Iran reaching a comprehensive agreement with global powers on the future of Tehran’s nuclear program by a Nov. 24 diplomatic deadline.” The letter, along with reports in the Iranian media that the U.S. is willing to be more forthcoming regarding the number of uranium-enriching centrifuges that it will allow Iran to have, shows that the Obama administration is very eager to get a deal, probably more eager than Iran.

However, the most disturbing passage as Fred Hof, one of America’s best analysts of Syria told me, was the one saying that President Obama "sought to assuage Iran's concerns about the future of its close ally, Bashar al-Assad of Syria" by assuring the Supreme Leader that "the U.S.'s military operations inside Syria aren't targeted at Mr. Assad or his security forces." This is the same Iran that has helped the Assad regime build an impressively repulsive portfolio of war crimes and crimes against humanity. President Obama is well aware of what Assad has done to the people of Syria and how Iran has assisted him. As Hof puts it “The President of the United States should be the last person on earth to assure the Supreme Leader that his criminal client is immune. Principle and decency aside, such an assurance would be bad tactically. Why should the United States worry about Iran and not vice versa? With such an assurance in hand why would the Assad regime exercise any restraint in terms of barrel bombs? How would we expect Iran to react to such an extraordinary attempt to reassure it on Syria?”

According to the WSJ, Obama’s October letter to Khamenei is the fourth since he took power in 2009. There is no indication that Khamenei ever responded to Obama’s repeated entreaties. It is as if the American president is sending his letters in bottles and none of them was picked up by the supreme leader, or if he was given the letters he might as well have stamped them: return to sender.

The letter, as one Arab diplomat observed is stunning in its total disregard of the feelings of the majority of the people in Syria and the neighboring Arab states at the spectacle of the United States enlisting the Shiite regime in Iran which has been aiding and abetting the anti-Sunni policies of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and Syria’s Assad. For the Obama administration to lose sight of this point is instructive since senior military and political leaders have been warning publicly, that the U.S. should not do anything that will deepen the alienation of more than 20 million Sunni Arabs inhabiting the area stretching from Damascus in Syria to Diyala in Iraq. Explaining the administration’s campaign to counter ISIS, deputy national security advisor Tony Blinken stressed the need to address the legitimate grievances of these Sunnis, since “ this is the vast sea in which ISIL swims, and it must inform the combination of determination, patience and humility we bring to the task of defeating it”.

The growing talk of American-Iranian détente, the shared interest in combatting a common enemy like ISIS, and president Obama’s stubborn refusal to accelerate the demise of the Syrian regime have combined to convince many Sunni Arabs that the U.S. is in collusion with Iran in Iraq and Syria, and that Washington is tolerating what amounts to an Iranian suzerainty over Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

The alienation of the Sunnis of Syria and Iraq has reached a traumatic level leading some of them to throw their lot with ISIS in Iraq and the Sunni extremist Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria. For the U.S. to attack al-Nusra, without actively and seriously working to topple the Assad regime will be seen by a lot of Sunnis in Syria and Lebanon as another U.S. affront to the Sunnis, who see al-Nusra as the major force on the ground fighting the Assad regime, and Hezbollah while being attacked by the U.S. These Sunnis are familiar with al-Nusra’s brutal side, but they are willing to suspend their judgment until the demise of Assad and his regime. The worst thing the U.S. could do now is to drive the Sunnis of Syria and Lebanon to the arms of al-Nusra. Obama’s letter to the supreme leader will do just that.

__________ Hisham Melhem is the bureau chief of Al Arabiya News Channel in Washington, DC. Melhem has interviewed many American and international public figures, including Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, among others. Melhem speaks regularly at college campuses, think tanks and interest groups on U.S.-Arab relations, political Islam, intra-Arab relations, Arab-Israeli issues, media in the Arab World, Arab images in American media , U.S. public policies and other related topics. He is also the correspondent for Annahar, the leading Lebanese daily. For four years he hosted "Across the Ocean," a weekly current affairs program on U.S.-Arab relations for Al Arabiya. Follow him on Twitter : @hisham_melhem

The classic previous comparison to oil for the Middle East would be the silver and gold of Mexico and Peru for Spain.

