The famous quote “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics” attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and Mark Twain among others may not sound true now as it used to in the past; statistics, as a science, has advanced a lot since then. Thus, it may be beneficial to take seriously some predictions made based on surveys conducted by respectable organizations.
Among such surveys is one presented as a report at the “Arab Strategy Forum” in Dubai on Dec. 15, 2015 by Dr. Gideon Rose of Foreign Affairs magazine under the title “State of the World 2016.” The report gave impressive predictions of political, security and economic developments, regionally and globally, for 2016 complete with ratios and probabilities.
Sure enough the world witnessed several changes in 2015, many of which may be related to political choices made by leaderships we — as observers — have grown to regard as influential and active players, rather than “influenced” leaderships most of whose actions are largely “reactions.”
If we look at the two former “superpowers” of the “Cold War” — which ended with the defeat and collapse of the former USSR, we realize that we are dealing with a new political situation. It is marked by an American “retreat”— unexpected from the victorious side in that “war,” and a vengeful Russian “expansion” fueled by the bitter taste of defeat and a strong desire to turn the tables against those who have humiliated an empire that, although once claimed to be “internationalist,” has never forgotten its nationalist, religious and imperialist heritage.
In fact, the predictions given by Rose with regards to the Middle East, or the world as a whole, reflected America’s “retreat” and Russia’s “expansion” tactically supported by China and Iran. For example, they pointed to a 70 percent likelihood of Hilary Clinton standing in the US presidential elections despite the policy of “retreat” and withdrawal adopted by Barack Obama.
There was also a 65 percent likelihood that the tension between Washington and Moscow “should continue to fester but not escalate dramatically,” and a 75 percent likelihood that the Ukrainian crisis will remain “frozen”; all of which may mean that Washington is willing to adjust to a new “bi-polar world order” with Moscow.
The overall picture of America’s “retreat” is further enhanced by the following examples, and I quote:
1- China will continue in its current course of trying to impose dominance without provoking an all-out conflict.
2- Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Ukraine, South and East China Seas are going to continue to be the key conflict areas and geopolitical hotspots.
3- Iran will try to comply with the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of action — the recent nuclear deal — but without opening up.
As we notice from the above, the maximum Obama’s Washington is doing at the moment is “deterrence,” although its preferred choice is “cooling” the situation in most hotspots after losing initiative.
Almost in the same direction Dr Ghassan Salameh, the Lebanese academic and former Cabinet minister and UN envoy to Iraq, presented inspired, concise but useful and pessimistic predictions of what 2016 might hold for the Arab world and its neighboring countries; which were met with some reservations by some listeners. “The next 12 months” Salameh predicted, “will bring us prohibited victories, frozen crises, unsavory settlements and new conflicts”.
Indeed, Salameh who lived through the Lebanese Crisis and understood its internal and external complexities is better qualified than many international envoys, such as Staffan de Mistura, to comprehend the root cause of the current situations in Syria and Iraq, as well as the inter-play between the internal problems and regional, international and religious influences. The same could be said about Dr Tareq Mitri, another Lebanese academic and former cabinet minister who was a UN envoy to Libya.
I reckon Salameh is right in his predictions, at least during what is left of Barack Obama’s term in office given Russia’s expanding military presence in the Levant and the current tactical alliance between Moscow and Tehran in Syria.
As for the “Arab Strategy Forum 2015,” it was held in a region where more and more questions are being heard than answered. As I was listening to one speaker, I was shocked by the fact that some senior western officials — like him — still refuse to understand that the audience they are talking to has passed the stage of naïve gullibility and bewilderment at the meaningless clichés thrown at it.
This audience has now learned to doubt, and desires to hear the truth, as bad as it may be. Thus, “numbing” and reassuring pronouncements with regards to Iran — both on the nuclear and sectarian issues — may be accepted at face value everywhere today except in the GCC countries.
For a long time Washington has been trying “sell” them its nuclear deal with Iran; but whether it is willing to admit it or not, Obama’s words of reassurance as well as those uttered by his senior aides and European allies have failed to achieve their target.
The reason, simply put, is that the GCC leaders see Iranian actions every day, and “actions speak louder than words”!
