Many observers are right to notice that the middle East is undergoing yet another seismic shift – that the Russian reached through the mediation of the agreement on the destruction of chemical weapons Arsenal Syria, us-Iran rapprochement, the fall of the strategic value of Saudi Arabia and Israel, and also US withdrawal from Afghanistan will make a substantial contribution to the changing dynamics of the region.
But what is this new direction? Whence it will undertake, who will lead, what will be his to define?
It has now become clear that the new "development" the Middle East is set mainly "security threat" posed by the proliferation of religious-extremist Islamist militants in numbers unseen even in Afghanistan and Iraq. This common danger has become the driving force of the shaft international diplomatic agreements that caused unexpected cooperation between representatives of the diverse mix of countries, many of which are enemies to each other.
These events, however, happen to postimperialism unique feature. For the first time in decades, this direction will be met from within the region, the middle Eastern States, associations, religious communities and political parties, extremism which threatens the most.
After all, no one else today is no longer to "save" the middle East.
Due to the fact that Salafi fighters climb over a variety of boundaries from the Levant and the Persian Gulf to North Africa and then countries collapse, their territorial integrity and sovereignty are under threat, their institutions and economy are in ruins, but the armed forces are powerless in irregular hostilities maintained by these invaders.
But within this chaos a group of countries at the forefront of this battle decided to give shape to the problem.
Their answer is to deal with the movement of the militants directly, to clean him from their territories and cut off from its roots. Now they share intelligence, cooperate on the battlefield through their collective resources and are working on getting support from the international community.
And now, while other countries in the region are weak in the area from the Levant to the Persian Gulf crystallizes Union countries: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
According to several knowledgeable sources in the region of the Levant, interviewed over several months, this "security Arc" will seek to achieve several goals. First, is the maintenance of territorial integrity and sovereignty of participating countries. Secondly, the establishment of full cooperation in the sphere of defence and security, directed against immediate and future threats from extremists. Third, developing common political views on improving the quality of the Alliance and could lead to further cooperation in other areas.
Sunni Jordan's king Abdullah once dubbed these four countries "Shiite Crescent" by making extremely sectarian attack in the direction of the growing influence of Shia governments and political parties in all four countries. But Union security, which is now formed between 4 countries, has little in common with the banal "sect". On the contrary, Abdullah and his allies have directly contributed to the development of this education:
In the end, it is the Western-backed Arab monarchies in the region have launched a "counterrevolution" aimed to thwart popular Arab uprisings and to redirect them through Syria against their regional opponents. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE and their Western allies threw at the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad money, weapons, instructors and resources in an attempt to weaken Iran, isolate Hizbullah and to resolve the issue with this "Shiite threat" once and for all.
But in his narrow-minded a hurried desire to weaken the enemies of the Arab monarchies (supported by Western allies) backed any fellow willing to join the battle and turned a blind eye to sectarian, extremist ideology followed by these fighters. In full contradiction with the logic they believed that the movement of the militants can be monitored after the performance of the task.
In the words of senior researcher of the Council on foreign relations ed Hussain factory in August 2012, "the unspoken political calculation among the creators (us) policy is to first get rid of Assad, weakening Iran's position in the region – and then deal with "al-Qaeda".
In the end, Assad has resisted, Iran didn't waver, Hezbollah dug in, and joined a battle the Russians and the Chinese. As the Syrian conflict has turned into a geopolitical battle for regional values, heavy weapons, porous borders and increasingly sectarian rhetoric created from the Lebanon to Iraq is a unique opportunity for Salafist militants, including al-Qaida, to build influence and lead in a highly desirable corridor from the Levant to the Persian Gulf.
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said: "the Main plot of the events in Syria, is to capture a significant Sunni fundamentalists geographically part of the Middle East, the explosion of the Syrian state and the Levant as we know it".
Today, the ideological brand of political violence marked by summary executions, suicide bombings, beheadings and sectarianism threatens to destroy the whole country and turn it into a refuge "emirs" and their inheritance, managed in accordance with Sharia law. For someone it's worth it – the Saudis continue outright to Fund and weaponize these conflicts. Other supporters, especially in the West, began to fear that the March of Jihad none the border will not stop.
But few have taken concrete steps to curb financial and militarily – of the spread of this extremism.
And so to solve this problem remains only for the people who are its targets. The same axis, the West-Arabs, which is fueling sectarianism and encouraging an armed "Sunni" reaction, has tried to disrupt the "Shia" influence in the middle East, has created is now among the Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese and Iraqis badly needed a common cause, almost entirely based on the threat of "security".
A self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will.
The Union of different
In Lebanon, Syria and Iraq there are significant – mainly Sunni – populations that currently do not support the idea of Union security between these 4 States. Decades of sectarian propaganda from the GCC and the West have led to a strong suspicion of these socio-demographic groups of the intentions of Shiite Iran and its allies.
Although these groups can with the same probability of becoming victims of Salafi militants are now in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon began to kill Sunni moderates (along with Christians, Kurds and Shia), their unwillingness to see the growing influence of political opponents often came to mean that they provide "cover" to the militants-Christians and allow them to spread on the ground. The choice of these demographic groups is painful – to give increase to his opponents or to let the extremists get out of control.
