RECONCILIATION has become the code word in today’s regional politics. It represents an attempt to move away from the divisive and confrontational policies that have characterized eight years of the Bush presidency in the Middle East and elsewhere. But the challenge of bridging the divide that separates many parties remains daunting.
Almost from the onset, the Obama administration has been sending signals to foes underlining its readiness to negotiate and reverse previous doctrines. Peace offerings were sent to “moderate” Taleban, Syria, Iran and Russia among others. Washington is repositioning itself on various issues from Iraq to Afghanistan and elsewhere. In doing so President Barack Obama is honoring a promise to change the course of American politics.
This reconciliatory mood has manifested itself in many ways. Palestinian factions have been engaged in a serious effort to reach national consensus aimed at ending differences and forming a national unity government. The war on Gaza has deepened Arab differences and left Palestinians more divided than ever. Arab states have been working extra time to clear the air in preparation for the Doha summit at the end of this month. Saudi Arabia has taken a series of steps to warm up its relations with Damascus. And Egypt is addressing serious flaws in its foreign policy that became visible during the Israeli war on Gaza earlier this year.
Washington’s allies have picked up on the recent mood and launched initiatives of their own. Britain is attempting to woo Lebanon’s Hezbollah by offering direct talks. The Hamas leadership in Damascus is being approached by European politicians who are recognizing its vital role in the Middle East peace process.
But how genuine are these reconciliatory efforts? As much as former foes are talking to each other, substantial differences remain. Whether Washington’s new approach underlines a change in tactics or in strategy is the biggest question of all. At the end of the day the purpose behind the sudden quest to mend fences with Moscow, entice the Iranians and the Syrians, and reel in moderate Taleban is to serve America’s interest first. The approach may be changing but it is too early to declare that the US is marking a major shift in its global and regional outlook.
The Middle East remains a top priority for US foreign policy and not by choice. But under the Bush administration the region’s conflicts have become more complicated and diverse. The Iraqi question is as pressing today as it was few months ago. The fact that President Obama has spelled out a general timetable for troop pullout has not calmed fears about the future of that country’s survival and integrity.
By the same token, US officials have admitted failure in Afghanistan and while the vision is to beef up military presence in that war-torn country, a political formula aimed at bringing various enemies together is now being sought. Again the US is trying to involve the Iranians in such efforts just as it had done so in Iraq.
In fact, Tehran appears to be the common denominator in most, if not all, political processes now being engaged. Appealing to moderate forces in Iran, and elsewhere, has become the mantra of American policymakers in the region. It is ironic that the US would now court these forces long after it had abandoned or ignored them. Parallel to recent US initiatives, the Saudis, Egyptians, Qataris and Jordanians have all mobilized to create an atmosphere of positive politics in the region.
But while the methods have changed the general objectives have not. The new US outlook on Syria is driven by a clear intention to distance Damascus from its Iranian ally. On this issue Arab and American interests converge. Years of polarization in the Arab world have put Syria closer to Iran than any time before. As a result, Syria’s influence on Lebanese, Palestinian and Iraqi issues has become stronger.
Saudi Arabia was the first Arab country to recognize the changing realities as a result of the Obama victory and the exit of Washington’s neoconservatives. During the Kuwait Economic Summit a few weeks ago, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah issued a strong appeal to end inter-Arab divisions. He followed up on that by bringing together the leaders of Syria, Egypt, Qatar and Jordan in an attempt to clear misunderstandings and end rifts. And last week, four Arab leaders met in Riyadh with the aim of ironing out differences before the Doha meeting.
Current Arab efforts to reconstitute a common position on key issues few days before the convening of the Doha summit signals a departure from strict American dictates or objections that have marked the Bush era. The challenge for key Arab capitals will be their ability to formulate a unified and substantive position on Iran, the peace process, Sudan and the future of Iraq away from direct American influence.
It will be a tough test. The success of Palestinian reconciliation hinges on strict US conditions that Hamas recognizes Israel’s right to exist. Such terms have been relayed to Hamas and other Palestinian factions by President Mahmoud Abbas. The fact that a right-wing government, which clearly rejects the two-state solution, is about to take control in Israel has not softened these benchmarks.
And while America and some moderate Arab states agree on the threat that Iran now poses to regional stability, there are various propositions on how to deal with Tehran. For the present time it is inconceivable that Syria will loosen its ties with Tehran. At the same time pro-West states like Qatar and Iraq enjoy excellent relations with the Iranians.
Syria claims that it is Israel which remains the biggest threat to peace in the region and not Iran. And it is not alone in believing so.
The present air of reconciliation will be tested in Doha and beyond. The United States may be changing its tone but it is not changing its ways. It may want to focus on Iran now, but it will be committing a big mistake by taking its eyes off the core of Middle East instability. The failure of Palestinian reconciliation and the emergence of a new radical government in Israel will have dire consequences for the region. It is there that US efforts should be focused and it is by resolving that perennial conflict that it can undermine radical camps across the region.
— Osama Al Sharif is a veteran journalist and commentator based in Amman.