In 1500 Spain was a fully modern European state. It had remarkably similar political institutions to those of England, for example. It had thriving industry and commerce.

Then Cortez and Pizarro did their thing. Over the next two centuries Spain was for a while the dominant world power, then fell apart, largely due to “the wealth of the Indies.”

With money coming in without any need to produce things others wanted, the King no longer needed to negotiate with his subjects and work towards constitutional monarchy. He just built up his armies, with the wealth (or rather money) stolen from the Indians, and used them to crush any of his subjects who dissented. Industry and commerce fell apart. Who needed to do all that yucky (and low-class) work when you could just buy whatever you needed with stolen money?

The end result was that by 1800 or 1900 Spain was centuries behind England, France or Germany. Took the latter half of the 20th century for them to crawl back out of that hole, and then they dived back in with cheap German Euro credits, a variant of the same disease.

(“President Obama has been a dogged suitor in his pursuit of Iran's affection” Hisham Melhem) Not only the U.S. is supporting and arming the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga, but also aiding and arming the Syrian Kurdish militia the People’s Defense Corps (YPG), which is valiantly defending the town of Kobani in Syria against ISIS’s relentless attacks, even though the YPG is allied with the Turkish Kurdistan Workers' Party PKK which was designated years ago by the U.S. as a terrorist organization.

Doesn't sound like Obama's got much interest in common with the Turks, other than their supposed common opposition to Assad; then read how much Obama has *actually* done to support the rebellion -- tents, food, medical supplies for refugees, nearly all of whom are outside Syria -- and his words of encouragement to Iran.

Quick! Change the subject! In with the remarks about John McCain!

Obama told the Russians he'd have more leeway after the 2012 election. Since that time he's reneged on everything he said he'd do on behalf of the Syrian opposition, lifted sanctions on Iran, and displayed his devotion to the destruction of Israel. Iran and Syria are allies of Russia. He may as well be Pat Buchanan.

Prince Bandar said it over and over....... we want to modernize, but not to westernize.

That difference is the source of the middle east problems. On the Arabian peninsula there are those that are in fact modernizing and those that resist.

The best example is Usama bin Ladin. He resisted. His family however being great constructors led the way to modernization. They are building the infrastructure for a new society in the western province. For Usama, an engineer, that was intolerable.

The photo is of the skyline of Dubai. The photo is the best illustration available of the desire to modernize. Not only is there the desire, there is the action. Business and prosperity trump fundamentalist Islam. ISIL is dedicated to stopping that effort. ISIL does not represent the vast majority oF Islam that is enjoying better life because of modernization.

I agree with much of what you have posted.

But I am still convinced that the Obama chess moves, well considered or not, are ultimately intended to advance the interests of his own tribe, the Sunnis. And these actions by their nature work to the disadvantage of both the United States and the various countries currently dominated by Shiite governments.

Sorry, I don’t buy that Obama is Sunni or Muslim.

He’s just a typical member of the group he was educated with and has lived among his entire adult life. Highly educated, progressive Americans with reflexive but unreflective animosity towards Western Civilization in general and America in particular.

Their support for Islamists is not really anything of the kind. They just can’t conceive of any group opposed to Western Civ being bad.

They are an “anti” group, not a “pro” group. They aren’t really wedded to any of the causes they espouse. They aren’t opposed to WC because it’s insufficiently environmental or feminist or socialist or atheist or multi-cultural. They support those causes because they’re all at root anti-WC and merely provide a seemingly logical rationale for their hatred of WC.

Hence their ability to shift from one “cause” to another without breaking stride.

Their support for Islamists is not really anything of the kind. They just can’t conceive of any group opposed to Western Civ being bad.

You could be right about that.

But I'm a bit more conspiratorial. And it is hard to argue against the results of his actions in the Middle East. His only real "failure" is in Egypt where the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood was booted out of power. Iraq, Libya and Syria have been disrupted to the advantage of the Sunnis and the rise of ISIS as a regional power is the direct result of either Obama planning or incompetence.

I vote for planning. I suspect Valerie does too.

There is the old saying that one should never assign to malevolence what can be adequately explained by incompetence.

I just don’t buy that Obama is a secret Sunni or any other variety of Muslim. He lived in a Muslim country from age 6 to 10 or so, and we’re supposed to believe he developed, at that young age, a determined intention to become a secret agent to promulgate Islam?