But earlier this year, when Hizbullah took the decision to fight in Syria's Qusayr near the Syrian army, it became clear that the parties supporting the Alliance for security, will no longer indulge the dissenters.
This "security Arc" will be forged regardless of the approval of the sceptics. And acceptance of the imperative of security comes from an unexpected side: from the United States.
In the past few months, Washington has suddenly moved from supporting mostly Sunni "uprising" in Syria to attempts to establish contacts with Iran. This reversal stems from the realization that the U.S. is dangerously overworked in its geopolitical game and allowed religious movement of the militants to grow, passing the point of no return. Neither Washington nor its NATO partners cannot reverse this trend on their own. They failed miserably in a decade superficial "war on terror", which, on the contrary, helped to sow even more seeds of extremism. The U.S. now understand that they need the full assistance of regional partners and emerging powers, for which the danger from the militants is closer – Iran, Russia, China, India, Syria, Iraq – not just to fight extremism, but to cut it from sources... in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan and other places.
Americans are in a very difficult position to fight the spread of extremists, they will have to support the military and aimed at ensuring security solution to their old foes in the region – Iran, Syria, Hizbullah. For starters, it means that 30 plus years of "policy" will be in the truest sense of the word been washed away into the sewer, and Washington risks alienating longtime regional allies. Moreover, successful outcome, i.e. eliminating extremism, will with a high degree of probability imply a dominant influence of Iran and the decline of an ally of the USA Saudi Arabia in addition to many other consequences that the waves will fan out across the Middle East.
Contradictory signals from Washington in the middle East are the result of this forced decision. Deeds, however, speak louder than words – the US just in record time signed in Geneva agreement with Iran about its nuclear program, the first secretly opened direct channels of communication. Last month, U.S. President Barack Obama asked for a meeting with his Iraqi counterpart Nouri al-Maliki – soon after the US began sharing intelligence for the first time since the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. This first portion of intelligence, according to "Al-Zaman" was about movement of militants in the desert of Anbar. Today, relations between the US and Saudi Arabia have deteriorated to such an extent that even officials doubt the presence of some real convergence of interests; the European ambassadors begin to move back in Damascus, representatives of their intelligence services are lining up to meet with their Syrian counterparts to exchange data on jihadists; the formidable Israelis pushed to the side when making some important decisions on the Middle East; NATO member Turkey is working in an emergency procedure to relieve tension in relations with Iran and Iraq. The list is growing.
Six months ago these out of the ordinary event would not have been possible if the shore was still wearing. The speed with which we ushered in the "era of compromise" between opponents – a measure of extreme urgency jihadi-Salafi problem, and what will go to the country to pursue it.
Even if it means the need to bulldoze through established stereotypes of politics and put them upside down.
As I said a high-ranking source in Hezbollah, "the US focus on reaching agreements directly with their opponents, instead to rely on its allies". There's a good reason. Many regional allies of Washington are a source of instability, and they need to deter, to coerce and to persuade them to accept new realities.
Some of these allies include political parties within the "Arc of safety". Now they are easier to persuade to cooperate, partly because the threat of terrorism hanging over their own hearth and home. In Lebanon, for example, the national army, still derivadas Pro-Saudi political interests, it seems, has finally decided to engage the Salafi militants in key towns, cities and refugee camps where their population has grown. This is a huge breakthrough after nearly three years otsizhivaniya waiting for the spill-over from Syria without actually taking any precautions in the field of security aimed at not preventing it.
"Security arc": a plan of action
Developments on all fronts are developing rapidly. The fusion of religious extremist militias in the 50-strong "Islamic front" led on the opposite side to unite around one common cause. Last week the United States and Britain to stop supporting the rebels, belatedly fearing radicalization of the "uprising". And Iran began to make diplomatic efforts in relation to neighbouring countries in the Gulf to cause in their ranks split on the issue of subordination of the old line of confrontation, and succeed, when Oman refused to support the Saudi initiative to establish a Union of the countries of the Persian Gulf.
But to stamp out jihadism in Syria and beyond, you must perform three main tasks – and this will require a collective effort.
The first is to bring the extremists within the territories where they grow in numbers and influence, and where there is political will, i.e., within the "Arc of safety" – in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran. It is primarily a military solution – though some fighters may surrender or leave the game due to the ongoing negotiated political outreach, or when in charge of their state (entity) refuses from its plans.
The second is to establish a global regime of financial sanctions on the weakening of the jihadi-Salafist networks by attacking their sources of funding. On a small scale this is already being done, but the relationship of the West with many violators – countries and individuals – in the past prevented any real progress in this area. As drew attention to Patrick Cockburn in a recent article in The Independent "massacres in the middle East are funded by our friends the Saudis", "everyone knows where al Qaeda gets its money, but while the violence has a religious character, the West does nothing". The recent us-Iran rapprochement accelerated with the aim of solving the problem of terrorism – can change this state of Affairs, given the radical rearrangement of priorities and which are incurred as a result of the alliances.
