Ill-advised US policies in Mideast

Ill-advised US policies in Mideast

Ill-advised US policies in Mideast
Since his inauguration in January 2009, US President Barack Obama has been following an ineffective foreign policy in the Middle East. Almost every observer would argue that the decline in the American influence in the region — under Obama — could not be more obvious.
Not a while ago, President Obama articulated a new approach vis-à-vis the Middle East designed to create a new equilibrium in the Middle East. Rather than isolating Iran for all of its negative impact in the region, the American administration seeks to turn Iran to an anchor of stability in the region. Perhaps, Obama is shortsighted. It is true that Iran is an important regional power, but it has been driven by a regional agenda that would subvert stability in the medium run. Undoubtedly, Iran with nuclear capabilities could be more emboldened to follow a regional policy that would only undermine regional stability.
Over the last decade and a half, Iran has benefited from the countless mistakes of the United States. By design or default, the way the United States dealt with the transition in a post-Saddam Iraq has only boosted the influence of Iran in Iraq and paved the way for the current sectarian strife. In fact, sectarianism — thanks to the ill-advised American policies — is ubiquitous in the region. Most recently, the American inaction in Syria — even when Bashar Assad used chemical weapons thus crossing Obama’s redlines — has only convinced both Iran and Hezbollah to be more active in their fight against the Syrian revolution.
Worse, the American policy with regards to the Syrian opposition has only set up the latter for disappointment. In fact, it would have unthinkable for Bashar to hold elections had the American acted differently.
It remains to be seen whether Obama will succeed in creating a framework whereby both Iran and other Gulf countries can cooperate for the sake of stability. A new report published by Carnegie examines this possibility. It argues that on nearly every single major issue in the Middle East, Tehran and other regional powers appear to be on opposing sides, confounding American’s effort to bring stability.
Iran has a regional blueprint that only aggravates the fact that both sides are on the opposing poles.
For their part, the Sunni Arab regimes are apprehensive of Iran’s ulterior objective in the region. Despite announcement to the contrary, Tehran has tried to manipulate the sectarian identity to undermine stability in the Gulf.
In other words, Tehran is still a revisionist rather than a status quo state. Until Iran changes its policy in a radical way, the region is poised to witness rivalry and sectarian confrontations.
Perhaps, the United States has its own reasons to disengage from the region. If anything, Washington seeks to shift its resources to the Pacific areas to balance rising powers. And yet, a new equilibrium in the Gulf and the Levant will soon prove to be another serious American miscalculation. The mutual mistrust between the Arabs and Iran is difficult to address in the short run.
For Iran to be a constructive actor in the region, it should take into account that the Arab regimes are apprehensive of Tehran’s policies in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. It is true that sectarian tensions are running high in these countries, but it is also true that Iran could have helped deescalate this destructive tension had it followed a reasonable foreign policy. In a nutshell, President Obama can continue dreaming but a new equilibrium in the Gulf and the Levant can only materialize if Iran changes course.

Email: [email protected]
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News' point of view