His other contact with Islam was minimal. His grandfather, whom he never met, was Muslim, but his father and mother were both atheists. I believe the grandparents who actually raised him were at least nominal Christians.

Maybe the Middle East will develop a way of intereacting amongst themselves that actually works for them rather than trying to imitate the European model of the nation-state.

A Sunni Caliphate, and Sharia law would void and by-pass Nation States. Then the Sunnis would have time to deal with the heretics (Shias) in Iran, and us Infidels elsewhere.-Tom

Surprisingly, it really isn’t only about heretics and sunnis. Otherwise, Kurds by majority are sunnis too. BUT, both Kurds, who are an Iranic group & all other Iranian ethnic groups (regardless of religious denomination) are neither Arab nor Turk. They are ethnic minorities in the M.E. - that’s is why neither Arabs nor Turks like them. IOW, it isn’t just about religion or sect, but mostly about ethnicity, culture & language.

They are ethnic minorities in the M.E. - that’s is why neither Arabs nor Turks like them. IOW, it isn’t just about religion or sect, but mostly about ethnicity, culture & language.

That hodgepodge of ethnic groups, culture and to some extent nationality, is what works in favor of us Infidels being directly targeted by a uniform front of fundamental Muslims.

ISIS sticks to the letter of the Koran and Hadiths and attracts people from all over the world,without regard to race,national origin gender etc,
They want people who believe they are doing what Allah wants done; and are willing to put their lives on the line for that belief. (Subjugate ,convert or kill all Infidels.)

In the Sunni ranks there are Infidel collaborators and whishy washy believers and secular leaning members.
They will kill those people along with us Infidels. -tom

That hodgepodge of ethnic groups, culture and to some extent nationality, is what works in favor of us Infidels being directly targeted by a uniform front of fundamental Muslims.

That should read:That hodgepodge of ethnic groups, culture and to some extent nationality, is what works in favor of us Infidels NOT being directly targeted by a uniform front of fundamental Muslims.

In other words, because of so much dissension among the Sunni Muslims they have a problem keeping people on the same page.
A good reason for them to want to have a Caliphate and Sharia law, and get back to the basics of Islam.(Subjugating, converting or killing Infidels) -Tom

I don't think they 'want to take back the world'. But they are defensive & concerned about retaining their position. There was a time when they were absolutely paranoid about their regime being toppled; similar to the Soviets; that was at the beginning of the Khomeinist revolution. Not so much now.

I believe 2 things. 1) Iranian regime is very realistic & pragmatic. The insane ones are firmly kept in check by their regime (sane) counterparts; yes, there are sane & influential individuals within regime circles too. 2) they will die over time.

I can't fully explain certain cultural drivers in Iran in one or two posts. However, it will come down to either pushing them mullahs and their supporters completely out of the picture and by force, or letting them die naturally.

I was in favour of the first some time ago, but not now. The regime at present has a way of keeping itself in check. Of course I also think about what can, most likely, happen after this regime is gone, at least for now.

Here is the cold truth: Sunnis do not think Shites are true muslims. Shites try to over-compensate.

Iran, with its non-Arab roots, suffers from inferiority complex and that complex is exasperated by its Shite-ness. They are trying to over-compensate by funding Islamic Jihad across the Middle East.

The entire Middle East, with its Arabic, Iranic, Kurdic, Turkic, and Berberic elements, all muslimes to the core, is a huge CLUSTERFRCK. The only solution is to let the septic tank settle, but with oil interests breweing, this cannot happen. So, let the bloodletting continue. Let muslimes kill each other.

There is the old saying that one should never assign to malevolence what can be adequately explained by incompetence.
++++
Perhaps. But was the selection of Valerie Jarrett or his love for The Muslim Brotherhood due to incompetence? I don't think so. His actions have advanced Islam. His actions have advanced the Sunnis at the expense of the Shiites. Incompetence is a factor but it is not the whole story.

As far as I can see, every action of Obama is explained as well by what for lack of a better term I’ll call anti-Americanism, since its core principle is hostility to “traditional America,” as by any desire to promote the benefits of Islam or Sunnis.

YMMV

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.