The third task for the neighbouring countries and even those that are far outside of the region to close their borders and ensure their impermeability for immigration security. The case of the Syrian border we are already seeing both Turkey and Jordan taking some drastic measures, but the Iraqi border still remains porous and dangerous. Hence the recent rise of Washington's level of engagement intelligence in relations with Iraq.
The attraction to the priority of "security"
You can already see the changes in calculations in the countries outside the "Arc of safety". Many astute understand what a vital role these 4 countries have to play in countering the movement of militants. All now closely watching Syria, where the security situation is the most unreliable in the region – particularly in Egypt, Jordan and Turkey.
The last three countries are the States of the region, from which the most can be expected to support the task of "security Arc", albeit with reservations that accompany some fairly sharp political differences.
Jordan, for example, played the role of "host" for the mass of foreign special forces, troops, intelligence agencies and military contractors, all of which were focused on the task of overthrowing the current Syrian government. But even its longstanding financial dependence on Saudi Arabia is not worth thousands of jihadists, located on Jordanian territory, waiting to be sent to the conflict zone. Arab media cite a staggering number of Jordanian jihadists of origin within the country is 1000 people. For comparison, the Europeans catch the fever when you return home even a handful of their own Islamist militants.
According to the Lebanese source with a lot of connections, around 4 months ago, Jordan, Syria and Iraq have begun secret consultations (separately on a bilateral basis) on cooperation in the sphere of economy and security. At first, the Jordanians have shied away from taking security measures, but eventually changed their minds. They are not only concerned about extremism, but the economic collapse of one may initiate the other. The worst option would be a complete gap from the life undergoing rapid changes the region. Jordanians do not go against the current, and taking into account the fact that they are sandwiched between Syria and Iraq, it is easy to imagine their new direction.
Courts of state security in Amman has already imprisoned prominent Jordanian and Salafi militants who were intending to cross the border into Syria. Jordan closed its border, has introduced a strict security regime around the camp of Syrian refugees Zaatari, and, most likely, will take further action on the improvement of relations with the Syrian government.
The Turks also took measures to seal its borders – in practice. Inside its Islamist establishment continues unabated internal war in which impulsive Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has thrown his lot almost three years ago together with the Syrian opposition. His intransigence on this issue has cost us dearly Turkey – armed militants took refuge at the Turkish-Syrian border, in the country was leaked to political violence, the popularity of Turkey in all religious communities of the Arab world has sharply gone down, the actions of the Erdogan's suppression of protests has described him as a hypocrite, and Kurdish autonomy in Syria stirs the ambitions of the Kurds in neighboring Turkey.
The Turks will understand the imperative of security, but the clincher will be economic. Syria requires a large amount of restoration work, and Iraq had oil wealth that can be spent when peace returns. Moreover, under the draft gas pipeline from Iran to the Mediterranean sea completely bypass Turkey – if she will not cooperate.
Egypt, most likely, will take place in the "Arc of safety" for the simple reason that now he is faced with the same problems. Burdened with the provisional military government of debts of petrodollars from Saudi Arabia and other state sponsors of the Gulf, Egypt would be bankrupt if religious militants are held, and what now threatens to happen. During the popular uprising in Egypt in early 2011 to Sinai, a wave of attacks on security forces, which again significantly increased, since this summer, when returned to power the military establishment. Today the flock from outside Sinai militants Nebadon, equipped with modern weapons, taken in the conflicts in Libya and Sudan. During the short reign of the "Muslim Brothers" who supported the Syrian rebels to fight in Syria gathered thousands of Egyptians. Very similar to what the state under the control or influence of the secular military establishment will follow the example of Syria and take serious measures in the field of security, to break the backbone of the extremists.
Whatever political preferences, there is little doubt that the inaction against the Salafist militants will bring this situation to the disintegration of States across the Middle East.
The most alarming point today is Syria, and behind it was Iraq, due to their Central (politically and geographically) the situation in the region, as well as the likelihood that smaller and weaker neighbors will be plunged into chaos.
Therefore, the fight against extremism will begin within the "Arc of safety" and will receive immediate support from the BRICS and non-aligned countries. The West may choose to play a key role behind the scenes, and not to upset their regional allies – at least for a while. But as the confrontation in the country will be forced to "take the party" in this critical battle – and in the middle East, and beyond. Should expect the action dictated by opportunism – there may come a time when a welcome for someone will be "Pat". However, the extremists dare to support a few, so you can anticipate some major changes in the narrative about "good" and "bad guys" in the middle East.
Now this is the real war on terrorism. But this time it will be from the Middle East, will receive universal support and change the political balance of power in the region for generations to come.
- 14-06-2019The electronic state of the future
- 11-03-2019How to change the world, when the Earth's population will reach 10 billion
- 09-09-2018Le Monde (France): We come to the point where globalization is too expensive
- 02-05-2018Technology: 35-forecasts to 2018
- 22-03-2018"Digital state": how they have evolved
- 04-07-2012Russia cooking oil blockade and the collapse of the scenario of the 80-ies
- 23-12-2012The Vedic understanding of state policy
- 22-11-2013In the archives of the "world government"
- 08-01-2014Of a mega-Church and their communication strategies
- 08-11-2012The main threat to peace or a recipe for success